Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 253–256 | Cite as

Real time monitoring of structures in task force missions: the example of the Mw = 6.3 Central Italy Earthquake, April 6, 2009

  • M. Picozzi
  • R. Ditommaso
  • S. Parolai
  • M. Mucciarelli
  • C. Milkereit
  • M. Sobiesiak
  • D. Di Giacomo
  • M. R. Gallipoli
  • M. Pilz
  • M. Vona
  • J. Zschau
Letter to the Editor

The rapid improvement in telemetry and computer technology is literally driving a revolution in earthquake engineering and, in particular, in the monitoring of civil built infrastructures. Monitoring buildings in earthquake-prone areas is a task of major importance both to ensure their structural integrity and to obtain an insight into their responses in the event of an earthquake in order to mitigate urban earthquake risk by new, effective seismic design provisions.

This revolution started in the late 1990s (Straser and Kiremidjian 1998), when the earliest applications of wireless communication technology were connected together with embedded pc and sensors for structural monitoring purposes. These earlier applications first showed that real-time processing of data can be performed locally and that wireless monitoring systems are feasible, reliable and cost-effective. Over the last few years, prototype structural wireless monitoring systems have been validated by tests performed on...

Keywords

Wireless Mesh Network Earthquake Early Warning Strong Aftershock Earthquake Early Warning System Innovative System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work undertaken was supported of the German Earthquake Task Force. We thank K. Fleming, who kindly improved the English.

References

  1. Bakun W, Fischer F, Jensen E, VanSchaack J (1994) Early warning system for aftershocks. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(2):359–365Google Scholar
  2. Fleming K, Picozzi M, Milkereit C, Kuehnlenz F, Lichtblau B, Fischer J, Zulfikar C, Ozel O, The SAFER and EDIM working groups (2009) The self-organising seismic early warning information network (SOSEWIN). Seismol Res Lett 80(5):755–771. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.80.5.755 Google Scholar
  3. 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 2008Google Scholar
  4. Picozzi M, Milkereit C, Zulfikar C, Fleming K, Ditommaso R, Erdik M, Zschau J, Fischer J, Safak E, Özel O, Apaydin N (2009) Wireless technologies for the monitoring of strategic civil infrastructures: an ambient vibration test on the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge in Istanbul, Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-009-9132-7
  5. Snieder R, Şafak E (2006) Extracting the building response using seismic interferometry: theory and application to the Millikan library in Pasadena, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(2):586–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Straser E.G., Kiremidjian AS (1998) A modular, wireless damage monitoring system for structures. Report No. 128, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Picozzi
    • 1
  • R. Ditommaso
    • 2
  • S. Parolai
    • 1
  • M. Mucciarelli
    • 2
  • C. Milkereit
    • 1
  • M. Sobiesiak
    • 1
  • D. Di Giacomo
    • 1
  • M. R. Gallipoli
    • 2
  • M. Pilz
    • 1
  • M. Vona
    • 2
  • J. Zschau
    • 1
  1. 1.Earthquake Risk and Early WarningHelmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrumPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Department of Structures, Geotechnics, Applied GeologyUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations