Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 671–691 | Cite as

Wireless technologies for the monitoring of strategic civil infrastructures: an ambient vibration test on the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge in Istanbul, Turkey

  • M. PicozziEmail author
  • C. Milkereit
  • C. Zulfikar
  • K. Fleming
  • R. Ditommaso
  • M. Erdik
  • J. Zschau
  • J. Fischer
  • E. Şafak
  • O. Özel
  • N. Apaydin
Original Research Paper


Rapid improvements in telemetry technology and the general decrease in communication costs have raised a growing interest in low-cost wireless sensing units. This is especially the case for structural monitoring purposes, where they are becoming a more valuable alternative to conventional wired monitoring system. The main advantages associated with the use of wireless sensing unit include a considerable decrease in installation costs, decentralization of data analysis, and the possibility of broadening the functional capabilities by exploiting the use, at the same time and place, of different sensors. In this work, the design of a low-cost wireless sensing unit able both to collect, analyze, store, and communicate data and estimated parameters is presented. The suitability of a network of these low-cost wireless instruments for monitoring the vibration characteristics and dynamic properties of strategic civil infrastructures is validated during a ambient vibration recording field test on the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge in Istanbul, Turkey.


Ambient vibration Structural monitoring Wireless monitoring systems Suspension bridge Istanbul, Turkey 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdel-Ghaffar AM, Housner GW (1978) Ambient vibration tests of suspension bridges. J Eng Mec Div, ASCE, vol 104, No.EMS, Proceeding Paper 140b5, Oct 1978, pp. 983–999Google Scholar
  2. Apaydin N, Erdik M (2001) Structural vibration monitoring system for the Bosporus Suspension Bridges. In: Erdik M, et al (eds) Strong motion instrumentation for civil engineering structures (NATO Science Series), vol. 373 Springer–Verlag, New York, LLCGoogle Scholar
  3. Apaydin N (2002) Seismic analysis of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge, Ph.D Thesis, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  4. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (eds) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 438–483Google Scholar
  5. Böse M (2006) Earthquake early warning for Istanbul using artificial neural networks, Doctor of Natural Sciences thesis, Faculty of Physics, University of Karlsruhe, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownjohn JMW, Dumanoglu AA, Severn RT, Taylor CA (1987) Ambient vibration measurements of the Humber Suspension Bridge and comparison with calculated characteristics. In: Proceeding of ICE, Pt. 2, 83, 561–600Google Scholar
  7. Brownjohn JMW, Dumanoglu AA, Severn RT (1990) Fatih Bridge part II: ambient vibration survey, Report UBCE-EE-90-12, University of Bristol, Department of Civil EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  8. Brownjohn JMW, Dumanoglu AA, Severn RT (1992) Ambient vibration survey of the Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Second Bosporus) Suspension Bridge. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 21: 907–924. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290211005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dumanoglu AA, Severn RT (1986) Asynchronous seismic analysis of modern suspension bridges Part I: free vibration, Report UBCE-EE-85-2; Part II: Response to travelling vertical ground motion, Report UBCE-EE-86-3; Part III: Response to travelling longitudinal ground motion, Report UBCE-EE-86-4; Part IV: Response to travelling lateral ground motion, Report UBCE-EE-86-5, University of Bristol, Department of Civil EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  10. Dumanoglu AA, Brownjohn JMW, Severn RT (1992) Seismic analysis of the Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Second Bosporus) Suspension Bridge. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 21: 881–906. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290211004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EDIM (2007) Earthquake disaster information system for the Marmara region, Turkey. Accessed 09 Dec 2008
  12. Erdik M, Uckan E (1988). Ambient vibration survey of the Bogazici Suspension Bridge, Report No: 89-5, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  13. Erdik M, Aydinoglu N, Fahjan Y, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu M, Siyahi B, Durukal E, Ozbey C, Biro Y, Akman H, Yuzugullu O (2003a) Earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2(1): 1–23. doi: 10.1007/BF02857534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erdik M, Fahjan Y, Özel O, Alcik H, Mert A, Gul M (2003b) Istanbul earthquake rapid response and the early warning system. Bull Earthq Eng 1: 157–163. doi: 10.1023/A:1024813612271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erdik M, Apaydin N (2005) Earthquake response of suspension bridges. In: Inan E, Kiris A (eds) Vibration problems ICOVP 2005. Springer, pp 181–195Google Scholar
  16. Fleming K, Picozzi M, Milkereit C, Kuehnlenz F, Lichtblau B, Fischer J, Zulfikar C, Ozel O, and the SAFER and EDIM working groups (2009) The self-organising seismic early warning information network (SOSEWIN), accepted to be published by Seismological Research Letters.Google Scholar
  17. Grosse CU, Finck F, Kurz JH, Reinhardt HW (2004) Monitoring techniques based on wireless AE sensors for large structures in civil engineering. In: Proceeding of EWGAE 2004 symposium in Berlin, BB90, pp 843–856. Accessed 09 Dec 2008Google Scholar
  18. Heinloo A (2000) SeedLink design notes and configuration tips. Accessed 09 Dec 2008.
  19. Holland A (2003) Earthquake data recorded by the MEMS accelerometer. Seismol Res Lett 74(1): 20–26Google Scholar
  20. Hons M, Stewart R, Lawton D, Bertram M (2008) Field data comparisons of MEMS accelerometers and analog geophones. Lead Edge (Tulsa Okla) (July):896–902. doi: 10.1190/1.2954030
