Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Your thoughts on Peak Particle Velocity on monitoring Structures

  1. #1
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5

    Your thoughts on Peak Particle Velocity on monitoring Structures

    Hey all, I'm new here. I came across a video which seemed to discredit PPV as a method for monitoring structures, but I'd love to get other opinions. Does anyone defend the practice and why do people who oppose it do so?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DqOoO2jgkg

  2. #2
    Administrator Kelly Bramble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Bold Springs, GA
    Posts
    1,936
    Quote Originally Posted by x_401_err0r_x View Post
    Hey all, I'm new here. I came across a video which seemed to discredit PPV as a method for monitoring structures, but I'd love to get other opinions. Does anyone defend the practice and why do people who oppose it do so?
    Description "A brief explanation as to why Peak Particle Velocity doesn't always work. "

    I would focus on the part "doesn't always work" . Properly design sensors don't have the challenges he describes...

    I think your focusing on the negatives and not reality.

  3. #3
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5
    So you're saying that the problem is really in the design of the sensors themselves and not using PPV to measure this? What is the basis for this view, Kelly?

    As a general scientific principle, if a method doesn't always work, it can't be relied upon. That was my concern.

  4. #4
    Administrator Kelly Bramble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Bold Springs, GA
    Posts
    1,936
    Quote Originally Posted by x_401_err0r_x View Post
    So you're saying that the problem is really in the design of the sensors themselves and not using PPV to measure this? What is the basis for this view, Kelly?

    As a general scientific principle, if a method doesn't always work, it can't be relied upon. That was my concern.
    What problem? I did not see any information that would lead me to believe that there is a fundamental problem with industry sensors. In industry we specify our requirements, source or design to our requirements then put the sensor into service.

    The video did not demonstrate that there was a problem that needed to be solved...

  5. #5
    Lead Engineer
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Houston TX USA
    Posts
    375
    I will let Kelly give her own direct respnse to your direct question to her; but, here is my simple input on the issue.

    The application of all "reliable" principles even when mathematically determined are dependent upon the accuracy of the observations of those principals and therefore the applicability of the instruments and observation methods utilized in those observations as well as the background priniciples that determmine what method/instrument are appropriate for the observation.
    What I fail to see in the presentation is any statement or display of the amount of error that has been shown to occur from the application of currently available instruments and their application methods; which, brings us to the "close enough" view of measurement applications. As an example, exactly how many decimals of accuracy in a series of calculations are necessary to consider a mathematical solution "accurate" i.e should we abandon the use of PI because we cannot determine its unknown final value as the number of decimal points approach infinity? That is why making statements such as presented based purely upon theoretical arguments of accuracy are of little use in real world applications of science and engineering.

  6. #6
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5
    Really? Did you not notice the simple demonstration in high frequency and the problems therein? Surely, if a model does not work in all cases, it needs a rethink. A new model even. Did you even watch the video? What do you use PPV for Kelly? It might work in the majority of cases but if it doesn't then you've got some pretty big problems. I'm sure we can agree on that.

  7. #7
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by JAlberts View Post
    What I fail to see in the presentation is any statement or display of the amount of error that has been shown to occur from the application of currently available instruments and their application methods; which, brings us to the "close enough" view of measurement applications.
    "Close enough" is not good enough. Especially when dealing with structures worth many millions, billions even, of dollars. This isn't only a theoretical or academic stance but it makes sense in business too.

  8. #8
    Administrator Kelly Bramble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Bold Springs, GA
    Posts
    1,936
    Quote Originally Posted by x_401_err0r_x View Post
    "Close enough" is not good enough.
    In practice - yes it is... well, at least in my 34 years of industry experience this has worked ...

    This is what specifications and competent engineering is about. Set the range of operation, temperature requirements, etc... If the end item utilized in the application meets functional requirements then we are "Close enough".

    I don't care how much money the product costs - perfect does not exist in the products we design, engineer and build.
    Last edited by Kelly Bramble; 11-01-2014 at 05:09 PM.

  9. #9
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelly Bramble View Post
    In practice - yes it is...
    [on overlooking safety practices on structures]. Safety comes first, and even in a business model, we think safe structures are always going to be a good thing. If the model for assessing the safety of structures is flawed, as you've admitted, then the move towards a new system is obvious, isn't it? Where am I going wrong?

  10. #10
    Lead Engineer
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Houston TX USA
    Posts
    375
    Actually, neither Kelly nor I are overlooking “safe practices”. If you think that safety standards are based on “absolutes” and not on "best practices" you have been seriously misled.
    In 40 years of engineering I have worked under the most stringent regulations and standards in practice; and, in the development and applications of all standards there still remain discussions about some of their elements.
    What is most important in applying standards is recognizing the limits of those standards. That is what good engineering practice is based upon. There are no absolutes in science or engineering.
    As for this particular case, I repeat: "the speaker makes only a general statement about limits of accelerometers; for example, his statement about their lack of ability to measure the "0" point of resonance, as though that has any applicability in designing structures to avoid the critical resonance region for safety. I also repeat: "the lecturer does not give any evidence to indicate that current "best practices" and equipment used have failed to provide a safe basis for structural design". If one is going to refute a standard or practice, evidence of their lack of effectiveness is mandatory.
    There is not a single thermometer that is accurate from absolute zero to 10,000 degrees K but that does not mean that there are no thermometers that can accurately measure the safe temperatures for food storage or the safe range of operating temperatures for super heated steam systems.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •