Structural health monitoring of bridges using acoustic emission technology and signal processing techniques

Structural health monitoring (SHM) is the term applied to the procedure of monitoring a structure’s performance, assessing its condition and carrying out appropriate retrofitting so that it performs reliably, safely and efficiently. Bridges form an important part of a nation’s infrastructure. They deteriorate due to age and changing load patterns and hence early detection of damage helps in prolonging the lives and preventing catastrophic failures. Monitoring of bridges has been traditionally done by means of visual inspection. With recent developments in sensor technology and availability of advanced computing resources, newer techniques have emerged for SHM. Acoustic emission (AE) is one such technology that is attracting attention of engineers and researchers all around the world. This paper discusses the use of AE technology in health monitoring of bridge structures, with a special focus on analysis of recorded data. AE waves are stress waves generated by mechanical deformation of material and can be recorded by means of sensors attached to the surface of the structure. Analysis of the AE signals provides vital information regarding the nature of the source of emission. Signal processing of the AE waveform data can be carried out in several ways and is predominantly based on time and frequency domains. Short time Fourier transform and wavelet analysis have proved to be superior alternatives to traditional frequency based analysis in extracting information from recorded waveform. Some of the preliminary results of the application of these analysis tools in signal processing of recorded AE data will be presented in this paper.

Urban network travel time estimation from stop-line loop detector data and signal controller data

This paper presents a model to estimate travel time using cumulative plots. Three different cases considered are i) case-Det, for only detector data; ii) case-DetSig, for detector data and signal controller data and iii) case-DetSigSFR: for detector data, signal controller data and saturation flow rate. The performance of the model for different detection intervals is evaluated. It is observed that detection interval is not critical if signal timings are available. Comparable accuracy can be obtained from larger detection interval with signal timings or from shorter detection interval without signal timings. The performance for case-DetSig and for case-DetSigSFR is consistent with accuracy generally more than 95% whereas, case-Det is highly sensitive to the signal phases in the detection interval and its performance is uncertain if detection interval is integral multiple of signal cycles.