Advertisement

Assessment of engineering demand parameters through SHM for RC-structures

  • Ali YesilyurtEmail author
  • M. Rizwan Akram
  • A. Can Zulfikar
Original Paper
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Almost all in service and structures need some form of maintenance for monitoring their reliability and health conditions to extend their lifespans or to avoid cataclysmic failure. Structural health monitoring (SHM) is an advanced topic in the field of structural engineering that enables to monitor the structures for future safety. Considering this importance, the current research carries out SHM algorithm for RC high-rise building structures with shear walls. In this study, an approach applicable to real-time has been presented enabling decision-makers to assess the structural condition during the extreme cases. The parametric study has been done on ten stories RC residential building located in Walnut Creek, in the California State USA by considering four major recent earthquakes in the region. For algorithmic examination, general engineering demand parameters (EDPs) have been introduced. The EDPs such as spectral displacement (Sd), Inter-story drift ratio (∆s), Arias intensity (Ia) and spectral acceleration (Sa) limits have been investigated.

Keywords

Structural monitoring Earthquake Response spectra and Arias intensity 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Kurz Jochen H et al (2013) NDT for need based maintenance of bridge cables, ropes and pre-stressed elements. J Civil Struct Health Monit 3(4):285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faggiano Beatrice et al (2011) Experimental study for non-destructive mechanical evaluation of ancient chestnut timber. J Civil Struct Health Monit 1(3–4):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu N, Liu C, Guo Y, Zhang J (2013) On-board computing for structural health monitoring with smart wireless sensors by modal identification using Hilbert-Huang transform. Math Probl Eng 2013:1–9Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jang S, Spencer BF Jr, Sim S-H (2012) A decentralized receptance-based damage detection strategy for wireless smart sensors. Smart Mater Struct 21(5):055017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fu TS (2009) Smart buildings: synergy in structural control, structural health monitoring and environmental systems. PhD thesis, University of Southern CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shakal A et al (1996) Near-real-time CSMIP strong motion monitoring and reporting for guiding event response. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earth Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico. 1996Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaya Y, Safak E (2015) Real-time analysis and interpretation of continuous data from structural health monitoring (SHM) systems. Bull Earthq Eng 13(3):917–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soyoz S et al (2012) Ambient and forced vibration testing of a reinforced concrete building before and after its seismic retrofitting. J Struct Eng 139(10):1741–1752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mal Ajit et al (2005) A conceptual structural health monitoring system based on vibration and wave propagation. Struct Health Monit 4(3):283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kessler SS, Spearing SM, Atalla MJ, Cesnik CES, Soutis C (2002) Damage detection in composite materials using frequency response methods. Compos Part B 33:8795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Monaco E, Franco F, Lecce L (2000) Experimental and numerical activities on damage detection using magnetostrictive actuators and statistical analysis. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 11:567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ndambi JM, Vantomme J, Harri K (2002) Damage assessment in reinforced concrete beam using eigenfrequencies and mode shape derivatives. Eng Struct 24:501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park J, Chang FK (2003) Built-in detection of impact damage in multi-layered thick composite structures. In: Chang F-K (ed) Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, CA, September 15–17, 2003, pp 1391–1398Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giurgiutiu V, Yu L (2003) Comparison of short time fourier transform and wavelet transform of transient and tone burst wave propagation signals for structural health monitoring. In: Chang F-K (ed) Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, CA, September 15–17, 2003, pp 1267–1284Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mal AK, Shih JH, Banerjee S (2003) Acoustic emission waveforms in composite laminates under low velocity impact. In: Kundu T (ed) Proceedings SPIE Conference on Smart NDE for Health Monitoring of Structural and Biological Systems, San Diego, CA, March 3–5, 2003, vol 5047, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yesilyurt A, Zulfikar CA, Picozzi M (2017) Ambient vibration testing on typical residential buildings with and without infill walls. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earth Engineering and Seismology, Eskisehir, Turkey, 2017Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skolnik DA et al (2014) Enhanced rapid post-event assessment of buildings. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN, Porto, Portugal Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brownjohn J et al (2004) Real-time long-term monitoring and static and dynamic displacements of an office tower, combining RTK GPS and accelerometer dataGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jennings PC (1997) Use of strong motion data in earthquake resistant design. In: Proceedings of SMIP97 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data, strong motion instrumentation program, CDMG, Sacramento, CA, USA, 1997Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    The California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP), 1972Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bas S, Apaydin NM, Ilki A, Catbas N (2018) Structural health monitoring system (SHMs) of the long-span bridges in Turkey. Struct Infrastruct Eng 14(4):425–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Doran B et al. (2011) Structural health monitoring and determination of earthquake performance of a long periodic structures. In: Turkey Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Ankara, Turkey, 2011Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sayim I, Akbas B, Doran B (2012) Using monitoring relative displacements with GPS in a long period structure. Tech J Turk Chamb Civil Eng 23(3):6017–6036Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fema H-MM (2010) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology/earthquake model/technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center—PEER retrieved from peer.berkeley.edu/Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering Prentice Hall. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Akram MR et al (2017) Site amplifications and response analysis: A case study of October 6th 2000, M7.3, Western Tottori earthquake Japan. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earth Engineering and Seismology, Eskisehir, Turkey, 2017Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Celebi M (2000) GPS in dynamic monitoring of long-period structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20(5-8):477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    California Department of Transportation retrieved from http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online/. Accessed 2018

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earthquake and Structural, Engineering DepartmentGebze Technical UniversityGebzeTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringGebze Technical UniversityGebzeTurkey

Personalised recommendations