| Literature DB >> 35161748 |
Won-Kyu Kim1,2, Junkyeong Kim3, Jooyoung Park4, Ju-Won Kim5, Seunghee Park6,7.
Abstract
The free cantilever method (FCM) is a bridge construction method in which the left and right segments are joined in sequence from a pier without using a bottom strut. To support the imbalance of the left and right moments during construction, temporary steel rods, upon which tensile force is applied that cannot be managed after construction, are embedded in the pier. If there is an excessive loss of tensile force applied to the steel rods, the segments can collapse owing to the unbalanced moment, which may cause personal and property damage. Therefore, it is essential to monitor the tensile force in the temporary steel rods to prevent such accidents. In this study, a tensile force estimation method for the temporary steel rods of an FCM bridge using embedded Elasto-Magnetic (EM) sensors was proposed. After the tensile force was applied to the steel rods, the change in tensile force was monitored according to the changing area of a magnetic hysteresis curve, as measured by the embedded EM sensors. To verify the field applicability of the proposed method, the EM sensors were installed in an FCM bridge pier under construction. The three sensors were installed in conjunction with a sheath tube, and the magnetic hysteresis curve was measured over nine months. Temperature data from the measurement period were used to compensate for the error due to daily temperature fluctuations. The estimated tensile force was consistent with an error range of ±4% when compared with the reference value measured by the load cell. Based on the results of this experiment, the applicability of the proposed method was demonstrated.Entities:
Keywords: embedded Elasto-Magnetic (EM) sensor; free cantilever method (FCM); magnetic hysteresis curve; temperature compensation; temporary steel rod; tensile force
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161748 PMCID: PMC8839100 DOI: 10.3390/s22031005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Illustration of unbalanced moment occurrence during construction of FCM bridges.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of embedded EM sensors.
Figure 3Change of magnetic hysteresis curve according to the effect of tensile force.
Specifications of load cell (SJ-3000).
| Classification | Values and Description | |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity | 1177 kN | |
| Ultimate overload | 150% of Capacity | |
| Resolution | 0.025% F.S. | |
| Accuracy | ±0.1~±1% F.S. | |
| Linearity error | ±0.5% F.S. | |
| Material | SCM alloy steel | |
| Gauge | 3 VW Strain gauge (4 Strain gauge) | |
| Thermal expansion coefficient | 10.8 × 10−6/°C | |
| Operating temp. range | −40 °C~80 °C | |
| Temp. sensor | Type | NTC Thermistor (3KD-ATF) |
| operating range | −40 °C~80 °C | |
| Accuracy | Thermistor: ±1 °C | |
| Waterproof | Fluoride O-ring, High-density vacuum grease coating | |
| Weight | 4.95 kg | |
Figure 4Fabricated EM sensor: (a) parts of EM sensor with insulation cover; (b) EM sensor equipped with protection cover.
Specifications of the embedded EM sensor.
| Classification | Primary Coil | Secondary Coil |
|---|---|---|
| Diameter of bobbin (mm) | 117 | 107 |
| Diameter of coil (mm) | 1.2 | 0.3 |
| Number of turns | 300 | 120 |
Figure 5Layout of pier and pier table: (a) locations of EM sensors installed on pier table. (b) cross-section of pier and pier table.
Figure 6Installation process of embedded EM sensors: (a) inserting the sensor after cutting the sheath; (b) sheath tube and sensor combination; (c) electric wire protection with cable tube.
Figure 7Calibration results using EM sensors: (a) Sensor 1; (b) Sensor 2; (c) Sensor 3.
Figure 8Tensile force measurement result using a load cell.
Figure 9Changes in the area of magnetic hysteresis curves and field temperature during the measurement.
Figure 10B–H loop area changes of sensors after temperature compensation: (a) Sensor 1; (b) Sensor 2; (c) Sensor 3.
Comparison of the estimated tensile force obtained using embedded EM sensors and the tensile force measured using a load cell.
| Date | Load Cell (kN) | Sensor 1 | Sensor 2 | Sensor 3 | Temperature (°C) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Tension (kN) | Error Rate (%) | Estimated Tension (kN) | Error Rate (%) | Estimated Tension (kN) | Error Rate (%) | ||||
| 1 April 2019 | 7:00 | 891 | 893.89 | 0.32 | 896.06 | 0.57 | 890.64 | 0.04 | 1.1 |
| 12 April 2019 | 14:00 | 880 | 884.04 | 0.46 | 884.10 | 0.47 | 880.23 | 0.03 | 13.0 |
| 13 May 2019 | 10:00 | 875 | 874.15 | 0.10 | 882.55 | 0.86 | 880.84 | 0.67 | 23.1 |
| 30 May 2019 | 9:00 | 872 | 866.71 | 0.61 | 890.79 | 2.15 | 881.98 | 1.14 | 18.6 |
| 14 June 2019 | 8:00 | 869 | 861.24 | 0.89 | 871.08 | 0.24 | 872.91 | 0.45 | 22.8 |
| 17 July 2019 | 10:00 | 865 | 860.11 | 0.57 | 864.91 | 0.01 | 871.28 | 0.73 | 25.5 |
| 14 August 2019 | 11:00 | 861 | 875.60 | 1.70 | 870.31 | 1.08 | 864.30 | 0.38 | 30.0 |
| 6 September 2019 | 9:00 | 858 | 858.15 | 0.02 | 863.12 | 0.60 | 864.65 | 0.78 | 23.2 |
| 23 October 2019 | 15:00 | 850 | 877.66 | 3.25 | 877.31 | 3.21 | 867.11 | 2.01 | 18.5 |
| 6 December 2019 | 14:00 | 852 | 847.68 | 0.51 | 844.30 | 0.90 | 828.37 | 2.77 | 4.3 |
Figure 11Estimated tension after temperature compensation and actual tension: (a) Sensor 1; (b) Sensor 2; (c) Sensor 3.