Advertisement

Applications of a Low-Cost, Wireless, Self-Organising System (SOSEWIN) to Earthquake Early Warning and Structural Health Monitoring

  • M. PicozziEmail author
  • C. Milkereit
  • K. Fleming
  • J. Fischer
  • K-H. Jaeckel
  • D. Bindi
  • S. Parolai
  • J. Zschau
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Technologies in Earth Sciences book series (ATES)

Abstract

The rapid characterization of ground motion during the initial stage of an earthquake is one of the most effective approaches for quantifying the hazard associated with its impact on populated or otherwise sensitive areas. Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems are based on this approach, and aim to mitigate earthquake hazard for a target area by the provision of timely warnings. In addition, during and soon after the occurrence of earthquakes, the necessity for information on the state of health of structures in real-time that permit timely warnings in case of damaging events requires structural health monitoring systems. The Self-Organising Seismic Early Warning Information Network (SOSEWIN) is a new concept in EEW and structural health monitoring (SHM) systems. SOSEWIN employs advances in various technologies to incorporate off-the-shelf sensor, processing and communications components into low-cost sensing units that are linked by advanced, robust and rapid communications routing and network organisational protocols that are appropriate for wireless mesh networks. Significant and innovative aspects of SOSEWIN are that each sensing unit performs on-site, independent analysis of the ground motion, and that the early warning is transmitted throughout the network by means of dedicated alarming processes. In this work, a description of the SOSEWIN philosophy, hardware, and software is provided, as well as an overview of its application within different contexts. In particular, we present the results of tests carried out with SOSEWIN in Istanbul, Turkey, where a first test-bed consisting of 20 instruments is installed, as well as a novel approach for EEW that exploits the SOSEWIN philosophy to obtain, in the event of an earthquake, a real-time structural response assessment following an interferometric approach (Fleming et al. 2009). Finally, the application of SOSEWIN for SHM purposes at a building in L’Aquila (Picozzi et al. 2009a), a suspension bridge in Istanbul (Picozzi et al. 2009b), and a historical arch bridge in Luxembourg City (Oth and Picozzi 2012) are presented.

Keywords

Ground Motion Structural Health Monitoring Wireless Mesh Network Suspension Bridge Ambient Vibration 
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 in the paper was supported by the Seismic eArly warning For EuRope (SAFER, European Commission proposal no. 036935), Earthquake Data Information system for the Marmara Sea (EDIM, Turkey, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research), PROGRESS (Georisiken im Globalen Wandel) projects, and the German Earthquake Task Force. The establishment of the network in Istanbul was carried out in partnership with Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute.

The SAFER and EDIM working groups developing SOSEWIN were: J. Zschau, C. Milkereit, M. Picozzi, K. Fleming, I. Veit, K.-H. Jäckel, J. Nachtigall, and H. Woith (Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum, Germany); J. Fischer, J. P. Redlich, B. Lichtblau, F. Kühnlenz, K. Ahrens, I. Eveslage, and S. Heglmeier (Department of Informatics, Humboldt University (HU) Berlin, Germany). Mike Hönig (Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum, Germany) developed the Analogue-Digital Converters (ADC) board together with one of the authors (K.-H. Jäckel).

We thank M. Erdik, C. Sulfikar, E. Safak\(\cdot \)O. Özel and the Bakirköy AKOM staff for their assistance in arranging for and installing the SOSEWIN in Istanbul. We are grateful to M.Mucciarelli, D. Di Giacomo, R. Ditommaso, M. Pilz, and R. Bauz, for the fieldwork during the Task Force mission. The authors wish to thank A. Oth, T. Boxberger, H. Jacob, the Division des ouvrages d’art and the Service géologique of the Administration des Ponts et Chaussées, and in particular Patrick Lenners and Robert Colbach, for their kind support during the planning stage and realization of the experiment on the Adolphe bridge.

The authors wish to thank F. Wenzel and J. Zschau for the invitation to submit our work for this special volume.

References

  1. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Apaydin N (2002). Seismic analysis of Fatih Sultan Mehmet suspension bridge. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazici University, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  3. ARTeMIS Extractor Pro (2009) Release 4.2, Structural vibrations solutions A/S, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  4. Brune J (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75:4997–5009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Couto DSJ, Aguayo D, Bicket J, Morris R (2003) A high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless routing. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual international conference on mobile computing and networking, San Diego, 14–19 Sept 2003Google Scholar
  6. Erdik M, Apaydin N (2005) Earthquake response of suspension bridges. In: Inan E, Kiris A (eds) Vibration problems ICOVP. Springer, pp 181–195Google Scholar
  7. Fischer J, Kühnlenz F, Ahrens K, Eveslage I (2009) Model-based development of self-organizing earthquake early warning systems. In: Proceedings MATHMOD 09 ViennaGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleming K, Picozzi M, Milkereit C, Kuhnlenz F, Lichtblau B, Fischer J, Zulfikar C, Ozel O (2009) The self-organizing seismic early warning information network (SOSEWIN). Seismol Res Lett 80:755–771. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.80.5.755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grosse CU, Finck F, Kurz JH, Reinhardt HW (2004) Monitoring techniques based on wireless AE sensors for large structures in civil engineering. In: Proceedings of EWGAE 2004 symposium in Berlin, BB90, pp 843–856, 09 Dec 2008Google Scholar
  10. Heinloo A (2009) SeedLink design notes and configuration tips. http://geofon.gfz-potsdam.de/geofon/SeisComP/seedlink.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2009
  11. Holland A (2003) Earthquake data recorded by the MEMS accelerometer. Seismol Res Lett 74:20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hons M, Stewart R, Lawton D, Bertram M (2008) Field data comparisons of MEMS accelerometers and analog geophones. Lead Edge 27:896–902Google Scholar
  13. Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Galasso C, Manfredi G (2009) Uncertainty in early warning predictions of engineering ground motion parameters: what really matters? Geophys Res Lett 6:L00B06. doi:10.1029/2008GL036644Google Scholar
  14. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2005) Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. In: World conference on disaster reduction, Kobe, 18–22 Jan 2005Google Scholar
  15. Kanai K (1965) Some new problems of seismic vibrations of a structure. In: Proceeding of third world conference on earthquake engineering. Auckland, Wellington, pp II-260–II-275, 22 Jan–Feb 1Google Scholar
  16. Krüger M, Grosse C, Marrón PJ (2005) Wireless structural health monitoring using MEMS. Key Engineering Mat 293–294:625–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, 22–27 May 2007. Accessed 09 Dec 2008Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Lynch JP, Sundararajan A, Law KH, Kiremidjian AS, Carryer E (2003) Power-efficient wireless structural monitoring with local data processing. In: International conference on structural health monitoring and intelligent infrastructures (SHMII-03), Tokyo, 13–15 Nov. Accessed 09 Dec 2008Google Scholar
  20. Meli R, Faccioli E, Muria-Vila D, Quaas R, Paolucci R (1998) A study of site effects and seismic response of an instrumented building in Mexico City. J Earthq Eng 2(1):89–111. doi: 10.1080/13632469809350315 Google Scholar
  21. Mucciarelli M, Gallipoli MR (2007) Non-parametric analysis of a single seismometric recording to obtain building dynamic parameters. Ann Geophys 50:259–266. doi: 10.4401/ag-3079 Google Scholar
  22. Mucciarelli M, Bianca M, Ditommaso R, Gallipoli MR, Masi A, Milkereit C, Picozzi M, Vona M (2010) Far field damage on RC buildings: the case study of Navelli during the L’Aquila (Italy) seismic sequence, 2009. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-010-9201-Online FirstGoogle Scholar
  23. Nachtigall J (2008) Earthquake information system using wireless mesh networks. Magisterarbeit, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. Geographisches Institut, Berlin, p 138Google Scholar
  24. OLSR Project. http://www.olsr.org/docs/README-Link-Quality.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2009
