Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
article
info
Article history:
Received 12 January 2008
Received in revised form
11 December 2009
Accepted 3 February 2010
Available online 6 March 2010
Keywords:
Acoustic emission
Bridge monitoring
Bridge test
Non destructive evaluation
abstract
This paper gives a brief review of the acoustic emission technique and its applications to bridge health
monitoring. Emphasis is given to the discussion of available techniques of AE data processing, both
qualitative and quantitative. An assessment of the statistical quantitative analysis technique, intensity
analysis, is illustrated through two case studies. This technique of damage quantification is applied to AE
data collected from two genres of bridges in Louisiana: a prestressed concrete slab-on-girder bridge and
a steel bridge with a concrete deck. Although there were limitations concerning the number and type
of sensors used, much information was collected and useful inferences were made that may help better
diagnose the health of bridges monitored in the future using this technique.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The current state of bridges in the United States calls for the
implementation of a continuous bridge monitoring system that can
aid in timely damage detection and help extend the service life of
these structures. A typical monitoring system would be one which
enables non-invasive, continuous monitoring of the structure. The
passive nature of the acoustic emission (AE) evaluation technique
makes it an ideal choice to serve this purpose. Although the
technique has been successfully used for decades for damage
detection in other fields, its potential in bridge monitoring has not
yet been fully exploited.
Be it for quality control of bridges under construction or structural integrity assessment and monitoring of existing bridges, the
versatility of nondestructive evaluation (NDE) justifies its use in
these structures. Of the many passive NDE techniques available
today, AE was found to be the most widely used for highway
structural assessment [1]. AE testing is a powerful nondestructive
testing tool for real time examination of the behavior of materials
deforming under stress. Load conditions that exist in bridges have
been known to cause materials like concrete and steel to emit energy in the form of elastic waves due to various material-relevant
damage mechanisms. These waves are picked up by sensors
attached to the surface of the material. Further evaluation of the
collected information gives us an overall picture as to the health of
the bridge and helps prioritize repair and maintenance.
This review primarily focuses on the role of AE in bridge monitoring. In the context of bridges, a few merits and limitations of
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anair1@lsu.edu (A. Nair), cscai@lsu.edu (C.S. Cai).
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.02.020
the AE technique have also been listed. The first part mainly discusses the basics of AE, covering the topics of equipment requirements and advances, measurement methods, and various available
data processing techniques. This is followed by a brief overview of
the relevant research work completed to date, including both lab
and field tests carried out on concrete, steel, and fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) bridges or bridge components. Future prospects of
enhancing the capabilities of AE in bridge monitoring systems are
also discussed briefly. Finally, the possibilities of one of the quantitative processing techniques have also been illustrated through
two case studies conducted by the writers.
Although a limited amount of information regarding AE in
bridge monitoring is available, previous reviews presented by authors such as Carter and Holford [2], Holford and Lark [3], and the
ASNT NDT handbook [4] provide quite a comprehensive resource.
Basics of AE pertaining to bridge monitoring are introduced below
for the convenience of the readers.
2. Methodology of acoustic emission
2.1. Basics of acoustic emission
AE is the class of phenomena whereby transient elastic waves
are generated by the rapid release of energy from a localized source
or sources within a material, or the transient elastic wave(s) so generated (ANSI/[5]). Thus, an acoustic monitoring system essentially
requires two integral components: a material deformation that becomes the source, and transducers that receive the stress waves
that are generated from the source.
The schematic shown in Fig. 1 represents the general working principle of an acoustic monitoring system. A developing flaw
emits bursts of energy in the form of high frequency sound waves
which propagate within the material and are received by sensors.
Signal
1705
Electronics
stimulus
(force)
stimulus
(force)
1706
1000
Rise
Time
Energy
Major
Severity
Volts
Amplitude
Threshold
Time
Follow-up
100
Intermediate
Minor
10
Insignificant
Threshold
Crossing
1
Counts
10
Historic index
Duration
Time
composites has led to the use of the Felicity ratio in tracking damage progression in this material [14,15].
Meanwhile, quantification by statistical analysis of parameters
gave rise to the use of Historic and Severity indices in assessing
structural members [17]. This technique has already been successfully applied to FRP and metal piping system evaluations [18]. The
techniques applicability to concrete bridges has previously been
reported by Golaski et al. [17]. A typical intensity analysis evaluates
the structural significance of an AE event by tracking the changes
over time of two indices known as:
(a) The Historic index, which is defined as a measure of the
change in signal strength through the loading phase of the test, and
(b) The Severity index, which is defined as the average signal
strength among the largest numerical values of the signal.
The indices are calculated using the following formulas [19]:
H (I ) =
N
P
Soi
i=K +1
N
N K P
N
(1)
Soi
i=1
Sr =
1
J
J
X
!
Som
(2)
m=1
1707
1000
E
D
Severity
Numerous laboratory studies have been conducted to demonstrate the ability of AE to detect cracks prematurely. Morton et al.
[24], Holford et al. [25], Hamstad and McColskey [26], etc., have
focused on monitoring fatigue crack development and its correlation with AE activity in steel members. A summary of fracture AE
in metals can be found in [27]. Similarly, cracking in concrete had
been the interest of Yuyama and Ohtsu [28] who primarily used
moment tensor analysis to characterize fracture mechanisms in
RC beams reinforced with reinforcing bars and fiber plastic sheets.
They reported that the breakdown of the Kaiser effect occurred
once shear cracking started to set in, and high AE activity in unloading phases implied serious damage. A detailed study of the
AE waveforms revealed that signals produced as an outcome of
shear and flexural cracking had larger amplitudes and duration
than micro cracking phases of damage [29]. Use of conventional AE
instrumentation has led researchers to come out with conflicting
remarks with regards to trends observed in fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) fracture characteristics. A group of researchers, including Shippen and Adams [30], Gostautas et al. [15], etc. reported
that matrix cracking in FRP produced low amplitude signals, while
Valentin [31], Jamison [32], etc. claimed that matrix cracking was
the higher amplitude source mechanism.
100
C
B
10
A
1
10
Historic index
Fig. 6. Intensity plot for a whole bridge [17].
These kinds of special overloads were used as they could not observe any acoustic activity prior to that point. Drafting of a recommended practice in Poland, for testing reinforced and prestressed
concrete structures by AE, culminated from the research work that
was carried out by Golaski et al. [17]. They reported qualitative results from the testing of five different concrete bridges situated in
Poland at different intensities of damage. Shown in Fig. 6 is the
quantified AE result they plotted from testing a new prestressed
concrete bridge, wherein each dot plotted represents AE signals
characterized by analogous features. Since all points lie in the A
zone, implying no serious deterioration within monitored zones,
the plot aptly portrays the structural health of the new bridge.
In-service RC bridges were also assessed by Beck et al. [40] and
Pullin et al. [41], who reported that the reliability of the AE technique of monitoring bridges was in need of an upgrade.
Bridge cable monitoring using AE had been set up since the
1970s. The successful application of AE in monitoring prestressed
structures [42] inspired Paulson and Cullington [43] to adapt the
technique for continuous monitoring of suspension and cable stay
bridge cables. From several trials, they concluded that AE monitoring is indeed suitable for detecting and locating wire breaks in
cable structures. A similar prestressed concrete bridge application
was reported by Brevet et al. [44]. They observed the effectiveness
of wire fracture monitoring, in a prestressed concrete bridge open
to regular traffic, on cables that cannot be inspected otherwise. AEbased health monitoring approaches for bridge stay cables were
extensively studied by numerous researchers such as Rizzo and Di
Scalea [45], Kretz et al. [46], Fricker and Vogel [47], Li and Ou [48],
Jin et al. [49], etc. Gaillet et al. [50] and Zejli et al. [51] assessed
cable anchorages using AE.
Monitoring of prestressed concrete bridges was also reported
by Vogel et al. [52]. Prestressed concrete structures are known to
have almost no cracks at their initial phase of service life; thus,
Vogel et al. [52] suggested that AE might prove more beneficial in
monitoring new cracks that may develop during their service life.
Owing to the various advantages possessed by Fiber Reinforced
Polymers (FRP) it has become an emerging alternative to the traditional materials that constitute bridge components. Since this
material is still not conventionally used in bridges, the literature
available on AE monitoring of bridge components made of this material is limited. However, the method has been used in various laboratory investigations of FRP bridge decks to study the AE signature
and make valuable correlations. One such study was conducted
by Ziehl and Bane [8], who reported their qualitative approach
to testing a sinusoidal sandwich FRP bridge deck. They devised
a cyclic load profile to enable study of acoustic events generated
1708
wireless RF data
transmission
transmitter and
receiver (internet)
at load holds, and traced damage progression from variations observed in the Felicity ratio. Another successful qualitative assessment was conducted by Kalny et al. [53]. They evaluated the change
in AE signature exhibited by a specimen, before and after repair,
under static loading conditions. They concluded that AE activity
was clearly distinguishable prior to repair, and that pre-existing
damage detection was possible by observing AE activity trends.
Historic and severity indices were the basis on which six full-scale
FRP bridge decks in both original and repaired conditions were
evaluated by Gostautas et al. [15]. Although a clear intensity gradation was not achieved for this unique instance, they reported that
the intensity analysis was useful to identify the onset of damage
and subsequent calculation of the Felicity ratio.
3.3. Advancements in AE equipment technology
Since there has been no one system that has been confirmed as
an ideal bridge monitoring system, various issues with regards to
limited sensitivity of available sensors, practical difficulties faced
during onsite installation, and remote access capabilities have been
investigated over the years. The shortcomings observed while using traditional sensors for structural monitoring have been addressed with proposals for new generation AE sensors that are
much more compact, sensitive, and economically viable. The introduction of micro-electro mechanical systems (MEMS) AE sensors
by Ozevin et al. [54] is one such innovation. These sensors show
promising applications for use in bridge monitoring in conjunction with artificial intelligence networks [55]. Similarly, fiber optics technology is also being explored to develop a new generation
of AE sensors [56].
Obviously, one of the key features desirable in a bridge monitoring situation is remote monitoring. This ability for existing
commercial systems has already been incorporated by corporations, such as PAC, which provide on-line remote web monitoring
facilities. The Local Area Monitoring (LAM) is one such AE monitoring instrument developed by PAC in collaboration with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Stryk and Pospisisl [57]
proposed developing a monitoring system that identifies rebar corrosion, a crucial concern in concrete bridges. A Canadian company,
Pure Technologies Ltd., has developed SoundPrint, which locates
wire breaks in prestressing tendons [58]. Vallen systems has introduced AMSY4 and AMSY-5 that had continuous sampling rates of
10 MHz for the feature extraction required for real-time data processing [59]. Implementation of wireless AE sensors is yet another
innovation proposed by Grosse et al. [60]. Fig. 7 provides the basic
concept behind remote monitoring intended for AE using wireless technology. Using this technology, along with performanceenhanced sensors based on MEMS, makes this technology more
economic for huge structures such as bridges [60].
16.77m
16.77m
16.77m
Instrumented span
(a) SR_T1Sh_P1.
(b) SS_T1L1_P1.
(c) SS_T2L2_P1.
(d) SR_T1L1_T2L2_P1.
1709
Meaning
SR
SS
D30
Truck designation
T1
T2
Roadway designation
L1
L2
Sh
Load case repetition
P1
P2
Truck 1
Truck 2
Lane 1
Lane 2
Shoulder lane
Sensor 4
Sensor 3
Sensor 2
Sensor 1
G7
G5
G6
Diaphragm
Pass 1
Pass 2
Sensor 2
Sensor 3
GIRDER #4
Sensor1
45.10m
0.61
m
Sensor 4
Fig. 11. Sensor locations for Day 2 and Day 3 (Elevation view).
1710
100
Amplitude (dB)
300
Events
80
240
180
60
40
120
60
50
100
0
40
32
io
n
90
Y position
350
400
100
250
300
350
400
80
Amplitude (dB)
60
sit
po
300
16
250
100
24
30
200
Time (sec)
Fig. 12. Events versus location of sensors for Day 1 configuration (SS_T1Sh_T2L1_P1).
Amplitude (dB)
150
60
40
80
50
100
150
200
Time (sec)
60
Fig. 14. Amplitude versus time plot for load case SR_T1L1_T2L2_P1/SS_T1L1_T2L2_P1
(Top: sensors 1 and 4; bottom: sensors 2 and 3).
40
0
20
40
60
80
100
100
Results for a single load case in the following paragraph are discussed individually for each pair of sensors due to their location
on different parts of the bridge. The Day 2 amplitude plot seen in
Fig. 14 is generated by the two truck load cases, where the first cluster of data points were generated during the trucks rolling phase of
the test (load case SR_T1L1_T2L2_P1) and after a short time lapse
(approximately 220 s), the second cluster of data points were generated after the trucks were backed up and stopped at the midspan
of the bridge (load case SS_T1L1_T2L2_P1). Careful examination of
the amplitude plots in Fig. 14 also reveals the existence of a few
high amplitude events. This may have been caused by secondary
AE sources originating from the structure due to load effects.
Although the sensor configuration on Day 3 was similar to the
previous day (Day 2), on this day the dynamic load case generated the most acoustic activity among all the load cases. This result
could have occurred because of the existence of the Kaiser effect in
concrete mentioned earlier. Since most of the acoustic signal amplitudes lie in the 60 dB range, the activity may not be a result of
any crack-related damage. Relatively higher acoustic activity was
observed at sensors 2 and 3, placed on the diaphragm, than the
other sensors 1 and 4. This could be attributed to the presence of
discontinuities at the girderdiaphragm connection. Upon close visual observation, the bridge girders appear to be in fairly good condition, with virtually crack-free surfaces. This condition is expected
for prestressed concrete bridges. Thus, even though a few high amplitude events were recorded, these may have been contributed to
secondary sources of AE such as relative displacement of the monitored regions due to load effects and concrete-reinforcement interactions at the interface. It was also noted that a better acoustic
response from the bridge was observable when the structure was
subjected to quasi-static loads rather than dynamic loads. A similar observation was also reported by Golaski et al. [17]. A detailed
analysis of the AE waveforms can help to distinguish the various
AE sources (see Fig. 15).
80
60
40
0
10
15
20
Time (sec)
100
Amplitude (dB)
Fig. 13. Amplitude versus time of sensor 2 for load case SS_T1Sh_T2L1_P1.
Amplitude (dB)
Time (sec)
80
60
40
0
10
15
20
Time (sec)
Fig. 15. Amplitude versus time plot for load case D40_T1L2_P1 (Top: sensors 1 and
4; bottom: sensors 2 and 3).
10
SR_T1Sh_P1
2
2
Severity
Severity
10
1711
SR_T1L1_T2Sh_P1
SS_T1L1_T2Sh_P1
4
4
4
1
1
SR_T1L1_P1
SR_T1L1_T2Sh_P1
D40_T1L1
10
1
Historic Index
10
Historic index
Fig. 16. Intensity chart for load cases of Day 1 (Numbers within the plot represent
sensor #).
10
Table 2
Summary of results from intensity analysis.
Ch
H (I )
Sr
Day 1
SR_T1Sh_P1
1
2
4
1.69
4.13
1.79
0.41
2.81
1.18
SR_T1L1_T2Sh_P1
1.72
0.72
SS_T1L1_T2Sh_P1
2
4
4.77
1.80
4.66
2.02
SR_T1L1_P1
Severity
Load case
D40_T1L1
1
1
10
Historic index
Fig. 17. Intensity charts for load cases on Day 2 (Numbers within the plot represent
sensor #).
Day 2
SR_T1L1_P1
1
2
3
4
3.57
1.53
1.93
2.50
1.82
0.13
0.22
1.13
SR_T1L1_T2Sh_P1
1
2
3
4
3.62
2.54
3.34
3.28
2.81
2.11
2.76
1.92
1
2
3
4
3.62
2.08
2.49
3.28
3.31
2.20
2.86
2.23
0.1
SR_T1L1_P1
1.68
0.38
10
SS-T1L1_P1
2
3
4
2.18
2.40
2.14
0.55
0.91
0.50
SR_T1L1_T2L2_P1
1
2
3
4
1.68
2.18
2.40
2.14
0.46
0.73
1.13
0.60
D40_T1L2_P1
1
2
3
4
1.68
2.35
2.40
2.25
0.79
0.95
1.42
1.04
D40_T1L1
SR_T1L1_T2Sh_P1
Severity
10
SR_T1L1_P1 SST1L1_P1
1
SR_T1L1_T2L2_P1
1
1
D40_T1L2_P1
Historic index
Severity
Day 3
chart for each day of testing, as shown in Figs. 1618. For the
second and third days of testing, results from sensors 1 & 4, located under the girder, are separated from those of sensors 2
and 3, placed across the thickness of the diaphragm close to the
girderdiaphragm joint. There is no data for some sensors due to
either too small numbers or malfunctions.
The dependence of this analysis technique on a minimum number of data points inhibits the representation of data from every
sensor used for monitoring on the intensity chart. Each intensity
chart has been developed for each day of testing and consecutive
load cases, as the technique requires cumulative data assessment.
Here again, the Day 1 results plotted in Fig. 16 show that sensor 2 seems to have acquired AE events of higher intensities than
all the other sensors. Pre-existing cracks at the girderdiaphragm
interface around the two sides of the observed Girder #6 might
have led to the generation of such acoustic activities. Incremental
10
11
0.1
SR_T1L1_T2L2_P1
3
10
D40_T1L2_P1
Historic index
Fig. 18. Intensity charts for load cases on Day 3 (Numbers within the plot represent
sensor #).
loading leads to consequent intensity points which are plotted towards the right corner of the chart.
The intensity charts plotted for the second and third days
seem to correspond to the qualitative evaluations made previously.
Higher loads generate AE with higher intensities, which in turn
help reflect the intensity of crack-related damage in the monitored
structure. From the plots shown in Figs. 1618, we see that the
points of lower loads plot to the left corner of the chart, while a
higher load causes the intensity point to shift towards the right end
of the chart.
5. Case study of a steel bridge
The bridge that was monitored is located along highway LA1 over the Intracoastal Waterway in Port Allen, Louisiana. The
1712
Sensor 3
a
1000
Sensor 4
1.54m Sensor 1
Column
800
Hits
Sensor 2
600
400
200
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time (sec)
b
1200
1000
Hits
800
600
400
200
0
0
20
40
60
Fig. 21. Cumulative AE hit rate (a) normal traffic phase and (b) overload phase.
100
3
Ch # 3
3
Sr
80
Normal traffic
Overlaod
10
Ch # 4
Normal traffic
Overlaod
1
1
H(I)
10
Fig. 22. Intensity chart for acoustic activity from sensors 3 and 4.
1713
[3] Holford KM, Lark RJ. In: Gongkang Fu, editor. Acoustic Emission testing of
bridges: Inspection and monitoring techniques for bridges and structures.
Cambridge (UK): Woodhead Publishing Ltd; 2005. p. 183215.
[4] American Society of Nondestructive Testing (ASNT). Nondestructive testing
handbook, third edition: vol. 6. Acoustic emission testing, Columbus, OH. 2005
p. 125.
[5] ASTM E1316-07b. Standard terminology for nondestructive examinations.
West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM international; 2007.
[6] Grosse CU. www.NDT.net Editorial: Special issue on acoustic emission. 2002.
[7] Carlos MF, Vahaviolos SJ, Cole PT, Halkyard T. Acoustic emission bridge
inspection/monitoring strategies. In: Structural materials technology IV An
NDT conference. 2000. p. 17983.
[8] Ziehl P, Bane WS. Nondestructive evaluation of fiber reinforced polymer
bridges and decks. FHWA/LA 03/376. LA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tulane University. 2003.
[9] Kawamoto S, Williams RS. Acoustic emission and acousto-ultrasonic techniques for wood and wood-based composites: A review. Gen. tech. rep. FPLGTR-134. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory Madison, WI. 2002.
[10] Ghorbanpoor A, Benish N. Non-destructive testing of highway bridges.
Final report # 0092-00-15. Madison (WI): Wisconsin Department of
Transportation; 2003.
[11] Yuyama S, Okamoto T, Shigeishi M, Ohtsu M, Kishi T. A proposed standard
for evaluating structural integrity of reinforced concrete beams by acoustic
emission. In: Vahaviolos SJ, editor. Acoustic emission: Standards and
Technology update, ASTM STP 1353. West Conshohocken (PA): American
Society for testing and materials; 1999.
[12] Ohtsu M, Uchida M, Okamoto T, Yuyama S. Damage assessment of reinforced
concrete beams qualified by acoustic emission. ACI Struct J 2002;99(4):4117.
[13] Huang M, Jiang L, Liaw PK, Brooks CR, Seeley R, Klarstrom DL. Using acoustic
emission in fatigue and fracture materials research. J Mater 1998;50(11).
[14] Ziehl P, Lamanna AJ. Monitoring of the Bonnet carre Spillway bridge during
extreme overload. LTRC project no. 03-6ST. LA: Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Tulane University; 2003.
[15] Gostautas RS, Ramirez G, Peterman RJ, Meggers D. Acoustic emission
monitoring and analysis of glass fiber reinforced composites bridge decks. J
Bridge Eng ASCE 2005;10(6):71321.
[16] Grandt AF. Fundamentals of structural integrity, damage tolerant design and
nondestructive evaluation. NJ: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.; 2003. p. 4268.
[17] Golaski L, Gebski P, Ono K. Diagnostics of reinforced concrete bridges by
acoustic emission. J Acoust Emiss 2002;20:8398.
[18] Committee on Acoustic Emission from Reinforced Plastics (CARP). Recommended practice for acoustic emission of fiberglass reinforced plastic resin
(RP) tanks/vessels. New York: Composites Institute, Society of the Plastics Industry; 1987.
[19] Blessing JA, Fowler TJ, Strauser FE. Intensity analysis. In: Proc., 4th int symp.
on acoustic emission from composite materials. Columbus (Ohio): American
Society for Nondestructive testing; 1992.
[20] Chotickai P. Acoustic emission monitoring of prestressed bridge girders with
premature concrete deterioration. Masters thesis. Austin (Texas): University
of Texas; 2001.
[21] Colombo IS, Main IG, Forde MC. Assessing damage of reinforced concrete beam
using b-value analysis of acoustic emission signals. J Mater Civil Eng, ASCE
2003;15(3):2806.
[22] ASTM E1932-97. e1, Standard guide for acoustic emission examination of small
parts. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2002.
[23] Lozev MG, Clemena GG, Duke JC, Sison MF, Horne MR. Acoustic emission
monitoring of steel bridge members. Final report, FHWA/VTRC 97-R13.
Charlottesville (VA): Virginia Transportation Research Council; 1997.
[24] Morton TM, Harrington RM, Bjeletich JG. Acoustic emissions of fatigue crack
growth. Eng Fract Mech 1973;5:6917.
[25] Holford KM, Davies HW, Sammarco A. Analysis of fatigue crack growth in
structural steels by classification by acoustic emission signals. Eng Syst Design
Anal 1994;8:34953.
[26] Hamstad MA, McColskey JD. Detectability of slow crack growth in bridge steels
by acoustic emission. Mater Eval 1999;57(11):116574.
[27] Ono K. New goals for AE in materials research. In: Acoustic emission Beyond
the millennium. UK: Elsevier; 2000. p. 87190.
[28] Yuyama S, Ohtsu M. Acoustic emission evaluation in concrete. In: Kishi T,
Ohtsu M, Yuyama S, editors. Acoustic emission-beyond the millennium.
Elsevier Science Ltd.; 2000. p. 187213.
[29] Yoon DJ, Weiss WJ, Shah SP. Assessing Damage in corroded reinforced concrete
using acoustic emission. J Eng Mech, ASCE 2000;126(3):27383.
[30] Shippen NC, Adams DF. Acoustic emission monitoring of damage progression
in graphite/epoxy laminates. J Reinf Plast Compos 1985;4:24261.
[31] Valentin D. A critical analysis of amplitude histograms obtained during
acoustic emission tests on unidirectional composites with an epoxy and a PSP
matrix. Composites 1985;16(3):22530.
[32] Jamison RD. Microscopic techniques for damage assessment in laminated
composites.
Louthan Jr MR,
LeMay I,
Vander Voort GF, editors.
Microstructural science, vol. 14. American Society for Metals; 1987. p. 53959.
[33] Pollock AA, Smith B. Acoustic emission monitoring of a military bridge.
Nondestr Test 1972;5(6):16486.
1714
[34] Miller RK, Ringermacher HI, Williams RS, Zwicke PE. Characterization
of acoustic emission signals. Report no. R83-996043-2. East Hartford
(Connecticut): United Technologies Research Center; 1983.
[35] Prine DW, Hopwood T. Detection of fatigue cracks in highway bridges with
acoustic emission. J Acoust Emiss 1985;4(23):S3046.
[36] Pollock AA, Carlyle JM. Acoustic emission for bridge inspection: Application
guidelines. Final report, Contract DTFH61-90-C-0049. Washington (DC):
Federal Highway Administration; 1995.
[37] Pullin R, Carter DC, Holford KM. Damage assessment in steel bridges. In: Key
engineering materials. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 1999. p. 1678;
33542.
[38] Watson JR, Yuyama S, Pullin R, Ing M. Acoustic emission monitoring
applications for civil structures, Bridge Management, Thomas Telford, London,
2005. p. 56370.
[39] Landis EN, Shah SP. Frequency-dependent stress wave attenuation in cementbased materials. J Eng Mech 1995;121(6):73743.
[40] Beck P, Bradshaw TP, Lark RJ, Holford KM. A quantitative study of the
relationship between concrete crack parameters and acoustic emission energy
released during failure. In: Key engineering materials. Switzerland: Trans Tech
Publications; 2003. p. 2456; 4616.
[41] Pullin R, Holford KM, Lark RJ, Beck P. Acoustic emission assessment of
concrete hinge joints. In: Key engineering materials. Switzerland: Trans Tech
Publications; 2003. p. 2456; 32330.
[42] Elliot JF. Monitoring of prestressed structures. Civil Eng, ASCE 1996;66(7):
613.
[43] Paulson PO, Cullington DW. Evaluation of continuous acoustic monitoring as
means of detecting failures in posttensioned and suspension bridges. In: XIII
FIP congress & exhibition. 1998.
[44] Brevet P, Robert JL, Aubaagnac A. Acoustic emission monitoring of Bridge
cables: Application to a Pre-stressed Concrete bridge. DEStech Publications,
First European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, SHM 2002, ENS
Cachan France. 2002. p. 28793.
[45] Rizzo P, Di Scalea FL. Acoustic emission monitoring of CFRP cables for cablestayed bridges. In: Proceedings of SPIE The International Society for Optical
Engineering, vol. 4337. 2001. p. 12938.
[46] Kretz T, Brevet P, Cremona C, Godart B, Paillusseau P. Continuous monitoring
and structural assessment of the Aquitaine suspension bridge. Bull LPC 2006;
1332.
[47] Fricker S, Vogel T. Site installation and testing of a continuous acoustic
monitoring. Constr Build Mater 2007;21(3):50110.