Recent Developments in Inspection and Monitoring of

Cable-Supported Bridges

Jack ELLIOTT Hegeon KWUN Peter SLUSZKA

Chief Operating Officer Principal Scientist Vice President
Pure Technologies Ltd Southwest Research Institute Ammann & Whitney
Calgary, Alberta San Antonio, Texas New York, New York
jack.elliott@soundprint.com hkwun@swri.org PSluszka@Ammann-Whitney.com

Keywords: cable inspection; acoustic monitoring; guided waves; magnetostrictive sensing

1. Introduction

The assessment of the condition of cables in suspension bridges and other cable-supported
structures has typically been problematic. The inaccessibility of all but the outer layers of wire has
limited the value of visual inspection of the cables, and traditional non-destructive testing
techniques, such as radiography and magnetic flux, have severe limitations that render them
unsuitable for most applications.
In the United States, the Federal Highways Administration (“FHWA”) has introduced guidelines for
visual inspection of fracture-critical bridge members. Also, over the past ten years, new proprietary
monitoring and inspection technologies have been introduced that have provided bridge owners and
engineers with better information about the condition and rate of deterioration of these critical
structural components.
Continuous remote acoustic monitoring of the main cables of a suspension bridge was first
implemented in North America on the Bronx Whitestone Bridge in 2000, having previously been
used successfully to monitor the condition of post-tensioned structures. In 1999, Southwest
Research Institute used its proprietary magnetostrictive sensing (“MsS”) technology to assess the
condition of suspender ropes on the George Washington Bridge in New York City. Both of these
techniques have since been refined and improved to the point where they now provide
comprehensive information about the health of bridge cables, and allow informed decisions to be
made about repair or replacement.
This paper provides an overview of current cable inspection practices. It traces the evolution of the
new technologies, presents case studies, and discusses the limitations and challenges associated
with each technique.

2. Overview of Cable Corrosion & Traditional Techniques for Cable Assessment

Since the mid-19th century, when John A. Roebling pioneered the art of suspension bridge design,
the main cables of suspension bridges have typically been protected by a tight covering of soft wire
wrapping bedded in a sealing paste and overcoated with paint. Some exceptions are notable, such as
the Newport and Bidwell Bar bridges where glass-reinforced acrylic was used, and the William
Preston Lane Bridge where neoprene sheet was used. Recently, some suspension bridges have been
retrofitted with elastomeric coverings such as neoprene placed over the existing wrapping wire.
There are now a number of bridges in Europe and Japan that use a dry-air injection system in
conjunction with an elastomeric wrapping to ensure that no moisture can enter the cables.
Theoretically, the wrapping is waterproof as long as it’s not damaged and as long as the caulking at
the cable bands and shrouds has been kept intact. Even so, the cables aren’t hermetically sealed and
air will move in and out as the atmospheric pressure varies. The air will bring moisture with it and
there is the potential for it to condense in the cables. Some corrosion could be present due to this
phenomenon, but most of the time problems ensue from damaged wrapping or caulking. After thirty
or more years in service, or when signs of corrosion are visible on the exterior of the cables, it is
prudent to perform inspection of the interior wires. This entails unwrapping portions of the cables
and driving wedges to spread the wires (or strands of a twisted strand cable) to allow visual
inspection of the wires or strands (Figure 1). If conditions warrant, wire samples may be removed
for laboratory testing.
Based on the experience of bridge owners and consultants familiar with this special field of
expertise, the FHWA has developed guidelines for these special inspections that include some basic
descriptions of how to open and wedge cables. Additional guidelines were developed with a
concentration on the computational methods used to estimate remaining cable strength of a
corroded cable.
Ammann & Whitney’s typical process of performing an in-depth cable inspection includes:
a. Visual inspection of the cables, bands, handropes, suspenders, saddles, splay
castings, cable strands and associated hardware in the anchorages.
b. Based on the visual inspection, select locations where the cables will be unwrapped
for inspection. The FHWA manual on Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge
Members recommends that four locations be unwrapped at each cable. These usually
include the low point on the main span, a low point on a side span, and part way up
the main span on one cable and part way up a side span on the other cable. This
should be considered an absolute minimum.

Each bridge is unique, and its particular features must be considered beyond the
guidelines. For example, some bridges have long backstays (from the cable bent to
the anchorage). In our experience, these parts of the cables are susceptible to
damage. They’re located below the roadway and near to the water. We sometimes
find that objects falling from the bridge hit the backstay, damage the wrapping, and
allow water in. It may be prudent to allow for opening at least one backstay section
in addition to the general guideline areas. Access to these areas can be difficult. We
also sometimes remove the cover from a tower saddle to inspect the wires there if we
suspect damage.
Depending on what is found, additional points may warrant inspection. Follow-up
inspections are scheduled for 5, 10, 20 or 30 years depending on the bridge’s age and
condition. The inspected panels should be unwrapped from band to band to allow
driving of wedges as deeply as possible.
The owner must weigh the importance of multiple inspection locations versus cost.
The cost for a contractor’s support can be significant depending on access, wrapping
details, panel lengths and time spent waiting for the inspection to be performed. The
local contracting environment is also an important factor (are non-union contractors
able to compete, are the contractors tied up with a lot of work, etc.). This becomes a
significant issue when deciding how many locations should be opened. Some bridge
owners elect to open fewer locations during the initial inspection and follow–up at
five year intervals to look at additional locations. This is a valid way to proceed if
 the cable condition is good. A number of US bridge cables have been inspected in
stages like this.
c. Prepare the contract documents for bidding by qualified contractors to provide work
platforms, labor, tools, equipment and materials necessary to remove the existing
wrapping, assist in driving wedges for the inspection; cut and remove sample wires,
splice in replacement wires, and finally re-compact and re-wrap the cables.
Assuming the wrapping system has done its job well, the same material should be
used to rewrap the inspected locations. Otherwise, an improved protection system
might be used that should be extended throughout the length of the cables in the
future.
d. Prepare the specifications for wire testing and solicit proposals from qualified testing
labs. Even if the cable condition appears good, it is a good idea to remove some
sample wires and test their chemical and physical properties. For example, assume
some wires are pristine, some exhibit corrosion of the zinc, and some exhibit ferrous
corrosion to varying degrees. At least one sample of each category can be cut out for
testing. They can be replaced with new wires spliced in and tensioned close to the
originals. This is a relatively minor expense, and after going through the trouble to
open the cable, the opportunity to learn detailed information on the wire condition
shouldn’t be missed.
e. Supervise the cable opening and wedging and perform the inspection of the internal
wires. The conditions inside each wedge groove are noted and recorded in notes and
photographs. From this data, the cable cross-section is divided into pie-slice-shaped
sectors between the wedge lines and the conditions are extrapolated to create a
“map” of the conditions throughout the cross-section at that panel (Figure 2). The
data and mapping diagrams are included in the inspection report. If the cables are in
bad shape, this data along with the test data are used together to compute the
remaining cable strength at the sections investigated (if there are condition problems,
the scope has to be revised to do more extensive investigation).
It has become standard practice to classify wire corrosion grades as:
Stage 1 – No Corrosion (spots of zinc oxidation)
Stage 2 – White zinc corrosion product present (on entire surface)
Stage 3 – Occasional spots of ferrous corrosion (up to 30% of surface)
Stage 4 – Larger areas of ferrous corrosion (more than 30% of surface)
The basic definitions have been adopted by the FHWA. The additions in parentheses
above are proposed clarifications included in the new NCHRP Guidelines.
f. Supervise the testing program and prepare a report on the findings. The testing
program will establish a baseline of wire properties for the various corrosion grades
found. This will be available for comparison to wires removed during future
inspections over the life of the bridge. If necessary, the data is also used to compute
cable strength.
g. Prepare a written report that includes the foregoing information, an assessment of
conditions and recommendations. If significant damage is found, we may perform
analytical modeling and cable strength calculations and recommend further
investigation and/or rehabilitation and monitoring.
The recent practice in the United States has been to treat damaged cables by oiling and rewrapping
them for their entire lengths. This entails major construction work and installation of work
platforms below the cables to provide access. The existing wrapping is removed panel by panel,
wedges are driven into the cable and oil (usually Linseed oil with or without additives) is poured
into the wedged grooves. The cables are then rewrapped, usually with wire and a sealing paste and
sometimes with a neoprene overwrap.

Six major US bridges have been rehabilitated using this method. Currently, however, the alternative
protection method of injecting dry-air into the sealed cable is being considered for several bridges.

Coupled with these rehabilitation methods which slow or stop corrosion, acoustic monitoring has
been used to detect cable wires breaking due to corrosion and stress corrosion cracking.

Fig. 1 Suspension Cable Wedged For Inspection Fig. 2 Wire Condition Mapping

3. Continuous Acoustic Monitoring:

3.1 Suspension Bridges

The principle of examining acoustic emissions to identify change in the condition of the structural
elements is not new. However, until recently, continuous, unattended, remote monitoring of large
structures was not practical or cost-effective. The availability of low-cost data acquisition and
computing hardware, combined with powerful analytical and data management software, resulted in
the development of a continuous acoustic monitoring system called SoundPrint® which has been
successfully applied to unbonded post-tensioned structures in North America since 1994.
The goal of continuous automated monitoring combined with low-cost, centralized data processing
was central to the development of the technology. Original software consisted of a commercially
available data acquisition package located at the site computer, and a proprietary data analysis and
report generation package located at the processing facility. The data acquisition software was later
replaced with more suitable proprietary software. As a result of tendon replacement work being
undertaken on many of the early monitoring projects, it was possible to acquire data from many
wire breaks (Figure 3). This information was used to train the data processing software to
“recognize” wire breaks. When events possessed all the known properties of a wire break, they
were classified as “probable wire breaks”. Events possessing some of these properties were
classified as “possible wire breaks”. All other events were classified as “non-wire break events”. By
analyzing the time taken by the energy wave caused by the break as it traveled through the concrete
to arrive at different sensors, the software was able to calculate the location of the wire break
(Figure 4).

Fig. 3 time domain and frequency spectrum plots of wire break detected by sensor 5.0 m from event.

Fig. 4 Wire break location on main cable using software algorithm.

Although a similar system, developed by Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausées, was used on
the Tancarville suspension bridge in Normandy, France in the early 1990’s, the absence of signal
processing techniques limited its capability to differentiate between wire breaks and other acoustic
events. In October 1997, the SoundPrint® system was tested on the Bronx Whitestone Bridge in
New York City. This bridge, with a main span of 701 meters, was opened to traffic in 1939 and is
owned and operated by MTA Bridges and Tunnels, an agency of the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority of New York. The monitoring system was installed during a rehabilitation of the main
cables. This work involved removal of the circumferential wire wrapping, repair of broken wires
and the application of corrosion-inhibiting oil to the wires. Consequently, it was possible to cut
wires in the cable to test the system’s recognition and location capabilities. Single sensors were
attached to six cable bands, each 12.2 m apart. An array of three additional sensors was placed
around two of the cable bands to evaluate radial location capabilities.
A portable acquisition system was set up at deck level and the testing was done while construction
work was in progress. Six wires were cut within the monitored section in a blind test. The system
correctly classified the events and located them longitudinally with errors ranging from 0.0 m to 0.7
m. Radial location using all four sensors on a cable band was accurate to within 7.5º. Acoustic
events caused by steel chisels being driven between the wires were easily identified and filtered.
Analysis of the data generated during the test showed that single sensors mounted on alternate cable
bands would be able to provide information of sufficient quality to permit reliable identification and
location of wire breaks. A complete system based on this configuration was installed and
commissioned in November 2000. The acquisition unit is located in an anchorage house (Figure 5),
and data is transmitted from the sensors to the acquisition system through a coaxial trunk line
attached to the existing messenger cable. Durability issues and ease of installation and maintenance
were major factors in the design of the hardware. The sensor mounting brackets are designed to
permit installation without modification to the cable band assembly and without damaging the paint
system (Figure 6).

Fig. 5 Acquisition system in bridge anchorage structure. Fig. 6 Wired sensor arrangement

The acquisition system includes a conventional telephone as well as a back-up cellular service. Data
is transmitted over the Internet to a processing center in Calgary, Canada, where it is analyzed and
archived. The data is also routed from the Calgary center to a second data processing computer
located at the bridge administration building. This permits bridge operations personnel to review the
data and reports using the same proprietary processing software in use at the processing center.
The installation of the coaxial trunk line along the main cables added significantly to the cost of the
monitoring system. Also, the line is subject to damage by maintenance work being carried out on
the cables. Hence, a wireless system was designed utilizing analog wireless transmission from the
sensors to the acquisition system (Figure 7). The transmitters can be powered by either low-voltage
hard-wired power supply, or by solar panels mounted adjacent to the sensor. Because power is
available at the sensor, it is possible to pre-amplify the sensor output, thereby increasing the range
of each sensor, with a consequent reduction in sensor numbers from over a hundred, in the case of
the Bronx Whitestone Bridge, to thirty, were this bridge to be monitored with a wireless system.
Because of the sensitivity of the system, it is necessary to filter the data on site in order to reduce
the amount being transmitted to the processing centre. The design of these filters is critical to the
success of the monitoring program. If the filters are incorrectly calibrated, there is a danger that
wire breaks will be missed. Conversely, if too broad a filter is applied, the amount of data being
acquired and transmitted to the processing centre will be unmanageable.
Since the initial installation on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, the system has been installed in North
America on the Bear Mountain Bridge in New York State; the Waldo Hancock Bridge in Maine;
and, in Europe, on the Ancenis Bridge in France. A system is currently being installed on the Forth
Road Bridge in Scotland. The Waldo Hancock and Forth systems are wireless.

3.2 Cable-Stayed Bridges

The monitoring system is particularly suitable for use on cable-stayed bridges. Because visual
inspection of cable components is not possible after construction is completed, the system can
provide reassurance about the long-term integrity of the wires. Following extensive testing at the
University of Texas at Austin, Texas Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”) selected the system
to monitor the stay cables on the Fred Hartman Bridge, Bayview, Texas. The bridge has 192 stays
each consisting of multiple seven-wire monostrand tendons. The tendons are encapsulated with
grout and enclosed in HDPE sheathing. The bridge has a history of wind-rain induced vibration of
the stays and TxDOT was concerned about possible fatigue failure of the wires in the stays. The test
program consisted of fatigue-testing of four 10-metre long stay sections, complete with anchorage
assemblies. The acoustic system was used to determine the location and time of individual wire
breaks. Forensic inspection of the stays showed an excellent relationship between observed and
reported wire breaks.
The monitoring system was installed on the bridge over a period of four months. Three sensors
were installed on each stay cable – one on the pylon anchor, one on the deck anchor and one at
three meters from the deck anchor on the stay. This third sensor is used to eliminate acoustic events
originating from the deck or superstructure that may have acoustic properties similar to wire breaks.
The sensors are hard-wired into an acquisition system located in one of the pylons.

3.3 Results

Due to confidentiality restrictions, it is not possible to provide detailed information on wire break
activity on any specific bridge. However, all of the bridges currently being monitored have
experienced wire breaks during the monitoring periods, although none have been deemed be in a
critical condition.
The main benefits of an acoustic monitoring program are:
1. To identify zones of active corrosion in cables.
 2. To permit an assessment of the rate of deterioration of wires in the cables.
3. To assist in the identification of areas of interest prior to a cable inspection program.
4. To provide reassurance about the continuing integrity of the cable system.

3.4 Limitations and Challenges

Because the monitoring system can detect only those wire breaks that occur during a monitoring
period, it cannot provide a definitive assessment of cable condition prior to the commencement of
monitoring. Furthermore, because there are thousands of wires in a typical suspension bridge cable
and the system only provides linear location information, visual confirmation of specific wire
breaks is problematic. Construction activity on the cables, or excessive ambient acoustic activity
caused by loose bridge components, can interfere with the ability of the system to identify wire
breaks. Nevertheless, the ability of the system to locate wire breaks and to measure rate of
deterioration allows engineers to identify and investigate areas of active corrosion, even in the
absence of information from a visual inspection of the cables.
Some of the principal challenges to be addressed when implementing an effective acoustic
monitoring program include:
1. Ensuring that the system operates at a high level of efficiency. This requires the
development of robust remote diagnostic and trouble-shooting protocols and appropriate
system redundancy to ensure that system “down-time” is minimized.
2. The implementation of reliable automated data acquisition and transmission, and the timely
processing, classification and reporting of events of interest. This requires a dedicated expert
in-house or third-party data processing function.
3. Ensuring that the monitoring program is capable of successfully and reliably identifying
actual wire breaks. This is best done through an appropriate commissioning process and by
occasional “blind” testing of the system. Any deficiencies should be immediately addressed
and corrected through recalibration of the system.
4. Minimizing the number of inconclusive events or “possible” wire breaks. An excessive
number of such events can cause major problems for bridge owners, casting doubt on the
integrity of the structure and on the credibility of the monitoring program.

4. Magnetostrictive Sensing

The magnetostrictive sensor (“MsS”) technology is a guided-wave technology that Southwest

Research Institute developed for inspecting a long-length of structures such as cables, rods, and
pipelines [1]. Guided waves are elastic waves in sonic and ultrasonic frequencies that propagate in a
bounded medium (such as rods, pipes and plates) along the direction parallel to the plane of the
boundary [2]. With the long-range guided-wave inspection, a pulse of guided-wave typically in
frequencies under 100-kHz is launched along a structure, and signals reflected from defects such as
corrosion damage or cracks are detected from the same launching position. The location and
severity of the defect are determined from the occurrence time of the defect signal and the signal
amplitude. Since guided waves can travel a long distance (up to 100 meters or more), a large area
can be examined quickly using this inspection method. Guided waves could also be used to examine
inaccessible areas by launching waves from an accessible location and detecting, from the
launching area, signals coming from inaccessible areas.
The MsS is a probe that generates and detects guided waves electromagnetically in the material
under testing based on the magnetostrictive effects present in ferrous materials. For inspection of
cables, the MsS consisting simply of a coil that encircles the cable and operated in longitudinal
guided-waves is used. A schematic diagram of the MsS and instrument components for generation
and detection of guided waves in steel cables or strands is illustrated in Figure 8. A typical field
arrangement is shown in Figure 9. For guided wave generation, a short pulse of electric current is
supplied to the transmitting MsS coil. The time-varying magnetic field produced by the transmitting
coil expands and contracts the cable material underneath the sensor via the magnetostrictive effect,
thus generating the guided waves that travel along the individual wires comprising the steel cable in
both directions from the coil.
Detection of guided waves is achieved via the reverse process, where the guided waves arriving at
the sensor location cause the magnetic induction of the cable material beneath the sensor to change
with time. The changing magnetic induction, in turn, induces in the receiving MsS coil an electric
voltage through the Faraday effect, which is detected, digitized, and subsequently displayed,
recorded and analyzed. To operate the MsS in longitudinal wave mode, a DC bias magnetic field is
applied along the length of the cable using either permanent magnets or electromagnets.

A/D Personal
Converter Computer

Fig. 8 Schematic diagram of MsS and instrument components

In practice, to control the direction of guided-wave transmission and detection, two coils are used
and the MsS instrument (MsSR® 2020 or 3030) is equipped with two channel transmitters and
receivers for this purpose. The MsS instrument can be operated either in the pulse-echo or the pitch-
catch mode. For the former mode of operation, the same coils are used for both transmission and
detection. For the latter mode of operation, two separate sets of coils are used; one for transmission
and the other for detection.
With the support of the FHWA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and collaboration from the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the MsS technology was first used in the field to
assess the suspender ropes on the George Washington Bridge in New York in 1999. From the
bridge deck level, the technology was able to examine the entire length of suspenders from the
socket end to the main-cable band and provide data that indicate the degree of degradation and their
locations in suspenders [3]. Since then, the technology has been used on several highway
suspension bridges including the George Washington Bridge to assist the bridge engineers to
determine appropriate inspection/maintenance/replacement plans.
In 2005 the MsS system was used to evaluate all 168 suspender ropes of the Bridge of the
Americas, crossing the Panama Canal. This was used in conjunction with 100% hands-on visual
inspection of all ropes by Ammann & Whitney’s engineers. The MsS technology identified defects
that correlated closely with the results of the visual inspection and identified damage in the interior
of the ropes that was not visible from the outside. Based on this evaluation recommendations have
been made to replace the ropes. Output from the MsS system showing cable damage is shown in
Figure 10.

Fig. 9 Typical MsS field arrangement. Fig. 10 Output from MsS report.

4.1 Limitations and Challenges:

Currently, the MsS technology is capable of detecting anomalies in cables with diameters up to
approximately 100 mm. While this includes most suspender ropes or hangers, it precludes the main
cables on many suspension bridges, although research is continuing in this area. Furthermore, large
reflections generated by cable sockets, gatherers and other discontinuities in the cable may hide the
reflections from small defects. However, even in these cases, where periodic inspections of the
same cables are carried out, changes in the condition of the cables in these zones may be detectible.
The technology has no significant drawbacks in deployment and operation. Its portability and ease
of use facilitates speedy inspection of large structures without the need for extensive supporting
infrastructure or traffic control.

5. Conclusion:

The inspection of cable components on large bridges is expensive and inconvenient. In the past,
engineers were limited to visual inspection and intrusive or destructive investigation and testing
techniques, which provided only part of the picture regarding cable condition at significant cost.
The recent development of non-destructive and non-intrusive inspection and monitoring
technologies has provided new tools to assess bridge cables. While these technologies will not
replace traditional cable inspection protocols, they can help bridge engineers to design more
comprehensive, efficient and cost-effective inspection programs, and to make better-informed, cost-
effective recommendations to ensure the long-term integrity of these critical structures.
References
[1] KWUN H., KIM S.Y., and LIGHT G.M. 2003. “The Magnetostrictive Sensor Technology For
Long-Range Guided-Wave Testing And Monitoring Of Structures”, Mat. Eval., 61, pp 80–84.

[2] REDWOOD M., Mechanical Waveguides, The Propagation of Acoustic and Ultrasonic
Waves in Fluids and Solids with Boundaries, Pergamon, New York, 1960.

[3] KHAZEM D.A., KWUN H., and KIM S.Y., “Long-Range Inspection of Suspender Ropes in
Suspension Bridges Using the Magnetostrictive Sensor Technology,” Proc, 3rd International
Workshop On Structural Health Monitoring: The Demands And Challenges (Sept. 12-14,
2001, Stanford University, California), edited by CHANG F., CRC Press, Bota Raton, 2001
pp. 384-392.