Field Monitoring of RC-Structures under Dynamic

Loading Using Distributed Fiber-Optic Sensors

Zachary E. Broth 1 and Neil A. Hoult, M.ASCE 2

Abstract: The ability to properly assess existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures provides an opportunity to prevent costly rehabilitations
or replacements and aid in the optimization of future designs. Distributed fiber-optic sensing (DFOS) is a promising option in the assessment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of these complex structures. Previous uses of this technology, however, have been limited to static measurements, prohibiting the assessment
of structures exposed to dynamic loads. This research intends to assess the dynamic sensing capabilities of a DFOS system and, in turn,
improve the current understanding of the dynamic behavior of an existing RC beam tested in situ through a case study. Based on the
data provided by the dynamic distributed fiber-optic sensors (DDFOS), dynamic measurements of distributed strains, distributed deflections,
and crack widths can all be provided. Further details regarding the use of the DDFOS system in assessment, including the determination
of support conditions and dynamic response factors, are presented and discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001488. © 2020
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Fiber-optic sensors; Distributed strain measurement; Dynamic loading; Reinforced concrete (RC); Crack widths;
Deflections; Monitoring; Serviceability.

Introduction
Current assessment methods for complex and heavily redundant
reinforced concrete (RC) structures often require conservative as-
sumptions, potentially leading to unnecessary costly rehabilitation
or reconstruction (Middleton 1997; Bentz and Hoult 2016). Addi-
tionally, the inability to fully understand the behavior of these
existing structures prohibits the opportunity for optimization in new
designs (Orr et al. 2014). This can have negative economic and
environmental effects on new construction (Orr et al. 2014). Con-
sequently, the need exists for monitoring technologies that can pro-
vide accurate and robust data sets to enable a better understanding
of the behavior of these structures, specifically when exposed to
both dynamic and static loads.
Most current structural assessment and monitoring techniques are
limited to discrete measurements of individual structural metrics,
such as electrical resistance-based strain gauges and displacement
transducers (Gastineau et al. 2009). These discrete measurements
often prohibit the ability to monitor the global behavior of a structure,
such as the deflected shape, as well as localized behavior in locations
where the sensors are not present, including the presence and size of
cracks (Brault and Hoult 2019a).
Distributed fiber-optic sensing (DFOS) technologies improve
on traditional monitoring methods by providing the ability to re-
cord accurate strain data (∼1 microstrain) at a dense spatial reso-
lution (<5 mm) (Kreger et al. 2007). Regier and Hoult (2014)
provided evidence that DFOS can measure detailed external RC
strains throughout a fiber-optic cable when applied to an RC bridge.
1 dynamic loads. The objectives of this research program were to
Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Queen’s Univ., 58 University
Ave., Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6. Email: z.broth@queensu.ca
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Queen’s Univ.,
58 University Ave., Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6 (corresponding
author). Email: neil.hoult@queensu.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 13, 2019; approved on
March 13, 2020; published online on May 20, 2020. Discussion period
open until October 20, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
Techniques have also been developed by Brault and Hoult (2019b)
to measure distributed concrete surface strains and use that data to
simultaneously measure RC beam deflections, crack spacing, and
crack widths. These methods were also applied to the field assess-
ment of statically loaded RC beams during the construction of a
shopping center in Ottawa, Canada (Brault et al. 2018). Most pre-
vious uses of DFOS, including these studies, have been limited to
static measurements. This prohibits the measurement of dynamic
strains, and the corresponding deflections and crack widths, as the
result of cyclic or moving loads. By combining DFOS with dy-
namic sensing capabilities, it could then be possible to better under-
stand the behavior of these complex structural systems, as well as
provide sufficient data for the proper assessment and future opti-
mization of RC-structures.
Dynamic distributed fiber-optic sensing (DDFOS) is a new tech-
nology that can measure strain along the length of a fiber-optic
cable at acquisition rates as high as 250 Hz (LUNA Technologies
2017). Existing studies utilizing DDFOS technology are limited;
however, it has been shown that external RC strains can be recorded
during laboratory fatigue tests of RC beams (Barrias et al. 2018a).
Other examples of DDFOS in use do exist in the transportation
(Wheeler et al. 2018) and aerospace (Davis et al. 2016) industries;
however, to date, there are no studies that exhibit the use of DDFOS
for the full-scale assessment of existing RC-structures.
In order to both utilize and evaluate the capabilities of DDFOS
technology for structural assessment, a field study has been con-
ducted. The study investigates the behavior of an existing RC beam,
which was instrumented and tested, in situ, under both static and
(1) monitor existing RC beams using both discrete and dynamic dis-
tributed sensors under varying load cases, (2) evaluate the results of
DDFOS measurements by comparing them with those from discrete
sensors, and (3) utilize DDFOS data to determine dynamic measure-
ments of deflection, crack widths, and dynamic response factors as a
result of the maximum expected dynamic loading on a structure.
The following section of this paper provides a brief background
on structural assessment methods and FOS technologies, followed

© ASCE 04020070-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070

 by details of the field study. The results of this investigation are then
presented and discussed.
Background
Structural Assessment Methods
Structural assessment is often required to determine the remaining
integrity of RC structures. While the technology and methods em-
ployed by engineers have improved with time, these advancements
have primarily focused on select assessment properties, including
the determination and monitoring of load, strain, and displacements
as well as detecting the presence and size of cracks (Chang et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2003). Structures can be monitored under normal working condi-
tions; however, the application of maximum or unique loading
cases can provide a better understanding of the future performance
of the structure. These loads are most commonly applied statically
by placing objects of known weight overtop of the assessed struc-
tural members. Brault et al. (2018), for example, utilized the weight
of six scissor lifts on an RC beam during the construction of a shop-
ping center. Dynamic loads have also been applied to structures in
situ often in the form of a moving vehicle or other moving load. For
example, Tennyson et al. (2001) used large, multi-axle trucks to
apply a moving load to the Taylor Bridge in Manitoba, Canada.
Repeated or cyclic loads, however, are less common in the field
assessment of these structures. Salawu and Williams (1995) pro-
vide a review of dynamic loading techniques for the assessment
of bridge structures. These techniques are used to induce vibrations
in order to monitor a structure’s dynamic response. Impactors, for
example, are one method for applying forced excitation to a struc-
ture by providing a repeated impact from an instrumented hammer
device, similar to cyclically applied load. These methods, however,
can be destructive and are not feasible for indoor applications of
structural assessment.
The ability to adequately monitor the effects of these applied
loads is often determined by the availability of monitoring and
sensing technologies. Displacements within a structure are often
measured using displacement transducers, such as linear variable
differential transformers (LVDT) and linear potentiometers (LP).
These devices can provide discrete measurements of displacement
at the point of installation but are only useful when fixed to a known
point of reference, reducing their applicability in large scale assess-
ments (Lee and Shinozuka 2006). An alternative is a noncontact
displacement measurement method, such as digital image correla-
tion (DIC). DIC has not only proven to be an effective method for
accurately measuring displacements within a structure, but has also
been successfully used to locate and monitor cracks on the surface
of RC beams (Hoult et al. 2016). This method, however, requires a
line of sight between the camera and the element being monitored,
which can often be difficult in a field setting or during the assess-
ment of large structures.
Strain measurements for field assessments of structures are most
commonly taken with electrical-based strain gauges, which, similar
to displacement transducers, can only provide discrete measure-
ments of strain at the point of installation. The use of electrical-
based strain gauges, however, is often limited due to environmental
conditions, project scale, and installation restrictions (Gebremichael
et al. 2005). Advancements in wireless and smart sensing technol-
ogies have improved on the traditional strain gauge by simplifying
sensor installation and allowing for remote monitoring of a structure
(Spencer et al. 2004). However, the discrete nature of these measure-
ments once again restricts the extent to which these methods can be
used for assessment.
© ASCE 04020070-2
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070
Distributed RC Strain Measurement
Fiber-optic sensing (FOS) technologies are available in two forms,
discrete and distributed. Similar to traditional strain gauges, discrete
fiber-optic sensing methods can only measure strain data at a single
point within a fiber-optic cable. Fiber Bragg Gratings (FBG), for ex-
ample, are discrete sensors that can be multiplexed but are also more
expensive than electrical-based strain gauges and are ultimately lim-
ited by the number of discrete measurements that they can provide
(Gebremichael et al. 2005).
DFOS technologies offer an improvement on discrete strain mon-
itoring techniques by providing continuous strain measurements
throughout the length of a fiber-optic cable. One example of a DFOS
technology is Brillouin optical time domain reflectometry (BOTDR).
BOTDR is most commonly used in the assessments of large struc-
tural systems due to its ability to monitor several kilometers of fiber-
optic cable with an accuracy of
30 microstrain (Mohamad et al.
2011). Similar to BOTDR, Brillouin optical time domain analysis
(BOTDA) can also offer long-range sensing capabilities but requires
access to both ends of the fiber-optic cable, which can be difficult
to achieve in a field assessment setting (Kurashima et al. 1990).
Rayleigh backscattering is another form of DFOS that can measure
strains at a higher accuracy (∼1 microstrain) and smaller gauge spac-
ing (5 mm) than Brillouin techniques. However, unlike BOTDR and
BOTDA, Rayleigh backscattering systems are limited to smaller
sensing lengths up to 100 m (Kreger et al. 2007).
Previous studies have explored the application and capabilities
of DFOS and Rayleigh backscatter technology in the assessment of
existing RC-structures. Barrias et al. (2018b), for example, utilized
both DFOS and backscattering technologies to measure strains dur-
ing the renovation of two structures in Barcelona, Spain. The DFOS
technology used in that study was able to accurately monitor the
effects of the renovations on a structure, as well as the increased
construction loads applied to the structures during this process.
Similarly, Regier and Hoult (2014) used Rayleigh-based DFOS
technologies during the assessment of the Black River Bridge in
Ontario, Canada, and found DFOS to be a feasible technology for
field assessment applications. This study also explored the use of
DFOS data to estimate the full deflected shape of the structure,
which had previously only been done with Brillion based systems
(Ohno et al. 2001). Data from the Black River Bridge study were
later used by Bentz and Hoult (2016) to perform model updating,
which included estimates of crack widths based on the DFOS strain
data. The methods used for the determination of the deflected shape
and crack widths were validated by Brault and Hoult (2019b)
through a series of laboratory RC beam tests. These theories were
applied by Brault et al. (2018), who monitored the behavior of RC
beams during the construction of a shopping center.
Dynamic RC Strain Measurements
Dynamic RC strain measurements are most commonly taken using
electrical-based strain gauges, which are limited to discrete mea-
surements. FBG can also measure dynamic strains at acquisition
rates up to several thousand samples per second (Majumder et al.
2008). Over 60 FBG sensors were used in the dynamic monitoring
of a moving truckload during the assessment of the Taylor Bridge
in Manitoba, Canada (Tennyson et al. 2001). These sensors offered
a general understanding of the structure’s behavior due to the mov-
ing load; however, the discrete nature of the sensor type failed to
provide details regarding localized behavior, such as cracking.
Recent advances in FOS technology have led to the development
of DDFOS that can provide dynamic strain measurements continu-
ously throughout a fiber-optic cable. The optical distributed sensor
interrogator (ODiSI-B) by LUNA Technologies (Roanoke, VA) is a
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Rayleigh-based dynamic distributed analyzer that was used in the
present study. The ODiSI-B has acquisition rates up to 250 Hz, de-
pending on the total sensing length. For a maximum sensing length of
20 m, however, the acquisition rate is 50 Hz, with a gauge spacing of
2.61 mm, gauge length of 5.2 mm, and accuracy of
25 microstrain
(LUNA Technologies 2017). As discussed later in this paper, an im-
proved accuracy of
5 microstrain was observed during this study.
Although limited, research using the ODiSI-B and other
DDFOS systems have found that this technology can be applied to
a variety of dynamic sensing applications and can provide high-
resolution strain data at high acquisition rates (Kreger et al. 2013).
Some of the earliest applications of the ODiSI-B include a series of
small-scale laboratory tests performed by Kreger et al. (2013), such
as the measurement of high-resolution dynamic strains in a swing-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ing golf club. Examples of field applications of the ODiSI-B
include the work of Wheeler et al. (2018), who monitored dynamic
longitudinal strains in railroad tracks and Wong et al. (2018) who
performed damage detection of in-service pipelines. To the authors’
knowledge, however, there is currently no evidence of the use of
DDFOS or Rayleigh backscatter systems to dynamically measure
strains, deflected shapes, and crack widths during the assessment of
in situ RC-structures.
Experimental Program
This study provides the results of a case study performed on an
existing RC beam within Ellis Hall on the Queen’s University
Beam Center
Floor Slab
End FOS FOS
Start FOS
Wall Face
9.24 m
9.10 m
6.93 m
4.62 m
Floor Slab
FOS
550 mm 702 mm
356 mm
(b)
Fig. 1. Beam schematics, including (a) beam profile and instrumentation; (b) beam cross-section; and (c) beam location within the 3rd floor floorplan
of Ellis Hall.
© ASCE
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070
campus in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, which was designed and
constructed in the late 1950s. The following section provides de-
tails regarding the RC beam that was tested as well as the instru-
mentation and testing procedure used for the investigation.
Field Site and Instrumentation
The monitored site consists of a cast-in-place T-beam located below
a multi-purpose room between an external column and a perpen-
dicularly intersecting beam. The instrumented beam had an acces-
sible length (i.e., wall-to-column) of 9.24 m. In addition to the
profile view of the specimen, Fig. 1(b) also provides a cross-section
of the T-beam, as well as the location of the beams in relation to the
room presented [Fig. 1(c)].
The schematics in Fig. 1 also provide details regarding the in-
strumentation used during this case study. Fiber-optic sensors were
installed along both the top and bottom of the beam. Starting
50 mm away from the wall face, the fiber-optic cable was installed
40 mm above the bottom edge of the beam until reaching the col-
umn face. The fiber was then looped back 40 mm below the slab
soffit to an end position approximately 0.62 m away from the wall.
The difference in the horizontal start and end position is due to the
sensing length limitation of the DDFOS system used (i.e., 20 m).
The installation of the fiber-optic cable involved a three-step pro-
cedure, including (1) sanding of the fiber pathway, (2) cleaning of
the fiber pathway, and (3) bonding of the fiber to the concrete sur-
face (Brault et al. 2018). Rotary sanding wheels were used to
Midspan Column Center
470 mm 40 mm
LP 3 40 mm LP 2 LP 1
(a)
Beam
Location
(c)
04020070-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 remove paint and smooth the concrete surface. The surface was
then cleaned with water and 99% isopropyl alcohol before the fiber
was bonded using a two-part epoxy (Loctite E-20HP). In addition
to the fiber optics, three LPs were installed at the midspan (LP 3),
quarter-span (LP 2), and 0.14 m away from the column face (LP 1),
as shown in Fig. 1(a). It is worth noting that the fiber needs to be
continuously bonded if the full surface strain profile is required,
although even with continuous bonding, crack locations result in
strain peaks being measured rather than zero strain, as noted in pre-
vious research studies (Regier and Hoult 2014). However, it is also
possible to measure the average strain between bonded points if
sufficient tension in the fiber is maintained between bonded loca-
tions to prevent sagging of the cable.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to the two loading orientations as the point load (PL) and uniformly
distributed load (UDL).
Before the testing began, the students were positioned away
from the beam’s tributary area, on the opposite side of the room.
The students were then asked to slowly walk toward the beam and
form their position in the UDL orientation. Once in place, the stu-
dents were then asked to jump in unison for 30 consecutive jumps.
Following the jumping cycles, the students walked off the beam
back toward the other side of the room, unloading the specimen.
After a 1 min and 30 s break, this process was then repeated for
the PL test. By having the students walk on and off the beam before
and after each test, the unloaded (i.e., off the beam), statically loaded
(i.e., at rest on the beam), and dynamically loaded (i.e., jumping)

Testing Procedure
The application of the dynamic loads applied during this investi-
gation was provided by 38 student volunteers who were asked to
jump in unison over the instrumented specimen. The use of human
loading allowed for easier management of the load placement,
which resulted in the completion of two separate tests, including
a distributed and concentrated load test. The distributed load test
was conducted by aligning the students across the full span of
the classroom (wall-to-wall) directly above the instrumented beam.
For the concentrated load test, the students were gathered in a group
over the midspan of the beam. This concentrated load was intended
to represent a point load. However, the group of students filled an
area that was approximately 3 by 3 m area centered over the mid-
span position within the tributary area of the beam. Based on an
average recorded mass of the volunteers of 75 kg, the applied con-
centrated load was determined to be approximately 28 kN, while
the distributed load was approximately 3 kN=m. This study refers
state of the beam could be measured. It should be noted that the data
acquisition rate of both the DDFOS and displacement data was
50 Hz, and the data was logged continuously throughout the tests.
Therefore, any long-term effects caused by the UDL test prior to the
PL test would be seen in the data. This is discussed further in the
results section.
Results and Discussion
Deflection Behavior
Deflection data can be provided for the complete duration of the
two tests from the three LPs that were used during the investigation,
including the midspan, quarter-span, and column support. Fig. 2
provides the deflection versus time data from two of the three
LPs (i.e., midspan and quarter-span). The data from the third LP
were omitted due to the minimal deflection measured at the column
support. The deflection measured by each LP began at zero, which

0 0
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8

-1 -1
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) Time (Seconds) (c) Time (Seconds)

0 0
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8

-1 -1
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(b) Time (Seconds) (d) Time (Seconds)

Fig. 2. Displacement results from the LPs, including (a) quarter-span UDL test; (b) midspan UDL test; (c) quarter-span PL test; and (d) midspan
PL test.

© ASCE 04020070-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070

 represents the unloaded condition of the beam. As the test began,
the deflection slowly increased as the volunteers walked onto the
beam. Once positioned over the beam, the deflections due to the
static load can be measured. This occurred at approximately 30 s
into each test. As a result of the static loads, the beam experienced
0.25 mm under the UDL and 0.34 mm during the PL test at
midspan.
Once the jumping cycles began, the results show that the deflec-
tion data followed a repeating pattern that includes the deflection
response of the beam due to the push-off force of the students, time
the students were airborne (i.e., unloaded), impact of the students,
and beam’s response during the time the students were at rest be-
tween jumping cycles. During the UDL test, there was an acciden-
tal interruption of the jumping cycles seen at approximately 38 s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
could have resulted in the formation of new cracks or the growth of
existing cracks. Additionally, the results show that the magnitude of
the strain peaks at cracks is greater during the PL test, specifically
within the middle third of the fiber length. This is likely due to
the concentration of the load within this area during the PL test.
Information regarding the observed cracking behavior during the
two tests, including the possibility of crack growth, is discussed
in greater detail later in this section.
As expected, strains within the top fiber are small due to the top
fiber location near the neutral axis of the beam. A few strain peaks,
however, can be observed within the top fiber data. Similar to the
cracks measured along the bottom fiber, these strain peaks suggest
that some cracks originating from the bottom tensile region of the

within the deflection data. Within the jumping cycles, the unloaded
phases of each jump do not always return to zero. This is attributed
to the timing of the volunteers’ jumps where it is unlikely that all
the volunteers were airborne at the exact same moment. Addition-
ally, the amount of time between the unloaded and impact phases
may have not been long enough for the beam to respond to the
push-off force and return to the zero position before the impact
occurred. Overall, the maximum dynamic deflections under the
two loading cases at midspan were 0.54 and 0.84 mm for the UDL
and PL tests, respectively.
Following the jumping phase of the two tests, the beam returned
to the statically loaded position while the volunteers were at rest.
The beam was then unloaded as the volunteers walked off the beam
and away from the tributary area of the specimen. After the com-
pletion of the test, when the beam was unloaded, there are remain-
ing deflections of 0.03 and 0.04 mm at the midspan for the UDL
and PL tests. Due to the intensity of the loading applied to the struc-
ture during the two tests (compared to the normal working loads on
the structure), the remaining deflections that can be measured are as
the result of crack development or growth. These residual deflec-
tions, however, could also be the result of minor shifts in the LP
sensors due to the vibrations caused by the repeated impact loads or
because their supports moved. Temperature can also have an impact
on the fiber-optic measurements using Rayleigh backscatter for
experiments occurring over a longer period of time (e.g., Davis
beam have grown to the height of the top fiber-optic cable. This is
supported by the alignment of the measured cracks within the top
and bottom fibers, as it is expected that the flexural cracks would
grow vertically through the beam’s depth.
The bottom fiber data also provide insight into the boundary
conditions of the instrumented beam, including inflection points
near the supports of the beam (at approximately 2 and 8 m). Beyond
the two inflection points, compressive strains are measured in the
bottom fiber, suggesting that there is moment transfer at the sup-
ports. A single negative strain peak can be observed at approxi-
mately 1 m within the bottom fiber from each test. This peak likely
represents the closing of a crack at this location due to the com-
pressive stresses experienced in this area.
Dynamic Response Factor
By comparing the maximum distributed strains as a result of the
dynamic jumping loads with the average static strain distribution,
it might be possible to quantify the dynamic response factor (DRF)
for the two loading arrangements. Fig. 4 provides both the static
and maximum dynamic strain distributions for both the UDL and
PL tests. Based on this data, a distribution of DRF values was de-
termined throughout the fiber length. DRF values are important in
400
Bottom Fibre
Top Fibre

et al. 2017); however, it was not expected to impact the current tests 300
Strain (Microstrain)

Crack 1
that occurred over a duration of less than 5 min within a building.
200
This behavior is discussed in greater detail later in the results
section. Top Fiber
100
Ends

Distributed Fiber-Optic Strains 0

Inflection Point Inflection Point

Maximum Strain Profile -100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Utilizing the data from the DDFOS system, the exact point in time (a) Fibre Length (m)
at which the maximum strains occurred can be identified. Fig. 3
provides the maximum distributed strain profiles for the top and 400
Bottom Fibre Crack 1
bottom fiber that occurred during each test. Note that the top fiber Top Fibre
data does not cover the entire span of the beam due to sensing 300
Strain (Microstrain)

length restrictions; therefore data are not displayed beyond that

point (approximately 0.62 m). 200

Multiple strain peaks can be observed within the bottom fiber

100 Top Fiber
data provided in Fig. 3 that represent the location of cracks that Ends
intersect the bonded fiber-optic cable. As noted previously, strain
0
peaks occur at crack locations as the fiber-optic cable debonds Inflection Point Inflection Point
locally and bridges the crack (Regier and Hoult 2014). It is also -100
possible that the strain change could be due to fiber debonding in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
the absence of cracking; however, if this were the case, one would (b) Fibre Length (m)
expect to measure the average strain between the two bonded points
Fig. 3. Maximum strain profiles along the top and bottom of the beam
rather than a strain maximum. The strains at these cracks exceed
for (a) the UDL test; and (b) the PL test.
the expected cracking strain of concrete (∼100 microstrain), which

© ASCE 04020070-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070

 structural assessments, as they allow for a good approximation of
the maximum dynamic load when applied to the results of a static
test. Although this information may not be useful for the assess-
ment of an RC beam within an academic building, the ability to
accurately determine a DRF value would be valuable in the assess-
ment of structures that are exposed to dynamic loads, such as
bridges, culverts, and arenas.
The average of the distributed DRF results was determined to be
1.8 and 1.6 for the UDL and PL test, respectively. However, it is
clear from the DRF profile that there is significant variation in these
profiles due to the comparison of small strains in the uncracked
areas of the fiber length, which, combined with an approximate
5 microstrain accuracy, has a significant effect on the results as
the range of calculated DRF goes from under 1 to over 3. An alter-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
native measure of the beam’s DRF can be calculated based on the
static and dynamic deflection measurements from the LP data pro-
vided in Fig. 2. The results of this calculation are 2.16 and 2.47 for
the UDL and PL test, respectively. It is clear that there is a signifi-
cant discrepancy between the DRF results and the DDFOS and LP
data. Previous studies, such as Bakht and Pinjarkar (1989) and the
Highway Research Board (1962), have discussed similar trends
when comparing DRF results based on deflection measurements
to those based on strain. In each case, the DRF values determined
using deflection measurements were found to be greater than those
for the strain-based results. However, in the current study, the
amount of variation in the DDFOS measurements means that it
is not clear whether the difference in DRF values is a function
of the measurement technique or the sensor measurement accuracy.
Thus, while using DDFOS data to calculate DRF values may be
possible if larger strains are present, it is not recommended for
the level of strain measured in this work (i.e., average values less
than 50 microstrain).
Maximum Strain with Time
Fig. 5 provides the strain versus time data for the sensor located at
the maximum strain location (4.22 m) throughout the UDL and PL
tests. Note that the maximum strains occurred at the location of
Crack 1, as labeled in Fig. 3, during both tests. It is important
to note that the strains at the beginning of the PL test are not zero.
The UDL test was performed first followed by the PL test (1 min
and 30 s later), and the residual strains as a result of the UDL test
were carried over into the PL test. These residual strains observed at
Crack 1 could be caused by the widening and growth of the crack,
resulting in an irrecoverable strain after the beam was unloaded
during the UDL test. Creep could also contribute to the develop-
ment of these strains. Since it is assumed that the dynamic loads
applied throughout the jumping cycles are likely the highest loads
experienced by the beam within its lifetime, they could have caused
the cracks to extend and widen, contributing to the remaining de-
flections measured at the LP locations along the RC beam after it
was unloaded. It is most likely that both mechanisms were occur-
ring in the beam as short-term displacement increases have also
been observed in the lab due to creep under constant load and a
decrease in tension stiffening at the cracks under cyclic loading
(Broth and Hoult 2020). However, isolating the effects of each
mechanism on the behavior is not possible with the available data
as both mechanisms are highly variable, nonlinear, and time and
load dependent. Both crack growth and concrete creep could also
explain the remaining displacements measured by the LP following
each test, as shown in Fig. 2.
Another explanation for these residual strains, as investigated by
Brault et al. (2018), could be due to locked-in strains within the
fiber-optic cable or the epoxy used to bond the fiber-optic cable
to the concrete. Brault et al. indicated that irrecoverable strains
© ASCE 04020070-6
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070
could occur at the location of cracks even if no change in the crack
geometry or material properties occurred. Note that they did not see
this behavior in the results from other sensor locations positioned
away from or in between cracks, as the strains in these cases re-
turned to zero after the beam was unloaded. This suggests that these
residual strains likely only occur as a result of peak strains at the
location of cracks. Further discussion regarding this phenomenon is
provided later. There is also an apparent linear increase in the
strains throughout the jumping cycles during the two tests. As a
result, the static and unloaded strains following the jumping cycles
are larger than the strains measured before the cycles began.
Crack Widths
To further investigate the cause of the residual strains shown in
Fig. 5, as well as observe the dynamic behavior of cracks, an exami-
nation of the crack widths with time for the crack labeled in Fig. 3
was conducted. Brault and Hoult (2019b) proposed a method of
estimating the area under the concrete surface strain plot in the
vicinity of a crack to calculate the crack width. They proposed
two methods, and in this study, the method used was where the
crack width is calculated using the area of a triangle with the maxi-
mum strain at the crack as the peak of the triangle and the slopes of
each side were defined by the minimum strains on either side of the
crack. Based on this method provided by Brault and Hoult for static
crack width estimations, dynamic crack widths could be calculated
for each sampling of the DDFOS data and are provided in Fig. 6.
The data display the opening and closing of cracks as a result of the
applied loads. Based on these results, both the static crack width
and maximum dynamic crack width can be determined. The two
cracks grow throughout the duration of both tests, resulting in
an increased crack width due to static loading, as well as a residual
crack width after the beam was unloaded. This is an important re-
sult since though locked-in strains can affect the minimum crack
width measurement, they would not affect the maximum crack
width measurement and so it appears the cracks did grow during
the test. This behavior would result in both the residual strains seen
in Fig. 5 and the remaining deflections shown in Fig. 2 after the
beam was unloaded. Following the UDL tests, the crack continues
to grow throughout the static loading and jumping cycles of the PL
test, resulting in further crack growth after the beam was unloaded
the second time. The total crack growth measured after the com-
pletion of both tests is approximately 0.0025 mm. Although the
crack widths when the beam is unloaded could have been affected
by the residual strain phenomena explored by Brault et al. (2018),
these phenomena should not impact the maximum strains and thus
crack widths measured.
Deflected Shape
Utilizing the strain data from both the bottom and top fiber-optic
cables and the distance between them, it is possible to calculate the
curvature along the fibers’ length. By applying Bernoulli–Euler
elastic beam theory and the validated methods provided by Brault
and Hoult (2019b), the curvature results can be double-integrated to
determine distributed bending displacement throughout the length
of the instrumented section, as shown in Fig. 7. Though Brault and
Hoult did this using static measurements, the method is applied for
the first time here using dynamic measurements. Fig. 7 shows the
calculated deflected shape for the statically loaded case, maximum
dynamically loaded case, and unloaded case following the jumping
cycles for both load cases. Note that for each deflected shape to be
calculated, two boundary conditions must be used. For all of the
results provided in Fig. 7, both the midspan and support LP data
were used as boundary conditions, while the quarter-span LP was
used to verify the results. Also, note that deflection data could not
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 400 400
Maximum Dynamic Strain Maximum Dynamic Strain
Average Static Strain Average Static Strain

Strain (Microstrain)

Strain (Microstrain)
300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
(a) Fibre Length (m) (c) Fibre Length (m)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5 5

Dynamic Impact Factor

Dynamic Impact Factor

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
(b) Fibre Length (m) (d) Fibre Length (m)

Fig. 4. Dynamic response factor results, including (a) the dynamic/static strain profiles from the UDL test; (b) resulting DRF distribution for the UDL
test; (c) the dynamic/static strain profiles from the PL test; and (d) resulting DRF distribution for PL test.

400 400
Strain (Microstrain)

Strain (Microstrain)

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) Time (Seconds) (b) Time (Seconds)

Fig. 5. Strain with time data for (a) UDL test at maximum strain location (x ¼ 4.22 m; Crack 1); and (b) PL test at maximum strain location
(x ¼ 4.22 m; Crack 1).

0.02 0.02
Crack Width (mm)

Crack Width (mm)

0.015 0.015

0.01 0.01

0.005 0.005

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) Time (Seconds) (b) Time (Seconds)

Fig. 6. Crack width measurements with time for Crack 1 identified in Fig. 3, including (a) Crack 1—UDL; and (b) Crack 1—PL.

© ASCE 04020070-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070

 0.2 LP-Static LP-Dynamic LP-Unloaded
FOS-Static FOS-Dynamic FOS-Unloaded
Displacement (mm) 0 tion at this support would be required. It is also noted that the maxi-
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) Beam Span (m)
0.2 LP-Static
FOS-Static
LP-Dynamic
FOS-Dynamic
LP-Unloaded
FOS-Unloaded
0 verify the crack growth estimations provided in Fig. 6.
Displacement (mm)
-0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(b) Beam Span (m)
Fig. 7. Maximum integrated deflections from DFOS results for (a) the
UDL test; and (b) the PL test.
be calculated within the first 0.62 m of the instrumented span due to
the lack of data from the top fiber.
The results provided in Fig. 7 allow for a direct comparison be-
tween the two sensor types (i.e., FOS and LP). While the midspan
and support LP are used in calculating the DFOS deflections, the
difference between the quarter-span LP and the integrated deflec-
tion at that location enables a comparison between both of the de-
flection measurements. For each deflected shape shown in Fig. 7,
the difference between these two points is provided. In each case,
these differences are within the expected accuracy of the LP sensors
used (approximately 0.1 mm). It is noted that there is an increase in
the discrepancy with an increase in the load. This is potentially due
to the level of noise measured within the DDFOS data as the loads
are applied, especially within the top fiber. As previously found by
Van Der Kooi et al. (2018), this particular measurement system has
higher measurement noise, resulting in fewer useable data points in
the last 5 m of the fiber [the length of fiber near the point marked
“End FOS” in Fig. 1(a)]. This means that the double integration
of curvatures in this region to get displacements is based on fewer
points and that an increased likelihood that local strain variations
due to cracking might not have been included when calculating the
curvature. However, these measurements were not required to cal-
culate the maximum displacements and so only the left side of the
beam deflection diagram is impacted.
The general deflected shape behavior under static loading ap-
pears to be as expected. Although the calculated deflected shape
does not cover the entire span, it appears that the deflection at each
support is zero, with a maximum deflection located at the midspan.
This behavior, however, is not seen within the deflected shape
under the maximum dynamic load measured during the UDL and
PL tests. In this case, the right-hand support (i.e., column) displace-
ment does remain close to zero, but the deflection toward the left-
hand support (i.e., the beam) is not close to zero, with a measured
deflection of 0.28 and 0.58 mm at the leftmost point for the UDL
and PL tests, respectively. Although deflections were not directly
measured at the beam-beam connection, the supporting beam may
have experienced some deflection as a result of the dynamic loads.
However, it is also possible that this behavior is due to noise within
the FOS data near the end of the sensing length along the top fiber.
© ASCE
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070
To determine the exact cause, a direct measurement of the deflec-
mum deflection under the dynamic load is positioned to the right of
Difference = 0.004 mm
Difference = 0.013 mm
the midspan LP. This could be the result of the uneven positioning
Difference = 0.034 mm of the load but could also be an effect of the left-hand support
behavior.
Similar to the statically loaded condition, the unloaded deflected
8 9 shape is as expected. What is most important about the unloaded
deflected shape is that the two sensor types agree that there are
residual displacements within the beam after the loads are removed.
This in turn helps explain the residual strains observed in Fig. 5 and
Difference = 0.013 mm
Difference = 0.025 mm
Applications and Limitations
Difference = 0.043 mm
Although presented for a specific structure in this case, the tech-
niques developed in this paper can be applied much more broadly.
8 9
Dynamic distributed strain profiles enable the average strain to be
determined along a member, which can then be used with analysis
techniques, such as the modified compression field theory (Vecchio
and Collins 1986) or finite element analysis (Bentz and Hoult 2016),
to assess existing structures. In addition, crack width measurements
are critical for assessing the durability of a structure [ACI Committee
224 (ACI 2001)] and so understanding the range of crack widths that
occur under live load would allow for the likelihood of deterioration
to be assessed more effectively. Finally, the data from this study,
along with others to ensure accuracy and repeatability, can be used
along with a finite element model updating approach to develop
potentially more accurate design models (Bentz and Hoult 2016).
These design models can then be evaluated using the results of fur-
ther field monitoring on structures designed using these approaches,
leading to eventual improvements in RC design.
The three main limitations of the current technique are the
(1) maximum sensing length, (2) maximum data acquisition rate,
and (3) the inability to measure reinforcement strains. The maxi-
mum sensing length of the system is 20 m, limiting the length of
members that can be completely instrumented to approximately
9 m since some fiber is lost connecting to the beam and joining
the top and bottom fibers. This is shorter than the beam instru-
mented in this study and led to the need for supplemental displace-
ment measurements to determine the boundary conditions. For
beams less than 9 m in length, an assumption of zero displacement
at the ends of the beam can be made to calculate the displacement
and avoid the need for supplemental displacement measurements.
Alternatively, measurements can be taken of the top and bottom
fiber independently during different tests under the same loading
to calculate the location of the neutral axis and allow for approx-
imately 19 m long beams to be monitored using the bottom fiber
and the neutral axis location to calculate the curvature. In addition,
the maximum data acquisition rate of 50 Hz for the 20 m sensing
length restricts the maximum frequency of loading to the 25 Hz
Nyquist frequency to prevent aliasing, which was not an issue for
the tests conducted here but could be for some dynamic events such
as blast loading. Finally, for existing structures where the fiber-optic
sensors have to be mounted on the concrete surface, the internal
reinforcement strains cannot be measured directly although they
can be measured in new structures allowing for dynamic reinforce-
ment strains to be measured (Broth and Hoult 2020).
Conclusions
This research program was conducted in order to establish a
better understanding of the dynamic performance of existing RC
04020070-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 structures and improve on previous static assessments by utilizing
DDFOS. To test the abilities of DDFOS, a case study was con-
ducted on an existing RC beam. The beam was tested in situ under
static and dynamic loads and monitored with discrete sensors and a
DDFOS. Based on the results of the study, the following conclu-
sions can be made:
• By utilizing the ODiSI-B DDFOS system, both static and dy-
namic concrete strains could be successfully measured during
dynamic loading tests on an existing RC beam in situ.
• The recorded DDFOS data enabled critical performance metrics
to be measured within the instrumented beams including maxi-
mum strains, support conditions, and cracking behavior.
• The observed trends in the data from both the discrete and dis-
tributed sensors were in good agreement, suggesting that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
DDFOS was able to accurately capture the true behavior of
the beam.
• DDFOS data provided the ability to determine the dynamic re-
sponse factor of the instrumented structure, which was found to
be lower than the deflection-based DRF results. Both are con-
sidered valid DRF values, as similar comparisons are found in
previous studies.
• Distributed crack widths and deflected shapes, previously lim-
ited to static measurements, could be determined dynamically
utilizing the recorded strain data from the DDFOS system,
including the identification of the maximum results due to
the applied dynamic load.
• In the future, the data from these experiments can be used in
conjunction with a finite element model to undertake model up-
dating to develop more accurate approaches to design. However,
it should be noted that data from multiple structures will be
required to ensure the reliability and accuracy of these finite
element models for design. In addition, structures designed us-
ing these approaches should have sensors installed to confirm
the accuracy of these models.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during
the study are available from the corresponding author by request
(i.e., raw fiber-optic strain data and LP data).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada for their financial
support. The authors would also like to thank Sara Nurmi, Eric
Pannese, Paul Thrasher, and Andre Brault from Queen’s University.
Finally, the authors would like to thank all of the volunteers who
were involved in the experiments.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2001. Control of cracking in concrete
structures. ACI 224R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Bakht, B., and S. G. Pinjarkar. 1989. “Dynamic testing of highway
bridges—A review.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1123: 93–100.
Barrias, A., J. R. Casas, and S. Villalba. 2018a. “Fatigue testing of rein-
forced concrete beam instrumented with distributed optical fiber sensors
(DOFS).” In Proc., Civil Engineering Research in Ireland. Dublin,
Ireland: Civil Engineering Research Association of Ireland.
Barrias, A., G. Rodriguez, J. R. Casas, and S. Villalba. 2018b. “Application
of distributed optical fiber sensors for the health monitoring of two real
© ASCE 04020070-9
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070
structures in Barcelona.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 14 (7): 967–985.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2018.1438479.
Bentz, E. C., and N. A. Hoult. 2016. “Bridge model updating using dis-
tributed sensor data.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Bridge Eng. 170 (1): 74–86.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jbren.15.00030.
Brault, A., N. Hoult, T. Greenough, and I. Trudeau. 2018. “Monitoring
of beams in an RC building during a load test using distributed sensors.”
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 33 (1): 04018096. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001250.
Brault, A., and N. A. Hoult. 2019a. “Distributed reinforcement strains:
Measurement and application.” ACI Struct. J. 116 (4): 115–127.
Brault, A., and N. A. Hoult. 2019b. “Monitoring reinforced concrete serv-
iceability performance using fiber-optic sensors.” ACI Struct. J. 116 (1):
57–70.
Broth, Z., and N. A. Hoult. 2020. “Dynamic distributed strain sensing to
assess reinforced concrete behaviour.” Eng. Struct. 204 (Feb): 110036.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110036.
Chang, P. C., A. Flatau, and S. C. Liu. 2003. “Review paper: Health
monitoring of civil infrastructure.” Struct. Health Monit. Int. J. 2 (3):
257–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921703036169.
Davis, C., M. Knowles, N. Rajic, and G. Swanton. 2016. “Evaluation of a
distributed fibre optic strain sensing system for full-scale fatigue test-
ing.” Procedia Struct. Integrity 2: 3784–3791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.prostr.2016.06.471.
Davis, M. B., N. A. Hoult, S. Bajaj, and E. C. Bentz. 2017. “Distributed
sensing for shrinkage and tension stiffening measurement.” ACI
Struct. J. 114 (3): 753–764.
Gastineau, A., T. Johnson, and A. Schultz. 2009. Bridge health monitoring
and inspections: A survey of methods. Rep. No. MN/RC 2009-29.
St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Dept. of Transportation.
Gebremichael, Y. M., et al. 2005. “A field deployable, multiplexed Bragg
grating sensor system used in an extensive highway bridge monitoring
evaluation tests.” IEEE Sens. J. 5 (3): 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1109
/JSEN.2005.846185.
Highway Research Board. 1962. Special report 61D: The AASHO road
test. Rep. No. 4: Bridge Research. Publication 953. Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
Hoult, N., M. Dutton, A. Hoag, and W. A. Take. 2016. “Measuring crack
movement in reinforced concrete using digital image correlation: Over-
view and application to shear slip measurements.” Proc. IEEE 104 (8):
1561–1574. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2016.2535157.
Kreger, S. T., D. K. Gifford, M. E. Froggatt, A. K. Sang, R. G. Duncan,
M. S. Wolfe, and B. J. Soller. 2007. “High-resolution extended distance
distributed fiber-optic sensing using rayleigh backscatter.” In Proc.,
Sensor Systems and Networks: Phenomena, Technology, and Applica-
tions for NDE and Health Monitoring. Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
Kreger, S. T., A. K. Sang, N. Garg, and J. Michel. 2013. “High resolution,
high sensitivity, dynamic distributed structural monitoring using optical
frequency domain reflectometry.” In Proc., Fiber Optic Sensors and
Applications X. Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
Kurashima, T., T. Horiguchi, and M. Tateda. 1990. “Distributed-
temperature sensing using stimulated Brillouin scattering in optical
silica fibers.” Opt. Lett. 15 (18): 1038–1040. https://doi.org/10.1364/OL
.15.001038.
Lee, J. J., and M. Shinozuka. 2006. “A vision-based system for remote sens-
ing of bridge displacement.” NDT & E Int. 39 (5): 425–431. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2005.12.003.
LUNA Technologies. 2017. ODiSI-B optical distributed sensor interroga-
tor: User’s guide. Blacksburg, VA: Luna Innovations Incorporated.
Majumder, M., T. K. Gangopadhyay, A. K. Chakraborty, K. Dasgupta, and
D. K. Bhattacharya. 2008. “Fibre Bragg gratings in structural health
monitoring—Present status and applications.” Sens. Actuators, A 147 (1):
150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2008.04.008.
Middleton, C. R. 1997. “Concrete bridge assessment: An alternative
approach.” Struct. Eng. 75 (23/24): 403–409.
Mohamad, H., K. Soga, A. Pellew, and P. J. Bennett. 2011. “Performance
monitoring of a secant-piled wall using distributed fiber optic strain
sensing.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (12): 1236–1243.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000543.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Ohno, H., H. Naruse, M. Kihara, and A. Shimada. 2001. “Industrial appli-
cations of the BOTDR optical.” Opt. Fiber Technol. 7 (1): 45–64.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ofte.2000.0344.
Orr, J. J., T. J. Ibell, A. P. Darby, and M. Evernden. 2014. “Shear behaviour
of non-prismatic steel reinforced concrete beams.” Eng. Struct. 71 (Jul):
48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.016.
Regier, R., and N. Hoult. 2014. “Distributed strain behavior of a reinforced
concrete bridge: Case study.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (12): 05014007. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000637.
Salawu, O. S., and C. Williams. 1995. “Review of full-scale dynamic test-
ing of bridge structures.” Eng. Struct. 17 (2): 113–121. https://doi.org
/10.1016/0141-0296(95)92642-L.
Spencer, B. F., M. E. Ruiz-Sandoval, and N. Kurata. 2004. “Smart sensing
technology: Opportunities and challenges.” Struct. Control Health
Monit. 11 (4): 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.48.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 10/09/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Tennyson, R. C., A. A. Mufti, S. Rizkalla, G. Tadros, and B. Benmokrane.
2001. “Structural health monitoring of innovative bridges in Canada
© ASCE 04020070-10
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(4): 04020070
with fiber optic sensors.” Smart Mater. Struct. 10 (3): 560–573.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/10/3/320.
Van Der Kooi, K., N. A. Hoult, and H. Le. 2018. “Monitoring an in-service
railway bridge with a distributed fiber optic strain sensing system.”
J. Bridge Eng. 23 (10): 05018007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0001281.
Vecchio, F. J., and M. P. Collins. 1986. “The modified compression-field
theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.” ACI J.
83 (2): 219–231.
Wheeler, L. N., E. Pannese, N. A. Hoult, W. A. Take, and H. Le. 2018.
“Measurement of distributed dynamic rail strains using a rayleigh back-
scatter based fiber optic sensor: Lab and field evaluation.” Transp. Geo-
tech. 14 (Mar): 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.10.002.
Wong, L., W. K. Chiu, and J. Kodikara. 2018. “Using distributed optical
fibre sensor to enhance structural health monitoring of a pipeline sub-
jected to hydraulic transient excitation.” Struct. Health Monit. 17 (2):
298–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921717691036.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.