See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283279241

Smart aggregate-based seismic stress monitoring system using a specially

designed charge amplifier

Article  in  Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures · October 2015

DOI: 10.1177/1045389X15610909

CITATIONS READS

14 1,539

3 authors, including:

Zhang Haibin Shuang Hou

Missouri University of Science and Technology South China University of Technology
15 PUBLICATIONS   173 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   407 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhang Haibin on 20 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems

and Structures
1–9
Smart aggregate-based seismic stress Ó The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
monitoring system using a specially sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X15610909

designed charge amplifier jim.sagepub.com

Haibin Zhang1, Shuang Hou2 and Jinping Ou1

Abstract
The potential of smart aggregate for seismic stress monitoring has been identified, but only moderate dynamic stress of
relatively high frequency can be measured reliably due to the limitations of conventional charge amplifiers. To improve
the performance of smart aggregate-based monitoring systems, a charge amplifier was designed especially for the
demands of seismic stress monitoring. Its performance was tested in the low frequency range down to 0.05 Hz with high
charge input up to 2 3 107 pC representing stress up to 100 MPa by feeding it frequency-sweep charge signals. With
the specially designed amplifier, the performance of the smart aggregate-based monitoring system was tested in both
frequency-sweep and amplitude-sweep loading tests, and the influence of lead zirconate titanate depolarization was eval-
uated at static loads of 4.8, 14.4, and 24 MPa. The results show that the demands of seismic monitoring with a smart
aggregate-based system can be satisfied, and that the sensitivity of the system remains constant under dynamic loads up
to at least 45 MPa.

Keywords
smart aggregate, lead zirconate titanate, compressive stress, charge amplifier, seismic monitoring

Introduction developed by various researchers (Han et al., 2009;

In seismically active regions, it is essential to acquire
structural response data during earthquakes to assist
the evaluation of current design practices (Celebi,
2006a). Most of the existing seismic monitoring systems
are based on accelerometers (Celebi, 2006a, 2006b;
Miranda and Bertero, 1996; Naeim, 1998; Rodgers and
Celebi, 2006; Uang et al., 1997). However, damage
detection using acceleration information is impractical
due to very heavy computational demands and the
need for a detailed and accurate three-dimensional
finite element model (Rodgers and Celebi, 2006). Thus,
sensors that provide direct local damage information
would supplement the existing seismic monitoring sys-
tems nicely.
Traditional foil strain gauges and fiber Bragg grat-
ing sensors embedded in a concrete structure cannot
monitor the damage process reliably because their
bonding with the concrete tends to loosen. A commer-
cially available load cell is able to measure the internal
stress directly, but difficulties such as the size of the
cell, cost, its bonding with the concrete, and the inter-
ference it produces in the local stress field hinder load
cell application. Cement-based strain and stress sensors
that take advantage of piezoresistivity have been
Han and Ou, 2007; Xiao et al., 2010, 2011), but they
can only be used when the stress or strain in the build-
ing’s structure can be considered as uniaxial and elastic.
A cement-based smart aggregate (SA) with a d33-mode
lead zirconate titanate (PZT) patch embedded in it has
been proposed by Song et al. (2005) which makes use
of direct as well as indirect piezoelectricity. It has been
employed in testing the early strength of concrete (Gu
et al., 2006), monitoring the collisions of over-height
vehicles with bridges (Song et al., 2007), and surveying
the structural health of other concrete structures (Gu
et al., 2010; Laskar et al., 2009; Moslehy et al., 2010;
Yan et al., 2009). In all those studies, the damage to
concrete was assessed using the SA to detect wave pro-
pagation in the structure. The application of SA has
1
School of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian,
China
2
School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, South China University
of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Corresponding author:
Shuang Hou, School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, South China
University of Technology, Wushan RD, Tianhe District, Guangzhou,
Guangdong 510641, China.
Email: CTHous@scut.edu.cn

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Sun Yat-Sen University on October 20, 2015

2 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

also been extended to compressive stress monitoring at

low stress levels (Li et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2005).
SA has been modified for monitoring seismic stress
in concrete structures using granite blocks as shelter
instead of a cement matrix (Hou et al., 2012). However,
its application in low-frequency or high-amplitude
stress monitoring has been hampered by the limitations
of the conventional charge amplifiers normally used in
such monitoring systems. The frequency responses of
civil structures in response to earthquake ground
motion are mainly determined by the structures’ funda-
mental frequencies. The fundamental frequencies of
somewhat flexible structures such as high-rise or large-
space buildings, or large-span bridges can be as low as
0.05 Hz. The working frequency range of a SA-based Figure 1. A charge amplifier circuit for SA.
monitoring system is mainly determined by its charge
amplifier. The low frequency limits of conventional
charge amplifiers are generally above 0.2 Hz (Brüel &
A typical charge amplifier circuit diagram is shown
Kjær, 2015; Global Sensor Technology, 2013).
in Figure 1, where Q is the charge generated from the
Although the so-called quasi-static charge amplifiers
SA, Ca is the capacitance of the SA, Cc is the capaci-
with low frequency limits approaching zero are com-
tance of the cable, R1 is the resistance of the charge
mercially available, their prices generally run to several
amplifier, Cf is the feedback capacitance of the charge
thousand dollars per channel (Kistler, 2015), making
amplifier, Ci is the capacitance of the charge amplifier,
them too expensive for mass application in civil
Rf is the feedback resistance of the charge amplifier,
engineering.
and K is the gain of the operational amplifier. Uout is
Another problem with conventional charge ampli-
the voltage output of the amplifier.
fiers is their maximum allowable input charge. For
The dependence of the output voltage of the charge
structures using high-strength concrete with strengths
amplifier on the frequency of the charge signals can be
up to 100 MPa, the SA specified by Hou et al. (2012)
expressed as (Ferrari and Gatti, 1999)
might generate an output charge reaching
1.5 3 107 pC. That would overload most conventional 2pfQ
charge amplifiers, whose maximum input is generally Uout = qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
less than 106 pC. To overcome that difficulty either the
1
R2
+ (2pfCf )2
f
charge input of the amplifier should be increased or the
size of the PZT patch in the SA should be reduced. where f is the frequency of the input charge signal. The
Since reducing the patch size causes great difficulty in phase of the output voltage signal can be expressed as
SA fabrication, attention should be paid to developing  
a more suitable charge amplifier. 1
u = arctan ð2Þ
In this study, a charge amplifier was specially 2pfRf Cf
designed for SA-based stress monitoring allowing for
the demands of seismic monitoring in low-frequency Defining
and high-stress conditions. The performance of the
1
charge amplifier was evaluated in laboratory tests f1 = ð3Þ
2pCf Rf
which demonstrated SA’s sensitivity and the amplifier’s
performance over a wide range of dynamic stresses. and
The influence of depolarization of the PZT was also
evaluated. Q(f )
Uin [ ð4Þ
Cf
Charge amplifier design then equation (1) can be rewritten as
To convert a high-impedance charge signal into a low-
Uout 1
impedance voltage signal that is proportional to the = qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð5Þ
Uin
input charge for accurate measurement, and to main- 1 + (f1 =f )2
tain the signal strength at low frequencies, a charge
amplifier must be used as preamplifier for piezoelectric where f1 is the cutoff frequency of the charge amplifier
sensors. and Uin is its input voltage.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Sun Yat-Sen University on October 20, 2015

Zhang et al. 3

UOut UIn
0.95
0.707

0 f1 f L f
Figure 3. A photo of the specially designed charge amplifier
Figure 2. Low frequency response of the charge amplifier. for SA-based seismic monitoring system.

Figure 2 depicts the low frequency response of a

charge amplifier in terms of Uout/Uin. At 0 Hz, Uout/Uin
is 0, indicating that the charge amplifier does not
respond to static signals. At f1, Uout/Uin is 0.707. As the
frequency increases, Uout/Uin increases accordingly,
until above fL Uout/Uin basically remains constant. fL is
called the low frequency limit of the charge amplifier.
From the engineering point of view, fL should be the
frequency when Uout/Uin is 0.95. By equation (5), f1 can
be calculated to be fL/3.
To meet the requirements of structural seismic moni-
toring, two parameters of the charge amplifier—its low
frequency limit and its maximum charge input—must Figure 4. Test set-up for evaluating the charge amplifier.
be carefully designed. That was the objective of this
study, and the performance of the developed charge
amplifier was then evaluated experimentally. For
100 MPa of stress, the SA can generate 1.5 3 107 pC
of charge. Considering a certain margin, the maximum
input charge was assumed to be 2.5 3 107 pC. The
low frequency limit was assumed to be 0.05 Hz. The
cutoff frequency of the charge amplifier can then be
calculated as 0.017 Hz.
The low frequency limit is clearly determined by the
feedback capacitance and the feedback resistance of the
charge amplifier. For general data acquisition equip-
ment, the minimum input voltage limit is 65 V. Given
the maximum input charge of 2.5 3 107 pC, the feed-
back capacitance can be determined from equation (4)
to be 5000 nF. Bringing the feedback capacitance and
0.017 Hz cutoff frequency into equation (3), the feed-
back resistance Rf can then be calculated to be 2.4 MO. Figure 5. Test rig for evaluating the charge amplifier.
Such a charge amplifier should meet the demands of
SA-based seismic monitoring. then supplied to the amplifier which converted it back
into a voltage signal. Both of the output voltage signal
from the charge amplifier and the input voltage signal
Evaluation of the amplifier
from the wave generator were stored by the data acqui-
The charge amplifier developed for seismic monitoring sition system (NI PXI 4472; National Instruments).
in this study is shown in Figure 3. Its performance was The input voltage had an amplitude of 4.5 V and a fre-
evaluated using frequency-sweep tests. The test config- quency range from 0.01 to 10 Hz, as shown in
uration is shown in Figures 4 and 5. The input voltage Figure 6(a). The output signals are shown in Figure
signal from the arbitrary wave generator (NI PXI 5441; 6(b). The amplitude of the output signal increased with
National Instruments) was converted to a charge signal time and tended to stabilize at 0.088 V. The amplitude
through a 100 nF capacitor, and the charge signal was of the charge signal fed to the capacitor can be

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Sun Yat-Sen University on October 20, 2015

4 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

(a) 60 0.090
5.0
2.5
50

Phase shift (Degree)

Input(V)

0.085
0 40 Theoretical phase shift

Amplitude (V)
-2.5
30 Experimental phase shift 0.080
-5.0
(b) Theoretical amplitude
0.10
20
Experimental amplitude 0.075
Output(V)

0.05 10
0
0 0.070
-0.05 0.01 0.1 1 10
-0.10 Frequency (Hz)
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (s) Figure 7. Theoretical and experimental amplitude and phase
shift of the output signals as a function of frequency.
Figure 6. Comparison of the waveforms: (a) input signal from
the arbitrary waveform generator and (b) output signal from the
charge amplifier.

Table 1. Properties of the selected PZT.

5
calculated to be 4.7 3 10 pC through equation (4).
Young’s modulus (GPa) 46
The feedback capacitance of the charge amplifier can Density (kg/m3) 7450
then be determined to be 5000 nF, which was its design d31, d32 (pC/N) –186
value. Handling of the maximum input charge of d33 (pC/N) 670
2.5 3 107 pC can therefore be guaranteed. d15 (pC/N) 660
The observed amplitude and phase shift of the out-
put voltage are compared with the predictions of equa-
tions (1) and (2) in Figure 7. For both the amplitude Applied load
and the phase shift, the experimental results were close Measured
load signal
to their theoretical results. Above the frequency of Load cell
0.05 Hz, the amplitude varied by less than 1% with a Loading plate
phase shift less than 15°. The error due to the phase
Data
shift is lower than 5% and this error can also be further Three acquisition
smart High-impedance
minimized by shifting the signals according to their fre- aggregates charge signal Charge system
amplifier
quency spectrum. The test results indicate that the fre-
quency demand can also be guaranteed by the specially
designed charge amplifier.
Figure 8. Schematic of the loading test set-up.

