Footbridge system identification using wireless inertial measurement units for force and response measurements

With the main focus on safety, design of structures for vibration serviceability is often overlooked or mismanaged, resulting in some high profile structures failing publicly to perform adequately under human dynamic loading due to walking, running or jumping. A standard tool to inform better design, prove fitness for purpose before entering service and design retrofits is modal testing, a procedure that typically involves acceleration measurements using an array of wired sensors and force generation using a mechanical shaker. A critical but often overlooked aspect is using input (force) to output (response) relationships to enable estimation of modal mass, which is a key parameter directly controlling vibration levels in service.

This paper describes the use of wireless inertial measurement units (IMUs), designed for biomechanics motion capture applications, for the modal testing of a 109 m footbridge. IMUs were first used for an output-only vibration survey to identify mode frequencies, shapes and damping ratios, then for simultaneous measurement of body accelerations of a human subject jumping to excite specific vibrations modes and build up bridge deck accelerations at the jumping location. Using the mode shapes and the vertical acceleration data from a suitable body landmark scaled by body mass, thus providing jumping force data, it was possible to create frequency response functions and estimate modal masses.

The modal mass estimates for this bridge were checked against estimates obtained using an instrumented hammer and known mass distributions, showing consistency among the experimental estimates. Finally, the method was used in an applied research application on a short span footbridge where the benefits of logistical and operational simplicity afforded by the highly portable and easy to use IMUs proved extremely useful for an efficient evaluation of vibration serviceability, including estimation of modal masses.

A field experiment on a steel Gerber-truss bridge for damage detection utilizing vehicle-induced vibrations

A field experiment was conducted on a real continuous steel Gerber-truss bridge with artificial damage applied. This article summarizes the results of the experiment for bridge damage detection utilizing traffic-induced vibrations. It investigates the sensitivities of a number of quantities to bridge damage including the identified modal parameters and their statistical patterns, Nair’s damage indicator and its statistical pattern and different sets of measurement points. The modal parameters are identified by autoregressive time-series models. The decision on bridge health condition is made and the sensitivity of variables is evaluated with the aid of the Mahalanobis–Taguchi system, a multivariate pattern recognition tool. Several observations are made as follows. For the modal parameters, although bridge damage detection can be achieved by performing Mahalanobis–Taguchi system on certain modal parameters of certain sets of measurement points, difficulties were faced in subjective selection of meaningful bridge modes and low sensitivity of the statistical pattern of the modal parameters to damage. For Nair’s damage indicator, bridge damage detection could be achieved by performing Mahalanobis–Taguchi system on Nair’s damage indicators of most sets of measurement points. As a damage indicator, Nair’s damage indicator was superior to the modal parameters. Three main advantages were observed: it does not require any subjective decision in calculating Nair’s damage indicator, thus potential human errors can be prevented and an automatic detection task can be achieved; its statistical pattern has high sensitivity to damage and, finally, it is flexible regarding the choice of sets of measurement points.

Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care

Background: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care.

Methods: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models’ characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria.

Results: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0–32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported.

Conclusions: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised.