An integrated geophysical approach using non-invasive, non-destructive, and cost-effective seismic and electromagnetic techniques has been implemented to recognize the static and dynamic properties (i.e. eigenfrequencies, equivalent viscous damping factors, and related modal shapes) of the Gravina Bridge and its interaction with foundation soils. The “Gravina” is a bow-string bridge located on outcropping calcarenites in the city of Matera (Southern Italy) and develops for 144 m along a steel-concrete deck. The foundation soil characteristics have been evaluated by means of three high-resolution geo-electrical tomographies, one Vs velocity profile, and two site amplification functions. The main structural characteristics of the bridge have been estimated through permanent and on-demand monitoring using seismic and electromagnetic sensing. The former consisted of accelerometers and velocimeters installed with different geometrical arrangements for permanent earthquake and on-demand ambient vibration test recordings. The electromagnetic sensing was realized by a microwave radar interferometer placed below the deck to measure the displacements of the whole scenario illuminated by the antenna beam providing a continuous mapping of the static and dynamic displacements of the entire target. Acquired data have been analyzed in both frequency and time-frequency domain with the aim to study the stationary and non-stationary response of the monitored bridge. These experimental campaigns allowed us to assess the robustness of the proposed approach and to set up the zero-time reference point of the bridge dynamic parameters.
PonzoFCDitommasoRAulettaG, et al. A fast method for structural health monitoring of Italian strategic reinforced concrete buildings. Bull Earthq Eng2010; 8: 1421–1434.
2.
DitommasoRMucciarelliMPonzoFC.Analysis of nonstationary structural systems by using a band-variable filter. Bull Earthq Eng2012; 10: 895–911.
3.
DitommasoRPonzoFCAulettaG.Damage detection on framed structures: modal curvature evaluation using stockwell transform under seismic excitation. Earthq Eng Eng Vib2015; 14: 265–274.
4.
DitommasoRPonzoFC.Automatic evaluation of the fundamental frequency variations and related damping factor of reinforced concrete framed structures using the short time impulse response function (STIRF). Eng Struct2015; 82: 104–112.
5.
IacovinoCDitommasoRPonzoFC, et al. The interpolation evolution method for damage localization in structures under seismic excitation. Earthq Eng Struct2018; 47: 2117–2136.
6.
GallipoliMRStabileTAMassolinoG, et al. Structural health monitoring of the Ferrara University before and after the 2012 Emilia (Italy) earthquake, and after the damage repairs. Struct Health Monit2020; 19(3): 838–853.
7.
OrcesiADFrangopolDM.Optimization of bridge maintenance strategies based on structural health monitoring information. Struct Saf2011; 33(1): 26–41.
8.
BakhtBJaegerLG.Bridge testing—a surprise every time. J Struct Eng1990; 116(5): 1370–1383.
9.
KarbhariVMLeeLS.Service life estimation and extension of civil engineering structures. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2010.
10.
ProtoMBavusiMBerniniR, et al. Transport infrastructure surveillance and monitoring by electromagnetic sensing: the ISTIMES project. Sensors2010; 10(12): 10620–10639.
11.
BavusiMSoldovieriFDi NapoliR, et al. Ground penetrating radar and microwave tomography 3D applications for the deck evaluation of the Musmeci bridge (Potenza, Italy). J Geophys Eng2011; 8(3): S33–S46.
12.
StabileTAPerroneAGallipoliMR, et al. Dynamic survey of the Musmeci Bridge by joint application of ground-based microwave radar interferometry and ambient noise standard spectral ratio techniques. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett2013; 10(4): 870–874.
ParolaiSFackeARichwalskiS, et al. Assessing the vibrational frequencies of the Holweide Hospital in the city of Cologne (Germany) by means of ambient seismic noise analysis and FE modelling. Nat Hazards2005; 34: 217–230.
15.
GallipoliMRMucciarelliMVonaM.Empirical estimate of fundamental frequencies and damping for Italian buildings. Earth Eng Struct Dyn2009; 38: 973–988.
16.
CanteroDUlker-KaustellMKaroumiR.Time-frequency analysis of railway bridge response in forced vibration. Mech Syst Sig Process2016; 76-77: 518–530.
17.
TrifunacMD.Comparisons between ambient and forced vibration experiments. Earth Eng Struct. Dyn1972; 1(2): 133–150.
18.
HansSBoutinCIbraimE, et al. In situ experiments and seismic analysis of existing buildings. Part I: experimental investigations. Earth Eng Struct Dyn2005; 34: 1513–1529.
19.
GallipoliMRStabileTAGuéguenP, et al. Fundamental period elongation of a RC building during the Pollino seismic swarm sequence. Case Stud Struct Eng2016; 6: 45–52.
20.
GreenMF.Modal test methods for bridges: a review. In: Proceedings of the 13th international modal analysis conference, Nashville, TN, 13-16 February 1995.
21.
SalawuOSWilliamsC.Review of full-scale dynamic testing of bridge structures. Eng Struct1995; 17(2): 113–121.
22.
FarrarCRDuffeyTACornwellPJ, et al. Excitation methods for bridge structures. In: Proceedings of the 17th international modal analysis conference, Kissimmee, FL, 1 February 1997, pp. 1063–1068. Bethel, CT: Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.
23.
PieracciniMFratiniMParriniF, et al. Dynamic monitoring of bridges using a high-speed coherent radar. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2006; 44(11): 3284–3288.
24.
PieracciniMFratiniMParriniF, et al. Interferometric radar vs. Accelerometer for dynamic monitoring of large structures: an experimental comparison. NDT E Int2008; 41(4): 258–264.
25.
AtzeniCBicciADeiD, et al. Remote survey of the leaning tower of Pisa by interferometric sensing. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett2010; 7(1): 185–189.
26.
GentileC.Application of microwave remote sensing to dynamic testing of stay-cables. Remote Sens2010; 2(1): 36–51.
27.
RödelspergerSLäuferGGersteneckerC, et al. Monitoring of displacements with ground-based microwave interferometry: IBIS-S and IBIS-L. J Appl Geod2010; 4(1): 41–54.
28.
StabileTAGiocoliAPerroneA, et al. A new joint application of non-invasive remote sensing techniques for structural health monitoring. J Geophys Eng2012; 9(4): S53–S63.
29.
MatildiGRaccagniMSciarraM. Il ponte ad arco “Gravina” di Matera sulla S.S. 655 “Bradanica.” the Arch Bridge “Gravina” in Matera on S.S. 655 “Bradanica” (In Italian). In: Proceedings of the XXV Congresso CTA, Salerno, 1-3 October 2015.
30.
TropeanoMSabatoL.Response of Plio-Pleistocene mixed bioclastic-lithoclastic temperate-water carbonate systems to forced regressions: the Calcarenite di Gravina Formation, Puglia, SE Italy. In: HuntDGawthorpeRL (eds) Sedimentary Responses to Forced Regressions. Volume. 172, London: Geological Society, Spec Publ, 2000, pp. 217–243.
31.
BeneducePFestaVFranciosoR, et al. Conflicting drainage patterns in the Matera Horst Area, southern Italy. Phys Chem Earth Part A/B/C2004; 29(10): 717–724.
32.
HaldarSK.Exploration geophysics. In: Mineral exploration (2nd ed) rinciples and applications. New York: Elsevier Publication, 2018, pp. 103-122.
SharmaSVermaGK.Inversion of electrical resistivity data: a review. Intern J Env Chem Ecol Geol Geophy Eng2015; 9(4): 400–406.
35.
NakamuraY.A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Quart Rep Railway Tech Res Inst (RTRI)1989; 3025-33.
36.
MucciarelliM.Reliability and applicability of Nakamura’s technique using microtremors: an experimental approach. J Earthq Eng1998; 2(4): 625–638.
37.
GallipoliMRMucciarelliMCastroRR, et al. Structure, soil-structure response and effects of damage based on observations of horizontal to vertical spectral ratios of microtremors. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng2004; 24: 487–495.
38.
OhoriMNobataAWakamatsuK.A comparison of ESAC and Fk methods of estimating phase velocity using arbitrarily shaped microtremor arrays. Bull Seismol Soc Am2002; 92(6): 2323–2332.
39.
OkadaH.The microtremor survey method. Geophysical Monograph Series SEG. Tulsa, OK: Soc Explor Geophys, 2003, p. 12.
40.
ParolaiSGaliana-MerinoJJ.Effect of transient seismic noise on estimates of H/V spectral ratios. Bull Seismol Soc Am2006; 96(1): 228–236.
41.
GentileCSaisiA.Ambient vibration testing and condition assessment of the Paderno iron arch bridge. Constr Build Mater2011; 25(9): 3709–3720.
42.
KuduFNBayraktarAPakirPG, et al. Ambient vibration testing of Berta Highway Bridge with post-tension tendons. Steel Compos Struct2014; 16(1). DOI: 10.12989/scs.2014.16.1.021
43.
ShipforsMFabbrocinoG.Operational modal analysis of civil engineering structures. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2014.
44.
BorcherdtRD.Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco bay. Bull Seismol Soc Am1970; 60: 29–61.
45.
Bonnefoy-ClaudetSCornouCBardPY, et al. H/V ratio: a tool for site effects evaluation. Results from 1-D Noise Simulations. Geophys J Int2006; 167: 827–837.
46.
CloughRWPenzienJ.Dynamics of structures. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993, p. 738.
47.
SniederRSafakE.Extracting the building response using seismic interferometry: theory and application to the Millikan library in Pasadena, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am2006; 96(2): 586598.
48.
StockwellRGMansinhaLLoweRP.Localization of complex spectrum: the S transform. IEE Trans Signal Process1996; 44(4): 9981001.
49.
MucciarelliMBiancaMDitommasoR, et al. Far field damage on RC buildings: the case study of Navelli during the L’Aquila (Italy) seismic sequence. Bull Earthq Eng2011; 9(1): 263–283.
50.
AktanAECatbasFNGrimmelsmanKA, et al. Development of a model health monitoring guide for major bridges. Report for Federal Highway Administration Research and Development report no. DTFH61-01-P-00347, July2003. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
