Bridge Engineering

Management of structural monitoring data of bridges using BIM

--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: BRIDGE-D-16-00013R1

Full Title: Management of structural monitoring data of bridges using BIM

Article Type: Information Technology in bridge engineering and construction

Corresponding Author: Juan Manuel Davila Delgado, BArchSc, MArch, MSc, PhD
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: University of Cambridge

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Juan Manuel Davila Delgado, BArchSc, MArch, MSc, PhD

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Juan Manuel Davila Delgado, BArchSc, MArch, MSc, PhD

Liam Butler, BASc, PhD, Peng

Niamh Gibbons, BAI, MA, MSc, PhD

Ioannis Brilakis, PhD, M. ASCE

Mohammed Elshafie, BSc (Hon), MPhil Cantab, PhD Cantab

Campbell Middleton, BE(Hons) Tas, MSc DIC Lond, PhD Cantab, FICE, MIEA

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Abstract: In addition to the traditional benefits that are associated with the installation of
structural health monitoring systems, reductions in construction, operational, and
maintenance costs and improved performance and quality can be achieved by
effectively using the acquired data. However, considered in isolation, the raw data is of
little use and value. It needs to be processed and put into a geometric context within
the infrastructure asset, which facilitates the interpretation and analysis of the data.
This supports informed decision making that leads to effective actions. This study
outlines a new approach that enables to model structural performance monitoring
systems in a BIM environment and hence permits visualising sensor data directly on
BIM models. The paper addresses aspects related to (i) interoperability and standard
data models, (ii) management and visualisation of monitoring data, and (iii) data
interpretation and analysis. A prestressed concrete bridge, with a comprehensive built-
in structural performance monitoring system, has been used as a case study. The case
study demonstrates that by including and visualising monitoring data directly on BIM
models, the acquired data gains geometrical context within the built asset, which
facilitates better interpretation, analysis, and all the data-sharing benefits associated
with the BIM approach.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Main Text Click here to download Main Text
iceSubmission_Reviewed_01.doc

Management of structural monitoring data of bridges using BIM

1
2
3
4 5592 words, 11 figures, 30 September 2016
5
6
7
8 Author 1
9 ● J.M. Davila Delgado, BArchSc, MArch, MSc, PhD
10
11 ● Research Associate. Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
12
13 Author 2
14
15 ● L.J. Butler, BASc, PhD, Peng
16 ● Research Associate, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
17
18 Author 3
19
20 ● N. Gibbons, BAI, MA, MSc, PhD
21
● Course Leader, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
22
23
24 Author 4
25 ● I. Brilakis, PhD, M. ASCE
26
27 ● Lecturer, Laing O’Rourke Centre for Construction Engineering & Technology, University of
28 Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
29
30 Author 5
31
32 ● M.Z.E.B. Elshafie, BSc (Hon), MPhil Cantab, PhD Cantab
33 ● Lecturer, Laing O’Rourke Centre for Construction Engineering & Technology, University of
34 Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
35
36 Author 6
37 ● C. Middleton, BE(Hons) Tas, MSc DIC Lond, PhD Cantab, FICE, MIEAust, CEng, CPEng
38
39 ● Professor, Laing O’Rourke Centre for Construction Engineering & Technology, University of
40 Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
41
42
43 Full contact details of corresponding author.
44
45 ● Dr Juan Manuel Davila Delgado
46 ● jmd94@cam.ac.uk
47
48 ● Trumpington street, CB2 1PZ Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge,
49
Cambridge, UK
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2 Abstract
3 In addition to the traditional benefits that are associated with the installation of structural health
4
5 monitoring systems, reductions in construction, operational, and maintenance costs and
6
improved performance and quality can be achieved by effectively using the acquired data.
7
8 However, considered in isolation, the raw data is of little use and value. It needs to be
9
processed and put into a geometric context within the infrastructure asset, which facilitates the
10
11 interpretation and analysis of the data. This supports informed decision making that leads to
12
effective actions. This study outlines a new approach that enables to model structural
13
14 performance monitoring systems in a BIM environment and hence permits visualising sensor
15
16 data directly on BIM models. The paper addresses aspects related to (i) interoperability and
17 standard data models, (ii) management and visualisation of monitoring data, and (iii) data
18
19 interpretation and analysis. A prestressed concrete bridge, with a comprehensive built-in
20 structural performance monitoring system, has been used as a case study. The case study
21
22 demonstrates that by including and visualising monitoring data directly on BIM models, the
23 acquired data gains geometrical context within the built asset, which facilitates better
24
25 interpretation, analysis, and all the data-sharing benefits associated with the BIM approach.
26
27
28 Keywords chosen from ICE Publishing list
29 Building Information Modelling, Bridges, Information Technology
30
31
32
33
34 List of notation
35
36  M is the change in mechanical strain
37
38   
  is the change in relative wavelength of strain sensor
 o  S
39
40
41
42   
  is the change in relative wavelength of temperature compensating sensor
 o T
43
44
45
46  is the gage factor, provided by strain sensor manufacturer
47
48 T is the temperature compensation constant, provided by sensor manufacturer
49
50 TT
is the change of the refractive index of glass
51
52  conc is the linear coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete (/˚C)
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
2
 1
2 1. Introduction
3 Monitoring structural performance is becoming common practice for a wide range of
4
5 infrastructure assets both in terms of type and size. Critical infrastructure assets justify the
6
additional investment in structural performance monitoring systems because unexpected
7
8 failures and breakdowns would represent significant losses. Nowadays, due to advancements in
9
sensing technologies that reduce fabrication and installation costs while increasing reliability,
10
11 these types of investments are becoming easier to substantiate and methods have been
12
developed to identify their potential value (Vardanega, et al., 2016). Moreover, data acquired by
13
14 these systems can be used to devise strategies to reduce operational and maintenance costs,
15
16 improve performance and quality, validate structural solutions, and develop more efficient
17 designs and construction processes for future projects. For example, monitoring systems have
18
19 been used to support the numerical modelling of existing bridges to aid in assessing current
20 conditions (Banerji et al., 2014).
21
22
23 Structural monitoring systems usually output raw data that is of little use if considered in
24
25 isolation, which can be considered as a one of the identified issues for structural monitoring
26 (Aktan, et al., 2000). This raw data needs to be processed and organised so that it can be easily
27
28 accessed, exchanged, and visualised. This increases the value of the acquired data by
29 facilitating better interpretation, analysis, and decision making. The management and exchange
30
31 of monitoring data is addressed by the Information Technology approach known as Building
32 Information Modelling (BIM). Its main purpose is to manage digital representations of all
33
34 information related to a built asset during its entire life-cycle, to improve productivity and quality
35 while reducing costs. The BIM approach has been employed mostly for the design and
36
37 construction phases of the built assets’ life-cycles. As-designed BIM models, digital
38 representations of the built asset to be constructed, are developed and used as the basis to
39
40 implement the BIM approach. They facilitate collaboration between the parties involved;
41
increase the quality and performance of the end products; reduce conflicts; increase
42
43 predictability of the design and construction processes; reduce material waste; and contribute to
44
faster construction delivery.
45
46
47
48 The operational phase of a built asset life-cycle could represent the largest opportunity for cost
49 reduction because it represents the largest share of the entire life-cycle cost. Despite this, BIM
50
51 provisions, e.g. software solutions, standards, business cases, pilot projects, etc., are not yet
52 sufficient. For instance, BIM models that represent the actual conditions of the constructed
53
54 asset are not commonly used. These as-built BIM models are essential to fully adopt the BIM
55 approach during the operational phase. The as-built BIM models should include data related to
56
57 anomalies, damage, and performance, which is even less common because in practice much of
58 the data resides in accompanying documents (Dossick & Neff, 2010). Moreover, lack of
59
60 interoperability between software solutions and difficulties in exchanging information limit the
61
62
63
64
65
3
 benefits of adopting the BIM approach (Ferrari et al. 2010), and the existing standard data
1
2 models are not sufficient to fully describe infrastructure assets and structural monitoring
3 systems (Davila Delgado et al. 2015; Gerrish et al. 2015; Smarsly & Tauscher 2015).
4
5
6
An overview of a new approach to model structural performance monitoring systems is
7
8 presented in this article. The approach employs a standard data model to include and visualise
9
structural performance monitoring data directly on BIM models. This approach will then facilitate
10
11 the development and use of semantically rich as-built BIM models to manage sensor data in a
12
BIM environment. Aspects regarding: (i) interoperability and standard data models, (ii)
13
14 management and visualisation of monitoring data, and (iii) data interpretation and analysis are
15
16 particularly addressed in this paper. A fibre-optic-based structural monitoring system installed in
17 a prestressed concrete girder bridge in Staffordshire, UK, is used as a case study. A large data
18
19 set is presented in this paper that captures the development of strains within the reinforced
20 concrete deck and prestressed concrete girders during the continuous monitoring of the
21
22 concrete deck curing of the bridge.
23
24
25 2. Interoperability and standard data models
26 A robust exchange of information, i.e. without any errors or data loss, is central to the
27
28 successful adoption of the BIM approach. This is a big challenge given the fragmented and
29 varied nature of the construction industry, in which all-encompassing software solutions are
30
31 non-existent and different parties use different software (Pauwels, 2014). As such, open
32 standard data models have been developed to provide interoperability between parties. These
33
34 open, or non-proprietary, data models are publicly available and prescribe rules to format and
35 exchange data, which facilitate interoperability because any software solution can use them. To
36
37 be able to employ the BIM approach for tasks related to structural performance monitoring,
38 open standard data models that fully describe the infrastructure assets, monitoring systems and
39
40 processes, and that manage and visualise the acquired data are required. In relation to
41
monitoring and sensor data, many standard data models have been developed, as reported by
42
43 Hu et al. (2007) and Lee (2007). In this paper, only standard data models developed by Building
44
Smart and the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) are addressed within this study as they are
45
46 the only ones closely related to the construction industry.
47
48
49 The OGC develops standard data models that are focused on navigation, facility planning, and
50
51 emergency and asset management. These include for example: CityGML for 3D modelling of
52 cities; IndoorGML for indoor navigation; WaterML for describing data from water observations;
53
54 and InfraGML for infrastructure assets (currently under development). Regarding monitoring,
55 the OGC supports the Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) initiative that provides web services and
56
57 communication protocols for accessing online repositories of sensor data. SensorML (Botts &
58 Robin 2014) has been developed as part of the initiative. It describes devices and processes
59
60 related with complex monitoring systems (Robin & Botts 2006). However, its main limitation is
61
62
63
64
65
4
 that the object being monitored cannot be modelled and hence the geometric context, required
1
2 for data interpretation, cannot be available.
3
4
5 Building Smart develops and maintains the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) (Liebich et al.
6
2013), which is a specification that seeks to provide descriptions to model all data related to all
7
8 phases of the life-cycle of a built asset. It is mostly used to describe data related to buildings
9
during the design and construction phases. Building Smart is continually increasing the IFC
10
11 capabilities. Currently, extensions to the specifications are under development to enable the
12
description of infrastructure assets, e.g. IFC Bridge and IFC Road. However, their application is
13
14 very limited because they are not official parts of the specification and are not supported by
15
16 authoring tools. With regards to monitoring and sensor data, the IFC specification is able to
17 describe basic monitoring systems, as it includes entities intended to model building automation
18
19 and control systems such as HVAC (Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning), plumbing,
20 electrical, etc. It does not have the same flexibility and capabilities to model complex monitoring
21
22 systems as SensorML, but it is able to model the object being monitored in a standard widely
23 used in the construction industry.
24
25
26 Despite the wide range of open standard data models available, the existing models are not
27
28 sufficient to fully describe monitoring systems and processes and to effectively manage and
29 visualise sensor data (Davila Delgado et al. 2015). Asset performance cannot be correctly
30
31 managed in a BIM environment. The size of datasets, accuracy and levels of detail, and
32 interoperability with existing formats to store historical performance data are challenges for IFC
33
34 implementation (Gerrish et al. 2015). Additionally, it is difficult to include data related to the
35 configuration and topology of the sensor network, interaction protocols, monitoring strategies,
36
37 embedded algorithms in sensors, etc. A compilation of alternative approaches used in practice
38 to deal with the lack of capabilities has been presented in the literature (Davila Delgado et al.
39
40 2015).
41
42
43 Regarding structural performance monitoring, two cases exemplify efforts to integrate
44
monitoring data into an open BIM software environment. In the first case, strain sensors in a
45
46 building were modelled in a BIM authoring tool (Rio et al. 2013). The strain sensors were
47
48 modelled as user-defined instances of smoke sensors because the IFC specification does not
49 considers any type of structural sensors. While the approach for modelling the sensors and
50
51 exporting the BIM models between authoring tools was described, the paper does not report
52 how the data has been used. In the second case, data collected by temperature sensors in
53
54 concrete elements was included in BIM models and also visualised using charts (Chen et al.
55 2014). In this case, the reported solution succeeds in integrating the monitoring data into a BIM
56
57 software environment, but the data is still presented in a traditional manner and does not take
58 advantage of the BIM model itself. Note that other proprietary solutions exist, but have not been
59
60 considered here because of their ad-hoc nature that present interoperability difficulties. These
61
62
63
64
65
5
 are mostly web-based solutions, in which the monitoring data can be accessed using a two
1
2 dimensional (2D) graphic interface. The data is presented in charts and spreadsheets, and the
3 visualisation is limited to the location of sensors within the built asset in 2D diagrams.
4
5 For the approach presented in this paper, the IFC specification has been used as a basis to
6
model the monitoring system and to include and visualise sensor data directly on the BIM
7
8 models. The lack of existing capabilities has been overcome using proxy entities and user-
9
defined property sets.
10
11
12
3. Modelling, management, and visualisation of monitoring data
13
14 This section presents a new approach to model structural performance monitoring systems and
15
16 to include and visualise sensor data directly on BIM models. The objectives of the structural
17 monitoring systems dictate the requirements for data modelling and visualisation. Therefore, it is
18
19 important to define clear objectives for the monitoring systems and to consider the future
20 interpretation of the acquired data. As noted by (Webb et al. 2015), the objectives of most
21
22 structural monitoring systems can be categorised as follows: (i) anomaly detection, to detect
23 fluctuations on measured parameters; (ii) sensor deployment studies, to test different sensor
24
25 technologies; (iii) model validation, to validate whether the initial assumptions and the predicted
26 responses correctly represent the actual physical situation; (iv) threshold check, to detect when
27
28 monitored parameters surpass a predetermined threshold, which could indicate problems; and
29 lastly (v) damage detection, to determine type, location, extent and rate of damage in the
30
31 structure. These objectives are prescribed by the stakeholders e.g. asset owners, asset
32 managers and operators, structural engineers, contractors, researchers, authorities, users, etc.
33
34 depending on the condition of the asset in consideration or the phase of the project if the asset
35 is yet to be built.
36
37
38 3.1 Modelling structural monitoring systems
39
40 Defining the purposes of the modelled system is the first step to model a structural monitoring
41
system. Note that “modelled system” refers to the abstract description of the actual structural
42
43 monitoring system installed on the infrastructure asset. Commonly, the purposes seek to
44
facilitate: (i) development of definitive designs of structural monitoring systems; (ii) deployment,
45
46 maintenance, and operation; (iii) visualisation of monitoring data; and (iv) simulation of
47
48 monitoring processes. The objectives of the structural monitoring systems should also be
49 considered when defining the purposes and requirements of the modelled system, e.g.
50
51 structural monitoring systems for threshold checks and model validation would have specific
52 visualisation requirements when compared to other purposes.
53
54
55 A preliminary design of the structural monitoring system should be in place before starting the
56
57 development of the modelled system. The following actions are usually taken to develop a
58 preliminary design of a structural monitoring system: (1) Defining the structural behaviours to be
59
60 monitored, e.g. to monitor strains in the beams of a bridge caused by traffic loads. (2) Defining
61
62
63
64
65
6
 the monitoring approach and the structural elements to be monitored. The required devices to
1
2 monitor the defined behaviours are selected in this step. Usually, three types of devices are
3 needed in a monitoring system, i.e. sensors, a communication network, and a processing unit.
4
5 (3) Defining the physical installation process of the monitoring system. Requirements for the
6
modelled system should then be defined, which relate to (i) level of detail, e.g. a modelled
7
8 system for scheduling maintenance would require a higher level of detail than one for anomaly
9
visualisation; (ii) level of accuracy; (iii) types and frequency of recorded data; (iv) the users of
10
11 the modelled system, e.g. an asset manager would require different data displayed in a different
12
manner than a structural engineer; and (v) retrieval of data, i.e. data stored directly on BIM
13
14 models or linked from databases.
15
16
17 The system is modelled so that it closely represents the real-life situation using an object-
18
19 oriented approach. Data is represented in units called entities that have attributes. These
20 entities can represent physical objects (e.g. a sensor, a structural element, etc.) or abstract
21
22 concepts (e.g. a process or an event). Various modelled entities are aggregated into “sensor
23 systems”, which in turn are aggregated into “monitoring assemblies”. The structural behaviour to
24
25 be monitored and the structural elements, in which the sensor systems and monitoring
26 assemblies are installed, define how the aggregation is carried out. The aggregated and
27
28 individual entities are linked with entities representing structural elements. Figure 1 shows a
29 diagram of a modelled system, in which rectangles represent modelled entities and attribute
30
31 sets, dashed rectangles represent aggregations, and lines simple associations. Indentations
32 represent hierarchical levels. For each type of entity, various attribute sets should be defined
33
34 depending on the data and attributes that need to be assigned to the modelled entity, e.g.
35 geometrical properties, location, materials, monitoring strategies, sampling rates, data
36
37 normalisation, raw data, derived data, types of visualisation, etc. Examples of such types of
38 attribute sets are presented in Figure 2. Once that the general framework of the modelled
39
40 system is devised then it can be instantiated in the next step. The modelled entities then can be
41
populated with the acquired and inferred data. The system has been modelled using Autodesk
42
43 Revit. Proxy elements and user-defined attribute sets have been used because the IFC
44
specification does not include all the necessary entities to model the system. . This enables
45
46 management of structural performance monitoring data in a BIM environment and provides
47
48 basic interoperability.
49
50
51 3.2 Processing and management of sensor data
52 Data as outputted by the structural monitoring systems cannot be used directly. Before the data
53
54 can be interpreted, used for analysis, and included in BIM models, it first needs to be processed
55 into the correct physical quantity and units. It also needs to be corrected for other phenomena
56
57 that may affect the measurements such as ambient temperature. This data processing is
58 usually not carried out with the authoring tool, but with other software solutions. The processed
59
60 data is then stored in plain text files or spreadsheets and then imported into the authoring tool.
61
62
63
64
65
7
 This process can be automated by developing additional software tools that use the authoring
1
2 tool API (Application Programing Interface). Additionally, processing units provide only the
3 recorded measurements, and do not include data relating to the location of the sensors or their
4
5 spatial and hierarchical context within the object being monitored. This data must be inferred
6
from the design of the structural monitoring system, the modelled system, and additional
7
8 documentation. Based on this inferred spatial and hierarchical data, every entity is instantiated
9
at their respective locations and populated with their respective acquired data. The attributes of
10
11 the instantiated entities are also populated. Note that currently, BIM models are mostly static
12
representations of built assets in a particular point in time and BIM provisions only provide basic
13
14 capabilities to represent dynamic data. In this sense, to be able to fully represent dynamic data,
15
16 the BIM models should be able to automatically update values and attributes given changes in
17 an external data source. In the presented case study that follows, only data belonging to certain
18
19 time frames has been included in the BIM models.
20
21
22 3.3 Data visualisation
23 Facilitating interpretation, analysis, and decision-making are the main aims for visualising data
24
25 acquired by structural monitoring systems. An effective visualisation of the acquired data will
26 ultimately increase the value of that data. However, visualising structural monitoring data entails
27
28 different requirements than traditional visualisation of BIM models. Different types of
29 visualisations must be developed for the different objectives of the interested stakeholders. For
30
31 example, an asset manager interested in identifying anomalies would require a different
32 visualisation than a structural engineer seeking to evaluate the in-service performance of
33
34 specific structural elements. Three categories of data can be visualised: (i) data acquired by
35 monitoring systems, which usually is presented only in spreadsheets and graphs. However, by
36
37 presenting the acquired data directly on BIM models, it gains geometrical and spatial context
38 within the built asset facilitating its interpretation; (ii) derived information from the acquired data
39
40 can be visualised as well. As an example, for a monitoring system that has been installed for
41
the purposes of threshold checking, only the locations where the defined boundaries have been
42
43 exceeded need to be visualised, as opposed to the underlying data set; (iii) the configuration
44
and topology of the sensor network and the components and their functioning states can also
45
46 be visualised to facilitate operational and maintenance tasks. Alternative visualisations is not a
47
48 common concept for BIM environments. In this case, specific BIM models have been developed
49 for each alternative visualisation. They require alternative geometrical and material attributes.
50
51 More importantly, the alternative visualisation attributes are linked, given defined scales and
52 filters to varying monitored parameters, so that changes in the monitoring data can be
53
54 visualised.
55
56
57 4. Case Study
58 A fibre optic strain sensor based structural monitoring system has been installed in a newly
59
60 constructed prestressed concrete railway bridge in Staffordshire, UK. This new bridge is one of
61
62
63
64
65
8
 eleven new structures comprising a major new rail redevelopment on the West Coast Main Line
1
2 known as the Stafford Area Improvements Programme. Further details on the project are
3 reported by Gibbons et al. (2015). The bridge carries a single lane of electrified railway using
4
5 longitudinal precast prestressed concrete beams (type TY7 and TYE7) as main load bearing
6
elements and a cast-in-situ reinforced concrete deck. The 11.2 metre single span structure is
7
8 simply supported on piled reinforced concrete abutments and concrete wing walls. The installed
9
structural monitoring system has been designed to monitor various structural elements during
10
11 the manufacturing, construction, and operation phases of the project. The particular focus of this
12
paper includes the analysis and visualisation of a large monitoring data set that captures the
13
14 evolution of strains in the prestressed TY7 concrete beams, transverse bars, and the concrete
15
16 deck during the curing of the concrete deck. In particular, this study aims to investigate the
17 effect of concrete shrinkage and thermal strain transfer from the cast-in-situ deck and infill to the
18
19 prestressed concrete girders. With this particular structural system, the large volume of fresh
20 concrete (i.e. of the infill and deck) is expected to experience large shrinkage strains relative to
21
22 the older prestressed concrete beams. A certain portion of these additional strains will then be
23 transferred to the beams via concrete-concrete and concrete-steel bond. Shrinkage of the insitu
24
25 concrete will induce a sagging moment in the beams (Hendy and Smith 2007). Studies have
26 demonstrated that this differential shrinkage between the concrete deck and girder is a primary
27
28 cause of deck cracking (French et al. 1999). It is worth noting here that any other data set could
29 have been chosen; the specific data presented in this paper is chosen to demonstrate the great
30
31 benefits that could be achieved when the sensor data is modelled in the BIM environment.
32
33
34 4.1 The structural monitoring system
35 The specific monitoring objectives for this phase of the project were to quantify the variations in
36
37 strain in various structural elements due to the casting and curing of the concrete deck, and to
38 provide baseline measurements for future monitoring. The purpose of the modelled system is to
39
40 provide an intuitive 3D visualisation of the monitoring data for preliminary assessment of
41
structural behaviour.
42
43
44
Two fibre optic based monitoring systems were employed in this bridge, a distributed fibre optic
45
46 system (DFOS) and a point fibre optic system (PFOS). The DFOS was based on the use of
47
48 Brillouin Optical Time Domain Reflectometry (BOTDR) and the PFOS was based on the use of
49 fibre Bragg gratings (FBG). Both the DFOS and PFOS were included in the modelled system.
50
51 However, for simplicity, only the results from the PFOS are presented in this paper.
52 FBGs measure dynamic strain changes at discrete locations. A variety of methods are available
53
54 for manufacturing fibre Bragg gratings, however each method operates on the same principle of
55 altering the refractive index at a particular location along the length of the fibre in order to create
56
57 a dielectric mirror of a specified wavelength, known as the Bragg wavelength. For the FBG
58 strain sensors used in this study, this was achieved by exposing the optical fibre core to a
59
60 periodic pattern of ultraviolet light. When light passing through the optical fibre meets a grating,
61
62
63
64
65
9
 a particular light spectrum is reflected from that grating. When an FBG is strained, the shift
1
2 change in Bragg wavelength is measured and correlated to a particular strain value. Each
3 individual grating can be manufactured to correspond to a particular wavelength, thereby
4
5 allowing multiple gratings to be produced along a single fibre. The FBGs used in this study
6
consisted of low bend loss fibre and were manufactured at a one metre spacing along the
7
8 length of the fibre. To provide added durability during installation and operation, an additional
9
glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) coating was applied. An FBG analyser produced by
10
11 Micron Optics (sm130-700) was used in combination with a Micron Optics Channel Multiplexer
12
(sm041) which allows the system to interrogate 16 channels up to 250 Hz (or four channels up
13
14 to 1000 Hz). To compensate for temperature variations that affect the refractive index of glass
15
16 and thermal strain in concrete, separate FBG temperature compensating sensors were installed
17 in parallel with the strain sensor cables. Given that the strain sensor cables measure the total
18
19 strain due to both mechanical strain and temperature changes, the measured temperature
20 strain values must be subtracted from the total strain change values to isolate changes due to
21
22 mechanical strain alone. The calculations and formulae used to carry out these temperature
23 compensations are reported below.
24
25
26 In total, 140 FBG sensors were installed on the main structural elements of the bridge, including
27
28 six of the nine prestressed concrete girders and at two transverse locations within the reinforced
29 concrete deck and transverse cross ties. The detailed layout of the sensor network and
30
31 installation procedures is presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Figure 5 presents the sensors
32 systems that were active during the curing of the concrete deck.
33
34
35 Sensor installation proceeded over the course of several months as the structure was being
36
37 constructed. The prestressed beams were fabricated and instrumented offsite and were then
38 transported and installed on the main bridge abutments. The seven internal TY7 beams and
39
40 two edge TYE7 beams were tied together using transverse reinforcing bars that run through
41
cast-in voids within the beams at 610 mm spacing. Once the ties were installed, fibre optic
42
43 cables were installed on the ties at both the mid-span and quarter-span of the bridge. Once the
44
top and bottom deck reinforcing mats were set and tied in place, additional sensors were
45
46 installed transversely on the top mat at the same mid-span and quarter-span locations as the
47
48 instrumented transverse ties. All sensors were secured to the reinforcement using plastic cable
49 ties spaced at regular intervals. Additional fibre optic routing cables were spliced to the main
50
51 sensor cables and routed to a central housing unit adjacent to the bridge to facilitate monitoring
52 operations.
53
54
55 4.2 Data pre-processing
56
57 Strain and temperature changes along an optical fibre are linearly proportional to changes in the
58 wavelength of the reflected light measured by the fibre optic sensors. The raw data that is
59
60 collected and processed by the fibre optic analyser consists of a timestamp and wavelength for
61
62
63
64
65
10
 each FBG sensor. Data processing for converting shifts in wavelength to strain changes was
1
2 carried out using established methods reported in the literature (Kurashima et al. 1993; Kreuzer
3 2006). The following expression was used to calculate the mechanical strain change derived
4
5 from the combined strain-temperature arrays.
6
7
8        
9      
10 1     o T     o T
 M    
   o  S T  TT 
11 conc
 TT
12  
13  
14
15 1.
16
17
18 This equation accounts for several effects: total (raw) strain, changes in the refractive index of
19 the glass due to temperature, and thermal strain measured with the loose tube temperature
20
21 compensating sensors. The data outputted by the processing unit (and reported herein) has
22 been translated to mechanical strain by correcting for temperature and separating the
23
24 influences of thermal and mechanical strain variations.
25
26
27 4.3 The modelled system
28 The framework for the modelled system used in this case study is presented in Figure 1. Note
29
30 that for clarity only selected entities are presented in the diagram. The modelled system is
31 composed of two types of monitoring assemblies, MA_Beams and MA_Deck. They are
32
33 associated with the structural assemblies TY_Beams and Deck respectively. One instance of a
34
sensor system is instantiated per each TY beam which has both a DFOS and a PFOS sensor
35
36 system that are linked with a single pre-stressing strand. Each DFOS and PFOS sensor system
37
consist of a sensor, a network communication element, and a connection element. The
38
39 monitoring assembly MA_Deck only has PFOS sensor systems. Various attributes are linked to
40
41 each sensor system. Figure 2 presents sample attributes for monitoring assemblies, DFOS and
42 PFOS sensor systems, and individual sensors. The modelled system was able to include a low
43
44 level of detail because it would only be used for visualising overall sensor data, for which only
45 the sensors have been modelled in the authoring tool. The acquired data from DFOS only
46
47 includes the readings and the relative distances at which they were taken, while the acquired
48 data from the PFOS included the reading and a timestamp. The spatial and hierarchical
49
50 attributes were inferred using the order in which the values are listed and information from the
51 design documentation. Note that for this case study, only data acquired by PFOS is presented.
52
53
54 4.3 Data visualisation and interpretation
55
56 The following section provides an overview of the data obtained from seven days of continuous
57 monitoring of the concrete deck, transverse ties and prestressed beams during deck curing
58
59 (dates corresponding to 13 July 2015 up to and including 20 July 2015). Data was recorded
60
61
62
63
64
65
11
 every minute and a baseline strain value was taken at approximately one hour following the
1
2 completion of deck casting. This data was then incorporated directly into the developed BIM
3 sensor elements and displayed on the 3D model to provide a complete visualisation of the strain
4
5 changes throughout the entire structure over time.
6
7
8 Figure 7 shows the development of mechanical strains in the deck and the transverse ties over
9
the entire 7 day curing period. Note that the reported values have been compensated to take
10
11 into account strains due to thermal expansion and therefore the strains are assumed to mainly
12
be due to concrete shrinkage. As expected, the strains developed in both the deck and ties
13
14 exhibit a downwards trend and are negative indicating compression due to the shrinkage of the
15
16 concrete during curing. The deck appears to experience higher strains during curing and also
17 fluctuates with diurnal temperature cycles as compared to the transverse ties. This is most likely
18
19 due to the higher concrete pore water evaporation that takes place closer to the free concrete
20 surface (top of the deck).
21
22
23 To determine the effect of the net shrinkage that occurs in the deck and infill concrete on the
24
25 prestressed beams, the sensor data for the beams was examined and is presented in Figure 8.
26 Note that this figure depicts only the top and bottom sensors located at the midspan of the
27
28 beam. The main finding from the sensor data shows that after 7 days of deck curing, the top
29 fibre of the beam experiences net change in compression (approximately 50 microstrain) and
30
31 the bottom strains fluctuate but eventually have no net strain change. Therefore, a permanent
32 difference in beam curvature (corresponding to positive bending) is introduced as a result of this
33
34 difference in top and bottom strains. This result is in accordance with the anticipated behaviour
35 as noted by Hendy and Smith (2007) for the effect of differential shrinkage between cast-in-situ
36
37 deck and prestressed girders. It should be noted that the mechanical strains presented in Figure
38 8 do not include the additional strains introduced due to the added weight of the concrete deck
39
40 (i.e., baseline of strain data was taken as the start of curing). This baseline was chosen in order
41
to isolate only the effect of the deck curing process on beam behaviour.
42
43
44
Regarding the visualisation on the BIM model, an alternative scaled-up and simpler geometry
45
46 has been used to visualise the PFOS sensor systems as presented in Figure 9. To visualise
47
48 varying strains, a colour-coded scale has been used. The values of the strain attributes of each
49 sensor entity have been linked with the material attributes. The corresponding material
50
51 attributes for visualisation of monitoring data have been adjusted for the structural elements as
52 well. As previously noted, a specific BIM model has been developed for each visualisation and
53
54 analysed data set.
55
56
57 The acquired sensor data, as presented above, can be included in the developed sensor
58 entities and visualised directly on the BIM model to facilitate data interpretation. For example,
59
60 prior to performing any detailed analyses, it is possible to inspect the BIM model directly and
61
62
63
64
65
12
 decipher the same trends that were previously discussed but across an entire structural
1
2 element. In the case of the deck and tie elements, Figure 9 shows the increasing levels of
3 compression developed in the sensor entities from the start of curing (13 July 2015) and the end
4
5 of the measured curing process (20 July 2015). Note that only selected dates are presented.
6
Similarly, the sensor data for BM5 can be visualised as shown in Figure 10. From this figure the
7
8 same trend identified using Figure 8 can now be interpreted directly on the BIM model (i.e., no
9
net strain change in bottom of beam and net compression induced in the top of the beam). This
10
11 type of comparison demonstrates the immediate value of this approach as the visualised sensor
12
data can be quickly used to identify important trends in structural behaviour prior to undertaking
13
14 more detailed analyses.
15
16
17 By combining the entire monitoring data set on the BIM model as presented in Figure 11,
18
19 general trends can be identified across the entire structure at given points in time. In particular,
20 it can be seen that the sensors in the quarter-span deck and transverse ties also register a net
21
22 compressive strain change during deck curing. Likewise, similar to the behaviour of BM5, the
23 other monitored beams BM1, BM2 and BM4 show negligible changes in bottom strains and
24
25 permanent compressive top strains (on the order of approximately 50 microstrain) following 7
26 days of deck curing. Based on this general visual assessment of the distribution of strains, it
27
28 may be inferred that the shrinkage strains induced during the curing of the concrete deck
29 appear to be fairly uniform across the top portion of the entire bridge structure. The actual
30
31 measured behaviour based on this visual inspection has been verified by performing a more
32 detailed analysis using plots similar to Figure 7 and 8. Adding the sensor data into the BIM
33
34 model has effectively transformed the model into a ‘living’ structure which enables different
35 practitioners evaluate its performance during the different stages. The data set could easily be
36
37 obtained from the sensors and visualised in the BIM model at any given stage following
38 construction completion and hence helping to inform decision makers throughout the structure’s
39
40 life cycle.
41
42
43 5. Conclusions
44
There is a lack of provision to fully employ the BIM approach for structural performance
45
46 monitoring. Most notably, the data model standards are not yet sufficient to describe monitoring
47
48 systems and processes, and there are no formalised directives to manage and visualise sensor
49 data in a BIM environment. The approach presented in this article further advances the
50
51 development of BIM provisions for structural performance monitoring. It formalises a process to
52 model monitoring systems and to manage and visualise monitoring data.
53
54
55 Data acquired during the casting and curing of a bridge concrete deck has been used as a case
56
57 study. The semantically-rich BIM models developed as part of this work serve primarily as a
58 visualisation tool for asset managers and engineers. The case study showed that they can be
59
60 used to facilitate more streamlined approaches to structural monitoring and data management
61
62
63
64
65
13
 and allow for a quick interpretation of general trends in structural behaviour. However, the
1
2 interpretation of the sensor data for purposes of making decisions for long term management
3 strategies and safeguarding still requires the skills of an experienced and competent
4
5 professional. Note that visualising monitoring data directly on BIM models should not replace
6
traditional visualisation and interpretation methods using time-history charts and graphs. Both
7
8 methods have their own benefits and disadvantages and are effective in different scenarios.
9
Additionally, a BIM model that incorporates monitoring data that captures the structural
10
11 performance of a bridge up to the end of its construction, would also become an invaluable
12
component of the handover documents required as part of the commissioning process.
13
14
15
16 As noted in the article, different monitoring objectives and data would require different
17 modelling, management and visualisation requirements. In this sense, further work should be
18
19 focused on finding and tackling challenges presented by managing and visualising data
20 acquired during different stages of the asset’s life-cycle. The visualisation of information derived
21
22 from the initial data set could also be developed, e.g. by including and visualising derived
23 stresses and displacements and the associated load cases directly on the BIM models, which
24
25 would be very useful when compared to the inspection idea which could also be incorporated in
26 the model.
27
28
29 Acknowledgements
30
31 The authors gratefully acknowledge the EPSRC and Innovate UK for funding this research
32 through the CSIC Innovation and Knowledge Centre (EPSRC grant reference number
33
34 EP/L010917/1); the on-site assistance of Jason Shardelow, Peter Knott, Hyungjoon Seo of
35 CSIC and Jules Birks of Mott-MacDonald (formerly of CSIC); the technical assistance in sensor
36
37 development and procurement of Cedric Kechavarzi and Philip Keenan of CSIC; James Oliver,
38 Matthew Timmis, Brad Stanaway and Phil Holland of Laing O'Rourke; and Ruth Platt and Mike
39
40 Henwood of Atkins for providing their invaluable support for this project.
41
Additional data related to this publication is available at the University of Cambridge data
42
43 repository: http://dx.doi.org/10.17863/CAM.4826
44
45
46
47 References
48 Aktan, A.E., Catbas, F.N., Grimmelsman, K.A., and Tsikos, C.J., (2000). Issues in Infrastructure
49
50 Health Monitoring for Management. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(7), pp.711–724.
51 Banerji, P., Chikermane, S., Scott, R., Surre, F., Sun, T., Grattan, K.T. V., and Longthorne, J.,
52
53 (2014). Structural monitoring for asset management of railway bridges. Proceedings of the
54 Institution of Civil Engineers - Bridge Engineering, 167(3), pp.157–169.
55
56 Botts, M. and Robin, A., (2014). OGC SensorML: Model and XML Encoding Standard.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
14
 Chen, J., Bulbul, T., Taylor, J. and Olgun, G., (2014). A Case Study of Embedding Real-time
1
2 Infrastructure Sensor Data to BIM. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress
3 2014 (ASCE). Atlanta, Giorgia, pp. 269-268.
4
5 Davila Delgado, J.M., Brilakis, I. and Middleton, C.R., (2015). Open data model standards for
6
structural performance monitoring of infrastructure assets. In J. Beetz, ed. Proceedings of
7
8 the CIB W78 Conference 2015. Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp. 1–10.
9
Dossick, C.S. and Neff, G., (2010). Organizational Divisions in BIM-Enabled Commercial
10
11 Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), pp.459–467.
12
Ferrari, P., Silva, N. and Lima, E., (2010). Building Information Modeling and Interoperability
13
14 with Environmental Simulation Systems. In T. Sobh, ed. Innovations and Advances in
15
16 Computer Sciences and Engineering. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 579–583.
17 French, C., Eppers, L., Le, Q., and Hajjar, J.F., (1999). Transverse cracking in concrete bridge
18
19 decks, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
20 1688(99), pp. 21 – 29.
21
22 Gibbons, N., Butler, L., Williamson, M., Ellwood, A., Platt, R., Oliver, J., Henwood, M., Holland,
23 P., Dirar, S., Arthurs, S., Middleton, C.R. and Elshafie, M.Z.E.B., (2015). Monitoring the early
24
25 age behaviour of prestressed concrete beams using fibre optic sensors. 16th European
26 Bridge Conference, Forde, MC (Ed), Edinburgh.
27
28 Gerrish, T., Ruikar, K., Cook, M.J., Johnson, M. and Phillip, M., (2015). Attributing in-use
29 building performance data to an as-built building information model for lifecycle building
30
31 performance management. In J. Beetz, ed. Proceedings of the CIB W78 Conference 2015.
32 Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp. 1–11.
33
34 Hendy, C.R. and Smith, D.A., (2007). Designer's guide to EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of
35 concrete structures. Part 2 – concrete bridges. Thomas Telford, London, 416 pgs.
36
37 Hu, P., Robinson, R. and Indulska, J., (2007). Sensor standards: Overview and experiences. In
38 Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks
39
40 and Information Processing, ISSNIP. pp. 485–490.
41
Kreuzer, M., (2006). Strain measurement with fiber Bragg grating sensors. HBM, Darmstadt,
42
43 S2338-1.0.
44
Kurashima, T., Horiguchi, T., Izumita, H., Furukawa, S. and Koyamada, Y., (1993). Brillouin
45
46 Optical-Fiber Time Domain Reflectometry. IEICE Transactions on Communications, E76-
47
48 B(4), pp.382–390.
49 Lee, K.L.K., (2007). Sensor standards harmonization-path to achieving sensor interoperability.
50
51 Autotestcon, 2007 IEEE. pp. 381-388.
52 Liebich, T., Adachi, Y., Forester, J., Hyvarinen, J., Richter, S., Chipman, T., Weise, M. and Wix,
53
54 J., (2013). Industry Foundation Classes Release 4 (IFC 4).
55 Pauwels, P., (2014). Supporting Decision-Making in the Building Life-Cycle Using Linked
56
57 Building Data. Buildings, 4(3), pp.549–579.
58 Rio, J., Ferreira, B. and Poças Martins, J., (2013). Expansion of IFC model with structural
59
60 sensors. Informes de la Construcción, 65(530), pp.219–228.
61
62
63
64
65
15
 Robin, A. and Botts, M.E., (2006). Creation of Specific SensorML Process Models.
1
2 Smarsly, K. and Tauscher, E., (2015). IFC-based monitoring information modeling for data
3 management in structural health monitoring. In K. Gurlebeck and T. Lahmer, eds. 20
4
5 International Conference on the Application of Computer Science and Mathematics in
6
Architecture and Civil Engineering. Weimar: Bauhaus-University Weimar, pp. 200–206.
7
8 Vardanega, P.J., Webb, G.T., Fidler, P.R.A., and Middleton, C.R., (2016). Assessing the
9
potential value of bridge monitoring systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
10
11 - Bridge Engineering, 169(2), pp.126–138.
12
Webb, G.T., Vardanega, P.J. and Middleton, C.R., (2014). Categories of SHM Deployments:
13
14 Technologies and Capabilities. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 20(11), pp.04014118.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
16
 Figure captions
1
2 Figure 1. Diagram of the modelled system showing selected monitoring entities and attribute
3 sets.
4
5 Figure 2. Examples of monitoring attribute sets for monitoring assemblies, sensor systems, and
6
sensor entities.
7
8 Figure 3. Prestressed concrete girder layout and concrete deck plan.
9
Figure 4. Top: typical prestressed concrete girder sensor layout (section 'A'). Bottom: Typical
10
11 transverse cross section and sensor layout (section 'B').
12
Figure 5. Sensors systems that were active during the curing of the deck.
13
14 Figure 6. Bridge under construction during deck casting.
15
16 Figure 7. Evolution of mechanical strains during first 7 days of deck curing for the midspan deck
17 and transverse ties (baseline = post deck casting/start of curing process).
18
19 Figure 8. BM5 variation of top and bottom mechanical strains during deck curing (baseline =
20 post deck casting).
21
22 Figure 9. BIM model of the deck at midspan with integrated sensor data and displayed at the
23 start of deck curing.
24
25 Figure 10. BIM model of beam BM5 with integrated sensor data and displayed at the end of
26 deck curing.
27
28 Figure 11. Complete BIM models incorporating monitoring data from start and end of deck
29 curing.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
17
Figure 1

ƌŝĚŐĞzϭϭ

^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůůĞŵĞŶƚƐ &ŝďƌĞKƉƚŝĐ^LJƐƚĞŵ ƚƚƌŝďƵƚĞ^ĞƚƐ

dzĞĂŵƐ ΀^ƚƌ͘ƐƐĞŵďůLJ΁ DͺĞĂŵƐ ΀DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐƐĞŵďůLJ΁

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ
dzϳĞĂŵͺϮ
dzϳĞĂŵͺϮ DͺdzϳĞĂŵͺϮ
DͺdzϳĞĂŵͺϮ
DͺdzϳĞĂŵͺϮ ΀^ĞŶƐŽƌ^LJƐƚĞŵ΁
dzϳĞĂŵͺϮ
^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ
^ƚƌĂŶĚͺϭ &K^ͺϭ
DĞƚŚŽĚƐ
^ƚƌĂŶĚͺϮ ^ĞŶƐŽƌ
KƚŚĞƌϭ
^ƚƌĂŶĚͺϯ ŽŶ͘ůĞŵĞŶƚ

^ƚƌĂŶĚͺϰ W&K^ͺϭ KƚŚĞƌϮ

^ĞŶƐŽƌ 'ĞŽŵĞƚƌLJ
dzϳĞĂŵͺϮ
dzϳĞĂŵͺϮ
^ĞŶƐŽƌͺϭ
^ĞŶƐŽƌͺϭ
^ĞŶƐŽƌͺϭ ĂƚĂͺϭ
^ƚƌĂŶĚͺϭ ĂƚĂͺϭ
ĂƚĂͺϭ
^ƚƌĂŶĚͺϭ
^ƚƌĂŶĚͺϭ
ŽŶ͘ůĞŵĞŶƚ
DĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ
DͺĞĐŬ ΀DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐƐĞŵďůLJ΁
ĞĐŬ ΀^ƚƌ͘ƐƐĞŵďůLJ΁ ĂƚĂͺϭ
ĂƚĂͺϭ
ĂƚĂͺϭ
DͺdƌĂŶƐͺdŝĞͺϮ
DͺdƌĂŶƐͺdŝĞͺϮ
DͺdƌĂŶƐͺdŝĞͺϮ ΀^ĞŶƐŽƌ^LJƐƚĞŵ΁
dzϳĞĂŵͺϮ
dzϳĞĂŵͺϮ sŝƐƵĂůŝƐĂƚŝŽŶ
dƌĂŶͺdŝĞͺϮ W&K^ͺϮ
ĂƚĂͺϭ
ĂƚĂͺϭ
dzϳĞĂŵͺϮ
dzϳĞĂŵͺϮ ^ĞŶƐŽƌ ĂƚĂͺϭ
ĂƌͺϮ
^ĞŶƐŽƌͺϭ dŽƉŽůŽŐLJ
^ĞŶƐŽƌͺϭ
^ĞŶƐŽƌͺϮ
ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ
KƚŚĞƌ
ŽŶ͘ůĞŵĞŶƚ
Figure 2

DͺdzϳĞĂŵͺϮ͗DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƐƐĞŵďůLJ
/ ŝĚŽĨƚŚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĂƐƐĞŵďůLJ
dLJƉĞ ƚLJƉĞŽĨŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĂƐƐĞŵďůLJĞ͘Ő͘&K^͕W&K^͕ĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚ͕ĞƚĐ͘
,ŽƐƚ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĂƐƐĞŵďůLJƚŽǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚŽŶ

&K^ͺϭ͗^ĞŶƐŽƌ^LJƐƚĞŵ W&K^ͺϭ͗^ĞŶƐŽƌ^LJƐƚĞŵ
/ ŝĚŽĨƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞĐĂďůĞ / ŝĚŽĨƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞĐĂďůĞ
dLJƉĞ ƚLJƉĞŽĨĐĂďůĞ dLJƉĞ ƚLJƉĞŽĨĐĂďůĞ
ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ůĞŶŐƚŚŽĨƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞĐĂďůĞ ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ůĞŶŐƚŚŽĨƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞĐĂďůĞ
^ƉĂĐŝŶŐ ĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞĂƚǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĂĚŝŶŐƐĂƌĞƚĂŬĞŶ ^ƉĂĐŝŶŐ ĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶƐĞŶƐŽƌƐ
,ŽƐƚ ĞůĞŵ͘dŽǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚĞ͘Ő͘ĞĂŵϮ ,ŽƐƚ ĞůĞŵ͘ƚŽǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚĞ͘Ő͘ĞĂŵϮ
^Ƶď,ŽƐƚ ƐƵďͲĞůĞŵĞŶƚĞ͘Ő͘^ƚƌĂŶĚϭ ^Ƶď,ŽƐƚ ƐƵďͲĞůĞŵĞŶƚĞ͘Ő͘^ƚƌĂŶĚϰ
^ĞŶƐŽƌͺϭ͗^ĞŶƐŽƌ ^ĞŶƐŽƌͺϭ͗ĂŐŐƌĞŐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐĞŶƐŽƌƐϭͲŶ
/ĐĂďůĞ ŝĚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞŶƐŝŶŐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĐĂďůĞ /ĐĂďůĞ ŝĚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞŶƐŝŶŐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĐĂďůĞ
ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ůĞŶŐƚŚŽĨƐĞŶƐŝŶŐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĐĂďůĞ ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ůĞŶŐƚŚŽĨƐĞŶƐŝŶŐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĐĂďůĞ
^ŝnjĞ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐĞŶƐŝŶŐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ ^ŝnjĞ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐĞŶƐŽƌƐŝŶƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ
^ƉĂĐŝŶŐ ƐƉĂƚŝĂůƌĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶŽĨĐĂďůĞ ^ƉĂĐŝŶŐ ĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶƐĞŶƐŽƌƐ
sĂůƵĞƐ ůŝƐƚŽĨƚŝŵĞͲƐƚĂŵƉĞĚǀĂůƵĞƐ
^ĞŶƐŽƌͺϭ͗^ĞŶƐŽƌ
ĞƌYƵĂŶƚ ůŝƐƚŽĨƚŝŵĞͲƐƚĂŵƉĞĚǀĂůƵĞƐ
ZĂǁsĂů ůŝƐƚŽĨƚŝŵĞͲƐƚĂŵƉĞĚǀĂůƵĞƐ sĂůƵĞ dŝŵĞͲƐƚĂŵƉĞĚǀĂůƵĞ
ĞƌYƵĂŶƚ ůŝƐƚŽĨƚŝŵĞͲƐƚĂŵƉĞĚǀĂůƵĞƐ
ZĂǁsĂů ůŝƐƚŽĨƚŝŵĞͲƐƚĂŵƉĞĚǀĂůƵĞƐ
Figure 3
Figure 4

SECTION ‘A’

SECTION ‘B’
Figure 5
^ĞŶƐŽƌƐLJƐƚĞŵĂƚ
ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌͲƐƉĂŶĚĞĐŬ

^ĞŶƐŽƌƐLJƐƚĞŵĂƚ
ŵŝĚͲƐƉĂŶĚĞĐŬ

^ĞŶƐŽƌƐLJƐƚĞŵƐŝŶ
ďĞĂŵƐ

Dϭ
DϮ
Dϱ Dϰ
Figure 6 Click here to download Figure Davila06.tif
Figure 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000

50 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 00
00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Top 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0FBG
0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0top 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 no. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=0 0 0 0 3
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bottom FBG 0 bot no. = 2 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
)

00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Mechanical Strain (

-50 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
-100 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
-150 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
-200
13/07/15 14/07 15/07 16/07 17/07 18/07 19/07 20/07 21/07 22/07
Time
Figure 8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000

150 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Top FBG top 00 no. = 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
100 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Bottom FBG bot 00 no. = 5 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
)

50 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Mechanical Strain (

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 0
00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00
-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
-100 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
-150
13/07/15 14/07 15/07 16/07 17/07 18/07 19/07 20/07 21/07 22/07
Time
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

ϮϬϬ;ƚĞŶƐŝŽŶͿ

Ϭ;ďĂƐĞůŝŶĞͿ
ϭϰ:ƵůLJϮϬϭϱ

ͲϮϬϬ;ĐŽŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶͿ
EŽĚĂƚĂ

ϮϬ:ƵůLJϮϬϭϱ
;ĞŶĚŽĨĐƵƌŝŶŐͿ
Journal Publishing Agreement

1478-4629