Received: 16 July 2015 Revised: 10 February 2016 Accepted: 27 September 2016

DOI 10.1002/stc.1959

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Real‐time structural monitoring of Building 350 at Del Valle

University
Lisandro Arturo Jiménez‐Roa | Johannio Marulanda‐Casas | Alejandro Cruz‐Escobar

School of Civil Engineering and Geomatics, Del

Valle University, Santiago de Cali, Colombia
Correspondence
Lisandro Arturo Jiménez‐Roa, School of Civil
Engineering and Geomatics, Del Valle University,
Santiago de Cali, Colombia.
Email: lisandro.jimenez@correounivalle.edu.co
Summary
Design errors, misuse, and natural or accidental events can cause small and cumula-
tive damages or large and sudden damages that can deteriorate structural systems or
cause their collapse. Structural monitoring consists in the permanent real‐time track-
ing of information about the condition and performance of a structure. This paper
presents the development, validation, and implementation of the structural monitor-
ing system for building 350 at Del Valle University, located in Santiago de Cali,
Colombia. The system uses the SSI and natural excitation technique with the
eigensystem realization algorithm methodologies for modal identification and a spe-
cialized event‐recognition algorithm based on the standard deviation analysis of
vibrations. The dynamic behavior monitoring of the building has been conducted
in real‐time since January 2012, and six seismic events have been successfully
recognized. The computational tool was validated using a finite element model with
which the effect of variation in mass was evaluated.

K E Y WO R D S

identification of seismic events, modal identification, seismic engineering, structural

monitoring

1 | IN T RO D U C T IO N use these types of technologies is increased by factors such

Structural health monitoring (SHM) technologies have been
widely used to improve the knowledge about the behavior
of structures that are subjected to different load types or envi-
ronmental, chemical, and mechanical phenomena. Therefore,
scientists and engineers around the world are developing
increasingly specialized methodologies, technologies, and
techniques for analyzing the behavior of structures.[1] The
most accepted SHM methodologies are based on the identifi-
cation of dynamic parameters, such as natural frequencies,
damping ratios, and modal shapes, based on ambient vibra-
tions, which allows to formulate a dynamic model of the
structure. In conjunction with model updating techniques
and algorithms capable of recognizing abnormal changes in
the dynamic properties of a structure,[2] these methodologies
are potential tools for the identification, localization, and
quantification of damage in civil structures.[3,4] The need to
as high level of human–structure interaction, the importance
of the structure (e.g., hospitals, bridges, and dams), active
seismic hazard zones, and historically significant struc-
tures.[5] Consequently, the need to develop specialized hard-
ware and software for SHM is justified.
Non‐invasive methodologies that allow diagnosing the
integral safety of a civil structure are being developed at
Building 350 of the School of Civil Engineering and
Geomatics at Del Valle University. To do so, a pilot project
that is focused on monitoring the building's structural health
has been conducted. Specialized monitoring hardware was
installed during the project, and a computational tool capable
of using ambient vibrations to identify and monitor the
dynamic characteristics of the building was developed using
the stochastic subspace identification (SSI) and natural exci-
tation technique with the eigensystem realization algorithm
(NExT‐ERA) modal identification algorithms.

Struct Control Health Monit 2016; 1–9 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/stc Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 JIMÉNEZ‐ROA
2 | MODA L I DE NT IF ICAT IO N
A L G OR I T H M S
Several methodologies exist for the identification of the
dynamic behavior of civil structures. The monitoring sys-
tem of Building 350 was implemented with two algorithms:
the SSI method,[6] which is currently considered the most
powerful technique for modal identification in time
domain,[7] and the natural excitation technique (NExT) in
conjunction with the eigensystem realization algorithm
(ERA).[8]
2.1 | Stochastic subspace identification
Subspace identification algorithms are based on three basic
assumptions: (a) The system behaves linearly; (b) the behav-
ior of the system does not vary over time; and (c) the input
excitation is a stochastic process with Gaussian white noise
and is not correlated with the response of the system.[9]
The algorithms estimate the dynamic properties of the sys-
tem (i.e., natural frequencies, modal shapes, and damping
ratios) from a state–space representation. Van Overschee
and De Moor[6] provide the theoretical framework for these
subspace identification algorithms. If the input excitation of
the system cannot be measured and is stochastic, then the
algorithm is called SSI. The SSI method has proven to be a
simple and reliable tool for modal identification[10] and has
been used successfully in industrial applications[11] and civil
infrastructure monitoring,[12] as well as in other applications.
The operations of SSI can be summarized in the follow-
ing steps: create a block Hankel matrix with the system's
vibration response data; divide the matrix into two compo-
nents: “past” and “future”; calculate the orthogonal projec-
tion of the future component over the past component;
apply singular value decomposition to the projection and,
using the matrix factorizations, calculate an observability
matrix that, in a state–space representation, is a function
of the state matrix and the output matrix. The eigenvalues
of the state matrix contains information about the natural
frequencies and damping ratios of the system, and the
eigenvectors that operate on the output matrix provide the
vibration modes.
2.2 | Natural excitation technique with the eigensystem
realization algorithm
The NExT was first used for modal testing of a wind turbine
under wind loading excitation,[8,13] and it has been used in
numerous studies.[14,15] NExT is usually used in conjunction
with the ERA.[16] NExT requires long response records to
ensure the assumption of relatively stationary processes and
to guarantee that the excitation is not correlated with the
response of the system. NExT proves that the cross‐correla-
tion function between two response records of the system's
vibration response corresponds to a sinusoidal function that
ET AL.
decreases with the same characteristics of an impulse
response function from the same system, therefore has proven
that it can be used as free vibration response.
The ERA uses minimal realization principles to obtain a
state–space representation of the structure. Developed by
Juang and Pappa,[17] ERA has proven to be an effective
method for the modal identification of civil structures.[18]
The free vibration response data from NExT is used to build
two Hankel matrices, which are used to calculate the state and
output matrices of the state–space representation of the sys-
tem using singular value decomposition. The eigenvalues of
the state matrix contain information about the natural fre-
quencies and damping ratios of the system, and the vibration
modes are the result of the eigenvectors that are used on the
output matrix.
2.3 | Modal assurance criterion
The modal assurance criterion is a statistical indicator that
expresses the degree of coherence between modal shapes. It
is based on a least squares linear regression analysis; it is
more sensitive to large differences and is relatively sensitive
to small ones. Modal assurance criterion ranges from 0 to
1, where 1 indicates totally consistent modal shapes, and
0 indicates that the modes are different.[19]
3 | B U I L D I NG 3 5 0
Building 350 at Del Valle University is located on the
Meléndez Campus in Cali, Colombia (N: 3°22′27.527″,
W: 76°31′55.506″). The structure contains offices, class-
rooms, and laboratories for teaching, research, and consult-
ing. The Building 350 is a two‐story reticular celled structure
(Figure 1) with an additional roof slab (Figure 2b). The
distance between the column axes is 7.2 m. The three slabs
are 40 cm thick and are reinforced with 10‐cm‐wide joists
oriented in two directions. All the columns have a 40‐cm‐
square cross section. The first slab is at a height of 3.2 m;
the second slab is at 6.4 m; and the third slab is at 8 m.
The instrumentation system is composed of a REFTEK
130SMHR triaxial station, which is located at the base of
the building, and three REFTEK 131B‐01/1 seismic acceler-
ometers on the second slab (N + 6.4 m; Figure 2a). All the
accelerometers have the capacity to measure up to ±4 g at a
noise level of 2 μg2/Hz, and the acquisition frequency is
configurable from 1 to 1000 Hz. In addition, the system
has a GPS unit for time synchronization. The system is
currently configured to continuously acquire data at a sam-
pling rate of 100 Hz.
A detailed dynamic characterization to obtain a reference
identification of the structure, as recommended by
Nayeri et al.,[20] was performed on Building 350 as reported
in.[21] The results of the frequencies identification are shown
in Table 1.
JIMÉNEZ‐ROA ET AL. 3

FIGURE 1 Distribution of sensors in Building 350.[27]

TABLE 1 Dynamic characteristics of Building 350, using stochastic sub-

space identification[21]

Natural frequency (Hz) Damping ratio (%)

Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation

4.16 0.18 6.13 0.88

4.74 0.14 5.48 2.29
5.13 0.11 3.11 0.48

sensors, a digitalization and synchronization instrument,

and data storage in a server. The algorithms for SM run in
real‐time in the computer server. Once the data are stored,
the following protocol is used:

• The instrumentation system records the acceleration in

FIGURE 2 Floors of Building 350. (a) Floors at N + 3.2 m and N + 6.4 m.
(b) Floor at N + 8.0 m.[27]
4 | C O M P U TATI O NA L TO O L F O R
ST RU C TU R A L M O N I T O R I NG
The computational tool for structural monitoring (SM) was
developed in the MATLAB® programing language
(Figure 3). The computational tool uses ambient vibrations,
such as those produced by the users of the building, the oper-
ation of mechanical devices, the traffic of vehicles near the
structure, micro‐tremors, and the wind. Using these excita-
tion sources with digital signal processing techniques and
modal identification methodologies, it is possible to estimate
the dynamic characteristics of the structure.
The basic idea of the proposed protocol is to work in par-
allel with a dynamic instrumentation system composed of
files with PASSCAL format, which are changed to DAT
format, to be processed in MATLAB®.
• The data analysis is performed, and it includes the follow-
ing: modal identification using SSI and NExT‐ERA,
where operational frequencies, modal shapes, and
damping ratios are obtained by each methodology, and
also other quantities such as peak acceleration, sample
ratio, date and hour recorded, and sensor.
• The previous information is stored in a database. With the
aim to make easier and faster the loading of information,
the database is organized in a structure array. The database
is saved in folders according with the date of the record.
• The main interface is updated with the last information
processed.
An important characteristic of the SM computational tool
is to be an open source code, which makes possible to be
continuously modified and improved. Figure 3 shows the
main interface of the computational tool, which is composed
of a series of panels that display the results, including the
following:
4 JIMÉNEZ‐ROA
FIGURE 3 Main interface of the SM computational tool.[27]
1. General information about the most recently processed
recording.
2. Visualization of the modal shapes.
3. Natural frequencies and damping ratios variation.
4. Natural frequencies and damping ratios histogram.
5. Peak acceleration variation.
6. Time history of accelerations registered by each sensor.
The dynamic characteristics of the structure are identified
with the SSI and NExT‐ERA algorithms. Once the computa-
tional tool processes the acceleration signals, data are stored
in a database for future analyses. The parameters of the
identification algorithms used in the monitoring tool and
the ones defined for the sensitivity and stability analysis are
as follows: for the SSI algorithm, blocks: 40; order: 8. The
parameters for the NExT‐ERA algorithm are as follows:
reference: channel 4; order: 8; rows: 150; columns: 30; and
overlap: 75%.
In addition, the computational tool includes a seismic
event recognition algorithm. When a signal is cataloged
as a seismic event, relevant information is sent immedi-
ately via e‐mail. The email report includes the following:
event record files; a document with information about
the event such as time and date, sample ratio, peak values,
duration; and acceleration versus time plots for each
sensor. Data will be available in http://eicg.univalle.edu.
co/G‐7.
ET AL.
4.1 | Seismic event recognition algorithm
Variations in acceleration can be evaluated in real time
directly in the acceleration record at any given time and
can be used to identify sudden changes in the signal.
Figure 4a shows a representative record of accelerations
from ambient vibrations, and Figure 4b shows a record that
contains information from a seismic event; both records
correspond to sensor 5 (Figure 2). The algorithm deter-
mines the behavior of the acceleration signals using the
standard deviation. Figure 5 shows the peak values of the
acceleration signal for both cases shown in Figure 4. Using
those data, maximums are determined throughout the
acceleration records; the vector of maximums is divided
into segments (the criteria to define the size of the segment
is that the sample may have enough information to repre-
sent the variation of acceleration through time; in this par-
ticular case, it has defined segments second by second,
each of 100 data, due the sample ratio was 100 Hz), and
the standard deviation is calculated between points of each
segment. The algorithm filters the standard deviation
results to differentiate those that fall within a range greater
than or equal to 37% (value obtained from a sensitivity
analysis for a representative period) of the maximum repe-
tition value determined in a histogram of the standard devi-
ation results. In this way, the information in the signal
corresponding to normal vibration is eliminated, living
the information that may correspond to an event. The dura-
tion of the event is then determined for the data that passed
JIMÉNEZ‐ROA ET AL. 5

FIGURE 5 Peak values of the representative acceleration records. (a)

Ambient vibration. (b) Seismic event.[27]

FIGURE 4 Representative records of accelerations. (a) Ambient vibration.

(b) Seismic event.[27]

the standard deviation filter. If data extend over more than

2 s (value also obtained from the sensitivity analysis for a
representative period), the algorithm identifies the group of
values as corresponding to an event; otherwise, it will
eliminate the data. Once the computational tool identifies
an event, it establishes the initial time (ti) and the end time
(te) of the event (Figure 6). Six seismic events were auto-
matically recognized using this methodology (Table 2).

4.2 | Mass variation

The performance of the computational tool was evaluated
with numerical tests using a finite element model of Building
350 developed in SAP2000®.[22] The model includes the
geometric characteristics of the building's structural ele-
ments, including the cross sections of the columns, beams,
joists, tie beams, capitals, and nonstructural elements such
as masonry walls. The model takes into account the proper-
ties of the materials of each of these elements, and a detailed
analysis of live loads from the equipment and furniture was
performed. The model takes the foundation–ground interac-
tion into account by modeling the footings with translational
and rotational spring‐type elements. The natural frequencies
FIGURE 6 Results of the event identification algorithm for a seismic
event.[27]
of the first three modes of vibration obtained from the
SAP2000® model are as follows: Mode 1: 4.07 Hz; Mode
2: 5.35 Hz; and Mode 3: 6.16 Hz.
The evaluation protocol consisted of using the SM com-
putational tool to determine continuously the dynamic char-
acteristics of the model. An algorithm was developed in
MATLAB® using the Open Application Programming Inter-
face of SAP2000®. This allowed experimental acceleration
signals (obtained with the acquisition system) to be input
automatically as excitations to the base of the model and
6 JIMÉNEZ‐ROA
TABLE 2 Seismic events identified by the Building 350 monitoring system[28]
Location Date (UTC)
Puerto Tejada – Cauca 12‐02‐2012
Sípi – Chocó 01‐03‐2012
Guacarí – Cauca Valley 27‐06‐2012
La Vega – Cauca 30‐09‐2012
Nuquí – Chocó 13‐08‐2013
Dagua – Cauca Valley 27‐08‐2013
UTC, Coordinated Universal Time.
the responses of the degrees of freedom associated with sen-
sors 4, 5, and 6 (numerical acceleration signals) to be calcu-
lated. Finally, as with the experimental records obtained
from the instrumentation system, the SM computational tool
continuously estimated the dynamic parameters of the model.
The protocol used 144 experimental acceleration records
with 10 min of duration each, recorded at a sampling frequency
of 100 Hz. Because the dynamic behavior of a structure is sus-
ceptible to mass changes, the mass of the model was varied
from 0 to 0.3 t/m2 and was modeled as a distributed load on
the second floor of the building (simulating the minimum and
maximum load expected in the second slab according to the
structural design). From the simulation, the acceleration
corresponding to sensors 4, 5, and 6 was obtained with the
same characteristics as the excitation input signal (i.e., the same
sampling frequency and number of points). As noise was not
included in the numerical response signals, the modal identifi-
cation was cleaner than when the experimental records were
used. High precision and accuracy in the identified natural
frequencies and modes of vibration was obtained, as shown in
Figure 7. The results show that the modal identification for
the finite element model using the SM computational tool
was satisfactory when the results are compared with the
obtained directly from SAP2000® (Figure 8).
The test results indicate that the three frequencies are sen-
sitive to variations in mass; the results for the first mode are
shown, as an example, in Figure 8, where correlation shown
FIGURE 7 Frequency histogram obtained with structural monitoring (SM)
for the finite element model.[27]
ET AL.
Time (UTC) Magnitude Distance to Cali (km)
12:20:35 3.6 Ml 17.73
01:41:12 4.5 Ml 94
03:47:42 4.5 Ml 52.2
16:31:34 7.1 Mw 150
15:43:04 6.5 Ml 266.13
23:22:05 4.2 Ml 32.47
coherence when the mass increases, the frequencies decrease
and vice versa. Figure 8 shows the results obtained from the
identification with the model, using SSI and NExT‐ERA,
the direct results from SAP2000®, and the variation of the
mass through the day, assumed as a Gaussian distribution,
simulating the variation of mass through day, reaching the
higher value at midday, as expected. The computational tool
is sensitive to mass variation, which is important to differen-
tiate it from variations due damage, and avoid false alarms.
5 | M O N IT OR I NG R E S U LTS
One of the most important aspects to consider in SM is the con-
tinuous observation of the variations in dynamic parameters,
which could indicate the presence of structural damage or
changes in the structural configuration. Generally, these
variations are grouped into two types: (a) variations caused
by damage and (b) variations caused by external factors, such
as temperature, mass, and humidity. The latter group of factors
leads to changes in the dynamic properties that must be differ-
entiated to correctly estimate the effects of the damage.[20,23,24]
Figure 9 shows the variation of the second natural fre-
quency of Building 350, caused by external factors. It shows
the variation over a period of 2 days and 12 hr. The dark line
represents the mean value of the cloud of points showed
behind. The frequency varies from 4.6 to 4.8 Hz. Despite
the high dispersion, the results illustrate the tendency for
decreases in the frequency during the day due to the increase
of mass and temperature and for increases in the frequency at
night due the lower mass and temperature.
Several possible causes make difficult to identify a trend of
the natural frequencies caused by external factors. Another
factor that increases the difficulty of the identification
process is the high stiffness of the building and the low number
of sensors, which causes a high noise/signal ratio and reduces
the precision of the results. Also, the variation of the modal
frequencies due changes in temperature could be within the
range of the standard deviation characteristic of the methods.
5.1 | Analysis of seismic events
One of the fundamental objectives of an SM system is to
determine the presence and magnitude of structural damage
JIMÉNEZ‐ROA ET AL.
FIGURE 8 Frequency variation results of
SAP2000, stochastic subspace identification
(SSI) and natural excitation technique with the
eigensystem realization algorithm (NExT‐ERA)
due the mass variation for the first mode of the
analytical model.[27]
FIGURE 9 Variation of the second natural frequency of Building 350.[27]
caused by natural or artificial events[25] and to assess
whether the structure is in a suitable condition to continue
in service. In the case of seismic events, the results of SM
also help to improve the design and construction processes
and to complement the design standards.[26] Six seismic
events were recorded at Building 350 during 2012 and
2013 (Table 2), and they were used to perform a thorough
study of the conditions before, during and after the events,
using the SSI and NExT‐ERA, with the goal of identifying
the presence of new characteristic frequencies or variations
of the current ones. The study was complemented with fre-
quency spectrograms, which help to visualize the frequency
content of acceleration signals as a function of time. Every
spectrogram was calculated with different parameters set to
visually achieve the best contrast that allows the visualiza-
tion of the frequency content.
Figure 10 shows the frequency spectrograms correspond-
ing to sensor 5 for each seismic event. The upper side of each
plot shows the acceleration signal versus time; the power
spectral density is shown on the left; the frequency spectro-
gram is shown in the middle; and the damping ratio, as
7
percentage of the critical damping of each mode as a function
of time, is shown at the bottom. A dense gray stripe can be
seen at approximately 5 Hz, and several black stripes are
located in the central part (during the seismic event), indicat-
ing a greater density in the power spectrum and, thus, the
characteristic frequencies. The dense gray stripe continues
with the same magnitude of frequency as before the occur-
rence of the seismic event, which confirms that the events
caused no structural damage to the building or caused minor
damage that modifying its natural frequencies within the
range of standard deviation characteristic of the implemented
method. In addition to the evidence of no significant varia-
tion in the characteristic frequencies, a visual inspection pro-
cess confirmed that no damage occurred to the structural and
nonstructural elements.
6 | C O NC LU S I ON S
The SM computational tool satisfactorily uses the SSI and
NExT‐ERA modal identification methodologies. It estimates
8 JIMÉNEZ‐ROA ET AL.

FIGURE 10 Spectrograms of frequencies, accelerations, power density functions, and damping percentages for the seismic records from (a) Puerto Tejada, (b)
Sipí, (c) Vijes, (d) La Vega, (e) Nuquí, and (f) Dagua.[27]
JIMÉNEZ‐ROA ET AL.
the dynamic parameters of the structure, including the opera-
tional frequencies, damping ratios, and modal shapes, in real‐
time, using ambient vibrations and seismic events responses.
The results of mass variation in the finite element model of
Building 350 were used to evaluate the computational tool
by monitoring the dynamic parameters. Based on the modal
identification before and after each of six seismic events
recorded at Building 350, and the visual inspection of the
structure, it is stated that the events may have caused minor
damage only modifying its operational frequencies within
the range of the standard deviation characteristic of the
implemented methods.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Ou, H. Li, Struc. Health Monit. 2010, 9, 219.
[2] F. Magalhães, Á. Cunha, E. Caetano, Structural health monitoring based on
automated operational modal analysis: Application to an arch bridge, in
Earthquakes and health monitoring of civil structures, Springer, 2013, 241.
[3] R. Jafarkhani, S. F. Masri, Comput.‐Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2011, 26,
207.
[4] S.‐H. Chao, C.‐H. Loh, M.‐H. Tseng, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 2014, 25,
1097.
[5] C. Rainieri, G. Fabbrocino, E. Cosenza, Struc. Health Monit. 2011, 10, 291.
[6] P. Van Overschee, B. De Moor, Subspace identification for linear systems:
Theory, implementation, applications, status: published, 1996.
[7] R. Astroza, H. Ebrahimian, J. P. Conte, T. C. Hutchinson, J. I. Restrepo,
Evolution of dynamic properties of a 5‐story RC building during con-
struction, in Topics in dynamics of civil structures, volume 4, Springer,
New York, 2013, 163.
[8] G. H. James III, T. G. Carne, J. P. Lauffer, NASA STI/Recon Technical Report
N 1993, 93, 28603.
[9] L. Hermans, H. van der Auweraer, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 1999, 13, 193.
[10] B. Peeters, G. De Roeck, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Contr. 2001, 123, 659.
[11] P. Andersen, Estimation of modal parameters and their uncertainties.
Dept. of Building Technology and Structural Engineering, Aalborg
University, 1998.
[12] D. F. Giraldo, W. Song, S. J. Dyke, J. M. Caicedo, J. Eng. Mech. 2009, 135, 759.
9
[13] G. James, T. G. Carne, J. P. Lauffer, Modal Analysis‐the International Jour-
nal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis 1995, 10, 260.
[14] J. M. Caicedo, J. Marulanda, Struct. Control Health Monit. 2011, 18, 416.
[15] J. M. Caicedo, Exp. Tech. 2011, 35, 52.
[16] H. Moncayo, J. Marulanda, P. Thomson, J. Aerosp. Eng. 2010, 23, 99.
[17] J.‐N. Juang, R. S. Pappa, J. guid control dynam. 1985, 8, 620.
[18] J. M. Caicedo, S. J. Dyke, E. A. Johnson, J. Eng. Mech. 2004, 130, 49.
[19] M. Pastor, M. Binda, T. Harčarik, Procedia Eng. 2012, 48, 543.
[20] R. D. Nayeri, S. F. Masri, R. G. Ghanem. A novel approach for the structural
identification and monitoring of a full‐scale 17‐story building based on
ambient vibration measurements, vol. 17, p. 025006, 2008.
[21] J. M. Franco, J. Marulanda, J. M. Caicedo. Modal identification of a full‐
scale building under seismic excitation using the fast mode identification
technique. Experimental Techniques, 2015.
[22] S. Valencia, A. Cruz, P. Thomson, Actualización en línea de modelos en
elementos finitos: caso Edificio 350 ‐ Universidad del Valle, Facultad de
Ingeniería, Escuela de Ingeniería Civil y Geomática, Universidad del Valle,
Santiago de Cali, Colombia, 2014.
[23] Y. Xia, B. Chen, S. Weng, Y.‐Q. Ni, Y.‐L. Xu, J. Civ. Struc. Health Monit.
2012, 2, 29.
[24] A. J. Croxford, J. Moll, P. D. Wilcox, J. E. Michaels, Ultrasonics 2010, 50,
517.
[25] W. Zhou, H. Li, C. Mao, L. Mevel, J. Ou, Adv. Struc. Eng. 2013, 16, 605.
[26] H. S. Ulusoy, M. Q. Feng, P. J. Fanning, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2011,
40, 661.
[27] L. Jiménez, Desarrollo e implementación de un sistema de monitoreo en
tiempo real del comportamiento dinámico del Edificio 350 de la Universidad
del Valle, Facultad de Ingeniería, Escuela de Ingeniería Civil y Geomática,
Universidad del Valle, Santiago de Cali ‐ Colombia, 2014.
[28] Servicio Geológico Colombiano [online]. Available (Noviembre de 2013)
2013: http://seisan.ingeominas.gov.co/RSNC/index.php/consultas
How to cite this article: Jiménez‐Roa, L. A.,
Marulanda‐Casas, J., and Cruz‐Escobar, A. (2016),
Real‐time structural monitoring of Building 350 at
Del Valle University, Struct Control Health Monit,
doi: 10.1002/stc.1959