Data Acquisition Blog

Data Acquisition

The Data Acquisition Blog is the place for conversation and discussion about signal conditioning components and systems, digital and analog I/O modules, signal and data conversion and data acquisition software. Here, you'll find everything from application ideas, to news and industry trends, to hot topics and cutting edge innovations.

Previous in Blog: We Shouldn't Glorify Today's Cleverest Algorithms   Next in Blog: Do We Need Alternatives to Air Travel?
Close
Close
Close
5 comments
Rate Comments: Nested

Sensing Bridge Disasters

Posted January 13, 2011 8:30 AM by Steve Melito

Twenty-five percent of the bridges in the United States are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. More than 40% of Canada's operational bridges are over 30 years old – and often damaged by that cold-weather country's climate and use of roadway de-icing salts. In the United Kingdom, officials warn that bridges and other structures must be strengthened to meet requirements established by the European Community. Back in the U.S., highway engineers remember the collapse of the Interstate-35W (I-35W) Bridge in Minneapolis, an August 2007 tragedy that killed 13 and injured more than 100.

Bridge maintenance and repairs are necessary, of course, but paying for them in an age of tight budgets isn't easy. Fortunately, structural health monitoring (SHM) instruments allow transportation agencies to monitor the condition of civil structures - and hopefully avert the next bridge disaster. By positioning closed-loop sensors with a servo torque mechanism on a highway bridge, engineers can acquire volumes of data via high-speed fiber optic or even wireless connections. But advances in communications and data transmission are only part of the story. Complex algorithms allow analysts to prepare both short-term and long-term structural integrity assessments.

Should highway engineers do even more with SHM instruments in an age when most maintenance departments must live with less?

Source: Sensors Magazine

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive votes to make them "good answers".
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 2129
Good Answers: 87
#1

Re: Sensing Bridge Disasters

01/13/2011 9:53 AM

I would say it depends on what the cost of monitoring is relative to just improving/repairing the structure.

My initial thought is that the monitoring would be less expensive and allow to monitor a large number of bridges (starting with the most suspect such as the oldest, most used, etc). But since I don't know anything about the components used or how much labor is required to install, calibrate and verify functionality of the equipment, I'm not sure how it compares to taking a brute force approach, rating the bridges as to how likely they are to fail and put the resources into fixing them.

__________________
J B
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Large hole formally occupied by furry woodland creature.
Posts: 3385
Good Answers: 97
#2

Re: Sensing Bridge Disasters

01/13/2011 11:34 AM

Railroads use mobile track inspection equipment. Could this technology be applied to roads and bridges?

__________________
CRTL-Z
Reply
3
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1170
Good Answers: 153
#3

Re: Sensing Bridge Disasters

01/14/2011 4:19 AM

First the claim that a large percentage of bridges don't conform to standards. Standards are uprated every few years to take into account advances in knowledge and technology. All bridges should conform to the standards applicable when they were built, I take it that you are not suggesting rebuilding every time a standard changes. Bridges generally have a design life of 100 years. If the climatic conditions are harsh, this is factored into the design. I fail to see how 30 year old bridges constitute a problem.

Monitoring structures with embedded sensors sounds a good idea until you look closely into the detail. Bridges may be designed to last 100 years but sensors are not. They are going to sit dormant for the first 30-50 years as the structure slowly deteriorates and then when you need the information how reliable will the information be? Undertaking major bridge repairs based on a failed sensor is not a good idea.

The type of sensors used, typically strain and moisture content sensors, have wires leading out to a connection point. In concrete structures the wire path becomes a path for moisture access and subsequent corrosion. Your proposed solution becomes a major part of the problem.

For existing bridges, you will have to disrupt the structure to retrofit the sensors. This is likely to introduce future seed points for corrosion to grow.

The UK warning relates to EU proposals to allow heavier trucks on the roads, with axle loadings above the original design calculations. It is more about showing the consequences of changing vehicle weight regulations than it is about current bridge design.

Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2175
Good Answers: 119
#5
In reply to #3

Re: Sensing Bridge Disasters

01/14/2011 4:19 PM

Excellent points.

That last bad crash on the Washington DC Metro System was caused by the failure of a 30 year old train position sensor. About 5 years before the crash the NTSB had evaluated the system and recommended the replacement of all the automation sensors and running the system regularly in manual mode because all the operators were getting complacent due to the automation. The Metro commission pooh-poohed those recommendations as too expensive or not needed.

After the crash, they turned off all the automation completely until the automated system was refurbished.

So, while sensors at the right time and place are important, regular attitude checks are also necessary.

Hooker

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Glen Mills, PA.
Posts: 2385
Good Answers: 114
#4

Re: Sensing Bridge Disasters

01/14/2011 6:57 AM

How should we know, in advance, where the weak spot will be? Who would have known to monitor the exact gusset plate, and for what type of failure, on the I-36 bridge? it was state of the art when it was built and the failure mechanism unknown back then.

__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 5 comments

Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive votes to make them "good answers".
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Hooker (1); JBTardis (1); jhhassociates (1); passingtongreen (1); Unredundant (1)

Previous in Blog: We Shouldn't Glorify Today's Cleverest Algorithms   Next in Blog: Do We Need Alternatives to Air Travel?
You might be interested in: Electronic Bridges, Network Bridges, IC PCI Bridges

Advertisement