  21. Japanese Bridge and Structure Institute—JBSI (2004) Project reports and basic design documents for the project entitled “Seismic Reinforcement of Large Scale Bridges in Istanbul”, prepared for the General Directorate of State Highways (Turkey)Google Scholar
  22. Kanamori H, Maechling P, Hauksson E (1999) Continuous monitoring of ground-motion parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(1): 316–331Google Scholar
  23. Kaya Y, Harmandar E (2004) Analysis of wind induced vibrations on Bogazici and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridges, internal report. Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohler E (2006) The click modular router. Accessed 09 Dec 2008
  25. Krüger M, Grosse C, Marrón PJ (2005) Wireless structural health monitoring using MEMS. Key Eng Mater 293(294): 625–634. doi: 10.4028/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loh KJ, Lynch JP, Wang Y, Law KH, Fraser M, Elgamal A (2007) Validation of a wireless traffic vibration monitoring system for the Voigt bridge. In: Proceedings of the World Forum on Smart Materials and Smart Structures Technology (SMSST07), Chongqing & Nanjing, China, 22–27 May 2007. Accessed 09 Dec 2008Google Scholar
  27. Lynch JP (2002) Decentralization of wireless monitoring and control technologies for smart civil structures. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford. Accessed 09 Dec 2008Google Scholar
  28. Lynch JP, Sundararajan A, Law KH, Kiremidjian AS, Carryer E (2003) Power-efficient wireless structural monitoring with local data processing, International Conference on Structural Health Monitoring and Intelligent Infrastructures (SHMII-03), Tokyo, Japan, 13–15 Nov. Accessed 09 Dec 2008Google Scholar
  29. Lynch JP, Wang Y, Loh KJ, Yi J-H, Yun C-B (2006) Performance monitoring of the Geumdang bridge using a dense network of high-resolution wireless sensors. Smart Mater Struct 15(6): 1561–1575 Accessed 09 Dec 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MadWifi (2007) Multimode atheros driver for WiFi on Linux. Accessed 09 Dec 2008
  31. MikroTik (2008) Routerboard R52 IEEE 802.11a/b/g wireless mini-PCI combo cards. Accessed 09 Dec 2008
  32. Milkereit C, Zünbül S, Karakisa S, Iravul Y, Zschau J, Baumbach M, Grosser H, Günther E, Umutlu N, Kuru T, Erkul E, Klinge K, Ibs von Seht M, Karahan A (2000) Preliminary aftershock analysis of the Mw=7.4 Izmit and Mw=7.1 Düzce earthquake in Western Turkey. In: Kozaci Ö, Barka A (eds) The 1999 Izmit and Düzce earthquakes: preliminary results. Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, pp 179–187Google Scholar
  33. OLSR project (2004) Accessed 09 Dec 2008
  34. OpenWRT (2007) Accessed 09 Dec 2008
  35. PC Engines (2008) WRAP.2E boards. Accessed 09 Dec 2008
  36. Petrovski J, Paskalov T, Stojkovich A, Jurokovski D (1974) Vibration studies of Istanbul Bogazici Suspension Bridge, Report OIK 74-7, Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, IZIIS, Skopje, YugoslaviaGoogle Scholar
  37. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterlin WT, Flannery BP (1992) Numerical recepies in C: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Şafak E, Hudnut K (2006) Real-time structural monitoring and damage detection by acceleration and GPS sensors, 8th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  39. SAFER (2006) Test site Istanbul, Turkey. Accessed 09 Dec 2008
  40. Schweitzer J, Fyen J, Mykkeltveit S (2002) Seismic arrays. In: Bormann P (ed) IASPEI new manual of seismological practice. Chapter 9, GeoForschungsZentrum PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  41. Straser EG, Kiremidjian AS (1996) A modular, visual approach to damage monitoring for civil structures. In: Proceeding of the 2nd International Workshop on Structural Control, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  42. Straser EG, Kiremidjian AS (1998) A modular, wireless damage monitoring system for structures, Report No 128, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Tezcan S, Ipek M, Petrovski J, Paskalov T (1975) Forced vibration survey of Istanbul Bogazici Bridge. In: Proceeding of the 5th ECEE, vo1 2, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  44. Tibi R, Bock G, Xia Y, Baumbach M, Grosser H, Milkereit C, Karakisa S, Zünbül S, Kind R, Zschau J (2001) Rupture processes of the 1999 August 17 Izmit and November 12, Düzce (Turkey) earthquakes. Geophys J Inter 144(2): F1–F7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Torvalds L (2007) The linux kernel. Accessed 09 Dec 2008
  46. Wald DJ, Worden BC, Quitoriano V, Pankow KL (2006) ShakeMap manual; technical manual, users guide, and software guide.
  47. Wang Y, Loh KJ, Lynch JP, Fraser M, Law KH, Elgamal A (2006) Vibration monitoring of the Voigt Bridge using wired and wireless monitoring systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th China-Japan-US symposium on Structural Control and Monitoring, Hangzhou, China, 16–17 Oct 2006. Accessed 09 Dec 2008Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Picozzi
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Milkereit
    • 1
  • C. Zulfikar
    • 2
  • K. Fleming
    • 3
  • R. Ditommaso
    • 4
  • M. Erdik
    • 2
  • J. Zschau
    • 1
  • J. Fischer
    • 5
  • E. Şafak
    • 2
  • O. Özel
    • 6
  • N. Apaydin
    • 7
  1. 1.Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for GeosciencesPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Earthquake Engineering DepartmentBogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Spatial SciencesCurtin University of TechnologyPerthAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Structures, Geotechnics, Applied GeologyUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly
  5. 5.Department of InformaticsHumboldt University (HU)BerlinGermany
  6. 6.I.U. Engineering Faculty, Geophysical Engineering DepartmentIstanbulTurkey
  7. 7.General Directorate of Highways 17th DivisionIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations