Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Technology developments in structural health monitoring of

large-scale bridges
J.M. Ko∗, Y.Q. Ni
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Available online 14 July 2005

Abstract

The significance of implementing long-term structural health monitoring systems for large-scale bridges, in order to secure structural and
operational safety and issue early warnings on damage or deterioration prior to costly repair or even catastrophic collapse, has been recognized
by bridge administrative authorities. Developing a long-term monitoring system for a large-scale bridge—one that is really able to provide
information for evaluating structural integrity, durability and reliability throughout the bridge life cycle and ensuring optimal maintenance
planning and safe bridge operation—poses technological challenges at different levels, from the selection of proper sensors to the design of a
structural health evaluation system. This paper explores recent technology developments in the field of structural health monitoring and their
application to large-scale bridge projects. The need for technological fusion from different disciplines, and for a structural health evaluation
paradigm that is really able to help prioritize bridge rehabilitation, maintenance and emergency repair, is highlighted.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Large-scale bridge; Structural health monitoring (SHM); Instrumentation system; Damage detection; Bridge maintenance

1. Introduction inspection, rehabilitation, maintenance and repair; (v) mon-

The development of structural health monitoring tech-
nology for surveillance, evaluation and assessment of exist-
ing or newly built bridges has now attained some degree of
maturity. On-structure long-term monitoring systems have
been implemented on bridges in Europe [1–4], the United
States [5,6], Canada [7,8], Japan [9,10], Korea [11,12],
China [13–15] and other countries [16–18]. Bridge struc-
tural health monitoring systems are generally envisaged to:
(i) validate design assumptions and parameters with the po-
tential benefit of improving design specifications and guide-
lines for future similar structures; (ii) detect anomalies in
loading and response, and possible damage/deterioration at
an early stage to ensure structural and operational safety;
(iii) provide real-time information for safety assessment
immediately after disasters and extreme events; (iv) provide
evidence and instruction for planning and prioritizing bridge
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2766 5037; fax: +852 2766 1354.
E-mail address: cejmko@inet.polyu.edu.hk (J.M. Ko).
itor repairs and reconstruction with the view of evaluating
the effectiveness of maintenance, retrofit and repair works;
and (vi) obtain massive amounts of in situ data for leading-
edge research in bridge engineering, such as wind- and
earthquake-resistant designs, new structural types and smart
material applications.
The development and implementation of a structural
health monitoring system capable of fully achieving
the above objectives and benefits is still a challenge
at present, and needs well coordinated interdisciplinary
research for full adaptation of innovative technologies
developed in other disciplines to applications in the
civil engineering community. Actually, structural health
monitoring has been a subject of major international
research in recent years [19–21]. The research in this subject
covers sensing, communication, signal processing, data
management, system identification, information technology,
etc. It requires collaboration between civil, mechanical,
electrical and computer engineering among others. The
current challenges for bridge structural health monitoring

