1 / 11

University of California, Los Angeles Field Testing & Monitoring of Structural Performance

University of California, Los Angeles Field Testing & Monitoring of Structural Performance. NSF NEES Awardee Meeting September 28, 2001. Project Team. UCLA Project Participants John W. Wallace PI Structures Joel P. Conte Co-PI Structures

adrienne-conway
Download Presentation

University of California, Los Angeles Field Testing & Monitoring of Structural Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. University of California, Los AngelesField Testing & Monitoringof Structural Performance NSF NEES Awardee Meeting September 28, 2001

  2. Project Team UCLA Project Participants • John W. Wallace PI Structures • Joel P. Conte Co-PI Structures • Deborah Estrin Co-PI Information Systems • Patrick J. Fox Co-PI Soils • Jonathan P. Stewart Co-PI Soils • Daniel Whang Project Researcher/Manager • Eunjong Yu Ph.D. Student Structural Engineering Technology Laboratories (SETEL) UCLA UC Irvine UCSD Caltech USC

  3. Project Overview Vibration Source Satellite UCLA Web broadcast Tele-observation Instrumented Building (structure, foundation, soil) e.g., wood, masonry, steel, RC Bridge, dam, other Command Center Data acquisition and control

  4. Equipment Overview • Vibration Equipment • Eccentric mass shakers (3) • 0 to 4.2 Hz Peak Force of 20 kips (1) • 0 to 25 Hz Peak Force of 100 kips (2) • Independent or synchronized (higher modes, torsion) • Linear inertial shaker (1) • Arbitrary force histories with peak force of 5 kips • Sensors (~150) • Accelerometers (structure and soil vibrations) • Bandwidth: DC to 200 Hz • Full scale range: +/-0.25g to +/-4g • Potentiometers, LVDTs, Fiber Optics, Strain gauges • DC LVDTs with +/- 3 inches (Elotek Systems, Inc.)

  5. Equipment Overview • Cone Penetration Rig • Subsurface characterization & installation of geo sensors • Wireless Data Transmission and Data Acquisition Antelope software • UNIX-based • Relational database for efficient storage • Digitizers and routers/antennas (Kinemetrics, Q330) • Low power demand • Satellite uplink • 1.28 Mbits/s data transmission

  6. Project Timeline • Year 1 & beginning of Year 2 • Cone Penetration Rig, Eccentric Shakers • Integration: mass shakers with linear shaker control, data acquisition with Antelope software • Mobile trailer design • Pilot studies for wireless data acquisition/control • Linear inertial shaker (start of Year 2) • Years 2 & 3 • Expanded pilot studies (laboratory and campus) • Develop (geo) and purchase of sensors • Bulk purchases & System integration • Web based documentation and training • Year 4 • Complete purchases and system integration • Field pilot studies & Satellite transmission system

  7. Status • Cone Penetration Rig Hogentogler (Columbia, MD) • Approved and Delivered, August 7, 2001 • Eccentric Mass Shakers ANCO (Boulder, CO) • Approved and ordered • Anticipated delivery date ~ Nov. 1 • Sensors & Wireless Data Acquisition System Kinemetrics (Pasadena, CA) • NSF approval received, Sept 22, 2001 • Linear Mass Shaker • Detail specifications under development

  8. LAN Network • Gigabit backbone is available within School of Engineering. Connection to NEES workstation is anticipated in the Fall 2001. • Field operation: use and integration of satellite uplink/downlink with NEESgrid. Potential to use ISP at field site for web connectivity?

  9. Critical Questions - SI Many of the relevant questions have already been asked by U. of Minnesota. Specific questions pertinent to UCLA are: • Support of Antelope (proprietary data acquisition software, Kinemetrics)? • Field web/backbone connectivity (satellite, ISP)

  10. Critical Questions - CD • Who determines priorities on equipment/facility usage? • Who is responsible for the shipping/insurance costs associated with the field-testing equipment? • e.g., fabrication of shipping crates will be required; does the Consortium purchase these, and then we reimburse through user fees? • To what extent will the NEES equipment sites have the ability to insert special clauses on equipment usage into contracts? • e.g., recall of field-testing equipment for priority usage, such as EQ aftershock monitoring)

  11. Critical Questions - CD • How is potential teaching use to be prioritized versus research use? • How soon will data storage/retrieval protocols be established and how will these be reconciled with the various data acquisition systems and other protocols being used? • e.g., Labview vs. Kinemetrics Antelope software for data acquisition. • e.g., PEER database protocol

More Related