4.5 Article

Analysis of Fiber-Optic Strain-Monitoring Data from a Prestressed Concrete Bridge

期刊

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000996

关键词

Brillouin optical time domain reflectometry (BOTDR); Concrete creep; Concrete shrinkage; Prestressed concrete; Structural health monitoring; Strain measurement

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/D076870/1]
  2. Smart Infrastructure: Wireless Sensor Network System for Condition Assessment and Monitoring of Infrastructure [EP/I019308/1]
  3. Innovation Knowledge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction
  4. Innovation and Knowledge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction - Collaborative Programme Tranche 1 [EP/K000314/1]
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I019308/1, EP/D076870/1, EP/L010917/1, EP/K000314/1, EP/N021614/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. EPSRC [EP/I019308/1, EP/D076870/1, EP/K000314/1, EP/L010917/1, EP/N021614/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents data from fiber-optic strain monitoring of the Nine Wells Bridge, which is a three-span, pretensioned, prestressed concrete beam-and-slab bridge located in Cambridgeshire in the United Kingdom. The original deployment at the site and the challenges associated with collecting distributed strain data using the Brillouin optical time domain reflectometry (BOTDR) technique are described. In particular, construction and deployment issues of fiber robustness and temperature effects are highlighted. The challenges of interpreting the collected data as well as the potential value of information that may be obtained are discussed. Challenges involved with relating measurements to the expected levels of prestress, including the effects due to debonding, creep, and shrinkage, are discussed and analyzed. This paper provides an opportunity to study whether two commonly used models for creep and shrinkage, adequately model data collected in field conditions.

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

4.5
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