Optics and Precision Engineering, Volume. 29, Issue 10, 2349(2021)

Identification of pile damage in high pile wharf by fiber Bragg grating sensor array

Yue-jie SHU1...3, Jun WU1,2,*, Shi-liang ZHOU1,2 and Jun-jie WANG2 |Show fewer author(s)
Author Affiliations
  • 1The Southwestern Research Waterway Engineering Institute, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing40006, China
  • 2Key Laboratory of Inland Waterway Regulation Engineering Ministry of Transport, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing400074, China
  • 3Chongqing Xike Waterway Engineering Consulting Center, Chongqing400016, China
  • show less
    Figures & Tables(18)
    Layout of fiber Bragg grating sensor arrays
    Effect of damage on position of neutral axis
    Pile coordinate system and damage diagram
    Multi-damage deflection curve of pile
    Relationship between ωdc''(i) and ωdc''(x)
    Deflection variation and its second order numerical differential under various damage cases
    Structure model of single pile
    Layout diagram and field photos of pile sensors in model test
    Deflection variation and its second order numerical differential under various damage cases
    Relationship between damage degree and cross section damage coefficient
    • Table 1. Deflection characteristics of damaged piles

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 1. Deflection characteristics of damaged piles

      参数损伤区域未损伤区域用途
      ωdc(x)三次函数一次函数或常数-
      ωdc''(x)线性函数0用于损伤定位
      θ(x)常数,仅与损伤程度有关,与载荷无关0用于损伤程度计算
    • Table 2. Damage parameters

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 2. Damage parameters

      Damage caseDamage IDamage IIDamage III
      LocationPreset α'Actual αLocationPreset α'Actual αLocationPreset α'Actual α
      D0---------
      D13.9-4.30.10.091------
      D23.9-4.30.10.0918.1-8.50.20.179---
      D33.9-4.30.10.0918.1-8.50.20.17913.7-14.10.30.275
    • Table 3. Comparison between calculated damage location and actual damage location (interval of 0.02 m)

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 3. Comparison between calculated damage location and actual damage location (interval of 0.02 m)

      Damage caseDamage 1Damage 2Damage 3
      Actual locationMeasured locationActual locationMeasured locationActual locationMeasured location
      S13.9-4.33.92-4.28----
      S23.9-4.33.92-4.288.1-8.58.12-8.48--
      S33.9-4.33.92-4.288.1-8.58.12-8.4813.7-14.113.72-14.08
    • Table 4. Comparison between calculated damage location and actual damage location (interval of 0.1 m)

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 4. Comparison between calculated damage location and actual damage location (interval of 0.1 m)

      Damage caseDamage 1Damage 2Damage 3
      Actual locationMeasured locationActual locationMeasured locationActual locationMeasured location
      S13.9-4.34.0-4.2----
      S23.9-4.34.0-4.28.1-8.58.2-8.4--
      S33.9-4.34.0-4.28.1-8.58.2-8.413.7-14.113.8-14.0
    • Table 5. Comparison of measured damage degree to actual damage degree

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 5. Comparison of measured damage degree to actual damage degree

      Damage

      case

      Damage 1Damage 2Damage 3
      Actual αMeasured α

      Relative

      error/%

      Actual αMeasured α

      Relative

      error/%

      Actual αMeasured α

      Relative

      error/%

      D10.0910.0901.10------
      D20.0910.0883.300.1820.178-2.25---
      D30.0910.0892.200.1820.177-2.820.2740.271.48
    • Table 6. Damage parameters

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 6. Damage parameters

      Damage

      Hole coordinate

      /mm

      Hole depth

      /mm

      Hole diameter

      /mm

      Cross-section

      damage coefficient

      Remark
      1(-62.5,0,415)50100.040 8Symmetrical arrangement
      2(62.5,0,415)50100.040 8
      3(-62.5,0,695)2550.010 2Symmetrical arrangement
      4(62.5,0,695)2550.010 2
      5(-62.5,0,975)5050.020 4Symmetrical arrangement
      6(62.5,0,975)5050.020 4
    • Table 7. Real location and identified location of damage

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 7. Real location and identified location of damage

      Damage caseDamage compositionHole axial position x/mmMeasured position/mm
      S1Damage 1415380-450
      S2Damage 1 and 2415380-450
      S3Damage 1 and 2415380-450
      Damage 3695660-730
      S4Damage 1 and 2415380-450
      Damage 3 and 4695660-730
      S5Damage 1 and 2415380-450
      Damage 3 and 4695660-730
      Damage 5975940-1010
      S6Damage 1 and 2415380-450
      Damage 3 and 4695660-730
      Damage 5 and 6975940-1010
    • Table 8. Calculation result of damage degree

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 8. Calculation result of damage degree

      Damage caseCross section/mmDamage compositionCross-section damage coefficientMeasured α
      S1x=415Damage 10.040 80.119
      S2x =415Damage 1&20.081 60.251
      S3x =415Damage 1&20.081 60.231
      x =695Damage 30.010 20.059
      S4x =415Damage 1&20.081 60.279
      x =695Damage 3&40.020 40.117
      S5x =415Damage 1&20.081 60.271
      x =695Damage 3&40.020 40.107
      x =975Damage 50.020 40.072
      S6x =205Damage 1&20.081 60.229
      x =415Damage 3&40.020 40.090
      x =975Damage 5&60.040 80.112
    Tools

    Get Citation

    Copy Citation Text

    Yue-jie SHU, Jun WU, Shi-liang ZHOU, Jun-jie WANG. Identification of pile damage in high pile wharf by fiber Bragg grating sensor array[J]. Optics and Precision Engineering, 2021, 29(10): 2349

    Download Citation

    EndNote(RIS)BibTexPlain Text
    Save article for my favorites
    Paper Information

    Category: Modern Applied Optics

    Received: Mar. 9, 2021

    Accepted: --

    Published Online: Nov. 23, 2021

    The Author Email: WU Jun (wujun_gd@126.com)

    DOI:10.37188/OPE.20212910.2349

    Topics