Volume 1

FIBER-OPTIC
SENSORS FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE
HEALTH
MONITORING,
VOLUME I
FIBER-OPTIC
SENSORS FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE
HEALTH
MONITORING,
VOLUME I
Introduction and Fundamental
Concepts
ZHISHEN WU
JIAN ZHANG
MOHAMMAD NOORI
Fiber-Optic Sensors for Infrastructure Health Monitoring, Volume I:
Introduction and Fundamental Concepts
Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2019.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for
brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.
First published in 2019 by

Momentum Press®, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net
ISBN-13: 978-1-94561-224-4 (print)

ISBN-13: 978-1-94561-225-1 (e-book)
Momentum Press Sustainable Structural Systems Collection
Collection ISSN: 2376-5119 (print)

Collection ISSN: 2376-5127 (electronic)
DOI: 10.5643/9781945612251
Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India
First edition: 2019
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America

Abstract
Structural health monitoring (SHM) can be characterized as the integration

of sensing and intelligence to enable the potential damage to be monitored,
analyzed, localized, and predicted in real time and in a nondestructive man-
ner. Over the past two decades, extensive research has demonstrated that
fiber-optic sensors (FOSs) are well suited for SHM sensing requirements
in infrastructure systems. In this book, a brief overview of SHM and the ap-
plication of FOS are presented. The book focuses on advanced techniques
that utilize fiber-optic long-gauge sensing and overcome the limitations of
traditional sensing and fulfill the requirements of infrastructure systems.
The long-gauge FOSs have the merit of revealing both micro- and mac-
rolevel information. Subsequently, a new approach, areawise distributed
monitoring, is thoroughly discussed and its superior performance in SHM
demonstrated. Finally, the application of areawise distributed monitoring,
combined with the aforementioned long-gauge sensing technique, is pre-
sented for groups and networks of complex infrastructure systems.
KEYWORDS
area-wise distributed sensing/monitoring; damage detection; fiber optic

sensors; infrastructure safety; long gauge sensors; structural health monitoring
CONTENTS
Acknolwedgments ix
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Fiber-Optic Sensing Technologies 47
Chapter 3 Area Distributed Sensing/Monitoring Utilizing
Fiber-Optic Sensors (FOS) 89
Chapter 4 Design of the FOS-based Structural Health
Monitoring System 123
About the Authors 165
Index 167
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciations to the

following colleagues for the contributions: Dr. Huang Huang, Dr. Caiqian
Yang, Dr. Suzhen Li, Dr. Wan Hong, Dr. Yongsheng Tang, Dr. Sheng Shen,
and Dr. Zhang Hao. They also want to express their special thanks to their
family for their support. The third author would also want to express his
sincere gratitude to his wife, Nahid, without whose unconditional support,
sacrifice, and encouragements, throughout our many years of companion-
ship, endeavors such as contributions to writing this book would not have
been possible.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 MOTIVATION FOR STRUCTURAL

MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT
1.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Civil infrastructure and lifeline systems are the bedrocks of any functional
society, regardless of culture, religious belief, geographical location,
technological advancement, and economic development. These infra-
structure systems include bridges, buildings, tunnels, airports, transpor-
tation systems, and other life-supporting facilities such as water supply
and distribution, waste and wastewater systems, power plants and grids,
telecommunications, and oil and gas installations. A healthy infrastruc-
ture system supports the economic well-being of a society by facilitating
the production of goods and services and their effective and efficient dis-
tribution. Hence, the sustainable economic growth, productivity, and the
prosperity of any nation depend heavily on the safety, durability, health,
and resilience of its civil infrastructure systems. The civil infrastructure
around the world, which represents an enormous financial investment,
faces a deterioration problem of unprecedented magnitude. Large-scale
engineering structures in developed countries have already begun expe-
riencing deterioration and aging. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show the number
of bridges starting to go through a serious aging process, in a recurring
period of 2 to 4 years, in the United States and Japan, respectively. As
these graphs show, the United States began experiencing a drastic growth
in number of bridges that started to age and deteriorate in the 1980s, and
this process began in Japan in the 2010s. Over the past decade, the prob-
lem of deteriorating infrastructure has become a topic of critical impor-
tance in Europe, and to an equal extent in the United States and Japan.
2 • FIBER-OPTIC SENSORS FOR HEALTH MONITORING, VOL I
60000
1980s, a large number
50000
of bridges began to age
Number of bridges
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Year
6
6
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
12
22
32
42
52
62
72
82
92
02
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Figure 1.1. Deterioration of bridges in the United States
Source: MLITT (2013).
25000
2010s, a large
20000 number of
Number of bridges
bridges began
15000 to age aging
10000
5000
0
Year
1
0
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
27
37
47
57
67
77
87
97
07
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Figure 1.2. Deterioration of bridges in Japan

Source: MLITT (2013).
1.1.2 DETERIORATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS
Deterioration of infrastructure systems due to aging and material degrada-

tion is a global phenomenon regardless of geographical location, the state
of economy, or technological advancement. This problem has become the
source of a great threat to public safety and investment, as well as the integ-
rity of infrastructure. The sustainable economic growth, productivity, and
the well-being of any nation depend heavily on safety, durability, health,
and resilience of its civil infrastructure systems. In the following sections,
these four important aspects of an infrastructure system, which define the
integrity or the deterioration of infrastructure systems, are briefly discussed.
Introduction • 3
1.1.2.1 Structural Safety
Structural safety and reliability is the determination of the effects of

materials, construction, modeling, and loadings on physical structures and
their components. Over the past few decades the academic and industrial
research communities have paid significant attention to these and carried
out extensive studies in the area of structural safety and reliability of civil
structures. However, lack of adequate attention to this important area, es-
pecially in the design codes and constriction practices, in many societies,
has contributed to the deterioration, and sometimes catastrophic failure, of
infrastructure systems and has posed a threat to further economic growth,
safety, and prosperity, especially as the pace of urbanization is rapidly
increasing worldwide. Several tragic incidents of catastrophic structural
failure, attributed to the lack of attention to structural reliability and per-
formance, especially due to man-made disasters, have been reported in
various parts of the world over the past three decades. The sudden collapse
of Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Florida on May 9, 1980, due to the collision
of the freighter MV Summit Venture with a pier during a storm, sent over
365 m (about 1,200 ft) of the bridge plummeting into Tampa Bay, caused
six automobiles and a bus to fall 45 m while 35 people lost their lives. The
1994 Northridge earthquake in southern California, originally classified
as safe, resulted in the failure of several hundreds of steel frame structures.
The Seongsu Bridge connecting Seongsu-dong and Apgujeong-dong of
Gangnam-gu, in Seoul, collapsed on October 21, 1994, due to the sudden
failure of a 48-m slab. This collapse was caused by the failure of bolted
and welded connections of steel trusses that supported the bridge slab. The
Hoan Bridge in Wisconsin was temporarily closed on December 13, 2000,
after two of the three support beams of the lakefront span failed, causing
the north-bound lanes to buckle and sag by several feet and leaving the
span in a near collapsed state. Structural deterioration due to aging was re-
sponsible for the collapse of the Hintze Ribeiro Bridge in Castelo de Paiva,
Portugal, on March 4, 2001. This resulted in the immediate closure of doz-
ens of other bridges across Portugal for rehabilitation and repair. The more
recent tragic collapse of the 40-year-old bridge in Minneapolis, during the
rush-hour of August 1, 2007, shown in Figure 1.3, highlighted the urgent
needs for improving the ongoing structural inspection and maintenance
practices. This event underscored the importance of safety and reliabil-
ity assessment of civil infrastructure despite the biannual comprehensive
bridge inspections that certified the bridge to be safe
Figure 1.4 shows the sudden collapse of 36-year-old overpass on the
Boulevard de la Concorde in Laval, a suburb of Montreal, Canada, and
Kisogawa Ohashi Bridge in Mie Prefecture of Japan. The collapse of the
Figure 1.3. Collapse of I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis
Figure 1.4. Collapse of de la Concorde overpass in Japan on September 30,

2006
de la Concorde Bridge was attributed to design error caused mainly by

underestimation of the traffic volumes. On the other hand, the failure of
Kisogawa Ohashi Bridge was caused by the fracture of diagonal member
of steel truss on National Road 23. Not only did these tragic accidents
cause tremendous casualties and economic losses, but they also attracted
significant public attention due to drastic social impact.
Introduction • 5
There are other causes and factors, as part of structural reliability and
safety assessment, which have contributed to the deterioration and failure
of structures. As reported by the U.S. Department of Defense, in 2013
an estimated $20.8 billion annual expense were related to preventing and
mitigating corrosion of assets, including facilities and infrastructure. As
of 2007, over 50 percent of the world population live in cities, and the
balance has tipped toward urbanization and subsequently an increased de-
mand on infrastructure and urban safety. In the United States alone, it is
expected that over the next 15 years 50 percent of the nation’s bridges,
nearly 300,000, exceed their intended 50-year lives, requiring more vig-
ilant inspections. Moreover, thousands of commercial and other aircrafts
are aging. These are only a few examples and reasons that demonstrate
the importance of the consideration of reliability and safety assessment of
infrastructure systems and the catastrophic impacts that may result due to
lack of such consideration.
1.1.2.2 Structural Durability
Structural durability and life-cycle assessment of a structure are also com-

ponents of structural reliability analysis and uncertainty quantification.
The long-term durability and longevity of infrastructural systems is a topic
of growing concern. This problem has been intensified as a result of the
rapid urban development and urbanization since early 2000, as well as due
to the fact that the life-cycle assessment and uncertainty quantification
were not considered in the design and construction of the vast majority of
infrastructure systems that are currently in service. For instance, when the
Severn Bridge between England and Wales was opened in 1960, its light-
weight deck was regarded as a landmark in aerodynamic design, and it
was estimated that the bridge would function with high level of safety for
a few decades. However, the bridge began to fall apart under the increasing
traffic load 15 years after its construction. This was due to lack of taking
into account numerous uncertainties associated with the design, materials,
and other aspects. The collapse of Mianus River Bridge on Interstate 95
in the state of Connecticut on June 28, 1983, was attributed to corrosion
and fatigue loading of steel support members due to heavy traffic volume,
as well as eventual failure of the pin and hanger assembly supporting the
span. The effect of these factors which play important roles in estimating
the life cycle, and thus the durability, was considered in the design of this
bridge.
What raises concern is that despite the growing trend in infrastruc-
ture aging and deterioration, the existing practices, and even numerous
building codes, do not consider the need for a radically new approach to
address the infrastructure deterioration by taking into account the struc-
tural reliability analysis and uncertainty quantifications. For instance, the
Chinese Standard of Durability Design of Concrete Structures defines
structural durability as “structural component enables itself to keep appli-
cability and safety during designed service life in terms of environmen-
tal effect, repair and usage confirmed by design.” This criteria is defined,
and is based on, the Structural Reliability Design Standard that states,
“[W]orsening of structural material ability will not cause unaccepted fail-
ure probability in specified working conditions and due period.” It might
be true that under ideal design circumstances and normal use a structure
is able to serve through the end of the specified designed service life.
However, and unfortunately, due to ever-increasing demand worldwide on
infrastructure systems—which has resulted due to rapid and unexpected
growth in urbanization, transportation, population, as well as environmen-
tal, climate change, and natural hazards—these perceived “normal” con-
ditions have changed drastically and are no longer present. Fortunately,
over the past two decades, developed countries have begun investing
greatly in scientific research in reliability assessment and reliability-based
design. Findings from these research studies have resulted in enhancing
the durability of construction materials and, subsequently, infrastructures.
For instance, to improve the durability of concrete structures we have wit-
nessed encouraging developments. As an example, to address the problem
with salt scaling and freeze-thaw damage of roads and bridges in Ontario,
Canada, smallest thickness of concrete and steel containment vessels
increased gradually from 2.5 cm in the 1950s to 4 to 6 cm and then to
7 cm in the 1970s. The lowest grade of concrete strength increased from
C25 in the 1950s to C40. The requirements for using concrete in bridge
panels shifted from not considering additional air-entraining agent, and
no requirement for a waterproof layer, to strict usage of air-entraining,
and utilizing advanced waterproof films and epoxy-coated steel. In China,
although an extensive and large volume of research in structural durability
has been carried out over the past two decades, the relatively short life of
infrastructures is still a challenging problem that needs to be overcome.
In order to better understand the severity of this problem in China, let
us consider Japan as an example. Prior to 1970, the service life of roads
and bridges in Japan ranged from 30 to 40 years. In 1971 design stan-
dard of bridge deck slab was updated. Subsequently, in 1973 the design
standards of roads were updated. In 1984 the standard and measures for
preventing salt corrosion were updated. In 1989 related requirements for
alkaline aggregates were updated, and in 2001 standard of fatigue design
was updated. In the meantime numerous other regulations and guidelines
Introduction • 7
regarding durability and service-life improvement were established. These

measures gradually improved the expected service life of bridges and re-
sulted in significant improvement in the service-life expectancy of bridges
from 30 to 40 years to 100 hundred years. The improvement in durability
of Japanese civil structure is shown in Figure 1.5. On the contrary, accord-
ing to one research investigation in the 1980s, in China construction sec-
tion, it has been found that most domestic industrial constructions require
a major repair after serving 25 to 30 years. Constructed facilities built
in severe conditions can only be in service for 15 to 20 years. Civil and
public buildings, on the other hand, have relatively longer service life of
more than 50 years. However, the exterior components such as balconies,
rooftops, terraces, and walkways suffer from a low service life of 30 to
40 years. For major infrastructure systems such as bridges, ports, and load-
ing ducks, durability is comparatively worse. Many constructions may face
serious problems such as steel corrosion and concrete cracking only in a
few years after completion of the project owing to using a steel concrete
covering layer that is too thin, as well as other contributing factors such as
poor compactness. Harbor wharves may need major repairs after being in
service for only about 10 years due to longitudinal cracking and peeling in
concrete. A few factors that may influence structural durability of concrete
and need to be investigated in Chinese construction practices are concrete
carbonization, concrete Alkali aggregate reaction , concrete freeze–thaw
damage, corrosion due to a corrosive environment (such as sulfate and sea
water), abnormal wear and deterioration, reinforcement corrosion, and so
on. Overall, development of standards and construction guidelines based
on structural risk and reliability analysis is badly needed in China.
Figure 1.5. Change of service life and design standard of the road bridge in
Japan (MLC)
1.1.2.3 Structural Health
Structural health of civil infrastructure systems is a necessity for the pros-

perity of any society and for economic development. The criteria and the
requirements for structural safety, durability, and health are interrelated.
Maintaining the structural health provides an assurance for the structural
safety and durability. Thus, any deterioration or even small-scale local
damages within a structure may threaten the structural health, adversely
affect its safety/reliability, and pose potential challenge to its durability
and life cycle. For instance, let us consider the following “health” problems
pertaining to structural health in bridges. One common type of damage
to structural health is crack. In long-span steel concrete bridges cracks
may regularly develop caused by subjectively oversight factors including
design, structural behavior, materials, and/or construction flaws. They may
also be caused by factors sparked objectively such as overload, thermal
loading, concrete shrinkage, and creep. For instance, Jinan Yellow River
Bridge built in 1982 has developed 1386 roof cracks, 11 bottom cracks,
52 abdomen cracks, and 1794 clapboard cracks. Chongqing Shimen
Yangtze River Bridge, constructed in 1988, presently has 233 roof cracks,
84 abdomen cracks, and 78 clapboard cracks. In 1987 the Alex Fraser
Bridge in Vancouver, at the time of completion acclaimed the longest
cable-stayed bridge, developed cracks only 1 year after it opened. Another
source of health issue is excessive deflection in the main span of bridges.
For long-span prestressed concrete girder bridges the biggest “health prob-
lem” that adversely affects their durability is the excessive deflection of
main span, which results from beam cracks. Structural deflection may lead
to more cracks to girders and the abutments. In this case structural rigidity
is decreased and more deflection is caused, which forms a virtuous cycle.
For example, deflection of Kingston Bridge in London completed in 1970,
with a 143-m-long span, measured in 1998 was 300 mm. Deflection of
Sanmenxia Bridge built in 1992, with an 1140-m-long span, measured in
2002 was 220 mm. Another source of damage causing “health” issues is
crack due to fatigue loading, in steel bridges. In China most long-span
suspension bridges and cable-stayed bridges use orthotropic steel decks.
As a result of poor construction and welding practices, fatigue cracks of
longitudinal rib and panel weld, along with longitudinal rib and cross rib
intersections, can easily be caused due to stress concentrations caused by
repeated vehicle during usage. For example, Humen Bridge, placed in ser-
vice in 1997, began experiencing cracks in panel and longitudinal rib weld-
ing, and that started to develop gradually after 2007 on orthotropic steel
deck. These cracks had a significant adverse impact on the ability of the
bridge to with stand normal passage of the vehicles. They also raised major
Introduction • 9
concerns in Chinese Bridge Field. Other factors such as steel corrosion

also affect structural health in different levels. In order to assure structural
safety and long service life it is necessary to discover and resolve structural
health problems in a timely manner.
1.1.2.4 Structural Resilience
A structure’s ability to with stand disastrous impacts in such a way that

can be placed back in normal service in a timely manner is known as
structural resilience. Structural design, on the other hand, is load depen-
dent and does not consider recovery time. Disasters include anything that
debilitate structural functions for a period of time. Structural resiliency
considers community capabilities as they relate to effective preparation
and mobilization before, during, and after events. Three words can best
describe structural resiliency: robustness, redundancy, and recovery. More
specifically, a resilient system is one that shows: (1) Reduced failure prob-
abilities; (2) Reduced consequences from failures, in terms of lives lost,
damage, and negative economic and social consequences; and (3) Re-
duced time to recovery (restoration of a specific system or set of systems
to their “normal” level of functional performance).
The recent past has witnessed numerous structural failures in response
to extreme loading events resulting from both natural and man-made haz-
ards, such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the 1995 Oklahoma City
bombing, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A policy ad-
opted in the United States in 2013 has specifically emphasized the need for
are resilience-based approach to the design of critical infrastructure which
considers all relevant hazards, reduces vulnerabilities, minimizes conse-
quences, and hastens response and recovery efforts. Majority of current
models measure system resilience in terms of the functionality remaining
or lost during the time to full (or nearly full) recovery after a loss of func-
tionality because of a shock, blast loading, or disturbance (i.e., hazards).
The time of recovery is heavily dependent on a host of economic, logisti-
cal, political, and social variables that are potentially difficult to quantify
and predict, such as the post event availability of economic resources and
manpower, recovery strategies (i.e., repair versus retrofit), and the imme-
diacy of access to damaged portions of the system. Rather than attempting
to quantify the time and the cost of recovery, the frame work proposed
in this book infers resilience by correlating the amount of required re-
covery to the amount and severity of damage inflicted by a hazard event.
By limiting the consequences of the hazard (i.e., physical and functional
losses), resilience can inherently been enhanced. Much research is needed
to quantify resilience, particularly for some type of critical facilities. For

critical systems for which the deliverable is not a simple engineering unit,
such as for the case of acute care facilities, the vertical axis is harder to
define, not to mention, quantify.
A broad measure of resilience that captures these key features can be
expressed, in general terms, by the concepts illustrated in Figure 1.7, based
on the notion that a measure, Q(t), which varies with time, can be defined
to represent the quality of the infrastructure of a community. Specifically,
performance can range from 0 to 100 percent, where 100 percent means
node gradation in quality and 0 percent means total loss. If an earthquake
or other disasters occur at time t0, it could cause sufficient damage to the
infrastructure such that the quality measure, Q(t), is immediately reduced
(from 100 to 50 percent, as an example, in Figure 1.7). Restoration of the in-
frastructure is expected to occur over time, as indicated in that figure, until
time t1, when it is completely repaired and functional (indicated by a quality
of 100 percent). Hence, community earthquake loss of resilience, R, with
respect to that specific earthquake, can be measured by the size of the ex-
pected degradation in quality (probability of failure), over time (i.e., time to
recovery). Mathematically, it is described by the graph shown in Figure 1.6.
1.1.3 INADEQUATE BUDGETARY ALLOCATION TO

MAINTENANCE
A healthy infrastructure is the backbone of the economy in al advanced

countries and without that trade and transport would vanish. Unfortunately,
despite growing concern regarding the state of deteriorated infrastructure
Figure 1.6. Schematic representation of seismic resilience concept

Introduction • 11
in most courtiers, especially in the United States, far fewer resources are
dedicated to repairing, updating, and replacing the country’s infrastruc-
ture and the government and the lawmakers continue to neglect the main-
tenance of this vital network. According to numerous reports, especially
those published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),
the country’s infrastructure is woefully underfunded and its condition is
severely degraded, despite local and state agencies’ continued efforts to
form private–public partnerships to manage America’s infrastructure in a
tight fiscal climate. The ASCE documents these shortcomings of invest-
ment in its series of reports and has assigned a grade of D+ to the state
of the infrastructure (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org). The ASCE
estimates that the investment shortfall will be $1.1 trillion by 2020, increas-
ing to $4.7 trillion by 2040. The bottom line, according to the ASCE, is
that if investments in surface transportation aren’t made in conjunction
with significant policy reforms, families will have a lower standard of
living, businesses will be paying more and producing less, and the United
States will lose ground in the global economy. The assets of the civil infra-
structure system in the United States are estimated to be about $20 trillion,
and the system is deterioration at an alarming rate. About 26 percent of the
existing nearly 600,000 highway bridges are either structurally deficient
or functionally obsolete, and an estimated 5,000 additional bridges are
becoming deficient each year. The average age of structures in the inter-
state highway system is 35 to 40 years old. Hence, continuous upkeep of
the civil infrastructure systems like bridges is one of the ongoing planning,
operational, and economic challenges that federal, state, and local trans-
portation agencies constantly grapple with.
This dangerous scenario is not, however, merely limited to the United
States. For instance, over 40 percent of the bridges currently in use in Can-
ada were built before the 1970s, and a significant number of these struc-
tures are in urgent need of strengthening, rehabilitation, or replacement. A
vast majority of investments in the development of civil infrastructure in
Japan are provided by the government. The present railway network was
established in the 1940s, and the first set of high-speed train railway line
began in the mid-1960s. Moreover, Japan currently has over 140,000 exist-
ing bridges. A large number of these stocks are approaching the end of their
service life. Therefore, it is anticipated that the number of aged bridges
(50 years and older) will constitute one-half of all road and railway bridges
by 2025 (Wu and Abe 2003). Deterioration and aging are also important
issues for many highway bridges in Japan, and many of these bridges are
in need of extensive maintenance. The trend of deterioration and aging of
bridges and tunnels reported by the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastruc-
ture and Transportation’s white paper are shown in Figure 1.7.
Number of bridges over 50 years old Number of tunnels over 50 years old
Number of bridges Number of tunnels
60000 3000
National roads National roads
50000 2500
Regional roads Regional roads
40000 2000
30000 1500
20000 1000
10000 500
0 0
1995 2005 2015 2025 1995 2005 2015 2025
Year Year
Figure 1.7. Aging of infrastructure in Japan
Fortunately, the needs for efficient and effective infrastructure main-

tenance have demanded strong attention in Japan recently. This is evident
by the extremely high ratio of government investment to the GDP. How-
ever, the costs of repair and strengthening have skyrocketed within the past
few years, and the level of government investment on new structures has
consistently reduced due to financial difficulties and limited budgetary al-
location. Hence, the focus of Japanese civil infrastructure has now shifted
toward infrastructure maintenance and management in an effort to ensure
a sustainable system. Figure 1.8 shows Japanese government investment
budget for public facilities. It can be seen that after 2010 sum of invest-
ment budget basically remained the same, but infrastructure update costs
vastly increased year by year. It is estimated that maintaining and manage-
ment costs required for fundamental infrastructures will be more than sum
of investment budget until 2037, which will cause massive fiscal deficits.
In Germany, the Federal Road network contains about 36,000 bridges
with a bridge deck area of about 25.6 million square meters, 158 tunnels
with a total length of about 116 km, and a large number of other highway
structures such as retaining walls, noise protection walls, and structures
for traffic signs. The maintenance programs prepared for this purpose not
only require a large budget but also influence the traffic infrastructure and,
thus, the economy and society as a whole. In 2001 about €350 million was
spent for the maintenance of bridges and other engineering structures on
Federal Roads. Prognoses for the future maintenance budget show that the
maintenance costs will rise to about €700 million to keep the condition
of the structures at the present level. This increase is influenced by insuf-
ficient durability of most of the structures which were built during the
years 1960 to 1980. Further important aspects are the growing volumes
of traffic and higher gross weights of trucks, leading to a reduction of the
expected lifetime of bridges. Considering the fact that financial resources
are limited, the maintenance costs have to be spent in a way to obtain the
Introduction • 13
Figure 1.8. Japan infrastructure investment budget and cost of maintenance

Source: JMLC (2014).
greatest possible benefits. Similar problems can be found in other devel-

oped countries.
1.2 INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND

MANAGEMENT
1.2.1 ASSET MANAGEMENT
Fundamental infrastructures asset management refers to considering fun-

damental infrastructures as running asset, objectively seizing and evalu-
ating the sound situation, predicting the required medium- and long-term
asset situation, and realizing optimal management in the premise of re-
stricting budget. In fundamental infrastructures asset management the
most basic factor for deciding on the implementation time needed to carry
out deterioration prediction and maintenance consolidation is to evalu-
ate the current status of structural changes. The concept of asset manage-
ment originates from economics and has been currently introduced into
proceeding general management of civil engineering structures. Funda-
mental infrastructures asset management means considering all kinds of
fundamental infrastructures such as buildings, bridges, tunnels, roads,
high-speed railway, and gas pipe network as assets and developing a coher-
ent system for their management. Values of fundamental infrastructures
regarded as assets are determined by factors such as function, remaining
service life, and so on. Therefore, effective methods to evaluate structural
functions are needed for objectively evaluating their current status. This,
as a result, can help predict performances and development tendency in
the mid- and long term. It is only through establishing such process that we
can likely advance the present system of management of structures during

the entire life cycle in terms of establishing feasible and certain budgets
and a pipeline for maintenance and support. Over the past two decades, ex-
tensive engineering and scientific research has been conducted in various
countries in the area of asset management of infrastructure, and this topic
has gradually become a new research focus in the field of civil engineer-
ing. The initial concept of asset management in civil engineering began in
the late 1990s and early 2000s in the United States, Unite Kingdom, and
Australia. Gradually, other countries, including Japan and European coun-
tries, began to pay increasing attention to this topic. In China significant
progress has taken place in this arena as well. Most importantly, thanks to
a high volume of scientific work and a large number of publications that
have been carried out and produced in less than two decades, the necessary
foundation on which a viable effort and process for asset management
can be developed has been laid out. Nevertheless, development of a com-
prehensive research framework for the infrastructure asset management
technology is still in its initial stage.
Given the growing importance of the concept of asset management in
infrastructure, a brief historical overview on the development process of
the concept of “asset management” is discussed in the following.
The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
first introduced systematic management method of highway infrastructure
assets, including the release of a set of guidelines for asset management.
These guidelines included a systematic approach for describing all related
topics and concepts, as well as defining the necessary tasks and frame-
works required for asset management. This effort makes infrastructure
asset management prior to transportation and provided a reliable basis for
the development of a broader scope for infrastructure asset management.
The endeavor also resulted in facilitating the global cooperation and rais-
ing the awareness on this important topic. Subsequently, other studies and
research efforts focused on infrastructure asset management were gradu-
ally initiated and carried out by other countries and institutions.
Currently, Australia and New Zealand have developed the most widely
recognized asset management and highway management regulations. The
range of management, optimization, and prediction for practical compre-
hensive information, necessary for highway bridge management system,
is in continuous expansion. Since the late 1980s, these countries have be-
gun the evaluation of the economic value infrastructure assets, and begin-
ning 1997 all transportation departments were asked to prepare the status
of highway assets in annual economic reports. Through more than 10 years
of cooperation the two countries continued to promote asset management
Introduction • 15
projects. In 1997 Australian Commissioner of Highways issued a prac-

tice manual for strengthening asset management strategy in which 38 key
research and development projects were identified, including developing
road measurements, road deterioration models, standards for long-term
performance testing, etc. Under the guidance of the manual, many related
agencies have all established asset management manuals and guidelines as
well as detailed implementation processes. However, due to lack of a set
of national standards, Australian highway departments need to establish
a unified management interface for more effective implementation of the
plan.
In Japan rapid economic development resulted in an economic re-
cession in this industrialized country in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
In order to reduce the fiscal deficit, the Japanese government reduced
investment and expenditures in infrastructure, carried out a series of re-
forms in infrastructure industries, and formulated a set of fiscal measures
that consolidated many of the relevant services and organizations such
as infrastructure and construction, fiscal investment and financing, and
system of specific financial resources. It also began to privatize several
government agencies. Japanese Transportation Economy Report in 1998,
launched by the Japanese Ministry of Land, pointed out that an efficient
integrated transport infrastructure asset management system needed to be
established in order to serve as a starting point for an efficient and coor-
dinated shared decision-making process, coordinated development, and
scientific management between infrastructure construction department
and transportation department.
Over the past 10 to 15 years, European countries have also gradually
become increasingly aware of the importance and the necessity of infra-
structure assets. Asset Management Systematic Engineering Description,
issued by the European Development Working Group in 1999, introduced
the concept of asset management in infrastructure management by placing
an emphasis on a systematic and consolidated approach as well by stating
that “aside from the importance of the developing proper management
methods for an existing traditional single facility, it is wise to pay atten-
tion to achieving an integrated management system, given the limited re-
sources of the entire network of roads.”
As a result of the growing importance of the new concept of asset
management, infrastructure management departments in various countries
have established different types of databases and management systems in
order to maintain and manage the system in more effective ways. Bridge
management system, introduced later in this chapter, deals specifically
with the asset management of bridges. In general, asset management con-
cept and various types of management systems attempt to develop and
introduce a more optimal management for the assessment of infrastruc-

ture systems, incorporating both time and space for massive infrastructure
systems assessment. In the following, a few specific measures and assess-
ment metrics, such as life cycle with minimum cost, structural long-term
performance evaluation, and so on are introduced. All these measures are
integral parts of an asset management system and its overall framework.
1.2.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a process to determine the most

cost-effective option among different competing alternatives to assess the
safe level of operation, maintenance, and/or dispose of an asset based on
scientific and technical assessments and grounds. For example, for a high-
way pavement, in addition to the initial construction cost, LCCA takes
into account all the user costs (e.g., reduced capacity at work zones) and
agency costs related to future activities, including future periodic main-
tenance and rehabilitation. All the costs are usually discounted and total
to a present-day value known as net present value (NPV). In other words,
LCCA is a method for assessing the total cost of a facility ownership.
This concept was introduced in the United States in the 1960s, by the
U.S. military, which was applied to equipment acquisition, and since then
has extended to various business sectors and civilian enterprises. It is an
analysis done to improve the cost-effectiveness of a system. The analysis
is made on the basis of product development studies, project evaluation
and management accounting. It calculates the overall cost of a system or
product through its entire life span. In order to make a system cost-effec-
tive, its various developmental stages are carefully studied, so that cost per
developmental stage can be calculated accurately. The analysis of a system
includes appraisal of cost for planning, research and development, produc-
tion, operation, maintenance, cost of replacement, and disposal cost.
In order to reduce the significant costs of infrastructure spending on
maintenance management, Europe, America, Japan, and other developed
countries began to incorporate the concept of life-cycle cost (LCC) begin-
ning in the late 1980s. LCC in infrastructure may encompass areas such
as construction costs, maintenance, use and dismantling existing systems
or units (e.g., piping systems or electrical systems), environmental costs,
social costs, and other minimal cost design ideas. Starting in the 1980s,
LCC method was gradually applied to road transportation by incorporat-
ing and considering the issue of optimizing construction project of LCC,
and thus implementing the concept of life management from the perspec-
tive of cost, as well as considering construction cost synthetically, in order
Introduction • 17
to select the best solution to the life cost. The concept of LCCA basically
implies the fact that it is better to consider protective measures in advance,
in the design stage, in order the extend the structure’s life cycle, or ignore
those measures and repair the system after it is broken. Thus, it requires
making technical and logistical decisions based on the economic feasibility
and other necessary factors. In construction, it is the responsibility of the
contractors to assess the expected life cycle of construction and account
for, and circumvent the possibility of, short-term malfunctions, damages,
and breaking down in order to prevent huge economic losses to be han-
dled by later generations. The aim and the standards of life-cycle analysis
for bridge construction evaluation are to realize minimal integrated cost,
implement reliable and long-lasting technologies, and considering the
economical feasibilities under the premise of ensuring project life.
The Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century launched by
FHWA in September 1998 defined life cycle as a process to analyze the
project life cycle in order to assess the total economic value of the proj-
ect, including the initial cost and discounted future costs such as the costs
associated with maintenance, reconstruction, restoration, recovery, and
resurfacing. The project NCHRP12-43 of National Engineering Technol-
ogy Corporation, responsible for overseeing the Transportation Research
Committee in 2003, developed a comprehensive procedure for LCCA. Of
particular note in this procedure was the explicit introduction of vulnera-
bility and uncertainty in the analysis. Consideration of vulnerability and
uncertainty results in a more realistic estimate of LCC. The three costs
model (agency cost, user cost, and vulnerability cost) was used to ana-
lyze the bridge life-cycle process. The analysis used stochastic process
and Monte Carlo simulation theory to analyze the bridge LCC uncertainty,
and applied that method to the bridge management system. Meanwhile, a
program for analyzing bridge LCC was developed to apply to new bridges
for their assessment, maintenance, decision, timing selection, cost uncer-
tainty evaluation, new structure materials evaluation, etc. The analysis
could automatically generate discounted rate report, maintain event time
report, maintain event cost report, cost probability distribution report, and
cost comparison analysis report.
In the past 20 years, studies of bridges LCC have resulted in remark-
able achievements. Many researchers have proposed methods for bridge
design, maintenance, updating LCC analysis, and LCC assessment. Some
of the specific achievements in the relevant fields include setting up
conceptual model of bridges LCC, studying degenerative LCC based on
the structures of completed bridge projects, reviewing LCCA of bridges
aiming at avoiding risks of natural disasters, cases of bridge maintenance
plans and optimization based on minimum expected LCC criterion, etc. In
China, in particular, researchers have focused on forming analysis methods

according to target reliability for bridge design based on benefit–cost anal-
ysis, confirming components and the way in which the LCC of bridges are
calculated, LCC comparison and analysis of reinforced bridges and new
bridges, introducing value engineering concepts, establishing research on
hybrid LCC optimization model, and so on. Structural LCC minimization
and the structural preventive and predictive maintenance, described in the
following section, bear some similarities.
1.2.3 PREVENTIVE AND PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE
Structural maintenance can be divided into various categories due to the

fact that depending on the function of the structures, each structure type
is maintained differently during their effective service life. Traditionally,
a structure is manually inspected periodically and a major maintenance
or repair is normally carried out if a component fails or a major damage
occurs. This is commonly referred to as breakdown maintenance. If any
structure, such as a bridge, is subjected to a major damage, such as compo-
nent failure, either the expected performance of the structure is adversely
affected or the structure may become completely dysfunctional; that is,
not being able to provide the expected service. Therefore, the mainte-
nance, especially in the case of complete shutdown for repair, can be very
costly and results in the loss of service as well.
Given the cost and other issues involved with breakdown mainte-
nance, the field of predictive maintenance emerged as a more effective ap-
proach to optimize structure LCC. Predictive maintenance, originated in
the field of mechanical engineering, comprises of techniques and methods
that are designed to help determine the condition of in-service equipment
in order to predict when maintenance should be performed. This approach
promises cost savings over routine or time-based preventive maintenance,
since maintenance tasks are performed only when warranted. Predictive
maintenance allows convenient scheduling of the corrective maintenance
that may be needed in order to prevent unexpected failures. The key is
“the right information in the right time.” By knowing which equipment or
component needs maintenance, maintenance work, including the people,
parts, etc., can be better planned and what would have otherwise been
“unplanned interruptions” are transformed to shorter and fewer “planned
interruptions,” thus increasing the availability of a structure. Other poten-
tial advantages include increased lifetime, increased safety, fewer acci-
dents with negative impact on environment, and optimized handling of the
required components.
Introduction • 19
Predictive maintenance differs from preventive maintenance because

it relies on the actual condition of the structure, rather than average or
expected life statistics, to predict when maintenance will be required. The
“predictive” component of predictive maintenance stems from the goal of
predicting the future trend of the equipment’s or the structure’s condition.
This approach uses principles of statistical process control to determine at
what point in the future maintenance activities will be appropriate. Most
predictive maintenance inspections are performed while equipment or
structure is in service, thereby minimizing disruption of normal system
operations. Thus, adoption of predictive maintenance can result in sub-
stantial cost savings and higher system reliability.
As shown in Figure 1.9, performance of civil engineering structures
gradually decrease during the entire service period with time passing, and
maintenance after structural damage will cause the cost increased dramat-
ically. In contrast, structural predictive maintenance can be implemented
before structural performance drops to the limit state by finding and by
locating those parts and components that need to be repaired in advance.
Thus, the repair that is conducted can be very effective in prolonging struc-
tural service time, preventing structure to suffer from adverse impacts on
its expected service life and, in the meantime, obtaining life extension.
As described above, structural maintenance can therefore be divided
into three categories: breakdown maintenance, predictive maintenance,
and preventive maintenance (Figure 1.11). Breakdown maintenance, as
described earlier, means repairing the structure once the damage or failure
has occurred. Preventive maintenance does not rely on the actual condi-
tion of the structure, instead uses the average or expected life statistics.
Predictive maintenance relies on the actual condition of equipment, rather
than average or expected life statistics, to predict when maintenance will
be required. Predictive maintenance evaluates the condition of the struc-
ture by performing periodic or continuous (online) condition monitoring.
This is done through detection and monitoring of infrastructure, measured
Preventive maintenance implementation

Performance
Predictive maintenance implementation
Post maintenance of the implementation of the benchmark
Service limit state Years
Figure 1.9. Different structure maintenance implementation

data based on structural identification and performance evaluation meth-

ods. The ultimate goal is to perform maintenance at a scheduled point
in time when the maintenance activity is most cost-effective and before
the structure loses performance within a threshold. This is in contrast to
time-based and/or operation count-based maintenance, where a piece of
equipment gets maintained whether it needs it or not. Time-based mainte-
nance is labor-intensive, ineffective in identifying problems that develop
between scheduled inspections, and is not cost-effective. More targeted
and more effective infrastructure maintenance and management can be
set up according to prediction of future structural performance situation.
In predictive maintenance, more emphasis is placed on the importance of
structural health monitoring (SHM) and performance evaluation within
the scope of structural long-term performance prediction and infrastruc-
ture life-cycle management. Both preventive and predictive maintenance
are carried out when the structure has not yet failed or destroyed. The for-
mer is a simple and regular advanced maintenance while the latter is based
on using structural monitoring and other means to predict the structure’s
long-term performance.
As shown in Figure 1.9, baseline of structural predictive maintenance
lies between that of preventive and breakdown maintenance, and may vary
in a certain range according to different types of predictive maintenance.
As shown in Figure 1.10, predictive maintenance can be subdivided into
two types. One form pertains to life prolongation effect, which targets
at maximizing the ratio of function and cost. For instance, in Japan and
other developed countries, due to lack of management and maintenance
cost, measurements are taken not to invest funds for maintaining some
old structures but to continue using in the premise to ensure structural
safety by monitoring and other means. So a maximum of B/C (i.e., ben-
efit/cost) can be achieved here. The other type is basically the ideal one.
By predicting the structural life-cycle performance situation and through
monitoring, lowest structural LCC can be achieved through predictive
maintenance and monitoring.
Figure 1.11 shows the structural LCC, which in simple terms includes
the initial construction cost, cost of maintenance, and management for
each stage. To optimize the life of the structure, three types of methods are
shown in Figure 1.11, which are generally adopted. The first is adopting a
life-prolonging technology. This is done when the construction is initially
completed. This requires increasing the initial cost by incorporating all re-
quired strategies, such as the necessary instrumentation for collecting data
and monitoring for predictive maintenance. With his approach, although it
requires a larger upfront investment, the potential costs/expenses associ-
ated with later periods can be avoided. Thus, by implementing this approach
Introduction • 21
the LCC will reduce due to assuring a longer life. The second approach is
associated with the implementation of preventive maintenance which, as
described above, can be divided into two types: the life-prolongation effect
and the ideal type. The former ensures that structural safety and reliability
is extended as far as possible to achieve the maximum B/C by monitoring
data for deducting future structural defects and occurring damages. This
case also requires no, or highly reduced, maintenance costs and results in
the maximization of structural function and cost ratio. The third option
achieves minimal structural LCC by monitoring the data to detect changes
in behavior, and thus potential malfunctions, based on which advanced
maintenance is carried out. These three specific measurements can reduce
structural LCC compared with traditional postmaintenance (breakdown
maintenance), while structural predictive maintenance offers the most ef-
ficient and promising results.
Maintenance action is
Post maintenance/Break-down
undertaken only when the
Maintenance
component/structure fails
Maintenance Preventive Regular maintenance scheduled

management Maintenance periodically and in advance,
type
Through the assessing the actual Extended life type:

Predictive
condition of the structure/equipment Maximizing B/C
Maintenance
and via long-term monitoring
technology, analysis and evaluation
or intelligent assessment. Also by
taking into account the efficiency
to cost ratio of the maximum or full
life cycle Ideal type˖
Minimizing LCC
Figure 1.10. Classification of structure maintenance management
Cost
Administration Life cycle

cost cost
Initial
cost
Life Time
1. Long life technology 2. Long life technology 3. MaximizingB/Cand Minimizing LCC
Cost Post maintenance Cost Preventive Post maintenance Cost Post maintenance
maintenance
Long life technology Predictive maintenance
benefit : Long life benefit: Low cost Ideal type

Time Time Time
Figure 1.11. Analysis of cost based on the structure’s life cycle

Various forms and strategies for maintenance, based on structural pre-

ventive and predictive maintenance, have been implemented and utilized
in varying extents in Japan, the United States, and other countries over
the past two decades. Adopting predictive and preventive maintenance for
infrastructure management in these countries has stemmed due to the fact
that a large volume of existing infrastructure has begun to age and thus
experience severe deterioration. For example, completed in 1883 in New
York City, the Brooklyn Bridge, world’s first suspension bridge, has been
in use for more than 130 years. In order to extend the service life and
longevity of this valuable structure, in recent years, various predictive and
preventive maintenance management strategies have been implemented
which include regular inspection, maintenance, reinforcement, monitor-
ing, and other measures. Analogous to the concept of preventive medicine,
the core idea behind predictive maintenance or structural LCC minimi-
zation, is the early detection and early treatment for structural abnormal
conditions. It is only through early discovery and detection of structural
damage, or even minor faults, in early stages, along with an effective
“structural health management” that the structural safety and reliability
can be assured, the life cycle can be extended, and the LCC can be low-
ered. The question remains: How to carry out early detection of structural
damage, especially minor and invisible damages, the most effective way?
In light of this problem a large volume of scientific research and tech-
nological developments have taken place over the past two decades (Aktan
et al. 2001; Farrar et al. 2004) in several advanced countries. Development
and implementation of effective strategies, methods, and technologies for
damage detection, health monitoring, early-stage damage identification,
especially for hidden and invisible damage and deterioration, is the most
promising and effective means for the evaluation of the present, as well as
the long-term performance of a structure, and for achieving the most re-
liable structural preventive maintenance. SHM also assures the longevity
and further sustainability of infrastructure systems and, hence, the pros-
perity of the nation’s economy.
1.2.4 LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

AND PREDICTION
As discussed above, it is obvious that the implementation of asset manage-

ment, minimum LCC, and predictive maintenance management strategies
all require the need for assessment techniques that can efficiently evaluate
the state of the health of a structure during its entire life cycle based on the
current behavior and response analysis of a structure.
Introduction • 23
With breakthroughs in the development of smart materials such

as piezoelectric, shape memory alloys, magneto rheological fluids,
fiber-reinforced polymers and other composite and sustainable materials,
and the integration of these materials with structural control, the new
field of smart structures emerged in the early 1990s. These developments
resulted in growing awareness for addressing the challenges facing the
deteriorating civil infrastructure. This growing awareness, and the in-
creasing support by federal agencies such as the U.S. National Science
Foundation, along with the development of new sensing technologies
gave birth to another new field in the mid-1990s; namely, the field of
SHM. Development of advanced sensing technology, data acquisition,
processes and algorithm interpretation resulted in rapid growth and
expansion of this new field in the late 1990s and early 2000s and this
growth has continued since then. The expansion of the field of SHM,
especially recent advancements in sensor networks and fiber optics, on
one hand, and the increasing public demand for greater reliability, safety,
affordability, and resiliency of the aging urban infrastructure systems,
along with the ever increasing pace of urbanization, has brought about
an exciting era and unprecedented opportunities for the development of
intelligent infrastructure systems. As a result, the field of SHM has begun
to become a dominant and leading field of research in civil engineering
in the years ahead, especially with the increasing demand for more reli-
able life-cycle assessment of aging infrastructure and for building more
intelligent, resilient, and sustainable infrastructure systems and smart cit-
ies of the future.
A new strategic investment in infrastructure research in the United
States began in 2005, when a series of programs were introduced to
study the long-term performance of a large number of highway bridges.
In 2005, the U.S. Congress approved the Secure, Responsible, and Effi-
cient Transportation Assets Act. With the support of this act, the FHWA’s
Infrastructure Research and Development Agency launched Long-Term
Bridge Program (LTBP) in 2008, which planned to carry out research for
bridges long-term performance within a time period of 20 years or lon-
ger. The program was mainly focused on studying how to improve the
overall knowledge on bridges performance, bridges deterioration mecha-
nisms, promoting development of bridge deterioration prediction models,
more effective use of LCCA method, promoting the development of non-
destructive testing and structural evaluation technology through applica-
tion of nondestructive detection, SHM technology, etc. Overall LTBP was
planned for gathering the data and the information required for the de-
velopment of more advanced bridge design and construction, quantifying
bridge maintenance, repair and strengthening programs, optimizing bridge
maintenance with the aim of reducing traffic congestion and accidents,

initiating the next generation of bridge maintenance and management sys-
tems, and providing a baseline for the federal government to formulate
relevant policies.
LTBP plans to collect quantitative data on representative bridges
from across the United States. These data will then be utilized as a da-
tabase for future long-term studies. As part of these studies, researchers
will conduct periodic detailed inspections, and will monitor and evaluate
selected bridges. They will also repeatedly and periodically assess the
physical state of selected bridges, and will conduct damage analysis or
anatomy on retired bridges in order to learn more about their perfor-
mance, reliability and damage. During the round of preliminary studies,
seven bridges were selected, which respectively represented the most
common type of bridges across the United States in terms of structural
section forms and environmental characteristics. These bridges were lo-
cated in the states of California, Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, New
York, Utah, and Virginia. LTBP has continued to build databases to in-
tegrate multiple data sources, including national bridge inspection data
(NBI), PONTIS bridge management database, weather, traffic, and other
data. Once the database is completed, users will be able to access this
database and find all relevant and necessary information for research
studies. The data include a wide range of information on bridges such
as bridge type, age, statistics on the bridge environment, traffic informa-
tion, geographic location, and evaluation results over the past 20 years,
etc., through a web-based portal (Bridge Portal). In addition, and in order
to, maintain the continuity of data collection, another bridge evaluation
and decision tool software has also been developed as part of the afore-
mentioned program. The software integrates a variety of detection, mon-
itoring, nondestructive testing, testing techniques and data collection
standards. Users can access and query through web-based applications.
Query results are specific standard testing forms, including detailed de-
scriptions, required equipment, technical measures, detection frequency,
and output data.
Similar efforts have also been initiated in other countries. For in-
stance, China has recently launched an extensive research program for
long-term performance evaluation of bridges. With the help of the plat-
form developed by the U.S. Federal Highway Research Administration,
and by utilizing advanced technologies developed for bridges, a number of
governmental agencies and research and scientific divisions have already
begun programs for long-term bridge performance projects by follow-
ing and tracking the American bridges long-term performance research
program as a role model. Based on the specific infrastructure needs and
Introduction • 25
challenges in China, several representative bridges have been selected, ac-

cording the factors such as the structural type, environment, and other
variable, for long-term performance observation and data acquisition.
Due to the importance role of concrete bridges in infrastructure systems,
and as a priority, long-term performance measurement index of concrete
bridges has been initially established. Following are selective goals from
those established for the aforementioned study and for the collection of
5- to 20-year data: establish the database of Chinese highway and bridges
long-term performance, carryout research on the evolution mechanism
and load carrying capacity of highways and bridges under actual operation
conditions, promotion of development of highway and bridges structural
time-varying theory, providing support for quantitative design of highway
and bridges durability.
As discussed earlier, it is not only the safety and maintenance of
bridges that is an important factor in maintaining the safety and reli-
ability of infrastructure systems. The reliability and maintenance of
large-scale and complex system of urban infrastructure is also a piv-
otal task for the infrastructure protection and safety. Thus, addressing
this challenging issue has become a top priority for all governments
and agencies in advanced countries, for assuring structural safety as
well as optimizing the maintenance and management costs. The United
States, Australia, Japan, Europe and other countries have launched a
variety of initiatives and programs aimed at the revitalization and of
infrastructure and consideration of asset management in infrastructure
systems. Understanding and implementation of LCCA in this context
is also quite important. Several eminent scholars, such as professor
Frangopol at Lehigh University, have introduced methodologies for the
LCCA of structural systems that can be implemented for the safety
assessment and monitoring of infrastructure systems. The essence of
LCCA is to consider protective measures in advance or plan for the re-
pair after the damage. This is the decision that needs to be made during
the construction design phase and it is based on the right decision that
the optimum cost saving can be achieved in the life cycle. Valuable
lessons in this regard can be learned from the evaluation of LCC for
bridges The key factor in establishing the right path, whether in infra-
structure asset management or bridges is to determine the long-term
performance variation rules in a certain historical period and assess
how important the safety and reliability of the structure is during the
life cycle of a structure. It is due the importance of how to develop
the right strategy that research on the assessment and prediction of the
long-term performance of structural systems has attracted increasing
attention in recent years.
Maintenance management
concept Corresponding Strategy
Asset holding Test standard/Data management

system/Detection auxiliary means
(manual/damage example)
Structural life cycle cost
minimization
Structural health monitoring
techniques for structural status and
Preventive and predictive risk assessment and deterioration
maintenance prediction with high accuracy
To achieve LCC minimization of long

Evaluation and prediction life repair reinforcement and long life
of long-term performance structure technology
Figure 1.12. Technical means to achieve structural maintenance management
As discussed earlier, the long-term performance evaluation and

safety assessment and prediction of infrastructural systems include sev-
eral aspects, criteria and strategies including asset management, structural
LCC minimization, preventive and predictive maintenance and structural
long-term performance evaluation and prediction. Technical means that
are needed in order to decide what aspects or strategies should be imple-
mented for achieving the best structural maintenance plan are depicted
in Figure 1.12. These aspects or strategies include: structural detection
methodologies; suitable SHM techniques to identify the status of the
structural health and perform the risk assessment and deterioration predic-
tion, as well as long-term repair and reinforcement methods and tools, and
the necessary schemes for realization the minimum LCC. The first two
approaches and aspects aim at implementing structural predictive main-
tenance techniques and systems that can detect the existence or occur-
rence of damage in advance, while the third strategy aims at carrying out
reinforcement plans after the discovery of structural early damage. This
means that many concepts of structural performance evaluation and infra-
structure maintenance and management, based on detection and health
monitoring schemes, such as asset management, preventive maintenance,
and LCCA structural long-term performance are closely interrelated. It
is due to this interrelation that the proper and feasible integration, as well
as an effective utilization, of data mining for structural maintenance and
management has become an important area in infrastructure maintenance
and protection. In the following section the relevance and overview of
SHM in the context presented herein will be discussed.
Introduction • 27
1.3 STRUCTURAL INSPECTION
The safety of civil infrastructure systems requires periodic monitoring,

effective management, and prompt maintenance and restoration. The de-
mand for an efficient and effective infrastructure maintenance strategy has
received considerable attention globally, especially in recent years. This is
due to several factors such as accumulation of aging infrastructure, over-
loading, imminent risk of natural disasters, increasing public demand on
infrastructure, declining government investments in new infrastructure,
and limited government expenditure on maintenance. Depending on the
degree of importance, ownership, and nature of the risk or hazard, some
new measures for inspection, monitoring, and maintenance have been un-
dertaken, and are now enforced by law, to address this issue. However,
the effectiveness of an inspection, monitoring, and maintenance program
is hinged upon their prompt and accurate ability to reveal problematic
performance.
1.3.1 ROUTINE INSPECTION VERSUS NONDESTRUCTIVE

INSPECTION TECHNIQUES
Routine (primarily visual) inspection is the key activity that is commonly

used in structural inspection. Usually, a set of structural condition guides/
rules (based primarily on the appearance) for individual components, or
the entire structural system, are developed along with the instructions.
Subsequently, the data collected from the inspections are collected, cat-
egorized, and presented in inspection reports. If major structural defects/
problems are identified in the routine inspection, an in-depth inspection is
carried out. This type of inspection technology includes (i) structural ma-
terial sampling and laboratory tests; (ii) on-structure testing/inspection by
general portable tools such as concrete cover-meter, concrete crack-meters,
concrete test hammer (Schmidt hammer), corrosion mapping systems,
concrete carbonation detector, concrete chloride attack detector, leveling
stations, and tide gauges; (iii) structural strength, deflection (settlement),
and integrity evaluations by loading devices; and (iv) desktop studies in-
cluding structural modeling and analysis. Other advanced portable tools
in this category include equipment for flaws and corrosion detection in
steel cables and structural steel sections, such as magnetic flux leakage
detectors and phased-array ultrasonic sensors.
The aforementioned approach—that is, manual inspection—has
been the dominant approach for maintaining civil infrastructures until
recent years. These manual techniques, which belong to the category of
nondestructive evaluation (NDE), require the interpretation of data using

conventional technologies. Civil engineering structures are, however, very
large and complicated. Typically, they are massive in size, interact with
soil and/or water, are composed of heterogeneous materials, are difficult
to access, and contain architectural obstructions.
There are numerous NDE techniques, each based on different theo-
retical principles, and producing different sets of information regarding
the physical properties of the structure. These properties such as compres-
sional and shear wave velocities, electrical resistivity, diffraction, radiog-
raphy, thermography, and ultrasonic, and so on have to be interpreted in
terms of the fabric of the structure and its engineering properties in order
to detect and characterize void-like nonuniformities that can alter struc-
tural integrity. Therefore, the choice of the NDE methods that are better
suited for civil engineering applications is important.
Typical NDE methods that are most suited to civil engineering struc-
tures, especially bridges, are summarized in Table 1.1. Some of these
methods include, for example, acoustic emission, thermal (infrared emis-
sion), ultrasonic methods (;), and magnetic methods. These are techniques
that have either been proven in the laboratory, or field applications, or ap-
peared very promising for applications in civil infrastructure. Techniques
that are not well suited for civil engineering field applications include
X-radiography, electrical techniques, as well as newer methods that in-
clude shearography, sonar, and impulse radar.
A wide range of these NDE techniques have been used in a number of
applications with varying degrees of success, though with potential short-
comings. They are generally costly, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and
subjective. Their success is usually based on in-depth experience of the pro-
fessionals. In fact, the portion of the structure being inspected should be read-
ily accessible and the vicinity of the damage must be known a priori. However,
the reliability of the techniques usually declines as the structure ages.
For convenience, the current research and industrial usage of NDE are
often considered in terms of the technique rather than application. This is
due to the fact that the application of NDE techniques for solving civil engi-
neering problems has sometimes been disappointing. There are huge stocks
of the civil infrastructure systems whose health is not easy to monitor.
The physical condition of many civil engineering structures is far
more complex for the conventional NDE schemes. For example, many
bridges and large buildings constructed in earthquake-prone areas can-
not be reopened immediately after a seismic event due to the time and
cost involved in performing extensive safety checks. This has been due
to either using a method that lacks the precision required in a particular
structural investigation or specifying a method that is inappropriate to the
Introduction • 29
problem under consideration. Moreover, the nonquantitative, subjective,

highly variable, and nonspecific nature of these data makes them inade-
quate for comprehensive long-term decision support. Consequently, the
techniques often rely heavily on evaluation parameters given in codes of
practice thereby leading to conservative and often costly conclusions. The
result is that we cannot be sure how safe these structures are and whether
they should continue to be in service.
Table 1.1. Typical NDE techniques for civil structures (McCann

and Forde 2001)
Inspection Parameter
method measured Advantages Disadvantages Cost
Visual Surface Quick; Not reliable Low
condition modest
skills
required
Proof load Load- Definitive Very slow Very high
test carrying and possibly
capacity dangerous
Coring Specific Definitive Measurement Moderately
internal dimensions only at test high
dimensions point; scars
the structure
Vibration Modal Gives some Requires Moderate
testing parameters indirect reliable to High
measure sensing and
of current measurement
global and technolo-
local condi- gies; heavily
tion; more damped
reliable; structures
detects, lo- give little
calizes, and response
quantifies
damage;
suitable for
continuous,
periodic;
real-time
monitoring
(continued )
Table 1.1. Typical NDE techniques for civil structures (McCann and
Forde 2001) (Continued )
Inspection Parameter
method measured Advantages Disadvantages Cost
Ultrasonic Wave Relatively Only works Moderate
velocities quick on individual
through structural
structure elements due
to signal at-
tenuation; no
information
on major
element
applications
Sonics Wave Moderately Requires skills Moderately
velocity, slow; gives to interpret high
tomo- useful data
graphic information
cross- on major
sections elements
Conductiv- Relative Quick; gives Limited depth Low
ity conductiv- relative penetration
ity conductiv- of 1.5 m;
ities over a complements
large area radar
to a maxi-
mum depth
of 1.5 m
Radar Electromag- Quick; can Poor penetra- Moderately
netic wave give good tion through high.
velocity penetration; clay infill
can give and salt-con-
good image taminated
of internal fill; requires
structure skills to un-
derstand data
Introduction • 31
1.4 STRUCTURAL HEALTH MONITORING
1.4.1 NEED FOR SHM
Deterioration of infrastructure systems due to aging and material degra-

dation is a global phenomenon. Majority of civil infrastructure systems
built in the leading industrial countries are aging and pose a serious chal-
lenge to the economic growth and further advancement. Moreover, as
discussed earlier, over the past two decades, safety, reliability, risk, and
life-cycle performance management of structures and infrastructures have
become critical challenges due to the frequent occurrence of natural and
man-made hazards, the infrastructure deterioration crisis, and sustainabil-
ity issues (Deodatis et al. 2014). These economic and life-safety issues,
coupled with the need to integrate diverse technologies, have been the
primary driving forces behind the development of integrated structural
monitoring in the twenty-first century.
An overview of the techniques concerning the detection, location,
and characterization of structural damage, which examines the changes
in measured structural vibration response, is presented in Doebling et al.
(1996), and the related technologies applied to various types of structures
including beams, trusses, plates, shell, bridge structures, offshore plat-
forms, and other large-scale civil, aerospace, and composite structures
have been reviewed. Monitoring and maintenance of the entire life-cycle
performance of large-scale infrastructure systems subjected to earthquake,
wind, and other natural and human factors faces significant challenges,
especially in China (Ou and Li 2010).
The importance of monitoring and managing the health status of civil
infrastructure systems, which involves energy, transportation, environ-
mental, and building systems has attracted great attention. Health is the
maintenance status of the functional and structural reliability of a system
at each of the utility, serviceability, safety, and conditional limit-states, as
well as quantifying the structural function or reliability requirements by
considerable data and knowledge (Aktan et al. 2001).
The effectiveness of inspection and maintenance programs is a mea-
sure of their prompt ability to accurately reveal problematic performance.
However, prompt and accurate detection of damage based on the exist-
ing time-based maintenance strategy is uncertain because damage in a
structure is an arbitrary and unforeseen phenomenon whose location is
unknown a priori. The traditional schedule-based maintenance philoso-
phy of civil infrastructure has consistently resulted in huge increase in
maintenance costs while the reliability declines as the structure ages (Wu
and Abe 2003). Hence, the transition to supplement or replace the limited
and intermittent traditional inspection procedures with continuous, online,
real-time, and automated systems has prompted a significant volume of
research in SHM.
The progress of SHM launched by Los Alamos National Laboratory
covering the years 1996 to 2001 is fundamentally one of the statistical
pattern recognition consisting of operational evaluation, data acquisition,
fusion and cleansing, feature extraction and information condensation,
and statistical model development for feature discrimination (Farrar et al.
2004). A comprehensive evaluation for major infrastructure systems during
the life cycle needs a long period of time. A diagram that clearly shows
an overview of the SHM covering online monitoring, real-time analysis,
damage diagnosis, state assessment, and maintenance resolution is shown
in Figure 1.13.
For instance, statistical procedure is applied to vibration test data
acquired from a concrete bridge column as the column is progressively
damaged (Sohn et al 2000). As an example of the application of intelli-
gence algorithms, the versatility of artificial neural networks shows how it
can be effectively applied in different types of problems in civil engineer-
ing—in particular, vector mapping, dynamic systems modeling, problems
in which objectives vary with time, and optimization problems (Flood and
Kartam 1994a, 1994b).
In recent years, there have been growing economic and societal de-
mands to periodically monitor structures for safety against long-term
deterioration and for condition assessment of facilities immediately af-
ter extreme natural or man-made events. Continuous or periodic mon-
itoring of civil structures is essential to ensure safety, serviceability,
and adequate performance during the life span of the structures, while
condition assessment of civil structures after extreme events is of great
importance for prompt and efficient allocation of resources for emer-
gency response.
Therefore, monitoring of the changes in structural response pa-
rameters has been implemented as an SHM tool for the assessment
of structural integrity and for identification of damage at the earliest
possible stage. For effective condition assessment and health moni-
toring of constructed facilities, (Rytter 1993) identified four levels of
damage identification of a structural system; namely, (i) identifying
the presence of damage, (ii) localization of damage, (iii) estimation of
damage severity, and (iv) prediction of the remaining service life of the
structure.
Introduction • 33
External Sensing system/
MONITORING
excitation GPS
ONLINE
Real structures Data acquistion Data processing
Finite element System

REAL-TIME
ANALYSIS
model identification
Simulation Data
analysis statistics
Model updating
DIAGNOSIS
DAMAGE
Structural
Structural damage Structural damage
damage
localization assessment
alarming
Updating of structural
ASSESSMENT
parameters
SATAE
State assessment of State assessment of

structural members structural system
MANTENANCE
RESOLUTION
Maintenance Repair and Cost evaluation

and inspection replacement
Figure 1.13. SHM paradigm
1.4.2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF HEALTH MONITORING

OF CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE
The ability to promptly detect, localize, and quantify structural damage has
become an increasingly important issue in maintaining performance, reli-
ability, and cost-effectiveness in civil, mechanical, and aerospace commu-
nities. The subject of SHM has emerged as a novel performance-based, or
condition-based, maintenance philosophy designed to achieve serviceability,
reliability, and durability of infrastructure at minimum possible costs. SHM

has been defined differently by various research groups. Nevertheless, it
has become a prominent research field with important practical applica-
tions in major engineering disciplines. Research in SHM has resulted in the
development of diagnostic tools, sensing, and other complementary tech-
nologies and strategies that ensure the health and safety of civil infrastruc-
ture due to damage accumulation or natural/man-made hazards. However,
the field continues to evolve and there are several areas where basic and
applied research is needed to achieve the realization of intelligent and sus-
tainable infrastructure systems.
Health monitoring of structures was first defined by (Housner 1997)
as the in situ, nondestructive sensing and analysis of system character-
istics, including the structural response, for detecting changes that may
indicate damage or degradation. It has also been defined as a system with
the ability to detect and interpret adverse changes in a structure in order
to improve reliability and reduce LCC. The overall purpose of SHM is to
monitor the in situ behavior of a structure accurately and efficiently to
determine its health or condition. Essentially, an SHM system must have
the ability to collect, validate, and make accessible operational data on the
basis of which decisions related to service-life management can be made.
Importantly, SHM is more generally viewed as a process rather than
a system. Sanayei et al. (2001) described SHM as a process that makes it
possible to identify and monitor the characteristic behavior of a structure
and its systems to assess their condition in relation to different perfor-
mance characteristics. (Farrar and Worden 2007) portrayed SHM as the
process of implementing a damage identification strategy for aerospace,
mechanical, and civil infrastructure. Moreover, in terms of advanced inno-
vation, SHM is described as sophisticated monitoring systems that are
based on the principle of sensing the condition or loading on an in-service
structure, transferring the measured quantities through communication
systems, to support intelligent or insightful decision making for present
and future performance of the system.
In the past three decades, many SHM systems have been devised,
implemented, and operated worldwide to monitor the structural perfor-
mance and operational condition of various types of engineering struc-
tures under their in-service life. It is noteworthy that structural monitoring
is not the same as SHM. Structural monitoring is useful for efficient deci-
sion making regarding system operation and maintenance. On the other
hand, the SHM results normally provide realistic and updated informa-
tion for better understanding the performance of the structures and for
establishing the priority in the planning and scheduling of inspection and
maintenance works.
Introduction • 35
In a more practical sense, damage can be regarded as changes intro-

duced into the material and/or geometric properties, boundary conditions,
and system connectivity of any structural system, which adversely affect
the current or future performance of the system. Historically, the moni-
toring of structures for damage identification has involved many ingredi-
ents of the modern SHM paradigm, such as data collection and processing
followed by diagnosis. At the simplest level, conventional periodic visual
observation and assessment of structural condition (cracking, spall-
ing, and deformations), though characterized by qualitative, subjective,
and unreliable human element, could still be viewed as a form of SHM
(Brownjohn 2007).
Until recently, so much attention in the civil engineering community
has been focused mainly on bridges that it has overshadowed the applica-
tion of structural monitoring technology to other civil and industrial infra-
structure. However, despite this focus, as it was reported in the extensive
survey of bridge failures in the United States since 1950, (Shirole and
Holt 1991) revealed that recent responses of engineers to bridge failures
have been reactive. Bridge design modifications and inspection program
changes are often made only immediately after extreme events or cata-
strophic failure.
The civil engineering community has studied SHM of bridge struc-
tures since the early 1980s. Only recently the extension of SHM to other
civil infrastructure, such as offshore platforms, dams, railways, roads, and
buildings, has begun receiving growing attention.
1.4.3 THE PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SHM

FOR CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS
SHM is in fact an augmentation of current practice, not only through the

use of leading-edge technology in sensing, instrumentation, communica-
tions, and modeling, but also through effective integration of these tech-
nologies into an intelligent system.
SHM is mainly a process of (i) observing or tracing the performance of
an engineering structure/system under environmental and operational loads
over time using periodically sampled dynamic response measurements by
sensors and instrumentation devices, (ii) extracting damage-sensitive features
from these measurements, (iii) determining the state of the system’s health
through the statistical analysis of the features from the measured data and
analytical tools, and (iv) issuing an alarm when designated critical perfor-
mance limits are exceeded. The development of SHM plays, specially, a sig-
nificant role in the fields of construction, maintenance, and risk and disaster
managements (Farrar and Worden 2007; Wu and Abe 2003). Researchers

have proposed diverse SHM methodologies; namely, local and global, static
and dynamic, short and long term, and passive and active monitoring.
It is noteworthy that SHM is not just an independent concept or
scheme, but the integration of several systems of operation—namely, a
sensory system, a data acquisition system, a data processing system, an
archiving system, a communication system, and a damage detection and
modeling system—to acquire knowledge, either on demand, periodic or
on a continual basis, regarding the in-service performance of structures.
In fact, SHM technologies are basically a synthetic application of various
branches of engineering and science disciplines such as mechanical en-
gineering, civil engineering, optical engineering, electrical engineering,
electronic engineering, communication engineering, software engineer-
ing, computer science, materials science, and information technology. An
efficient SHM scheme is not only an autonomous system for continuous
monitoring, inspection, and damage detection of an in-service structure,
but it is also capable of assessing structural performance in terms of ser-
viceability, reliability, and the remaining functionality of the structure.
Current research and development in SHM are broadly categorized into
two major branches—namely, sensing technologies and structural diag-
nostic/prognostic methodologies.
In other words, a successful SHM strategy is one that is able to promptly
and accurately examine a structure using embedded or attached sensors,
and to intelligently utilize data to assess the state of the structure. The for-
mer essentially deals with sensor types and systems, data acquisition, data
processing, communication, management, and storage. The selection of a
monitoring system depends on the monitoring specifications such as the
purpose of monitoring, type and magnitude of parameters of interest, accu-
racy, frequency of reading, stability or compatibility with the environmental
variability, automatic functioning, wireless or remote connectivity, and data
management strategy. The latter deals with data analysis and interpretation,
system identification, local and global diagnostic, damage detection, and
residual life prediction. These represent structural condition assessment in
the form of performance indicators. Figure 1.14 shows typical interdepen-
dence, or relationship, between the subsets of SHM systems.
With the advances in sensing systems, data acquisition, data commu-
nication, and computational methodologies, condition-based monitoring
technology has been widely accepted to monitor and diagnose structural
health and conditions for civil infrastructure systems.
For better appreciation of SHM framework, Wu and Abe (2003) clearly
illustrated the basic features of the emerging performance-based mainte-
nance philosophy by using the first five alphabets “A” to “E”: Accuracy: the
Introduction • 37
Data Acquisition Data Communication Intelligent Processing

-Sensors,instrumentation -Transmission of data for -Cleansing of data of
and data collection processing extraneous information
Data Retrieval and Management Data Condensation and Storage

-Updating before and after diagnosis -Compression of data into manageable
or prognosis size in a retrievable form
Diagnosis/Prognosis
-Damage identification and
residual life assessment
Figure 1.14. Relationship between subsets of SHM system
monitoring technology should have reliable accuracy; Benefit: the ben-

efits of the monitoring technology should outweigh its costs; Compact:
the monitoring technology should be compact and include an integrated
system of several kinds of sensors; Durability: the functionality of the mon-
itoring technology should be durable and long lasting; and Ease: the mon-
itoring technology should be easy to operate and interpret in near real time.
A four-stage integrated framework is presented for the implementation of
an effective SHM system on a structure, as shown in Figure 1.15.
The four-stage components of the framework are summarized as
follows:
1. Basic investigations: This involves basic investigation of available

structural performance evaluation indices, monitoring period, and
operational condition assessment such as environmental conditions
and constraints. The operational evaluation begins to set the lim-
itations on what will be monitored and how the monitoring will be
accomplished. The investigations seek to modify the damage detec-
tion process based on the features that are unique to the system
being monitored.
2. Selection of monitoring techniques: This requires selection of sens-
ing techniques, consideration of data processing, archiving and
communication, and LCC evaluation. Intelligent data processing
system is composed of data normalization, fusion, filtering and
cleansing, and reduction subsystems. Moreover, the processed data
strategy subsystem links with an information management system,
if it has been constructed for the structural management such as a
database of management system. Data retrieval subsystem is also
an essential component of this process.
3. Structural identification, diagnostics/prognostic and countermea-

sure decision: This process is the brain system of SHM. The selec-
tion of identification and modeling algorithms to detect accurately
the existence, location, type, and degree of damage is very import-
ant. Besides, the prediction tool for evaluating the residual life of
structures is also considered to be a key for organizational accep-
tance and adoption.
4. System integration: The user interface, presentation of monitoring
result, smartness of all processes, and integration with structure
management system are considered in this process.
Start
Investigation & Basic Setting of Monitoring Subjects

• Structural Performance Evaluation indexes for
Basic Consideration
Object Structure
• Setting on Monitoring Period
Operational Evaluation
(Constraints on Structural and
Environmental Condition)
Selection of Sensing Techniques
Consideration on Consideration on data

data Acquisition Sensors(Type,
(Type & Sampling Installation Location &
Selection of Monitoring Techniques
Frequency) Sampling Frequency)
System Integration
Information
Management System Consideration on Hardware and Software • User Interface
• Presentation of Monitoring
• Smartness of System
Database
Consideration on Data Processing & Archiving
• Data Communication
• Data Compression, etc.
LCC Evaluation about NG

the Selected Health
MonitoringTechniques
OK
Selection of Identification & Modeling Algorithms

Diagnostic &Countermeasure
Construction on Evaluation,
• Identification by Simple Identification Algorithms

Decision System
• Identification based on FEM Model

• Application of Artificial Intelligence, etc.
Construction on Evaluation, Diagnostic &

Countermeasure Decision System
• Automatic Diagnostic System
• Remote Expert System, etc.
End
Figure 1.15. Framework of an SHM system (Wu and Abe 2003)

Introduction • 39
1.4.4 CATEGORY OF STRUCTURES AND SHM SYSTEMS
This guide offers general information on the SHM systems of different

major structures such as bridges, tunnels, buildings, towers, dams, and
structures made of steel, concrete, or composite materials. SHM systems
can be classified according to their scales, complexity, and applications.
Basic demands, monitoring periods, signal transmission modes, and types
of individual or group structure are shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2. Category of SHM system of single structures and structure

crowds
Structure
category Monitoring type Feature
Single A1: Continuous • High-level
structure: evaluation
A-type Long A2: Periodic: per year • Suitable for
term (or month, or week, comprehen-
or day) sive structural
analysis
A3: Continuous • Normal-level
Short A4: Regular/irregular evaluation
term monitoring or • Relate to moni-
inspection toring proposes
Structure B1: Continuous

crowd-large Long B2: Periodic: per year
region: term (or month, or week,
B-type
or day) • Tree-type
B3: Continuous networks
Short B4: Regular/irregular
term monitoring or
inspection
Structure C1: Continuous
crowd-small Long C2: Periodic: per year
region: term (or month, or week,
C-type
or day) • Star-type
C3: Continuous networks
Short C4: Regular/irregular
term monitoring or
inspection
1.4.5 OBJECTIVES OF SHM
The role of structural monitoring has to be established against a back-

ground of the requirements emanating from the public, the owner, and the
user. These requirements have to be expressed in a form which is com-
patible with the data generated by any monitoring systems which are es-
tablished. In other words, while it is relatively easy to gather enormous
amounts of data from most monitoring systems, it is usually very difficult,
though essential, to effectively manage and interpret such data and to de-
velop useful consequential responses that can be understood by engineers,
managers, and owners.
The potential primary benefits from structural monitoring systems
are enormous, but these can be summarized as follows: (1) to monitor
structural performance in terms of structural operability, safety, and du-
rability and to provide/use such monitoring results for supporting deci-
sions on structural maintenance and rehabilitation works such as planning,
scheduling, and execution of inspection and maintenance activities; (2)
to provide realistic information of structural performance for planning
and design works such as updating and/or revision of standards, codes,
specifications, and manuals for structural design and construction; and
(3) to enhance the development of various branches of SHM technologies
such as sensing and instrumentation systems, data acquisition and trans-
mission, signal processing and analysis, data operation and information
management, structural modeling and simulation, structural prognostic
and diagnostic analyses, and structural health/condition rating; and (4) to
play an essential role in structural life-cycle maintenance management, as
illustrated in Figure 1.16.
Structural performance Regular /Irregular

(Global and local) inspection After maintenance
(Evaluationof reinforcement)
Continuous maintenance
Long-term
monitoring
Damage detection/identification
(Damage mechanism, capacity,
durability evaluation, etc.)
Serviceability
limitation
Inspection Period Without
maintenance
Year
Figure 1.16. SHM in structural life-cycle maintenance management

Introduction • 41
Ko and Ni (2005), and Brownjohn (2007) highlighted the primary

roles of health monitoring systems for civil and industrial infrastructure as
follows: (1) detect anomalies in loading and response, as well as possible
damage/deterioration at an early stage to ensure structural and operational
safety; (2) provide real-time, on-demand, reliable information pertaining to
the safety and integrity assessment of a structure immediately after disas-
ters and extreme events; (3) validate design assumptions and parameters
with the potential benefit of improving design specifications and guide-
lines for future similar structures; (4) provide evidence and instruction
for planning, effective allocation of resources, and prioritizing inspection,
rehabilitation, maintenance and repair; (5) evaluate the rate of structural
deterioration or degradation of material in order to model the functionality
and predict the residual useful service life of the structure; (6) monitor
repairs and reconstruction with the view of evaluating the effectiveness of
maintenance, retrofit, and repair works; and (7) obtain massive amounts
of in situ data for leading-edge research in civil and structural engineering,
such as wind- and earthquake-resistant designs, new structural types, and
smart material applications.
1.5 WHY FIBER-OPTIC SENSOR TECHNOLOGY

FOR CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE?
Sensors play the important role of providing information about the state
of strain, stress, and temperature of the structure. Their selection for a
particular application is governed by application, sensor sensitivity, power
requirements, robustness, and reliability. Sensors are deployed to measure
absolute values of, or changes in, strains, deformations, accelerations,
temperatures, displacement, humidity, acoustic emission, electric poten-
tial, pressure, load or stress, and other attributes of a structure.
A typical SHM system comprises an array of sensors, sensor exci-
tation hardware, a host computer, and communication hardware and soft-
ware. Most SHM systems reported in the past few decades have focused
on traditional sensing technologies such as electrical resistance strain sen-
sors, vibrating wire strain gauges and piezoelectric accelerometers. While
the traditional sensors are robust and strong enough for civil engineering
applications, they often require many cables to support them, and for long
distance monitoring these cables suffer from electromagnetic interference.
Moreover, only sparse populations of electrical resistance sensors can be
installed due to costs.
Structural integration of fiber-optic sensing systems represents a
new interdisciplinary branch of engineering which involves the unique
combination of laser optics, fiber optics, optoelectronics, microelectron-

ics, artificial intelligence, composite material science, and structural en-
gineering. The emerging fiber-optic sensors (FOSs) that offer a viable
sensing approach with a number of advantages over their traditional coun-
terparts are the primary candidates for complete sensing systems. These
include immunity to electromagnetic interference, avoidance of undesir-
able noise, light weight, small size, multiplexing capabilities, extremely
low signal transmission loss, ease of installation, and durability. It also
allows for a remote monitoring and can be either surface mounted or per-
fectly embedded in the structure.
Owing to the huge size, complexity, and harsh environmental con-
ditions under which most civil infrastructures operate, sensors for civil
SHM should be robust, rugged, easy to use, and economical. The inno-
vative fiber-optic sensing technology perfectly meets these requirements.
Moreover, it is very unique for its corrosion resistance, long-term stabil-
ity, and suitability for continuous monitoring. In this way, the technology
overcomes most of the limitations encountered in the traditional sensors.
Interestingly, based on this promising sensing technology it is now
possible to monitor several critical structural parameters and environmen-
tal loads such as strain, displacement, acceleration, velocity, temperature,
humidity, pressure corrosion of reinforcement, cracking, and several oth-
ers that describe the condition of structures. Furthermore, FOSs can pro-
vide an alternative measurement methodology, not previously available in
other kinds of sensors, including:
• Measurement of traffic flows and excess load

• Monitoring of composite wrap rehabilitations
• Effective for static, quasi static, seismic/dynamic response of
structures
• Fatigue assessment and residual life prediction of an in-service
structure
This book attempts to thoroughly cover the infrastructure health mon-

itoring of civil and industrial systems based on the emerging fiber-optic
sensing technologies. The introduction chapter presents the motivation
for this book. The major component of heath monitoring of infrastructure
system cannot be adequately exhausted without properly unfolding the
challenges facing the current practice of infrastructure management and
charting the way forward. Integrated structural monitoring system analo-
gous to human anatomy is very essential if functionality, reliability, and
durability of infrastructure will be guaranteed. Selection and placement
of appropriate sensing technology is a prerequisite for effective integrated
Introduction • 43
infrastructure monitoring. With the recent advances in engineering materi-

als and construction technology, the novel fiber-optic sensing technologies
are well suited for monitoring of large structures due to their relatively
high sensitivity, stability, and long-term performance.
So far, SHM is increasingly receiving the attention of researchers,
infrastructure managers, and owners. The motivation, the historical back-
ground of the innovative maintenance strategy, the components, and the
challenges of SHM are addressed. The fiber-optic sensing technologies
are thoroughly reviewed. Also included in the book are the emergence
and classifications of these novel sensors as well as their effectiveness for
practical structural measurements.
Instrumentation and acquisition of useful data are the bedrock of reli-
able decision-making process for SHM scheme. One chapter is devoted to
a large area of FOS installation and data acquisition. Beginning with the
design, packaging, and protection of these innovative sensors on or within
the host structures, instrumentation issues, data acquisition, organization
and storage, and monitoring strategies are also adequately reviewed.
Effective monitoring system must be sensitive to accurately measure
structural responses to static, dynamic, and environment actions. A de-
tailed review of FOSs for static and dynamic responses, respectively, is
presented. In addition to different FOSs with their corresponding mea-
surands, the successes and areas of concerns on these sensors for effec-
tive monitoring of large and complex infrastructure systems are evaluated.
The environmental actions and degradations that can be measured by this
novel sensing technology include temperature, pressure, humidity, corro-
sion, moisture ingression, and chemical attacks. The ability of FOSs to
promptly monitor structural changes due to climatic and chemical actions
is further treated.
Analysis of data and proper interpretation in a manner that can be
understood by managers and owners of infrastructure are the ultimate goal
of SHM process. A considerable attention is devoted to structural eval-
uation and interpretation methodology for fiber-optic measurement data
from static and dynamic responses. Several existing and emerging features
of extraction and information condensation are reviewed. The subsequent
part deals with condition assessment and damage identification indices for
existing and newly built structures.
A detailed overview of recent research development of FOSs and
their practical applications to health monitoring of large-scale civil and
industrial engineering structures is presented in the concluding part of this
book. Fiber-optic-sensing-based health monitoring is carefully reviewed in
civil infrastructure, including the substructure, pile loading and monitor-
ing, buildings, regular and long-span bridges, tunnels, dams, pipelines and
sewerage systems, and harbor and offshore structures. The industrial mon-
itoring applications considered are nuclear power plant and telecommuni-
cations installations. Finally, existing challenges and promising research
efforts in improving the performance of FOSs for SHM are highlighted.
REFERENCES
Aktan, E., S. Chase, D. Inman, and D. Pines. March, 2001. “Monitoring and Man-
aging the Health of Infrastructure Systems.” In Proceedings of the 2001 SPIE
Conference on Health Monitoring of Highway Transportation Infrastructure,
6–8 March, 2001 (Vol. 4337). Irvine, CA: SPIE.
Brownjohn, J. M. 2007. “Structural Health Monitoring of Civil Infrastructure.”
Philosophical Transactions Mathematical Physical & Engineering Sciences
365, no. 1851, pp. 589–622.
Deodatis, G., B. R. Ellingwood, and D. M. Frangopol, eds. February, 2014. Safety,
Reliability, Risk and Life-cycle Performance of Structures and Infrastructures.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Doebling, S. W., C. R. Farrar, M. B. Prime, and D. W. Shevitz. May 1, 1996. D
amage
Identification and Health Monitoring of Structural and Mechanical Systems
from Changes in their Vibration Characteristics: A Literature Review. Los
Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Lab.
Farrar, C. R., and K. Worden. 2007. “An Introduction to Structural Health Mon-
itoring.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 365, no. 1851,
303315.
Farrar, C. R., F. M. Hemez, D. D. Shunk, D. W. Stinemates, B. R. Nadler, and
J. J. Czarnecki. 2004. A Review of Structural Health Monitoring Literature:
1996–2001. Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Lab.
Flood, I., and N. Kartam. April, 1994a. “Neural Networks in Civil Engineering. I:
Principles and Understanding.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 8,
no. 2, pp. 131–48.
Flood, I., and N. Kartam. April, 1994b. “Neural Networks in Civil Engineering. II:
Systems and Application.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 8, no.
2, pp. 149–62.
Housner, G. W. 1997. “Special Issue: Structural Control: Past, Present, and Future.”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 123, no. 9, pp. 897–971.
JMLC. 2014. Home page of comprehensive institute of land and technology policy,
ministry of land and communications, (MLC), Japan: Research on planning
management methods of road Bridges: White paper on land and transporta-
tion in 2014.
Ko, J. M., and Y. Q. Ni. 2005. “Technology Development in Structural Health
Monitoring of Large-Scale Bridge.” Engineering Structures 27, no. 12,
pp. 1715–25.
Introduction • 45
Mccann, D. M., and M. C. Forde. 2001. “Review of NDT Methods in the Assess
ment of Concrete and Masonry Structures.” Ndt & E International 34, no. 2,
pp. 71–84.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLITT). 2013. White
paper on land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in Japan.
Rytter, A. 1993. “An Experimental Study of the Modal Parameters of a Damaged
Steel Mast.” Cancer Science 101, no. 3, pp. 820–25.
Sanayei, M., B. Arya, E. M. Santini, and W. Sara. 2001. “Significance of Modeling
Error in Structural Parameter Estimation.” Computer-Aided Civil and Infra-
structure Engineering 16, no. 1, pp. 12–27.
Sohn, H., J. A. Czarnecki, and C. R. Farrar. November, 2000. “Structural Health
Monitoring using Statistical Process Control.” Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing 126, no. 11, pp. 1356–63.
Shirole, A. M., and R. C. Holt. 1991. “Planning for a Comprehensive Bridge Safety
Assurance Program.” Transportation Research Record 1290, pp. 39–50.
Wu, Z. S, and M. Abe. 2003. “Structural Health Monitoring and Intelligent Infra-
structures.” In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Structural
Health Monitoring and Intelligent Infrastructure, 13–15 November 2003.
Tokyo, Japan: Taylor & Francis.
Index
A Asset Management Systematic

A/D conversion capabilities, 143 Engineering Description, 15
American Association of State Asynchronous transmission, 148
Highway and Transportation Australian Commissioner of
Officials (AASHTO), 14 Highways, 15
American Society of Civil Austria Expressway Viaduct NO
Engineers (ASCE), 11 S101, 91–92
Analog filter, 145 Auto-power spectral density, 157
Analytical Fragility Curves, 104
Analyzing module, 156–158 B
ANSYS FE software, 111 BEAM189 element, 113
Area distributed monitoring, Bessel filter, 145
utilizing fiber-optic sensors BOCDA. See Brillouin Optical
concept and method of, 98–102 Correlation Domain
identify critical regions for, Analysis
102–106 BOTDR. See Brillouin optical
implementation of time-domain reflectometry
long-gauge fiber-optic sensors, Boulevard de la Concorde in
106–110 Laval, 3
RC beam monitoring, example Brillouin frequency, 64
of, 110–112 Brillouin Optical Correlation
Sutong navigation bridge Domain Analysis
monitoring, example of, (BOCDA), 64
112–115 Brillouin optical correlation
need for, 89 domain analysis, 64–65
functional defect of sensing Brillouin optical time-domain
technology, 90–97 reflectometry (BOTDR),
insufficient comprehensive 60–61
performance, 97–98 analysis, 62–63
of urban infrastructure groups, physical principle of operation,
115–120 61–62
Asset management, concept of, Broadband network, 132
13–16 Brooklyn Bridge, 22
168 • INDEX
Buildings Seismic Design Decentralized acquisition, 142

Standard, 104 Decision center, 116–117
Bus structure, 147 Deterioration of infrastructure
Butterworth filter, 145 systems, 2
structural durability, 5–7
C structural health, 8–9
CCD. See Charge-coupled device structural resilience, 9–10
Center wavelength (CW), 57 structural safety, 3–5
Centralized acquisition, 142 Dielectric material, property
Charge-coupled device (CCD), 59 of, 48
Chebyshev filter, 145 Digital filters, 145
Chinese Standard of Durability Distributed Brillouin scattering
Design of Concrete sensing modes, 82–83
Structures, 6 Distributed structure B, 131
Chongqing Shimen Yangtze River
Bridge, 8 E
Circle structure, 147 Elliptice filter, 145
Cladding, 50 Empirical Fragility Curves, 104
Cold weld, 139 Estimation method, 104
Comprehensive evaluation Extrinsic fiber Fabry-Perot
submodule, 151 interferometric sensors
Conjugate beam method, 112 (EFPIs), 75
Connective structure B, 130 Extrinsic transduction, 54
CW. See Center wavelength
F
D Federal Highway Administration
Data acquisition mode, 127 (FHWA), 14
Data acquisition system, Federal Highway Research
requirements and guidelines Administration, 24
for FHWA. See Federal Highway
design of, 143–144 Administration
hardware and design of, 141–143 Fiber Bragg grating (FBG)
working mechanism design of, sensors, 55, 56–58
144 interrogator, 58–60
Data analysis method, 157 Fiber-optic-based laser Doppler
Data processing subsystem, heterodyne vibrometer
144–145 (FLDV), 69
Data storage management Fiber-optic sensing (FOS)
subsystem, 149–151 technology, 41–44
Data subsystem, 124 introduction
design and implementation of, classifications of, 53–56
structure of, 141 concept of, 47–53
implementation of, 151–153 for structural health monitoring
Data transmission characteristics of, 71–72
(communication), 145–148 demands for, 69–71
INDEX • 169
package and installation of Brillouin optical correlation

FOSs, 72–82 domain analysis, 64–65
various sensing modes in, 82–87 Brillouin optical time-domain
techniques analysis, 62–63
fiber Bragg grating sensors, Brillouin optical time-domain
56–60 reflectometry, 60–61
foss based on Brillouin physical principle of operation,
scattering, 60–65 61–62
hydrogel humidity sensors, prepump pulse brillouin optical
68–69 time-domain analysis
intensity-modulated fiber-optic (PPP-BOTDA), 63–64
sensors, 65–67 Frequency response function
interferometric fiber-optic (FRF), 157
sensors, 67 Fully informed structure, 148
laser doppler vibrometer, 69
polarimetric sensors, 67 G
Raman scattering-based Global Positioning System (GPS),
temperature sensors, 68 94
Fiber-optic sensors, area Global sensing, limitation of, 90
distributed monitoring GPS. See Global Positioning
utilizing System
concept and method of, 98–102 Graded index fiber, 51
identify critical regions for, Graphic User Interface, 150
102–106
implementation of H
long-gauge fiber-optic sensors, Heat sealing, 139
106–110 Humen Bridge, 8
RC beam monitoring, example Hydrogel humidity sensors, 68–69
of, 110–112
Sutong navigation bridge I
monitoring, example of, Infrastructure maintenance and
112–115 management
need for, 89 asset management, 13–16
functional defect of sensing life-cycle cost analysis, 16–18
technology, 90–97 long-term performance
insufficient comprehensive evaluation and prediction,
performance, 97–98 22–26
of urban infrastructure groups, preventive and predictive
115–120 maintenance, 18–22
Finite element (FE) analysis, 98 INPUT TIPS sub VI, 155
FLDV. See Fiber-optic-based Intensity-modulated fiber-optic
laser Doppler heterodyne sensors, 65–67
vibrometer Intensity-modulated sensors, 54–55
Foss based on Brillouin scattering, Interferometric fiber-optic
60–65 sensors, 67
170 • INDEX
Interferometric sensors, 55 Mianus River Bridge, collapse

Internet of Things (IOT) of, 5
technology, 117, 161 MMS, 158
Intrinsic transduction, 54 MMSV, 158
ISHMII, 70 Monitoring information
management, 150
J Multimode fibers (MMFs), 50
Japanese Ministry of Land, 15
Jinan Yellow River Bridge, 8 N
NCHRP12-43 project, 17
K Net present value (NPV), 16
Kingston Bridge, deflection of, 8 Network structure, 148
Nondestructive evaluation (NDE),
L 28
LabVIEW, 155 Nondestructive inspection
Laser doppler vibrometer (LDV), 69 techniques versus routine
Layer structure. See Tree structure inspection, 27–30
LCCA. See Life-cycle cost NPV. See Net present value
analysis
LDV. See Laser doppler vibrometer O
Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA), Objects connection, 162
16–18 Online real-time mode, 149
Local sensing, limitation of, 94–97 Optical fiber sensor, welding of,
Long gauge fiber optic sensors, 139–141
106–110 Optical Fiber Strain Analyzer, 60
embedded type of, 137 Optical radiation, 48
fixed-point affixed installation Optical sensor, 49
of, 137 Optical time-domain reflectometry
along reinforcing bar and steel (OTDR), 55
structure, 138
Long-gauge packaged FOSs, P
77–78 PDFs. See Probability distribution
enhancements of, 78–82 functions
Long-gauge sensing modes, 82 Person object connection, 162
Long-gauge strain, 109 Phase sensors, 55
sensor, installation and Photonic sensor. See Optical
construction of, 134–139 sensor
Long-Term Bridge Program Point (or local) sensing modes, 82
(LTBP), 23 Point packaged FOSs, 73–76
Los Alamos National Polarimetric sensors, 55, 67
Laboratory, 32 Poor conformance, 72
Prepump pulse brillouin optical
M time-domain analysis
Mach–Zehnder interferometer, 59 (PPP-BOTDA), 63–64
Magnitude, domain and type of, Probability distribution functions
53–54 (PDFs), 104
INDEX • 171
Q Structural analysis subsystem, 125

Quasi-distributed sensing design and implementation of,
modes, 82 153–154
analyzing module, 156–158
R sensor configuration
Raman scattering-based module, 155
temperature sensors, 68 Structural durability, 5–7
RC beam monitoring, example of, Structural groups, 115
110–112 Structural health, 8–9
Regionally distributed structural Structural health monitoring
sensing, 116 (SHM)
Routine inspection versus category of structures and, 39
nondestructive inspection design of, 123
techniques, 27–30 overview of, 124–131
for single structure, 132–158
S for structure groups, 158–160
Safe operation of system, 151 fiber-optic sensing techniques
Sanmenxia Bridge, deflection of, 8 for, 41–44
Seismic fragility, 103–104 characteristics of, 71–72
Sensing, principle of, 34 demands for, 69–71
Sensing subsystem, 124 package and installation of
design and implementation FOSs, 72–82
of, 134 various sensing modes in, 82–87
long gauge strain sensor, historical perspective of, 33–36
installation and construction need for, 31–33
of, 134–139 objectives of, 40–41
welding of optical fiber sensor, process and implementation of,
139–141 35–38
Sensor configuration module, 155 Structural inspection, routine
Sensor multiplexing schemes, 79 inspection versus
Single-mode fibers (SMF), 51 nondestructive inspection
typical specifications of, 52–53 techniques, 27–30
Single-mode optical fiber cable Structural maintenance and
(SMC), 78 management, motivation for
Single structure A, 129 deterioration of, 2
SMARTape, 76 structural durability, 5–7
SMC. See Single-mode optical structural health, 8–9
fiber cable structural resilience, 9–10
SMF. See Single-mode fibers structural safety, 3–5
Spectroscopy sensors, 55–56 inadequate budgetary allocation,
Star structure, 147–148 10–13
Start–stop synchronous introduction, 1–2
transmission, 148 Structural resilience, 9–10
Step index fiber, 51 Structural safety and reliability,
Strain, 85 3–5
172 • INDEX
Structure groups Tohoku Shinkansen

construction of SHM system railway, 119
for, 161 Total internal reflection, 48
general designing process, Transduction, nature of, 54
161–164 Transmission network topology,
overview of SHM system for, 147
158–160 Transportation Equity Act, 17
Sutong navigation bridge Tree structure, 148
monitoring, example of, Tunable filter-based
112–115 interrogator, 59
Synchronous transmission, 148
Synthesis of optical coherence U
function (SOCF), 64 Urban infrastructure groups,
area-wise distributed
T monitoring of, 115–120
TFBG. See Tilted fiber Bragg
grating V
3G/GPRS, 132 Vulnerability Analysis, 102
Tilted fiber Bragg grating
(TFBG), 67 W
Timely synchronization, 144 WAN technology, 132
OTHER TITLES IN OUR SUSTAINABLE STRUCTURAL
SYSTEMS COLLECTION
Mohammad Noori, Editor
• Numerical Structural Analysis by Steven O’Hara and Carisa H. Ramming
• A Systems Approach to Modeling Community Development Projects by Bernard Amadei
• Seismic Analysis and Design Using the Endurance Time Method, Volume I : Concepts
and Development by H.E. Estekanchi and H.A. Vafai
• Seismic Analysis and Design Using the Endurance Time Method, Volume I : Advanced
Topics and Application by H.E. Estekanchi and H.A. Vafai
• Multi-Scale Reliability and Serviceability Assessment of In-Service Long-Span Bridges
by Mohammed Noori
• Using ANSYS for Finite Element Analysis, Volume I: A Tutorial for Engineers
by Wael A. Altabey
• Using ANSYS for Finite Element Analysis, Volume II: Dynamic, Probabilistic Design
and Heat Transfer Analysis by Wael A. Altabey
• Science and Technology Diplomacy, Volume I: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons for
the World by Hassan A. Vafai and Kevin E. Lansey
• Science and Technology Diplomacy, Volume II: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons
for the World by Hassan A. Vafai and Kevin E. Lansey
• Science and Technology Diplomacy, Volume III: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons for
the World by Hassan A. Vafai and Kevin E. Lansey
Momentum Press offers over 30 collections including Aerospace, Biomedical, Civil,

Environmental, Nanomaterials, Geotechnical, and many others. We are a leading book
publisher in the field of engineering, mathematics, health, and applied sciences.
Announcing Digital Content Crafted by Librarians

Concise e-books business students need for classroom and research
Momentum Press offers digital content as authoritative treatments of advanced engineering

topics by leaders in their field. Hosted on ebrary, MP provides practitioners, researchers,
faculty, and students in engineering, science, and industry with innovative electronic content
in sensors and controls engineering, advanced energy engineering, manufacturing, and
materials science.
Momentum Press offers library-friendly terms:

• perpetual access for a one-time fee
• no subscriptions or access fees required
• unlimited concurrent usage permitted
• downloadable PDFs provided
• free MARC records included
• free trials
The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future years.
For more information, please visit www.momentumpress.net/library or to set up a trial in the

US, please contact mpsales@globalepress.com.

Volume 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIBER-OPTIC

Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2019.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

First published in 2019 by

ISBN-13: 978-1-94561-224-4 (print)

Momentum Press Sustainable Structural Systems Collection

Collection ISSN: 2376-5119 (print)

Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Services Private Ltd.,

First edition: 2019

Printed in the United States of America

Structural health monitoring (SHM) can be characterized as the integration

area-wise distributed sensing/monitoring; damage detection; fiber ­optic

The authors would like to express their sincere appreciations to the

1.1 MOTIVATION FOR STRUCTURAL

Figure 1.2. Deterioration of bridges in Japan

1.1.2 DETERIORATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS

Deterioration of infrastructure systems due to aging and material degrada-

1.1.2.1 Structural Safety

Structural safety and reliability is the determination of the effects of

Figure 1.3. Collapse of I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis

Figure 1.4. Collapse of de la Concorde overpass in Japan on September 30,

de la Concorde Bridge was attributed to design error caused mainly by

1.1.2.2 Structural Durability

Structural durability and life-cycle assessment of a structure are also com-

regarding durability and service-life improvement were established. These

1.1.2.3 Structural Health

Structural health of civil infrastructure systems is a necessity for the pros-

concerns in Chinese Bridge Field. Other factors such as steel corrosion

1.1.2.4 Structural Resilience

A structure’s ability to with stand disastrous impacts in such a way that

to quantify resilience, particularly for some type of critical facilities. For

1.1.3 INADEQUATE BUDGETARY ALLOCATION TO

A healthy infrastructure is the backbone of the economy in al advanced

Figure 1.6. Schematic representation of seismic resilience concept

Figure 1.7. Aging of infrastructure in Japan

Fortunately, the needs for efficient and effective infrastructure main-

Figure 1.8. Japan infrastructure investment budget and cost of maintenance

greatest possible benefits. Similar problems can be found in other devel-

1.2 INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND

1.2.1 ASSET MANAGEMENT

Fundamental infrastructures asset management refers to considering fun-

can likely advance the present system of management of structures during

projects. In 1997 Australian Commissioner of Highways issued a prac-

introduce a more optimal management for the assessment of infrastruc-

1.2.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a process to determine the most

China, in particular, researchers have focused on forming analysis methods

1.2.3 PREVENTIVE AND PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE

Structural maintenance can be divided into various categories due to the

Predictive maintenance differs from preventive maintenance because

Preventive maintenance implementation

Predictive maintenance implementation

Post maintenance of the implementation of the benchmark

Service limit state Years

Figure 1.9. Different structure maintenance implementation

data based on structural identification and performance evaluation meth-

Maintenance Preventive Regular maintenance scheduled

Through the assessing the actual Extended life type:

Figure 1.10. Classification of structure maintenance management

Administration Life cycle

1. Long life technology 2. Long life technology 3. MaximizingB/Cand Minimizing LCC

benefit : Long life benefit: Low cost Ideal type

Figure 1.11. Analysis of cost based on the structure’s life cycle

Various forms and strategies for maintenance, based on structural pre-

area-wise distributed sensing/monitoring; damage detection; fiber optic

reliability, and durability of infrastructure at minimum possible costs. SHM