Comparative Field Qualification of ACM and ACSM Systems at
Contents
1. HG 08K i Kelunji V EchoPro 1ST FLOOR EA ii HG_07K LV_02K FID TE su LV 04K Figure 25 Plan View of Sensor Locations Appendix B eDAQ Information System Summary The following information was included from a report by Charles Dowding and Jeffrey Meissner titled Sycamore Installation Report This report and additional reports and information are available at http iti northwestern edu acm publications html 2 2 SoMat eDAO System wired The Floit House also has the traditional ACM wired system paradigm eguipped with SoMat s eDAO Classic data logger The system is designed to autonomously monitor ground motion air overpressure structural response and crack response The data is stored short term in the Floit House transmitted via the Internet connection in the OC house shown in Figure 2 12 uploaded to an ITI server and then broadcast over the web for viewing The eDAO is programmed to collect both data long term every hour and during dynamic events 1000 Hz sampling triggered by the triaxial and horizontal geophones Figure 2 12 describes the layout of the wired system The data is transmitted via a Proxim Tsunami point to point wireless network connection back to the Internet connection in the OC house 2 2 1 System Enclosure Contents The wires running back from the sensors to the eDAQ all meet at an enclosure box behind the stairs in the Floit House Photos of this enclosure are shown in Figure 2 13 with T2. Longitudinal Geophone o 9 LVDT Transverse Geophone o 10 LVDT Vertical Geophone o Air Overpressure o 12 LVDT LVDT Horizontal Geophone Horizontal Geophone Horizontal Geophone Horizontal Geophone Figure 2 15 Diagram and photograph of SoMat Connector Box and channel designations m Channel Name Sensor Manufacturer Model Serial No ot Triaxial Geophone Gt N A ACM installation buried Franklin WI 3 Geo BV 4 Air Air Overpressure GeoSonics 3000 Series Vac nt Channels 9 LVDT 9 Shear a LVDT 5 VDT 10 Null p s i MacroSensors DC 750 050 mE IVDT 11 Seam p UN recovered A ne 89735 Jen Geophone wall GeoSpace HS 1 LT 98449 N A Table 2 2 Exhaustive description of sensors and channel designation A 112 BEDROOM 1 2ND FLOOR STAIRS BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 KEY Data Logger m Triaxial Geophone N A wot i Horizontal Geophone Q Tsunami Transmitter BEEN v LIVING DINING ROOM 1ST FLOOR 5 10 20 Figure 2 16 Exact sensor and equipment locations within house Measure given is distance up wall Figure 2 17 1 Southeast corner of house showing seismograph triaxial geophone location 2 View from house of trench and buried sgeophone 3 Close up of buried geophone with longitudinal axis pointing north toward the guarry LVDT_9 Shear HG 16 Midwall LVDT 10 Null LVDT 11 Sea
3. Sycamore is a multi hop system that consists of 4 nodes motes and a base station at the QC house Data is collected from the sensors at the nodes and is then relayed back to the base station Figure 2 1 shows the location of the nodes within the wireless mesh network Figures 2 3 2 6 below also show detailed photographs of the mote locations 2 1 1 Mote Locations Figure 2 2 Exterior view of southwest corner of Figure 2 3 Exterior view of east wall of instru instrumented Floit House showing where Node 2 mented Floit House showing where Node 3 is is inside inside oe ne gt An PN d n Figure 2 4 Node 4 as relay point on Figure 2 5 Node 5 as relay point on telephone pole telephone pole Figure 2 6 Node O is base station inside OC house 2 1 2 Sensor Locations and Nomenclature The Floit house is outfitted with 3 high precision String Potentiometers Firstmark Controls 150 series S1 and S3 measure cracks while S2 is a null gauge Figure 2 7 shows the exact sensor locations within the house and Figures 2 8 2 11 show photographs of the installed equipment BEDROOM 1 2ND FLOOR STAIRS BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 KEY O eKo Mote LI String Potentiometer O Temperature amp Humidity Probe 1ST FLOOR LIVING DINING ROOM Figure 2 7 Exact sensor and equipment locations within house Measure given is distance up wall Figure 2 8 Interior view of Node 2 in living
4. during this period In order to further demonstrate this Figure 13 and Figure 14 enlarge the long term response for the three comparable cracks exterior seam exterior shear bedroom ceiling Also included in these figures is a representation of the dynamic response of these cracks during the May 11 2011 blast event These dynamic responses are displayed below the x axis near the corresponding date and are scaled to about twice their real response magnitude for viewing purposes More information on the specifics of the blast event can be found in the dynamic analysis section of this report However it can be concluded that the event with an maximum ground motion near 5 or 6 inches per second does not produce a crack response that is significant when compared to the magnitude of the long term crack variations due to environmental effects Long Term Crack Response LV_01K_Seam Long Term Crack Response LV_02K_Shear Min 4000 Long Term Crack Response LV_05K_IntVert Long Term Crack Response LV_06K_Ceil 5 5 11 5 9 11 5 13 11 F External Temperature External Humidity 5 5 11 5 9 11 5 13 11 Figure 14 April 27 May 13 EchoPro Response with Dynamic Event Data Circled 100 75 50 25 100 75 50 25 V AN V Long Term Crack Response LVDT_9_Shear Long Term Crack Response LVDT_10_Null Ham 4000 2000 Long Term Crack Response LVDT 11 Seam Long Term Crack Response LVDT
5. the two crack sensors on the first floor seam crack AIso dynamic data from the internal and exterior geophones will be compared This report is organized into five major sections The first section is a comparison of the three systems The second section is the dynamic results from a blast event The third section is the long term results of the systems over the period The fourth section is a comparison of the noise levels on the eDAO and EchoPro The last section contains three appendices one for each of the deployed systems xi EEE GE S MY NT Kad ir Figure 1 Aerial View of Site with Annotations Eade soon SE rag Figure 2 Exterior View of Floit Hoise with Annotations ee WY i ss i ia 5 did M Figure 4 Ceiling Crack Bedroom with Sensors Figure 3 South Exterior Wall with Sensors 5 ed i a I 4 n UU UU MO S ata N E 750 100 el r S 110057 E mu Figure 5 Ceiling Crack Bedroom with KEP sensors 2ND FLOOR L 1ST FLOOR LV OSK ve 11K HG 10K KEY ET Data Logger sl Triaxial Geophone d LVDT ll Horizontal Geophone Vertical Geophone H Temp amp Humidity Air Overpressure LV 04K LV 03K T re HG 08K KO ws a li L Kelunji V EchoPro LIVING I DINNG ROOM HG_07K LV_02K FID TE LV 04K Figure 6 Floit House Floor Plan and Kelunji EchoPro System Layout System Comparison Objective T
6. 03 0 00015 0 Long Term Crack Monitoring Comparison Objective The following section will describe the crack movements and environmental data for the period between March 7 2011 and May 13 2011 for the three systems Kelunji EchoPro eDAQ eko Motes present at the Sycamore IL test house The purpose of this is to graphically compare the long term results from the systems and attempt to describe any discrepancies Additionally a dynamic event from May 11 2011 will serve as a sample event for comparison of dynamic and long term crack response Long Term Results Long term response monitoring shows crack movements that occur due to long term environmental factors such as temperature and humidity For the best results sensors must be continuously monitored over long period of time and return reasonable data Figure 10 shows the crack response of all three systems over the entire collection period and Figure 11 shows the interior and exterior environmental variations over the same time Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the response of each individual system for the exterior shear crack and the bedroom ceiling crack The trend that can be extracted from the figures is that as the average temperature increases the cracks decrease in size This makes sense as thermal expansion of the wall material with increased temperature would serve to reduce the size of the cracks However it is important to note that humidity fluctuations also have a l