0141-0296/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.021
1716 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725
are being identified as distributed and embedded sensing,
data management and storage, data mining and knowledge
discovery, diagnostic methods, and presentation of useful
and reliable information to bridge owners/managers for
decision making on maintenance and management. In this
article, after an overview of current status of large-scale
bridge health monitoring practice, the authors explore some
key issues concerning the above challenges, in a perspective
of both researchers and practicers, by referring to several
health monitoring engineering paradigms.
2. State-of-the-practice in bridge monitoring systems
Successful implementation and operation of long-term
structural health monitoring systems on bridges have been
widely reported. So far about 40 long-span bridges (with
spans of 100 m or longer) worldwide have been instrumented
with structural health monitoring systems [22]. Typical
examples are the Great Belt Bridge in Demark [1], the
Confederation Bridge in Canada [23], the Tsing Ma Bridge
in Hong Kong [24], the Commodore Barry Bridge in
United States [25], the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge in Japan [26],
and the Seohae Bridge in Korea [27]. Table 1 lists
20 large-scale bridges in China (including the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region) instrumented with real-time
monitoring systems. This listing does not comprise the East
Sea Bridge (consisting of two cable-stayed bridges with
main spans of 420 m and 332 m respectively), the Hangzhou
Bay Bridge (consisting of two cable-stayed bridges with
main spans of 448 m and 318 m respectively) and the 3rd
Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge (a cable-stayed bridge with a
main span of 648 m) of which the long-term structural health
monitoring systems are currently under design.
Several recent trends in structural health monitoring
practice for large-scale bridges are worth mentioning. (i) For
some recent bridges such as the Shenzhen Western Corridor,
the Stonecutters Bridge, the Shanghai Chongming Crossing
(a cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 1200 m)
and the Messina Strait Bridge (a suspension bridge with
a main span of 3300 m), the design of a monitoring
system is required in the tender as part of the bridge
design. Integration of bridge design and monitoring system
design ensures that design engineers’ important concerns
are reflected in the monitoring system while civil provisions
for implementing a monitoring system are considered
in the bridge design. (ii) The implementation of long-
term monitoring systems on new bridges such as the
4th Qianjiang Bridge, the Shenzhen Western Corridor, the
Stonecutters Bridge and the Sutong Bridge is accomplished
in synchronism with the bridge construction progress. In this
way some specific types of sensors, e.g., corrosion sensors,
strain gauges and fiber optic sensors can be embedded
into the structure during certain bridge erection stages.
(iii) The recently devised long-term health monitoring
systems emphasize multi-purpose monitoring of the bridge
integrity, durability and reliability. In Hong Kong, an
improvement from the Tsing Ma Bridge monitoring system
to the Stonecutters Bridge monitoring system includes more
environment-measuring sensors such as corrosion sensors,
barometers, hygrometers and pluviometers to facilitate
bridge safety/reliability assessment [40]. Another example is
the Sutong Bridge monitoring system that will incorporate
a majority of the embedded sensors currently belonging
to a foundation stability and safety monitoring system
(designed for construction monitoring only) to enhance
the superstructure long-term monitoring system for bridge
durability assessment.
3. Sensing and data acquisition systems
In the past decade significant progress has been made
in sensing technology and kinds of innovative sensing
systems such as fiber optic sensors and wireless sensors
are now becoming commercially available [41–44]. A
sensing system is essential to realizing structural health
monitoring of bridges. The envisioned future for bridge
health monitoring uses an array of inexpensive, spatially
distributed, wirelessly powered, wirelessly networked,
embedded sensing devices supporting frequent and on-
demand acquisition of real-time information about the
loading and environmental effects, structural characteristics
and responses. Fiber optic sensors have successfully been
applied for long-term structural health monitoring of large-
scale bridges (e.g., [45,46] among others), whereas the
application of wireless sensors for bridge monitoring is still
in the technology demonstration stage [43].
It is worth mentioning that some conventional sensors
become infeasible and impracticable when applied to large-
scale bridges for long-term monitoring. For example, it is a
difficult task to measure the deflection (absolute displace-
ment) of long-span bridges. The traditional displacement
transducers can only be used for relative displacement mea-
surement, while laser transducers and total stations have
been proven unsuitable for long-term monitoring of long-
span bridges. The current solution to this problem is to use
a global positioning system (GPS). However, the application
of a GPS for bridge monitoring has two limitations: (i) the
measurement accuracy of a GPS is not good enough to com-
pletely meet bridge health monitoring requirement; and (ii) a
GPS does not work well for monitoring the displacement
of piers beneath the bridge deck (caused by ships collid-
ing, settlement, etc.). Strain measurement is another issue
which is essential for bridge health assessment. There are
two types of commonly used strain sensor: electrical resis-
tance strain gauges and vibrating wire strain gauges. Both
of them have defects: electrical resistance strain gauges are
capable of measuring dynamic strain but possess low zero-
stability which results in drift of the measurand over time;
vibrating wire strain gauges have high zero-stability but can
only be used for quasi-static strain measurement. These defi-
ciencies of traditional strain gauges have invoked increasing
applications of innovative fiber optic sensors for long-term
 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725 1717

Table 1
Major bridges in China instrumented with long-term monitoring systems

No. Bridge name Bridge type Location Main span (m) Sensors installed

1 Jiangyin Bridge (after upgrade) [28] suspension Jiangsu 1385 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (13)
2 1st Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge [29] steel truss Jiangsu 160 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), (14)
3 2nd Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge [30] cable-stayed Jiangsu 628 (1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (9), (13), (16)
4 Runyang South Bridge [31] suspension Jiangsu 1490 (1), (2), (3), (4), (6)
5 Runyang North Bridge [31] cable-stayed Jiangsu 406 (1), (2), (3), (4)
6 Sutong Bridge [32] cable-stayed Jiangsu 1088 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9),
(10), (11), (16), (18)
7 Tsing Ma Bridge [15] suspension Hong Kong 1377 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (12), (18)
8 Kap Shui Mun Bridge [15] cable-stayed Hong Kong 430 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (12), (18)
9 Ting Kau Bridge [15] cable-stayed Hong Kong 475 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (12), (18)
10 Shenzhen Western Corridor [15] cable-stayed Hong Kong 210 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), (8), (15),
(16), (17), (18)
11 Stonecutters Bridge [15] cable-stayed Hong Kong 1018 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9),
(10), (11), (15), (16), (17), (18)
12 Tongling Yangtze River Bridge [33] cable-stayed Anhui 432 (1), (2), (4), (11),(13)
13 Wuhu Bridge [34] cable-stayed Anhui 312 (2), (3), (4), (5), (10), (12)
14 Humen Bridge [35] suspension Guangdong 888 (3), (6), (11), (12)
15 Zhanjiang Bay Bridge [6] cable-stayed Guangdong 480 (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (9), (11), (14), (16)
16 Xupu Bridge [36] cable-stayed Shanghai 590 (2), (3), (4), (7), (12)
17 Lupu Bridge [37] arch Shanghai 550 (2), (3), (4), (12)
18 Dafosi Bridge [38] cable-stayed Chongqing 450 (2), (3), (4), (5), (10), (12)
19 Binzhou Yellow River Bridge [14] cable-stayed Shandong 300 (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (10)
20 4th Qianjiang Bridge [39] arch Zhejiang 580 (1), (2), (3), (4), (9),(13)

Note: (1)—anemometers; (2)—temperature sensors; (3)—strain gauges; (4)—accelerometers; (5)—displacement transducers; (6)—global positioning
systems; (7)—weigh-in-motion systems; (8)—corrosion sensors; (9)—elasto-magnetic sensors; (10)—optic fiber sensors; (11)—tiltmeters; (12)—level
sensors; (13)—total stations; (14)—seismometers; (15)—barometers; (16)—hygrometers; (17)—pluviometers; (18)—video cameras.

monitoring of large-scale bridges. Fig. 1 illustrates such an
application where fiber optic sensors are deployed along the
deck length of the suspension Jiangyin Bridge for both strain
and temperature measurement. The most attractive feature of
fiber optic sensors is their capability of distributed sensing
and measurement which will result in elaborate condition
monitoring for large-scale bridges. The existent main obsta-
cle to wide acceptance of fiber optic sensors for bridge mon-
itoring application is the lack of engineering demonstration
of the durability of the sensors in a harsh environment and
long-term performance of their attachment to construction
materials.
Another promising application of fiber optic sensors for
cable-supported bridges is the embedment of sensors in-
side the bridge cables for both temperature and strain mea-
surement. An interdisciplinary research team in Hong Kong
Polytechnic University has devised such a fiber optic sens-
ing system for the cable-stayed Sutong Bridge. In this
design shown in Fig. 2, seven out of the wires compos-
ing the cable cross-section have been replaced by stainless
steel tubes for the deployment of fiber optic sensors. Optic
fibers in terms of the Brillouin scattering sensors are laid
‘strain-free’ inside each steel tube for distributed tempera-
ture measurement along the cable length. The technology
of Brillouin-optical time-domain reflectometry (B-OTDR) is
used, by which a laser pulse is launched into the optic fiber
that serves as the sensing element and the temperature mea-
surement is achieved by combining the scattering informa-
tion with propagation time of the laser pulses along the fiber.
It is noted that seven galvanized wires have been added at the
outermost of the cable cross-section to keep the total area of
the wires unaltered. Meanwhile, fiber Bragg grating (FBG)
sensors are embedded in the cable ends for strain measure-
ment. The strain of the cable near its anchorages is mea-
sured with FBG arrays epoxied onto the outside surface of
the steel tubes, as shown in Fig. 2. The FBG arrays consist
of three FBG strain sensors spaced 2 m apart. The FBGs
are sensitive to both strain and temperature. The tempera-
ture of the FBGs is obtained from the B-OTDR system, and
therefore the strain applied to the FBGs can be determined.
Because the FBG arrays are installed along the steel tubes
which are used to accommodate B-OTDR for temperature
measurement, extra steel tubes and wire area reduction are
eschewed.
1718 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725

Fig. 1. Layout of fiber optic sensors on the Jiangyin Bridge.

Fig. 2. Fiber optic sensors embedded inside a bridge cable cross-section.

 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725
Fig. 3. Layout of sensors and DAUs on the Sutong Bridge.
On-structure data acquisition units (DAUs) or outstations
are indispensable to structural health monitoring systems for
long-span bridges. DAUs are assigned at several locations of
the bridge to collect the signals from neighboring sensors,
digitize the analog signals and transmit the data into a central
room outside the bridge. They also have the function of
short-term data storage and preliminary signal processing.
For large-scale bridges with densely distributed sensors,
optimal deployment of DAUs plays a significant role in
assuring the quality and fidelity of the acquired data. The
number of DAUs required relies on the number of sensor
channels in high sampling rate and in low sampling rate.
The placement of the DAUs is primarily dependent on the
location of analog-type sensors, especially those with low-
sensitivity voltage-signal output. The operating environment
and allowable maximum distance between the sensors and
DAUs have to be considered to eliminate transmission
loss/noise and to protect the DAUs from interference.
In implementing the structural health monitoring system
for the Sutong Bridge, a distributed data acquisition
system based on the PXI/SCXI and MXI-3 techniques has
been devised to overcome the transmission cabling length
limitation while minimizing the number of DAUs. The
system is comprised of seven DAUs connected by a FDDI
dual-loop fiber optic network to the central room. Each
DAU is comprised of a main station (MS) and optional
sub-stations (SSs) as illustrated in Fig. 3. The main station
consists of a PXI instrument platform, a signal conditioning
system and data acquisition modules, while the sub-station
(SS) has no PXI instrument platform. Each sub-station is
connected to its main station with an MXI-3 interface kit
and is remotely controlled by the main station. The PXI
instrument platform with a PXI controller is responsible
for the operation of the DAU, signal preprocessing and
communication with the central room. In the Sutong
Bridge, two sub-stations (SS2-1 and SS6-1; refer to Fig. 3),
respectively connected to the main stations MS2 and MS6,
1719
are placed inside the two towers (one inside each tower)
near the base to collect data from sensors placed below
the pylon base level, including those currently belonging to
the foundation stability and safety monitoring system (more
than 1400 sensors are involved in this system). Making use
of the MXI-3 technique, the transmission cabling length
limitation can be released without employing additional
DAUs. In this design, each DAU is able to support at most
eight sub-stations with the aid of MXI-3 extension slots.
Lessons learned from the practice on existing bridge
monitoring systems tell us that utmost care must be taken
with the protection of DAUs. At least two health monitoring
systems for the instrumented bridges listed in Table 1 were
found with malfunction in all or some DAUs after operation
for a few years, due to improper protection. The on-structure
DAUs must be designed against a variety of environmental
conditions such as temperature, humidity, lightning and
electromagnetic interference. The Sutong Bridge project
provides an excellent example to demonstrate this issue. Due
to limited space of carriageway, five DAUs in the Sutong
Bridge have to be placed inside the box girders. Moreover,
in order to prevent the steel girders from corrosion, the
structural design requires that the humidity inside the sealed
box is kept constant by a dehumidification system, and the
inner air is prohibited to circulate with the outer air. We
have to meet this requirement in designing the protective
system for DAUs. A stainless steel cabinet as illustrated
in Fig. 4 is designed to house each DAU and to protect
it from dust, temperature, humidity, and electromagnetic
interference. An air conditioning system is settled inside the
cabinet to accommodate severe temperature conditions in
the interior of the steel box girders, which may vary from
below 0 ◦ C to over 60 ◦ C. To disable the air inside the
cabinet from circulating with the air in the interior of the
steel box, two holes of 150 mm in diameter are reserved at
the lower deck flange in the vicinity of the main station and
a refrigerant entry pipe and a refrigerant exit pipe are used to
1720 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725
Fig. 4. Design of a cabinet for housing and protecting DAUs.
circulate the interior air of the cabinet with the air outside the
deck box directly. Also, an isolation transformer is adopted
at each DAU to protect it from lightning.
4. Effect of environmental factors on measurement data
A main distinction of structural health monitoring
systems from conventional measurement systems is that
the former incorporates damage diagnostic and prognostic
algorithms. Extensive research on structural damage
identification algorithms has been conducted in the
past decades and literature reviews on this subject are
available [47–49]. Most widely studied are vibration-based
damage detection methods. The vibration-based damage
detection methods use measured changes in dynamic
features (mainly modal parameters) to evaluate changes
in physical properties that may indicate structural damage
or degradation. In reality, however, a civil structure
is subjected to varying environmental and operational
conditions such as traffic, humidity, wind, solar-radiation
and, most important, temperature. These environmental
effects also cause change in modal parameters which
may mask the change caused by structural damage. The
evaluation results on the effectiveness of a variety of
vibration-based damage detection methods applied to the I-
40 Bridge indicated that the environmental effects were one
of the main pitfalls limiting the practical applicability of
modal-based methods [5,50]. For reliability performance of
damage detection algorithms, it is of paramount importance
to discriminate abnormal changes in dynamic features
caused by structural damage from normal changes due to
environmental and operational fluctuations, so that neither
will the normal changes raise a false-positive alarm nor will
the abnormal changes raise a false-negative alarm in damage
detection. With a thorough understanding of the effect of
environmental variability on modal properties, it is possible
to detect subtle structural damage by incorporating a well
defined environmental effect model into appropriate damage
detection algorithms [51–54].
Numerous investigations indicate that temperature is the
critical source causing modal variability, and the variations
of modal frequencies caused by temperature may reach 5%
to 10% for highway bridges, which in most cases exceed
the changes of frequencies due to structural damage or
deterioration. Since long-term structural health monitoring
systems for large-scale bridges usually include both
vibration transducers and temperature sensors, quantitative
understanding and modeling of the effect of temperature on
modal properties can be made by using the measurement
data covering a full cycle of in-service environmental
conditions. With one year of measurement data from
the instrumented Ting Kau Bridge [55], a comparative
study of evaluating the effectiveness of various statistical
regression/learning methods [56] for modeling the effect of
temperature on modal frequencies is being conducted by the
writers. As part of a long-term structural health monitoring
system for this cable-stayed bridge, a total of 83 temperature
sensors and 45 accelerometers (67 channels) have been
installed for real-time measurement of temperature and
dynamic response [15,24]. The modal frequencies of the
bridge are obtained by applying an automatic modal
identification program to the measured acceleration data at
one-hour intervals, and the corresponding temperatures at
20 selected sensor locations are obtained by averaging over
 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725
Fig. 5. Frequency sequences measured and generated by the linear
regression model: (a) training data; (b) validation data.
one hour. A total of 770 hours of data covering one year’s
measurement are used for studying the correlation between
the modal frequencies and temperatures.
The correlation analysis has been conducted by means
of linear and nonlinear regression models, neural network
models and support vector machine models. Although
several investigators [57,58] suggested taking into account
thermal inertia by relating current output not only with
current input but also with previous input, we use only
static correlation models because the measurement data
sequence is not always temporally continuous at constant
sampling intervals. Fig. 5 shows the first modal frequency
sequences obtained by measurement and by the linear
regression model. The linear regression model is obtained
by least-squares fitting of the training data. It is observed
that this model reproduces the training data well but is
poor in predicting fresh validation data. Also illustrated in
the figure is the distribution of residual error. An adequate
model should generate the distribution close to Gaussion
population. Fig. 6 shows the corresponding results obtained
by a nonlinear ridge regression model in terms of the Radial-
basis kernel function [59]. The nonlinear regression model
1721
Fig. 6. Frequency sequences measured and generated by the nonlinear
regression model: (a) training data; (b) validation data.
shows stronger generalization capability (less standard
deviation of residual error and better normality of the error
distribution) than the linear model, but is still short of
accurately predicting the frequency variations. Figs. 7 and
8 illustrate the reproduced and predicted results obtained
by neural network and support vector machine models,
respectively. These two models exhibit good capabilities
in both reproduction and prediction. It is found that a
perceptron neural network with a single hidden layer is
sufficient for modeling the correlation and an appropriate
number of hidden nodes is crucial to achieve superior
prediction performance of the trained model (excessive
hidden nodes may cause serious attenuation of the prediction
capability). When a support vector machine (SVM) is used
for modeling the correlation, the prediction capability of the
trained model is heavily dependent on the selection of the
SVM coefficients [60]. If the SVM coefficients are optimally
determined also using the training data like the model
parameters, such an obtained model may manifest over-
fitting and perform poorly in prediction. A more advisable
way is to determine the model parameters by means of
1722 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725
Fig. 7. Frequency sequences measured and generated by the neural network
model: (a) training data; (b) validation data.
training data while optimizing the SVM coefficients with the
use of independent validation data.
5. Linkage with bridge maintenance and management
The development of structural health monitoring methods
for the detection of damage occurrence, location and severity
has now attained some degree of maturity. However, the
application of these monitoring data/results for instructing
bridge inspection, maintenance and management is still in its
infancy [61]. A gap between health monitoring technology
and bridge inspection, maintenance and management
exercises exists currently which impedes bridge managers
from benefiting from the monitoring system. From the
monitoring data the bridge managers want to get answers
to the serviceability and reliability issues: (a) has the load
capacity or resistance of the structure changed? (b) what
is the probability of failure of the structural members
and the whole structure? Indicators of these performance
issues are needed to enable the owners to allocate resources
toward inspection, maintenance and rehabilitation of their
structures.
A method for evaluating the failure probability (or
safety index) of bridge components based on long-term
monitoring data and time-dependent reliability analysis is
Fig. 8. Frequency sequences measured and generated by the support vector
machine model: (a) training data; (b) validation data.
proposed by the writers and envisaged for application in
the management of the instrumented Sutong and Jiangyin
Bridges. The proposed method is targeted to provide
quantitative information to bridge managers for decision
making on optimizing and prioritizing bridge inspection and
maintenance. According to the reliability theory, the failure
probability P f (or safety index β) of a structural component
can be evaluated by considering both the member resistance
(capacity) R and the load effect S as random variables:



Pf = f R (r ) f S (s)dr ds (1)
r−s<0
where f R (r ) and f S (s) are probability density functions of
R and S. In this method, the probability density function
of the load effect S (stress, bending moment, shear force,
etc.) is obtained directly from continuous measurement or
derived from continuously measured strain. Fig. 9 illustrates
such a distribution of measured stresses at a deck component
of the instrumented Tsing Ma Bridge. The probability
density function f S (s) is then estimated from this measured
distribution which is not required necessarily to be Gaussian.
When the measured strain/stress distribution varies due
to structural damage or loading condition, the probability
density function f S (s) thus obtained will also be changed
accordingly.
 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725
Fig. 9. Distribution of measured stresses in a structural component.
The probability density function of the resistance
(capacity) R for an intact (healthy) member is calculated
using the mean value and standard deviation of material
strength prescribed in standards or obtained by in situ
material tests. When damage-induced change in member
stiffness or structural properties is detected by the health
monitoring system, the probability density function f R (r )
will be changed accordingly to account for the structural
damage. For instance, the moment resistance will be reduced
by α/(1 − α) when a fractional loss α(= 1 − EI d /EI u )
in bending stiffness is detected [62]. In this way, the
effect of detectable structural damage (expressed in either
a deterministic or probabilistic manner) on the failure
probability is accounted for.
Corrosion and fatigue are two important factors affecting
the structural performance of bridges. With the measured
chloride data and stress history from long-term monitoring
systems, the effects on the failure probability caused by
corrosion and fatigue are estimated using the corresponding
reliability models [63,64] and interpreted in terms of a
‘condition factor’ f c . The overall failure probability is
obtained by multiplying the ‘base probability of failure’
given in Eq. (1) with the ‘condition factor’ f c as well as the
‘loading factor’ fl and ‘redundancy factor’ fr [65]:
P of = P f · fc · fl · fr .
When the failure probability (or safety index) of
structural components or sections under monitoring is
obtained at regular intervals, it is easy to decide
a bridge inspection/maintenance strategy because the
correspondence between the safety index value and the
required maintenance action has been established [66]. For
unmonitored structural components, the method is applied
for safety index evaluation with the help of a statically
calibrated structural (finite element) model, measuredly
determined loading spectrum and measurement data of
neighboring monitored members. The proposed method
possesses several attractive merits: (i) the load effect and
its distribution are determined from field measurements;
(ii) damage-induced change in member stiffness or structural
dimensions can be reflected in the resistance variable;
and (iii) the effects caused by material deterioration or
1723
environmental loading are accounted for in the evaluation
of the safety index.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, key technology issues concerning structural
health monitoring of large-scale bridges have been outlined.
These include (i) the current status and recent trends in
bridge health monitoring exercises, (ii) implementation of
innovative sensing and data acquisition systems in long-
term health monitoring practice, (iii) application of advanced
computational techniques in inferring knowledge from
measurement data, and (iv) linkage between structural health
monitoring technology and bridge inspection, maintenance
and management exercises. It has been shown that advances
in sensing systems, signal processing, communications
and data-mining technology are providing a new way
for inspection and monitoring of bridge safety. Bridge
health monitoring systems can offer valuable information in
evaluating structural integrity, durability and reliability, and
in ensuring optimal maintenance planning and safe bridge
operations. With the establishment of an appropriate linkage,
structural health monitoring is ultimately able to provide
direct information for bridge inspection and maintenance,
and would most benefit bridge owners with regard to asset
management.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was supported in
part by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project
No. PolyU 5142/04E) and partially by a grant from the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University through the Area of Strategic
Development Programme (Research Centre for Urban
Hazards Mitigation). Sincere appreciation goes to Dr. K.Y.
Wong of the Hong Kong SAR Highways Department for his
(2) all-out support to the research described in this paper. We
are grateful to our colleagues Prof. H.Y. Tam, Dr. T.H.T.
Chan, Dr. K.Q. Fan, Mr. X.G. Hua, Mr. H.F. Zhou and
Mr. G. Chen for their contributions in relevant research
and development works. Thanks are also given to the
collaborative partners at Jiangsu Transportation Research
Institute, especially Dr. Y.F. Zhang, on the structural health
monitoring projects of the Sutong and Jiangyin Bridges.
References
[1] Andersen EY, Pedersen L. Structural monitoring of the Great Belt
East Bridge. In: Krokebogr J, editor. Strait crossings 94. Rotterdam:
Balkema; 1994. p. 189–95.
[2] Myrvoll F, Aarnes KA, Larssen RM, Gjerding-Smith K. Full scale
measurements for design verification of bridges. In: Proceedings of the
18th international modal analytical conference. Bethel (CT): Society
for Experimental Mechanics; 2000. p. 827–35.
1724 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725
[3] Brownjohn JMW. Lessons from monitoring the performance of
highway bridges. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on
advanced sensors, structural health monitoring and smart structures.
2003 [CD-ROM].
[4] Casciati F. An overview of structural health monitoring expertise
within the European Union. In: Wu ZS, Abe M, editors. Structural
health monitoring and intelligent infrastructure. Lisse: Balkema; 2003.
p. 31–7.
[5] Pines DJ, Aktan AE. Status of structural health monitoring of long-
span bridges in the United States. Progress in Structural Engineering
and Materials 2002;4(4):372–80.
[6] Wang ML. State-of-the-art applications in health monitoring.
In: Invited presentation to workshop on basics of structural health
monitoring and optical sensing technologies in civil engineering.
Taiwan: National Central University; 2004. p. 113–42.
[7] Cheung MS, Naumoski N. The first smart long-span bridge
in Canada—health monitoring of the Confederation Bridge.
In: Mufti AA, editor. Proceedings of the 1st international work-
shop on structural health monitoring of innovative civil engineering
structures. Winnipeg: ISIS Canada Corporation; 2002. p. 31–44.
[8] Mufti AA. Structural health monitoring of innovative Canadian
civil engineering structures. Structural Health Monitoring 2002;1(1):
89–103.
[9] Wu ZS. Structural health monitoring and intelligent infrastructures in
Japan. In: Wu ZS, Abe M, editors. Structural health monitoring and
intelligent infrastructure. Lisse: Balkema; 2003. p. 153–67.
[10] Fujino Y, Abe M. Structural health monitoring—current status and
future. In: Boller C, Staszewski WJ, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd
European workshop on structural health monitoring. Lancaster (PA):
DEStech; 2004. p. 3–10.
[11] Koh HM, Choo JF, Kim SK, Kim CY. Recent application and
development of structural health monitoring systems and intelligent
structures in Korea. In: Wu ZS, Abe M, editors. Structural health
monitoring and intelligent infrastructure. Lisse: Balkema; 2003.
p. 99–111.
[12] Yun CB, Lee JJ, Kim SK, Kim JW. Recent R&D activities on
structural health monitoring for civil infra-structures in Korea. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering 2003;7(6):637–51.
[13] Xiang HF. Health monitoring status of long-span bridges in China, In:
Proceedings of the workshop on research and monitoring of long span
bridge. 2000, p. 24–31.
[14] Ou J. The state-of-the-art and application of intelligent health
monitoring systems for civil infrastructures in mainland of China.
In: Zingoni A, editor. Progress in structural engineering, mechanics
and computation. London: AA Balkema/Taylor and Francis; 2004.
p. 599–608 [CD-ROM].
[15] Wong KY. Instrumentation and health monitoring of cable-supported
bridges. Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2004;11(2):
91–124.
[16] Nigbor RL, Diehl JG. Two years’ experience using OASIS real-
time remote condition monitoring system on two large bridges.
In: Chang FK, editor. Structural health monitoring: current status and
perspectives. Lancaster (PA): Technomic; 1997. p. 410–7.
[17] Thomson P, Marulanda Casas J, Marulanda Arbelaez J, Caicedo J.
Real time health monitoring of civil infrastructure systems in
Colombia. In: Chase SB, Aktan AE, editors. Health monitoring and
management of civil infrastructure systems. Bellingham (WA): The
International Society for Optical Engineering; 2001. p. 113–21.
[18] National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). Instrumentation
(structural monitoring system) for Yamuna Bridge at Allahabad/Naini.
Tender document; 2002. Available at http://www.nhai.org/NIT.htm.
[19] Chang PC, Flatau A, Liu SC. Health monitoring of civil infrastructure.
Structural Health Monitoring 2003;2(3):257–67.
[20] Van der Auweraer H, Peeters B. International research projects
on structural health monitoring: an overview. Structural Health
Monitoring 2003;2(4):341–58.
[21] Worden K, Dulieu-Barton JM. An overview of intelligent fault
detection in systems and structures. Structural Health Monitoring
2004;3(1):85–98.
[22] Ni YQ, Hua XG. State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice in bridge
monitoring systems: a review. Research report No. SHMASES-01.
Hong Kong; Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University: 2004.
[23] Cheung MS, Tadros GS, Brown T, Dilger WH, Ghali A, Lau DT. Field
monitoring and research on performance of the Confederation Bridge.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1997;24(6):951–62.
[24] Lau CK, Mak WPN, Wong KY, Chan WYK, Man KLD. Structural
health monitoring of three cable-supported bridges in Hong Kong.
In: Chang FK, editor. Structural health monitoring. Lancaster (PA):
Technomic; 1999. p. 450–60.
[25] Barrish Jr RA, Grimmelsman KA, Aktan AE. Instrumented
monitoring of the Commodore Barry Bridge. In: Aktan AE,
Gosselin SR, editors. Nondestructive evaluation of highways, utilities,
and pipelines IV. Bellingham (WA): The International Society for
Optical Engineering; 2000. p. 112–26.
[26] Sumitro S, Matsui Y, Kono M, Okamoto T, Fujii K. Long span bridge
health monitoring system in Japan. In: Chase SB, Aktan AE, editors.
Health monitoring and management of civil infrastructure systems.
Bellingham (WA): The International Society for Optical Engineering;
2001. p. 517–24.
[27] Kim S, Chang SP, Lee J. Autonomous on-line health monitoring
system for a cable-stayed bridge. In: Balageas DL, editor. Proceedings
of the 1st European workshop on structural health monitoring.
Lancaster (PA): DEStech; 2002. p. 1254–61.
[28] Ni YQ. Design of long-term structural health monitoring systems
for cable-supported bridges. In: Invited presentation to workshop on
basics of structural health monitoring and optical sensing technologies
in civil engineering. Taiwan: National Central University; 2004,
p. 279–301.
[29] He X, Chen Z, Huang F, Gu J, Xia W, Xu L. Preliminary studies on
safety monitoring and condition assessment for Nanjing Yangtze River
Bridge. Journal of Vibration and Shock 2003;22(1):75–8 [in Chinese].
[30] Huang T, Zheng YH, Wu HL, Wang CJ. Structural safety monitoring
system for the Second Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge. Journal of
Hohai University 2003;31(4):411–4 [in Chinese].
[31] Li AQ, Miao CQ, Zhao L. The health monitoring system for the
Runyang Yangtse River Bridge. In: Wu ZS, Abe M, editors. Structural
health monitoring and intelligent infrastructure. Lisse: Balkema; 2003.
p. 1017–23.
[32] Ni YQ, Ko JM, Zhou HF, Hua XG. Challenges in developing
structural health monitoring system for a long-span cable-stayed
bridge. In: Proceedings of the US–Korea joint seminar/workshop on
smart structures technologies. Daejeon Techno-Press; 2004. p. 150–7.
[33] Cai J, Zhu C. The research of a real time monitoring system of cable
stayed bridge. In: Proceedings of China–Japan workshop on vibration
control and health monitoring of structures. 2002 [CD-ROM] [in
Chinese].
[34] Lei JQ, Qian DS. Research on real-time monitoring system for long-
span bridges. Highway 2002;2:1–3 [in Chinese].
[35] Liu XY, Cai J, Liu H. Bridge health diagnostics. Beijing: China
Communications Press; 2002 [in Chinese].
[36] Shi J, Zhang Q, Xiang H. Health monitoring system of Xupu cable-
stayed bridge. In: Proceedings of the workshop on research and
monitoring of long span bridges. Hong Kong: The University of Hong
Kong; 2000, p. 150–7.
[37] Zhang YF. Survey of the structural health monitoring systems for the
