4.4 Article

System Identification of Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge Using Dynamic Field Test Data

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
卷 135, 期 1, 页码 54-66

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:1(54)

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0205720]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge (AZMB), a newly built long-span suspension bridge, is located 32 km northeast of San Francisco on interstate Highway I-80. A set of dynamic field tests were conducted on the AZMB in November 2003, just before the bridge opening to traffic. These tests provided a unique opportunity to identify the modal properties of the bridge in its as-built condition with no previous traffic loads or seismic excitation. A benchmark study on modal identification of the AZMB is performed using three different state-of-the-art system identification algorithms based on ambient, as well as forced vibration measurements. These system identification methods consist of: (1) the multiple-reference natural excitation technique combined with the eigensystem realization algorithm; (2) the data-driven stochastic subspace identification method; and (3) the enhanced frequency domain decomposition method. Overall, the modal parameters identified using these system identification methods are found to be in very good agreement for each type of tests (ambient and forced vibration tests). For most vibration modes, the natural frequencies and mode shapes identified using the two different types of test data also match very well. However, the modal damping ratios identified from forced vibration test data are, in general, higher than those estimated from ambient vibration data. The identified natural frequencies and mode shapes are finally compared with their analytical counterparts from a three-dimensional finite-element model of the AZMB. The modal properties of the AZMB presented in this paper can be used as baseline in future health monitoring studies of this bridge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据