2010
DOI: 10.1201/b10430-517
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monitoring of the Manhattan Bridge and interferometric radar systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For mode V2 and V3, the frequencies identified from the displacements matched very well with the reference data. The frequency of mode T1 (0.40 Hz) identified from the EEM (Mayer et al, 2010b) Before 2009 0.23 -0.30 0.49 displacement was the same to that identified from the acceleration data collected in 2016, but was 8.1% larger than the reference data (0.37 Hz) recorded in earlier years in literature before 2009 (Mayer et al, 2010b;Jang and Smyth, 2017). The increase in the torsional mode frequency T1 as identified from the EEM displacements obtained in 2017 was due to an increase of torsional stiffness by installing truss stiffening to reduce twisting in the Manhattan Bridge Reconstruction Program, which was completed around 2010.…”
Section: Frequency Domain Comparison For the Secondsupporting
confidence: 54%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For mode V2 and V3, the frequencies identified from the displacements matched very well with the reference data. The frequency of mode T1 (0.40 Hz) identified from the EEM (Mayer et al, 2010b) Before 2009 0.23 -0.30 0.49 displacement was the same to that identified from the acceleration data collected in 2016, but was 8.1% larger than the reference data (0.37 Hz) recorded in earlier years in literature before 2009 (Mayer et al, 2010b;Jang and Smyth, 2017). The increase in the torsional mode frequency T1 as identified from the EEM displacements obtained in 2017 was due to an increase of torsional stiffness by installing truss stiffening to reduce twisting in the Manhattan Bridge Reconstruction Program, which was completed around 2010.…”
Section: Frequency Domain Comparison For the Secondsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…However, they are limited by accessibility to the structures. The accuracy of the displacement obtained by GPS is around ±1.5 cm (Celebi, ; Mayer et al., ). For accelerometers, errors can be significant in the displacements converted from accelerations through double integration because the initial condition is difficult to estimate and acceleration measurements always have some errors (Park et al., ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are existing examples of systems which utilise FMCW radar for displacement detection in structures [38], [39], [40]. These devices are placed off-structure and measure the displacement of specific points of the structure.…”
Section: B Obtaining Structural Displacementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Laser scanners and more recently Ground Based Synthetic Aperture Radar (GBSAR) have been used for deformation monitoring, in particular of landslides [Farina et al, 2012]. Deflection monitoring of structures and bridges using GBSAR have also been carried out [Gentile, 2009;Mayer et al, 2010]. The use of laser scanners for deflection monitoring of bridges is not seen as being very feasible, for two reasons.…”
Section: Summary Of the Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%