Search

This article focuses on a specially designed steel beam testing apparatus to determine the dynamics of the structure using data obtained from different sensor systems. The analysis of these different sensor systems is performed by processing data recorded by the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), vision based measurement (video camera), and accelerometer surveys. To perform this analysis, the accelerometer and GNSS receiver are installed at the steel beam's mid-span position. The high-contrast artificial target attached to the accelerometer is recorded by a video camera to monitor the structural dynamics. Steel beam experiments show that it is compatible with the accelerometer, which is predicted as a reference sensor in detecting motion with an amplitude of 10 mm and above in the vertical direction with GNSS and determining the structural frequency by spectral analysis. On the other hand, we concluded that the video camera can be used to determine the structural dynamics in SHM because its results were compatible with the reference data even if the amplitude was too small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Forestry Society of Croatia / Sumarski List Hrvatskoga Sumarskoga Drustva is the property of Forestry Society of Croatia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Applications in geodesy and engineering surveying require the determination of the heights of the vertical control points in the national and local networks using different techniques. These techniques can be classified as geometric, trigonometric, barometric and Global Positioning System (GPS) levelling. The aim of this study is to analyse height differences obtained from these three techniques using precise digital level and digital level, total station (trigonometric levelling) and GPS which collects phase and code observations (GPS levelling). The accuracies of these methods are analysed. The results obtained show that the precise digital levelling is more stable and reliable than the other two methods. The results of the three levelling methods agree with each other within a few millimetres. The different levelling methods are compared. Geometric levelling is usually accepted as being more accurate than the other methods. The discrepancy between geometric levelling and short range trigonometric levelling is at the level of 8 millimetres. The accuracy of the short range trigonometric levelling is due the reciprocal and simultaneous observations of the zenith angles and slope distances over relative short distances of 250 m. The difference between the ellipsoidal height differences obtained from the GPS levelling used without geoid and the orthometric height differences obtained from precise geometric levelling is 4 millimetres. The geoid model which is obtained from a fifth order polynomial fit of the project area is good enough in this study. The discrepancy between the precise geometric and GPS levelling (with geoid corrections) is 4 millimetres over 5 km. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]