7. 12 Ceil F External Temperature 100 75 50 25 100 75 50 25 External Humidity 4 27 11 5 1 11 5 5 11 5 9 11 5 13 11 Figure 15 April 27 May 13th eDAQ Response with Dynamic Event Data Circled Long Term Response LV 01K Seam V WV in 4000 Long Term Response LV_02K_Shear 2000 Syv Vw na TN V 0 Long Term Response IV 06K Ceil v E odd TX 4 27 11 5 1 11 5 5 11 5 9 11 5 13 11 Figure 16 Visual Comparison of Long Term and Dynamic Crack Movements on EchoPro Long Term Crack Response LVDT_9_Shear in 4000 2000 VY 0 Long Term Crack Response LVDT 11 Seam ANNA AN gt 4 27 11 5 1 11 5 5 11 5 9 11 5 13 11 Figure 17 Visual Comparison of Long Term and Dynamic Crack Movements on eDAO Long Term Crack Response LVDT_12_Ceil Noise Analysis Objective This section will attempt to compare the noise levels for the Kelunji EchoPro and EDAO crack monitoring systems based on data obtained from the test house in Sycamore Illinois Visual resolution of a crack monitoring system is constrained by the noise level Simply put the lower the noise level relative to the sensor sensitivity the higher the resolution of the output Higher resolution allows smaller crack movements to be detected improving the value and performance of the system For the purpose of this comparison the noise levels of the Kelunji crack sensors LVDTs and the EDAO crack sensors LVDTs will be determined from th
8. 3 18 11 3 28 11 4 7 11 4 17 11 4 27 11 5 7 11 5 17 11 Figure 11 Interior and Exterior Temperature and Humidity Fluctuations 2 26 11 Long Term Response KEP LV_02K_Shear in 6000 Long Term Response eko Mote Node 2_Shear 3000 LaL 1L Rad AWN w AA WA 0 Long Term Response eDAO LVDT_9_Shear MT 3 8 11 3 18 11 3 28 11 4 7 11 4 17 11 4 27 11 5 7 11 5 17 11 Figure 12 Long Term Crack Response for Exterior Shear Crack Long Term Response KEP LV 06K Ceil UAW wv in 6000 Long Term Response eko Mote Node 3_Ceil tt ge OL nr Mn Ni NN WV V j 3000 Long Term Response eDAO LVDT 12 Ceil s pk Ad WIN UNA 2 26 11 3 8 11 3 18 11 3 28 11 4 7 11 4 17 11 4 27 11 5 7 11 5 17 11 Figure 13 Long Term Crack Response for Bedroom Ceiling Crack Comparison of Long Term Response with the Sample Blast Event To compare the magnitude of crack response between the long term environmental variations and the dynamic response from a blast event it is important to establish a means of visually comparing the two This is complicated by the large differences in the time scale long term is in terms of days and months while dynamic response occurs in a matter of seconds Figure 14 and Figure 15 shows the long term crack response of the EchoPro and eDAO systems respectively with the dynamic event period circled in red These figures show that there is no large change in the long term trend of the crack movement
9. Comparative Field Qualification of ACM and ACSM Systems at Sycamore IL Thomas Koegel Table of Contents Hod 3 VON 7 Dynamic Burst Event Comparison ii 8 Long Term Crack Monitoring Comparison ee ee Fe ui ee 14 NENNE 24 Appendix A Kelunji EchoPro Information eere 29 Appendix B eDAO Information rie 33 Appendix C eKo Mote System Information Ye ee ee 42 Introduction The purpose of this comparative field qualification is to demonstrate the new Kelunji EchoPro hybrid ACSM system and its performance relative to the eDAQ and eko Motes systems These three systems are installed at a test site in Sycamore IL adjacent to an active quarry Data for this report was collected during a period between March 7 2011 and May 13 2011 The analysis includes a comparison of the long term results for all three systems and a comparison of the dynamic results and noise levels for the eDAQ and the Kelunji EchoPro systems Figure 1 is an aerial view of the site and Figure 2 is a view of the exterior of the house with the exterior walls annotated These photographs along with the floor plan in Figure 6 will give a basic understanding of the site and test house layout Figure 3 through Figure 5 illustrate the sensor locations throughout the house The comparable sensors include the three crack sensors on the first floor shear crack and the second floor ceiling crack and
10. able 2 1 describing its contents Additionally a wiring diagram of this box is shown in Figure 2 14 TOP LAYER Figure 2 13 Photographs of enclosure with both top and bottom layer contents No Manufacturer Product Model No Function awaa TT aa Web based watchdog timer to reset Uc necessary 6 Radioshack 1 5 amp 13 8 volt DC power supply 22 508 Provides DC power to non sensor devices SOLA Linear Power Supplies SCL4D15 DN Provides low noise low voltage DC to sensors EI Cutler Hammer Circuit Breaker WMS1B15 Provides power protection and acts as power switch Table 2 1 Contents of Enclosure with description of function POWER SUPPLY BOTTOM 110V AC Hot 110V AC Neutral Ground Low Voltage DC Low Voltage DC DC contl d by Relay SoMat Cable Ethernet il Power Distribution Pt Wire Up Wire Down Q Grounding Post O Ethernet Jack Out A Figure 2 14 Wiring diagram of top and bottom layers of enclosure in Floit House 2 2 2 Sensor Locations and Nomenclature The eDAQ has the capability of monitoring 16 channels of which only 12 are occupied in this installation Figure 2 15 shows the connector box layout and Table 2 2 lists the sensors along with their channel designations and detailed descriptions Figure 2 16 shows the sensors exact locations within the house Photographs of the sensors are also shown in Figures 2 17 2 22 Please see Appendix C for calibration sheets for these senso
11. arge impact on crack response though it is difficult to discern a trend from the figures due to the rapid variation of the exterior humidity response For the most part the crack sensors measure very similar responses and show peaks and troughs at the same points in time However there are observable deviations between the sensors at the beginning and end of the shear crack time history and the end of the seam crack time history There are several possible explanations for these differences First human error in installation and sensor error in responding to crack movements can the different magnitudes Second the crack gauges monitor different locations on the crack Therefore the long term environmental factors could create strain localizations that vary the impacts at the various positions of the sensors Further study could involve multiple LVDT s on a single system and crack to help determine what factors influence differences in long term crack response between sensor locations Long Term Response KEP amp eDAQ Seam Crack M in 6000 3000 N AN Ara ANN bal Long Term Response All Shear Crack Long Term Response All Ceiling Crack 2 26 11 3 8 11 3 18 11 3 28 11 4 7 11 4 17 11 4 27 11 5 7 11 5 17 11 Figure 10 Long Term Crack Response for Multiple Systems to Highlight Differences in Response Patterns o 100 rali gag d s Interior Temperature 0 100 External Temperature 2 26 11 3 8 11
12. e data Results The results shown in Table 5 and Table 6 were derived from two events that were recorded on the EchoPro and eDAO systems The noise calculations took four to six random 1 second peak to peak difference samples for each crack sensor channel from each time history in the range after the event response and determined the average peak to peak noise for a given channel across both events A standard deviation is included to show the variation in the noise across samples Visual estimates were included to ensure that peak to peak noise estimates were not being distorted by data outliers The tables illustrate the noise difference between the EchoPro and eDAO by grouping the corresponding sensors with the same color The results show that the EchoPro monitoring the same cracks has at the very least a 50 percent reduction in the noise level from the eDAO The large levels of noise on eDAO channel LVDT 12 Ceil is likely due to a sensor problem as these levels of noise are not typical for the other sensor channels on the system and does not represent the typical sensor resolution Table 5 Noise Level Comparison for EchoPro and eDAO ACSM systems Peak to Peak Standard Deviation of System Channel Type Average Noise Average Noise Visual unit EchoPro LV_01K_Seam u inches eDAQ LVDT_11_Seam i u inches EchoPro LV_02K 4 u inches eDAQ LVDT_9_Shear i u inches EchoPro LV_06K 1 u inches eDAQ LVDT_12_Ceil i 1 u inches Table 6 No
13. eDAQ Crack Response LV_01K_Seam Crack Response LV_02K_Shear milli in 0 05 Relative Displacement North Living Room Interior Wall Ch 8 amp 9 0 025 AN Il LI i ANM WA MIM NS eo Displacement Upper Corner NE Interior Wall Ch 8 AN KA ANIN Ma Ma RAD AAN OPEN MAN NW e vy NU N WAAR Po va U Gr Displacement Lower Corner NE Interior Wall Ch 9 f MM A AAI VAAT ERA unb NJ AAS NNN NW e WANVU ANA J Po ka U Gr in s 1 Transverse Ground Motion 0 5 VI i y VUN V 77 1 1 5 Time s 2 2 5 Figure 8 May 11 2011 1105 Dynamic Event EchoPro Figure 9 illustrates the crack response of each system to the ceiling crack on the second floor bedroom and the velocity response from the vertical geophone The response of the crack sensors is similar across the two systems However the vertical geophone is not responding at the magnitude expected for the event This is likely an issue inherent to the sensor or its preparation and installation because the raw data showcases the same problem Crack Response KEP LV_06K 1 2 2 3 Time s in WT 300 150 TAARA AVATA VAT A AT o ANA Crack Response eDAQ LVDT 12 Ceil 0 5 1 1 5 2 Time s in s Structural Response KEP Vertical Geophone on Bedroom Ceiling 1 1 5 2 2 5 Time s Figure 9 May 11 2011 1105 Dynamic Event Second Floor Response Both Systems 0 00
14. ent Channel 8 1 milli in Absolute Displacement Channel 9 milli in Absolute Displacement Channel 10 milli in Absolute Displacement Channel 11 i milli in Relative Displacement Ch 9 Ch8 i milli in Table 4 Summary Table of the eDAQ ACSM System for the May 11 2011 Blast Event Externally Triggered Dynamic Event eDAQ Blast Event at Floit test house near quarry in 5 11 2011 11 05 Sycamore IL RE DAQG Crack and Melecityes Sensors Crack Response LVDT 9 Shear u in Crack Response LVDT_10_Null u in Crack Response LVDT 11 Seam u in Crack Response LVDT 12 Ceil u in Structural Response HG 13 Bottom1 in s Structural Response HG 14 Top1 in s Structural Response HG_15_Top2 in s Structural Response HG 16 Midwall in s eDAQ External Sensors 1 Radial Ground Motion 0 177933485 0 200018911 in s Vertical Ground Motion 0 167359581 0 191971283 in s 0 197665746 0 148249314 in s 0 00269782 0 001940944 Millibars Transverse Ground Motion Air Blast Displacement Absolute Displacement Channel 13 milli in DS O N Absolute Displacement Channel 14 milli in Absolute Displacement Channel 15 milli in Absolute Displacement Channel 16 milli in Relative Displacement Ch 14 Ch13 milli in The relative displacement for the eDAQ is slightly larger than the EchoPro This is likely due to the EchoPro monitoring geophones at the corners of an interior wall and the eDAQ monitoring g
15. eophones at the corners of an exterior wall Looking at the displacement results it is clear that the top displacement for the eDAQ is greater than the one for the EchoPro This is the probable source of the difference between the relative displacements The transverse ground motion for the eDAQ tri axial geophone is about 50 percent of the ground motion measured by the LARCOR compliance seismograph that is part of the EchoPro hybrid system While there are likely many sources of variation including soil types sensor depth and location and sensor type the large magnitude of the difference creates the possibility of an issue with the different systems sensor calibration or other sources of error Crack Response LVDT 11 Seam Win 300 150 Crack Response LVDT_9_Shear milli in 0 05 0 025 Mo ARN AA Jl Relative Displacement 1f Interior Wall 13 amp 14 s Displacement Upper Corner SE Exterior Wall Ch 13 m Displacement Lower Corner SE Exterior Wall Ch 14 T in s oa L Transverse Ground Motion 0 5 1 Time s 1 5 2 Figure 7 May 11 2011 1105 Dynamic Event
16. he Kelunji EchoPro recorder can be obtained from the manufacturer s user manual which can be obtained at lt http customer esands com index php section 45 Figure 21 Components of the hybrid autonomous crack amp structural monitoring ACSM system Sensor Summary Table 7 summarizes the sensors installed with the Kelunji EchoPro The first column is the EchoPro channel for the given sensor Columns two and three give the channel name and type of sensor Columns four five and six give the location of the sensor in the house what the sensor is used for and serial number of the sensor Figure 22 to Figure 24 are photographs that show completed installation of sensors on the exterior E W wall interior E W wall and bedroom ceiling respectively Figure 25 is a plan view of the house with the location of all sensors The sensors unnumbered in those photographs are associated with other systems of instrumentation Table 7 Floit House Sensor Installation Summary CI wer A we jew IV OAK IntHor Crack 110885 Keka IO eaw Na vi NR pe ee ee WR Figure 22 Exterior E W Wall Sensors Figure 23 Interior E W Wall Sensors R i A Wu A Y oa Figure 24 Bedroom Ceiling Sensors FEL U ve 11K REDRDOM I 2ND FLOOR HG 10K KEY ET Data Logger mili Triaxial Geophone 4 LVDT N ll Horizontal Geophone Vertical Geophone H Temp 8 Humidity Air Overpressure LV 04K LV 03K T Ia Ew re
17. his section will provide important background details about the Kelunji EchoPro ACSM hybrid system the eDAO ACSM system and the eKo Motes system deployed at the test house at Sycamore IL In addition comparisons of the three systems with regard to system properties and sensors will begin to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems and their independent capabilities Comparative Matrices The tables below help summarize the key capabilities of each system in an attempt to highlight their similarities and differences Table 1 shows system properties and Table 2 shows sensor and recording properties Table 1 Comparison of System Properties of deployed ACM and ACSM systems System Battery Type Battery A D Internet Long Term Dynamic Cost Life Converter communication Monitoring Monitoring 12 V DC or 24 bit SoMat regulated cables power supply ot ae cables Base station 5 years 10 bit None 110 AC power with Motes sunlight Self powered for Motes Table 2 Comparison of Sensor Properties of deployed ACM and ACSM systems Sensors Sampling Type s Trigger Power 12 channels up Displacement Single External Powers sensors to 1000 Hz Pole LVDTs or directly 6 channels up to Velocity Geophones Internal 2000 Hz Up to 1000 Hz Displacement any Internal Separate Velocity any power source Temperature amp required Humidity any eKo Motes Every 15 minutes Crack any Internal Separate Tempe
18. ime s Figure 19 Noise Illustration eDAQ 2 second Time History EchoPro LV_01K_Seam micro in put O BN N O O O o o Out AM O 0 o o Time s EchoPro LV 02K Shear UI O UI o un o lt o c T O im 2 E 3 Q d 3 o E o o EchoPro LV 06K Ceil Output micro inches 7 UI O o o o UI o i o o 5 6 Time s Figure 20 Noise lllustration EchoPro Full Time History with Annotated 2 Second Window Appendix A Kelunji EchoPro Information System Summary The Kelunji EchoPro system is a new hybrid autonomous crack and structural response monitoring ACSM system It is designed as a low cost alternative to the research grade version employing SOMAT s eDAO data recording system The concept is to combine a new field portable 24 bit 12 channel seismograph with a compliance seismograph The 24 bit seismograph monitors the crack and structural response while the compliance seismograph monitors ground motions and air over pressures As configured the Kelunji EchoPro KEP recorder can monitor autonomously monitor crack and structural response in a wide range of field configurations Cost and simplicity were the main priorities for design of the hybrid system The full installation illustrated in Figure 21includes structural response velocity and crack sensors a LARCOR compliance seismograph with a trigger connection connector boxes and the KEP unit More information on t
19. ise Level Reduction from eDAQ to EchoPro Pe System Channel to Peak Estimate EchoPro LV 0IK eDAQ LVDT 11 Seam 57 26825034 EchoPro LV 02K EDAQ LVDT 9 Shear 69 87387511 EchoPro LV 06K EDAQ LVDT 12 Ceil 89 78928096 Figure 18 and Figure 19 illustrate two second time histories for the EchoPro and eDAQ systems respectively They visually demonstrate the increased resolution of the Kelunji system relative to the eDAQ due to lower noise levels of the recorded data Figure 20 shows the full EchoPro time history and the two second time window from which the first two figures were developed With both visual inspection and data analysis methods it is clear that a significant noise reduction is achieved by using the Kelunji EchoPro ACSM system This allows monitoring of smaller crack movements relative to the eDAQ system Further studies of noise could include additional crack sensor types and additional crack monitoring systems EchoPro LV_01K Output micro inches Ww m gt W UT o o o o o UI o 1 Time s EchoPro LV_02K N o lt o c T O Sem 3 E da 3 o wr O EchoPro LV_06K Output micro inches 1 Time s Figure 18 Noise Illustration EchoPro 2 second Time History Edag LVDT 11 Seam Output micro inches Timb s Edaq LVDT_9_Shear A o X o c T o Sm a E da gt o dal O Time s Edag LVDT_12 Ceil Output micro inches T
