2014
DOI: 10.1177/1475921714554141
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Maximum scour depth based on magnetic field change in smart rocks for foundation stability evaluation of bridges

Abstract: Scour was responsible for most of the US bridges that collapsed during the past 40 years. Due to erosion and refilling of riverbed deposits under strong current, the maximum scour depth is difficult to measure with existing technologies during a flood event. In this study, a new methodology is proposed to embed permanent magnets in a natural rock and integrate the so-called smart rock into the process of bridge scour for real-time monitoring. Once properly designed, the smart rock can continually fall into the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A review of bridge scour monitoring techniques was recently carried out by Prendergast and Gavin [147], Deng and Cai [148], and Wang et al [149]. Monitoring technologies can be classified into three different classes [149]: (i) monitoring with reference target (e.g., magnetic sliding collar [150], float-out devices [151], smart rocks [152,153]); (ii) soil-water interface (e.g., echo sonars [154], fiber Bragg grating sensors [155,156], TDR [157]); and (iii) reverse monitoring (e.g., tilt sensors and modal parameter [158,159]). These sensors and monitoring technologies have advantages and disadvantages, such as real-time data collection and difficulties in measuring the refill scour process, and different economic costs.…”
Section: Bridge Scour Monitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A review of bridge scour monitoring techniques was recently carried out by Prendergast and Gavin [147], Deng and Cai [148], and Wang et al [149]. Monitoring technologies can be classified into three different classes [149]: (i) monitoring with reference target (e.g., magnetic sliding collar [150], float-out devices [151], smart rocks [152,153]); (ii) soil-water interface (e.g., echo sonars [154], fiber Bragg grating sensors [155,156], TDR [157]); and (iii) reverse monitoring (e.g., tilt sensors and modal parameter [158,159]). These sensors and monitoring technologies have advantages and disadvantages, such as real-time data collection and difficulties in measuring the refill scour process, and different economic costs.…”
Section: Bridge Scour Monitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are a number of tools developed to monitor the actual occurrence of scour around hydraulic infrastructure [33][34][35]. However, many geomorphological and hydrological hazards, such as scour around hydraulic infrastructure or riverbed and riverbank destabilisation, typically develop very fast relative to our capacity to take action once they are initiated or detected.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In early days, geophysical tools such as radar and sonar [3,4,5,6] were most commonly used. Various monitoring techniques use magnetic field properties and includes sensors such as the magnetic sliding collar [7] and smart rocks [8]. The main limitations of these monitoring techniques are their sensitivity to suspended sediments and their vulnerability in harsh environment which is major hurdle to continuous scour monitoring.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%