Fourth Qianjiang Bridge and the Lupu Bridge. Project report. Nanjing
(China): Jiangsu Transportation Research Institute; 2004 [in Chinese].
[38] Zhu Y, Fu Y, Chen W, Huang S, Bennett KD. Health monitoring sys-
tem for Dafosi cable-stayed bridge. In: Liu SC, editor. Smart structures
and materials 2003: Smart systems and nondestructive evaluation for
civil infrastructures. Bellingham (WA): The International Society for
Optical Engineering; 2003. p. 289–97.
 J.M. Ko, Y.Q. Ni / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1715–1725
[39] Sun B, Wu X, Lou W, Tan Y, Yu J. The real-time health monitoring
system of Qianjiang 4th Bridge. In: Chen Y, Takemiya H, editors.
Environmental vibration: prediction, monitoring and evaluation.
Beijing: China Communications Press; 2003. p. 420–6.
[40] Wong KY, Hui MCH. The structural health monitoring approach for
Stonecutters Bridge. In: Proceedings of the IABSE symposium on
metropolitan habitats and infrastructures. 2004 [CD-ROM].
[41] Grivas DA, Garlock M. Sensing systems for bridges: an assessment of
the state-of-the-art. In: Mahmoud KM, editor. Recent developments in
bridge engineering. Lisse: Balkema; 2003. p. 269–84.
[42] Sumitro S, Wang ML. Sustainable structural health monitoring
system. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on advanced
sensors, structural health monitoring and smart structures. 2003 [CD-
ROM].
[43] Lynch JP, Law KH, Kiremidjian AS, Carryer E, Farrar CR, Sohn H
et al. Design and performance validation of a wireless sensing unit
for structural monitoring applications. Structural Engineering and
Mechanics 2004;17(3–4):393–408.
[44] Spencer Jr BF, Ruiz-Sandoval ME, Kurata N. Smart sensory
technology: opportunities and challenges. Structural Control and
Health Monitoring 2004;11(4):349–68.
[45] Mufti AA, Tadros G, Jones PR. Field assessment of fibre-optic Bragg
grating strain sensors in the Confederation Bridge. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering 1997;24(6):963–6.
[46] Chan THT, Tam HY, Ni YQ, Liu SY, Guan BO, Chung WH et al.
Using optical fibre sensors for structural health monitoring of Tsing
Ma Bridge. In: Chang FK, Yun CB, Spencer Jr BF, editors. Advanced
smart materials and structures technology. Lancaster (PA): DEStech;
2004. p. 539–46.
[47] Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB, Shevitz DW. A review of
damage identification methods that examine changes in dynamic
properties. Shock and Vibration Digest 1998;30(2):91–105.
[48] Ni YQ, Ko JM. Literature review on vibration-based structural
damage detection. Report No. WASHMS-01. Hong Kong: Department
of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University; 1998.
[49] Sohn H, Farrar CR, Hemez FM, Shunk DD, Stinemates DW,
Nadler BR et al. A review of structural health monitoring literature:
1996–2001. Los Alamos National Laboratory report No. LA-13976-
MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico; 2004.
[50] Farrar CR, Jauregui DA. Comparative study of damage identification
algorithms applied to a bridge: I. experiment. Smart Materials and
Structures 1998;7(5):704–19.
[51] Alampalli S. Significance of operating environment in condition
monitoring of large civil structures. Shock and Vibration 1999;6(5–6):
247–51.
[52] Worden K, Sohn H, Farrar CR. Novelty detection in a changing
environment: regression and interpolation approaches. Journal of
Sound and Vibration 2002;258(4):741–61.
[53] Lloyd GM, Wang ML, Wang X, Love J. Recommendations for
intelligent bridge monitoring systems: architecture and temperature-
compensated Bootstrap analysis. In: Liu SC, editor. Smart structures
1725
and materials 2003: Smart systems and nondestructive evaluation for
civil infrastructures. Bellingham (WA): The International Society for
Optical Engineering; 2003. p. 247–58.
[54] Kim JT, Yun CB, Yi JH. Temperature effects on modal properties
and damage detection in plate-girder bridges. In: Chang FK, Yun CB,
Spencer Jr BF, editors. Advanced smart materials and structures
technology. Lancaster (PA): DEStech; 2004. p. 504–11.
[55] Ko JM, Wang JY, Ni YQ, Chak KK. Observation on environmental
variability of modal properties of a cable-stayed bridge from
one-year monitoring data. In: Chang FK, editor. Structural
health monitoring 2003: from diagnostics and prognostics to
structural health management. Lancaster (PA): DEStech; 2003.
p. 467–74.
[56] Vapnik VN. Statistical learning theory. New York: Wiley; 1998.
[57] Sohn H, Dzwonczyk M, Straser EG, Kiremidjian AS, Law KH,
Meng T. An experimental study of temperature effect on modal
parameters of the Alamos Canyon Bridge. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1999;28(8):879–97.
[58] Peeters B, De Reock G. One-year monitoring of the Z24-Bridge:
environmental effects versus damage events. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 2001;30(2):149–71.
[59] Müller KR, Mika S, Rätsch G, Tsuda K, Schölkopf B. An introduction
to kernel-based learning algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Neural
Networks 2001;12(2):181–201.
[60] Burges CJC. A tutorial on support vector machines for pattern
recognition. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 1998;2(2):
121–67.
[61] Yanev B. Structural health monitoring as a bridge management
tool. In: Wu ZS, Abe M, editors. Structural health monitoring and
intelligent infrastructure. Lisse: Balkema; 2003. p. 87–95.
[62] Park S, Stubbs N, Sikorsky CS. Linkage of nondestructive damage
evaluation to structural system reliability. In: Stubbs N, editor. Smart
structures and materials 1997: Smart systems for bridges, structures,
and highways. Bellingham (WA): The International Society for
Optical Engineering; 1997. p. 234–45.
[63] Nowak AS, Szerszen MM. Life-time reliability profiles for fatigue
and corrosion. In: Frangopol DM, Furuta H, editors. Life-cycle cost
analysis and design of civil infrastructure systems. Reston (VA):
American Society of Civil Engineers; 2000. p. 239–50.
[64] Rafiq MI, Chryssanthopoulos MK, Onoufriou T. Performance
updating of concrete bridges using proactive health monitoring
methods. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2004;86(3):
247–56.
[65] Shetty NK, Chubb MS, Knowles NC, Halden D. A risk-
based framework for assessment and prioritisation of bridges.
In: Harding JE, Parke GAR, Ryall MJ, editors. Bridge management
3. London: E & FN Spon; 1996. p. 571–9.
[66] Frangopol DM, Kong JS, Gharaibeh ES. Maintenance strategies for
bridge stocks: cost-reliability interaction. In: Das PC, Frangopol DM,
Nowak AS, editors. Current and future trends in bridge design,
construction and maintenance 2: safety, economy, suitability and
aesthetics. London: Thomas Telford; 2001. p. 13–22.