SA calibration tests
Test set-up
The full system’s frequency response and the range
of reliable stress measurements were evaluated experi-
mentally. Dynamic stresses were applied to SA test
blocks using a servo-hydraulic test machine (MTS 810;
Mechanical Testing & Simulation Systems
Corporation). The SA, a 25 mm cube, has a pair of
granite blocks bonding with a PZT patch in between by
epoxy. The design detail had been given in the litera-
ture of Hou et al. (2012). The properties of the selected
PZT are listed in Table 1. The Young’s modulus and
the strength of the granite are 46 GPa and 100 MPa,
respectively. The Young’s modulus of the epoxy is
2.5 GPa.
The test configuration is illustrated in Figure 8.
Three identical SA blocks were aligned and bonded
together using epoxy to form an assembly. Three such
SA assemblies were prepared, denoted by SA1, SA2,
and SA3. Such alignment helps to reduce frictional
restraint on the middle block, and only the response of
the middle block in the assembly was then measured
when stress was applied to the assembly’s ends. The
charge signal generated was converted to a voltage sig-
nal by the amplifier, and that voltage signal was
recorded by the data acquisition system (NI PXI 4472;
National Instruments), which also measured the load
applied by the servo-hydraulic test machine. Figure 9
shows a photo of the loading test system.
Frequency response of the sensing system
The frequency response of the monitoring system was
examined by applying a frequency-sweep loading

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Sun Yat-Sen University on October 20, 2015

Zhang et al.
Figure 9. A photo of the loading test set-up.
0.15
Output of SA assembly (V)
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
SA output
Applied stress
-0.15
0 100 200 300 400
Time (s)
Figure 10. Frequency-sweep loading scheme.
scheme to the SA1 assembly. The load took the form
of a sine wave sweeping the frequency range of
0.01–10 Hz with a balance level of 7 MPa and an
amplitude of 5 MPa. The time history of the applied
stress and the output voltage of the SA1 are shown in
Figure 10. Figure 11 presents the frequency response of
the monitoring system. Since the amplitude of stress
applied by the servo-hydraulic test machine decreased
somewhat as the loading frequency increased, in Figure
11 the output amplitude of the SA1 is normalized to
the corresponding amplitude of the applied stress.
From Figure 11, it can be seen that when the frequency
exceeded 0.05 Hz, the phase shift dropped below 15°,
5
50 0.0215
Normalized outut voltage (V/MPa)
40 0.0210
Phase shift (Degree)
30 0.0205
Phase shift
20 Normalized SA 0.0200
output
10 0.0195
0 0.0190
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 11. Frequency response of the monitoring system.
and the normalized output of the SA1 was almost con-
stant. This result is similar to that of the test in the pre-
vious section where the charge signal was directly
applied to the charge amplifier. This test reconfirms
that the low frequency limit of 0.05 Hz of the monitor-
ing system can be reliably guaranteed.
SA sensitivity to compressive stress
This set-up allowed testing the sensitivity of the SA
over a wider range than any which has previously been
0 published (Hou et al., 2012). Its response to both the
dynamic load and the initial static load were also
-2
evaluated.
Applied stress (MPa)
-4 Three static stress levels commonly observed in civil
engineering structures were tested: 4.8, 14.4, and
-6
24 MPa. The loading scheme is shown in Figure 12(a),
-8 and as an example, the output from SA1 is shown in
Figure 12(b). The stress was increased stepwise to the
-10
three selected static stress levels, and at each step, a
-12
series of dynamic stresses was applied. To observe any
-14 depolarization of the PZT material, each step lasted for
500 600 700 800
15 min. Due to the low frequency limit of the monitor-
ing system, the system only responded to the dynamic
part of the load signals. The four charge oscillations
labeled as 1–4 were observed when the fast varying
stress was followed by an invariant stress. In that case,
the SA output voltage might give false indications of
varying force. This will be discussed in the next section.
Zoomed-in views of the dynamic stresses in Figure 12
that are in the durations of 943–949 s, 1869–1875 s,
and 2794–2800 s are shown in Figure 13.The dynamic
stresses in the three steps can be represented as a set of
cosine waves with increasing amplitude in each cycle,
covering the pressure range of 4.8–45 MPa. The length
of each cycle of the cosine waves was 1/3 s.
The sensitivity of SA is subject to the influence of
PZT depolarization. Its magnitude can be determined
by dynamic loading. The waveforms of the output sig-
nals from all three samples were quite close to those of
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Sun Yat-Sen University on October 20, 2015
6 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures

(a)

Applied stress (MPa)

10

-10

-30

-50
(b)
0.5
Output voltage (V)

-0.5
1 2 3 4

-1

-1.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s)

Figure 12. Applied stresses (a) and the response from SA1 (b).

(a) (b) (c)

0 0 0
Applied stress (MPa)

-10 -10 -10

-20 -20 -20

-30 -30 -30

-40 -40 -40

-50 -50 -50

(d) (e) (f)

0.3 0.5 0.6
Output voltage (V)

-0.2 0 0.1

-0.7 -0.5 -0.4

-1.2 -1 -0.9
943 945 947 949 1869 1871 1873 1875 2794 2796 2798 2800
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 13. Detailed view of the dynamic stress at the static stress levels of (a) 4.8 MPa, (b) 14.4 MPa, and (c) 24 MPa, and the
corresponding output from SA1 in (d), (e), and (f).

the dynamic loads. Figure 14 shows the curves of out- However, the slope of the SA output versus stress rela-
put voltage versus applied stress for the three SAs at tionship still remained constant. This implies that the
the three static stress levels. It can be seen that the SA sensitivity is somewhat immune to strain rate effects
responded linearly to the dynamic loads without any for this SA material. The highest strain rate occurred in
apparent delay or scattering. The SA’s sensitivity can the interval when the stress varied by 45 MPa within 1/
thus be determined by fitting straight lines. The SA sen- 6 s. The equivalent elastic modulus of the SA can be
sitivities at different static stress levels are presented in replaced by that of granite since most of the SA was
Figure 15. The sensitivities decrease slowly as the static granite. Thus, the highest strain rate can be calculated
stress increases. The decreases for SA1, SA2, and SA3 to be 5.2 3 1023 s21.
from the static levels of 4.8 to 24 MPa were only 2.8%,
4.8%, and 2.1%, respectively. Therefore, it can be con-
cluded that the influence of initial static stress on SA Charge signal oscillation
sensitivity is negligible in that stress range from engi- It should be noted in Figure 12(b) that the charge signal
neering point of view. Here, the average of the calibra- oscillated when the fast varying stress was followed by
tion values of the sensitivities of the three SAs under an invariant stress. The four oscillations labeled as 1–4
the influence of the three static stress levels was used as in the figure were observed. Such loading is commonly
the SA’s general sensitivity, which was 0.0284 V/MPa. observed in civil structures when they are subjected to
It should be noted that as the load amplitudes pounding. The oscillation is due to electromagnetic
increased, the loading rates increased accordingly. induction in the electronics of the monitoring system.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Sun Yat-Sen University on October 20, 2015

Zhang et al. 7

(a) SA1, 4.8MPa (b) SA1,14.4MPa (c) SA1, 24MPa

0.6 0.8 1

Output voltage (V) 0.1 0.3 0.5

y=0.0291x+0.13 y=0.0285x+0.38 y=0.0283x+0.61
-0.4 R2=0.9984 -0.2 R2=0.9978 0 R2=0.9994

-0.9 -0.7 -0.5

-1.4 -1.2 -1
(d) SA2, 4.8MPa (e) SA2, 14.4MPa (f) SA2, 24MPa
0.6 0.8 1
Output voltage (V)

0.1 0.3 0.5

y=0.0284x+0.13 y=0.0276x+0.36 y=0.0271x+0.58
-0.4 R2=0.9975 -0.2
R2=0.9978 0
R2=0.9974

-0.9 -0.7 -0.5

-1.4 -1.2 -1
(g) SA3, 4.8MPa (h) SA3,14.4MPa (i) SA3, 24MPa
0.6 0.8 1
Output voltage (V)

0.1 0.3 0.5

y=0.0289x+0.14 y=0.0286x+0.38 y=0.0283x+0.61
-0.4 R2=0.9983 -0.2 R2=0.9979 0
R2=0.9976

-0.9 -0.7 -0.5

-1.4 -1.2 -1
-60 -40 -20 0 -60 -40 -20 0 -60 -40 -20 0
S tress (MPa) S tress (MPa) S tress (MPa)

Figure 14. Voltage output of the specimens versus the applied stress (in blue) and the line of best fit (in red).

29.5 0.5
SA1 1st
SA2 0.4 2nd
Sensitivity (mV/MPa)

29
Output voltage (V)

SA3 3rd
0.3
4th
28.5 0.2

0.1
28
0
27.5
-0.1

27 -0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 50 100 150 200
S tress (MPa) Time (s)

Figure 15. Sensitivities versus static stress level. Figure 16. First through fourth oscillations of Figure 12.

When the load was no longer varying, the residual the fourth signal started from a positive value due to
charge in the PZT displayed free oscillation as it gradu- unloading. But the figure shows that the shapes of the
ally dies away. four oscillations were basically the same. The charges
It seems necessary, therefore, to identify such charge vanished at an ever-decreasing rate within one cycle.
oscillation to avoid false indications of varying force. The total lengths of the oscillations were about 150 s.
The four oscillation processes are plotted on the same For a civil structure, it generally has a period in the
time axis in Figure 16, starting from zero for ease of range of 0–10 s, which is much shorter than that of the
comparison. The first through third charge signals charge oscillations of the electronics of the monitoring
started from a negative value due to the loading action; system. On the other hand, in free vibration mode, civil

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Sun Yat-Sen University on October 20, 2015

8 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
structures might undergo many cycles of vibrations to
rest due to their low damping ratios, not like the charge
oscillations that vanish in one cycle only. The test
results thus indicate that charge oscillation signals from
the electronics of the monitoring system can be distin-
guished from real structural dynamic responses by their
shape and duration.
Conclusion
In this study, a charge amplifier specially designed for
SA-based stress monitoring systems was tested accord-
ing to the demands of seismic monitoring in low-
frequency and high-stress conditions. A maximum
stress of 100 MPa and a low frequency limit of 0.05 Hz
were considered in the design. The performance of the
charge amplifier was evaluated by directly applying a
charge signal to it. Dynamic loading tests were also
conducted on SA samples with the help of a servo-
hydraulic test machine. From the tests conducted, the
following conclusions can be drawn.
1. The low frequency limit of 0.05 Hz of the spe-
cially designed charge amplifier for seismic
monitoring can be reliably guaranteed. Above
that limit, the amplitude of the output voltage
remains constant and the phase shift is less than
15°. The charge amplifier allows for the maxi-
mum charge input generated by 100 MPa of
compressive stress.
2. Under a dynamic compressive stress with a
range of up to 45 MPa, the output voltage of
SA is a linear function of the applied stress, and
its sensitivity is 0.0284 V/MPa.
3. Under a pre-loaded static stress of up to
24 MPa, the sensitivity of the SA decreases by
no more than 5%. The influence of the initial
static stress on the sensitivity of the SA is thus
negligible from engineering point of view.
4. When varying stresses are closely followed by a
static stress, oscillating charge signals will be
induced in the electronics of the monitoring sys-
tem, but they can be recognized by their shape
and duration, thus avoiding false load sensing.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This study was financially supported by the National
Nature Science Foundation of China (grant no. 91315301-09)
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Sun Yat-Sen University on October 20, 2015
and Provincial Education Department of Liaoning Province
of China (grant no. L2013020).
References
Brüel and Kjær (2015) Charge amplifier—type 2635. Avail-
able at: http://www.bksv.com/Products/transducers/condi-
tioning/charge/2635?tab=descriptions
Celebi M (2006a) Real-time seismic monitoring of the New
Cape Girardeau Bridge and preliminary analyses of
recorded data: an overview. Earthquake Spectra 22:
609–630.
Celebi M (2006b) Recorded earthquake responses from the inte-
grated seismic monitoring network of the Atwood Building,
Anchorage, Alaska. Earthquake Spectra 22: 847–864.
Ferrari V and Gatti PL (1999) Applied Structural and Mechan-
ical Vibrations: Theory, Methods and Measuring Instrumen-
tation. Boca Raton, FL: Spon Press.
Global Sensor Technology (2013) Charge amplifier YE 5852.
Available at: http://www.globalsensortech.com/signal-
amplifiers-conditioners-filters/charge-amplifiers/general-
purpose/charge-amplifier-ye5852
Gu H, Moslehy Y, Sanders D, et al. (2010) Multi-functional
smart aggregate-based structural health monitoring of cir-
cular reinforced concrete columns subjected to seismic
excitations. Smart Materials and Structures 19: 65026.
Gu H, Song G, Dhonde H, et al. (2006) Concrete early-age
strength monitoring using embedded piezoelectric transdu-
cers. Smart Materials and Structures 15: 1837–1845.
Han B and Ou J (2007) Embedded piezoresistive cement-
based stress/strain sensor. Sensors and Actuators A:
Physical 138: 294–298.
Han BG, Han BZ and Ou JP (2009) Experimental study on
use of nickel powder-filled Portland cement-based compo-
site for fabrication of piezoresistive sensors with high sen-
sitivity. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 149: 51–55.
Hou S, Zhang HB and Ou JP (2012) A PZT-based smart
aggregate for compressive seismic stress monitoring. Smart
Materials and Structures 21: 105035.
Kistler (2015) Charge amplifier—type 5015A. Available at:
http://www.kistler.com/us/en/search/?no_cache=1&tx_kesea
rch_pi1[sword]=5015&tx_kesearch_pi1 [page]=1&tx_kesea
rch_pi1[resetFilters]=0&tx_kesearch_pi1[sortByField]=&tx_
kesearch_pi1[sortByDir]=
Laskar A, Gu H, Mo YL, et al. (2009) Progressive collapse of
a two-story reinforced concrete frame with embedded
smart aggregates. Smart Materials and Structures 18:
75001.
Li Z, Yang X and Li Z (2006) Application of cement-based
piezoelectric sensors for monitoring traffic flows. Journal
of Transportation Engineering 132: 565–573.
Miranda E and Bertero VV (1996) Seismic performance of an
instrumented ten-storey reinforced concrete building.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 25:
1041–1059.
Moslehy Y, Gu H, Belarbi A, et al. (2010) Smart aggregate
based damage detection of circular RC columns under cyc-
lic combined loading. Smart Materials and Structures 19:
65021.
Naeim F (1998) Performance of 20 extensively-instrumented
buildings during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Struc-
tural Design of Tall Buildings 7: 179–194.
 Zhang et al.
Rodgers JE and Celebi M (2006) Seismic response and dam-
age detection analyses of an instrumented steel moment-
framed building. Journal of Structural Engineering 132:
1543–1552.
Song G, Gu H, Mo YL, et al. (2005) Health monitoring of a
concrete structure using piezoceramic materials. In: Pro-
ceedings of the SPIE 5765, smart structures and materials
2005: sensors and smart structures technologies for civil,
mechanical, and aerospace systems (ed M Tomizuka),
San Diego, CA, 6 March, pp. 108–119. Bellingham, WA:
SPIE.
Song G, Olmi C and Gu H (2007) An overheight vehicle-
bridge collision monitoring system using piezoelectric
transducers. Smart Materials and Structures 16: 462–468.
Uang C, Yu Q, Sadre A, et al. (1997) Seismic response of an
instrumented 13-story steel frame building damaged in the
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Sun Yat-Sen University on October 20, 2015
View publication stats
9
1994 Northridge earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 13:
131–149.
Xiao H, Li H and Ou J (2010) Modeling of piezoresistivity of
carbon black filled cement-based composites under multi-
axial strain. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 160: 87–93.
Xiao H, Li H and Ou J (2011) Strain sensing properties of
cement-based sensors embedded at various stress zones in
a bending concrete beam. Sensors and Actuators A: Physi-
cal 167: 581–587.
Yan S, Sun W, Song G, et al. (2009) Health monitoring of
reinforced concrete shear walls using smart aggregates.
Smart Materials and Structures 18: 47001.
Yang X, Li Z, Ding Y, et al. (2005) Test on sensor effect of
cement matrix piezoelectric composite. Transactions of
Tianjin University 11: 133–136.