20. m Figure 2 19 1 Overall view of sensor suite on south wall first floor 2 Closer view of suite on south wall 3 Close up of Shear crack monitozed by LVDT_9 and Null gauge LVDT_10 4 Close up of Addition Seam crack monitored by LVDT_11 5 Close up of midwall geophone monitored by HG_16 Figure 2 20 1 Overall view of southeast corner geophones on first floor 2 Close up of top geophone monitored by HG_14 3 Close up of bottom geopohone monitored by HG_13 HG_13 Bottoml Figure 2 21 1 Overall view of second floor bedroom geophone on south wall 2 Closer view of geophone below slanted ceiling in top corner 3 Close up of top geophone monitored by HG_15 Figure 2 22 1 Overall view of ceiling crack from hallway outside bedroom looking North 2 Closer view of ceiling crack inside bedroom looking West 3 Close up of ceiling crack monitored by LVDT_12 Appendix C eKo Mote System Information System Summary The following information was included from a report by Charles Dowding and Jeffrey Meissner titled Sycamore Installation Report This report and additional reports and information are available at http iti northwestern edu acm publications html 2 1 Ko Mote System wireless The REG installed a wireless sensor network WSN to monitor long term changes in two cracks at the Floit House in conjunction with temperature and humidity The WSN in
21. placement response and they both record similar crack responses Similarities in the magnitude of the responses are seen by the comparison of the responses in Table 3 and Table 4 The maximum and minimum values are the absolute max and min during the duration of the time history even if there is a step shift There is a difference between the shape of each systems response across the seam The KEP LVDT returned a step response and the the eDAO LVDT did not This difference may be a result of different locations on the crack or installation differences such as the parallelism of the LVDT body and target Table 3 Summary Table of the Kelunji EchoPro ACSM System for the May 11 2011 Blast Event Externally Triggered Dynamic Event EchoPro Blast Event at Floit test house near quarry in May 11 2011 11 05 AM Sycamore IL Kelunji SCO Crack Response LV 01K Seam Crack Response LV O2K Shear Crack Response LV 03K Null Crack Response LV OAK IntHor Crack Response LV_O5K_IntVert Crack Response LV_06K_Ceil Structural Response HG 07K Mid Structural Response HG_08K_1FUp Structural Response HG OOK 1FDwn Structural Response HG 10K 2FUp Structural Response VG 11K 2FCeil Trigger Signal LC 12K Trig LARCOR Seismograph Description A Air Blast Millibars R Radial Ground Motion in s V Vertical Ground Motion in s T Transverse Ground Motion in s ISDN Absolute Displacement Channel 7 milli in Absolute Displacem
22. rature amp power source Humidity any required Dynamic Burst Event Comparison Objective This section will investigate the crack and structural response of the test house at Sycamore IL for a specific blast event from May 11 2011 Triggered data was collected for the event on both the Kelunji EchoPro hybrid ACSM system and the eDAO ACSM system Plots of the data for corresponding sensors on each system will help graphically compare the two systems Results The blast event on May 11 2011 at 11 05 AM triggered the dynamic recording of both systems Table 3 below summarizes the event from the Kelunji EchoPro system of sensors The largest structural response was 57 inches per second on the first floor exterior mid wall geophone The ground motion excitation had a maximum of 64 inches per second in the radial direction and about 5 inches per second in both the transverse and vertical directions From this raw data the displacement results were obtained by integrating the velocity data with the 1 milli second time step The relative displacement is the difference between the top and bottom first floor geophones Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the time histories of the comparable first floor cracks the relative displacement the displacement of the first floor corner geophones and the transverse ground motion for the eDAO and EchoPro systems respectively The two systems perform similarly They both record similar structural velocity and dis
23. room Crack sensor null sensor and temperature probe connected to eKo Mote Figure 2 9 Close up of crack sensor and null sensor Both instruments are string potentiometers Crack Sensor Figure 2 10 Interior view of Node 3 in upstairs bedroom Crack sensor connected to eKo Mote Figure 2 11 Close up of string potentiometer across ceiling crack
Download Pdf Manuals
Related Search