  25. OpenWRT. http://www.openwrt.org. Accessed 8 Dec 2009
  26. Oth A, Picozzi M (2012) Structural health monitoring using wireless technologies: an ambient vibration test on the Adolphe bridge, Luxembourg City. Adv Civ Eng Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2012(Article ID 876174):17. doi:10.1155/2012/876174Google Scholar
  27. Parolai S, Richwalski S (2004) The importance of converted waves in comparing H/V and RSM site response estimates. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(1):304–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parolai S, Ansal A, Kurtulus A, Strollo A, Wang R, Zschau J (2009) The Atakoy vertical array(Turkey): insights into seismic wave propagation in the shallow-most crustal layers by waveform deconvolution. Geophys J Int. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04257.x
  29. Picozzi M, Ditommaso R, Parolai S, Mucciarelli M, Milkereit C, Sobiesiak M, Di Giacomo D, Gallipoli MR, Pilz M, Vona M, Zschau J (2009a) Real time monitoring of structures in task-force missions: the example of the \({\text{ Mw }}=6.3\) Central Italy Earthquake, 6 April 2009, Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9481-1
  30. Picozzi M, Milkereit C, Zulfikar C, Fleming K, Ditommaso R, Erdik M, Zschau J, Fischer J, Safak E, Özel O, Apaydin N (2009b) Wireless technologies for the monitoring of strategic civil infrastructures: an ambient vibration test on the Fatih Sultan Mehmet suspension bridge in Istanbul. Bull Earthq Eng 8(3):671–691. doi: 10.1007/s10518-009-9132-7
  31. Picozzi M, Parolai S, Mucciarelli M, Milkereit C, Bindi C, Ditommaso R, Vona M, Gallipoli MR, Zschau J (2010) Interferometric analysis of strong ground motion for structural health monitoring: the example of the L’Aquila (Italy) seismic sequence, 2009. Bull Seism Soc Am 101, 2 April 2011. doi: 10.1785/0120100070.Google Scholar
  32. Picozzi M (2012) An attempt of real-time structural response assessment by an interferometric approach: a tailor-made earthquake early warning for buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 38:109–118. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ponzo FC, Ditommaso R, Auletta G, Mossucca A (2010) A fast method for structural health monitoring of Italian reinforced concrete strategic buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 8:1421–1434. doi: 10.1007/s10518-010-9194-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snieder R, Şafak E (2006) Extracting the building response using seismic interferometry: theory and application to the Millikan library in Pasadena. Calif Bull Seism Soc Am 96(2):586–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stengel D (2009) System identification for 4 types of structures in Istanbul by frequency domain decomposition and Stochastic subspace identification methods. Diploma thesis, University of Karlsruhe, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  36. Stockwell RG, Mansinha L, Love RP (1996) Localization of the complex spectrum: the S transform. IEEE Trans Signal Process 44:998–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Straser EG, Kiremidjian AS (1996) A modular, visual approach to damage monitoring for civil structures. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on structural control, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Torvalds L (2009) The Linux Kernel. http://www.kernel.org Accessed 8 Dec 2009
  40. United Nations (2006) Global survey of early warning systems. An assessment of capabilities, gaps and opportunities towards building a comprehensive global early warning system for all natural hazards, a report prepared at the request of the secretary-general of the United NationGoogle Scholar
  41. Wald DJ, Worden BC, Quitoriano V, Pankow KL (2006) ShakeMap manual; technical manual, users guide, and software guide. http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2005/12A01 /pdf/508TM12-A1.pdf
  42. 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, Oct 16–17 2006. Accessed 09 Dec 2008Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Picozzi
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Milkereit
    • 2
  • K. Fleming
    • 2
  • J. Fischer
    • 3
  • K-H. Jaeckel
    • 2
  • D. Bindi
    • 2
  • S. Parolai
    • 2
  • J. Zschau
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum PostdamTelegrafenbergPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentHumboldt University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations