Abstract
Within the last decade, advances in the acquisition, processing and transmission of data from real-time seismic monitoring systems has contributed to the growth in the number structures instrumented with such systems. An equally important factor for such growth can be attributed to the demands by stakeholders to find rapid answers to important questions related to the functionality (or “state of health”) of structures during and immediately following a seismic event. Hence, rapid and accurate assessment of the damage condition or performance of a building or a lifeline structure is of paramount importance to stakeholders, including owners, leasers, permanent and/or temporary occupants, users of infrastructures, city officials and rescue teams that are concerned with safety of those in the building, and those that may be affected in nearby buildings and infrastructures. In earlier papers, we described how observed data from sensors deployed in structures can be configured to establish seismic health monitoring of structures. In these configurations, drift ratios are the main parametric indicator of damage condition of a building. The process described for buildings can be applied directly for bridges as well. For bridges, the term, “drift ratio” is not generally used; however, relative displacements of critical elements of a bridge can be construed as such. While real-time data from structural arrays indicate that these methods are reliable and provide requisite information for owners and other parties to make informed decisions and to choose among pre-defined actions following significant events, there are several issues related to data ownership, transmission and archiving. This paper examines the real-time seismic monitoring systems deployed mainly in the United States, with particular attention to data issues – handling, dissemination, storage, and archiving. In most cases, due to the numerous channels involved, the deployments in each one of the real-time structures can be considered to be an individual array. Two detailed cases are described that demonstrate the variability in data ownership and dissemination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The City of San Francisco, California, has developed a “Building Occupancy Resumption Program” [2] whereby a pre-qualified Occupancy decision-making process, as described in this paper, may be proposed to the City as a reduced inspection program and in lieu of detailed inspections by city engineers following a serious earthquake.
- 2.
Until recently, the validity of measurements using GPS was limited to long-period structures (T>1 s) because GPS systems readily available were limited to 10–20 samples per seconds (sps) capability. Presently however, up to 50 sps differential GPS systems are available on the market and have been successfully used to monitor drift ratios ([9], Restrepo, Personal Communication 2007) – thus enabling future usefulness of GPS to all types of structures.
- 3.
For wind monitoring of tall buildings, GPS have been deployed on the roofs of 5 buildings in Chicago, IL. (Kijewski-Correa and Kareem [8]).
References
Applied Technology Council [ATC] (1989) Procedures for Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings. ATC-20, Redwood City, CA
Building Occupancy Resumption Program [BORP] (2001) City and County of San Francisco, Department of Building Inspection, Emergency Operation Plan (Rev. 2001). [http://www.seaonc.org/member/committees/des_build.html]
Çelebi M (2006, August) Real-time seismic monitoring of the new Cape Girardeau (MO) Bridge and preliminary analyses of recorded data: an Overview. Earthq Spectra 22(3):609–630
Çelebi M (2008) Real-Time Monitoring of Drift for occupancy Resumption, PROC. 14WCEE, Beijing, China, Oct 13–17, 2008.
Çelebi M, Sanli A (2002) GPS in pioneering dynamic monitoring of long-period structures. Earthq Spectra J EERI 18(1):47–61. February 2002
Çelebi M, Sanli A, Sinclair M, Gallant S, Radulescu D (2004) Real-time seismic monitoring needs of a building owner and the solution – a cooperative effort. Earthq Spectra J EERI 19(1):1–23
FEMA-352 (2002) Recommended Post-earthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings (also SAC Joint Venture 2000 prepared for FEMA), Washington, DC.
Kijewski-Correa T, Kareem A (2004) The Height of Precision: New Perspectives in Structural Monitoring, Proceedings of Earth & Space: 9th Aerospace Division International Conference on Engineering, Construction and Operations Challenging Environments, 7–10 March, Houston.
Panagitou M, Restrepo JI, Conte JP, Englekirk RE (2006) Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Wall Buildings, 8NCEE (paper no. 1,494), San Francisco, CA. April 18–22, 2006.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges constructive reviews by Chris D. Stephens and Roger Borcherdt of USGS. Larry Baker provided input in establishing numerical computations of Table 16.2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Çelebi, M. (2011). Real-Time Seismic Monitoring of Structures: Data Handling and Case Studies. In: Akkar, S., Gülkan, P., van Eck, T. (eds) Earthquake Data in Engineering Seismology. Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0152-6_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0152-6_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0151-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0152-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)