Application of EM Stress Sensors in Large Steel Cables

Ming L. Wang1, G. Wang1 and Y. Zhao1,

Bingnan Sun2, W. Lou2 and Y. Chen2
1
Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, the University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, IL 60607, USA
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University,
Hanzhou, China

ABSTRACT

In this study, the calibration and workability of elastomagnetic(EM) stress sensors in larg steel
cables of Qiangjiang No. 4 bridge in China are discussed. As an engineering application of
ferromagnetic magnetoelasticity, the EM sensors make possible non-contact stress monitoring
for steel cables and pre-stressed tendons on suspension and cable-stayed bridges, and the other
ferromagnetic structures. With the steel structure itself as the actual sensor, and via quantifying
the tension dependence of magnetic property represented by relative permeability, the EM
sensor reliably evaluates the stress levels. The correlation of the relative permeability and
tensile stress was derived through the calibration. The temperature influence was also tested.
For the sake of automatic maneuvering, the calibration function incorporating the
temperature-influencing factor was formalized. Calibration revealed that the magnetoelasticity
of the multi-wire hangers performs similarly to each other, while that of the post-tensioned
tendons are close to the single wire. In-situ measurements on Qiangjiang No. 4 bridge
demonstrated the reliability of the EM stress sensors.

INTRODUCTION

It has been long been discovered and extensively studied that for most ferromagnetic materials
the stress can change the magnetic properties (Joule 1842, Bozorth 1951, Cullity 1972, Mix
1987, Stablik & Jiles 1993). This discovery began with the concept of magnetostriction, which
indicates the magnetization of a magnetic material leads to shape variation, as described below
(Bozorth, 1951):

1 ∂l 1 ∂B
= (1)
l ∂H 4π ∂σ
where l is length of the sample, H and B are respectively magnetic field and induction, σ is
stress. It indicates that tension leads to the increase of induction, provided the material
concerned being of positive magetostriction. From (1) there is
     


dB 
dλ dλ dM 2µ 0 M S λ S



=
= = 
(2)
dσ H dH σ dM dH N K

where K means magnetic anisotropy value, and N is a constant, for steel it is 3. λS is

saturation magnetostriction. (Jiles & Lo 2003).

This phenomenon, called magnetoelasticity, can be inferred from the interaction between
stress and magnetic domain orientations. The applied stress changes the energy of the
imperfections and impurities, as well as residual stress, which all can pin the domain walls
(Jiles 2003). More directly, it can be interpreted from the point of magnetic strain energy
(Bozorth 1951). Lots of researchers and engineers have explored the utilities of
magetoelasticity in industry, especially in no-destructive examination (Mix 1987, Wang et al.
1998, Daughton 1999, Tayalia & Heider et al. 2000, Wang et al. 2001, Schaer & Boni et al.
2002, Singh et al. 2003). As a promising application in stress monitoring for cable-stayed or
suspension bridges, etc., the elastomagnetic (EM) stress sensor discussed below is aimed to
characterize the stress dependence of the magnetic properties, represented by the relative
permeability.

Equ. 2 is just a theoretical expression and can hardly used in real measurement, while the EM
stress sensor is composed of primary coil and secondary coil (sensing coil), which work
cooperatively to measure the apparent relative permeability and formalize the magnetoelastic
characterization of the material. With pulsed current passed through the primary coil, the
ferromagnetic material is being magnetized. As indicated in Fig.1, the pulsed current in
primary coil introduces as well a pulsed magnetic field along the steel rod. Initially a gentle
upward trend of the B-H hysteresis curve is produced, then as H field reaches the maximal
value and decreases, B field follows a gentle return too. The relative permeability

µr=µ0∆B/∆H (3)

is measured in the descending section of the hysteresis curve, where ∆B and ∆H respectively
signifies the variation in induction and magnetic field, and µ0 is the permeability of the free
space. However, to the EM stress sensor, the relative permeability is not derived directly from
the hysteresis curve, in case several uncertain variables would be unexpectedly introduced. In
the present study the relative permeability is measured via the sensing coil following proper
procedures (Wang & Chen et al. 2000)
The sensing coil picks up the induced electromotive force that is directly proportional to the
change rate of the applied magnetic flux. During a small time interval ∆t1, the flux variation
through the secondary coil is:

∆Φ1=N[Af(∆B)+(A0-Af) µ0(∆H)] (4)

where N is the number of the turns of the sensing coil, A0 and Af stand for cross areas of the
sensing coil and the steel rod respectively. The first part of the right side of Eqn. 4 corresponds
to the flux variation along the steel rod, while the second part indicates the flux variation
through the space gap between the steel rod and the secondary coil.

If without the rod in the secondary coil, but with the same discharging voltage provided, within
another time interval ∆t2 during which the induced ∆H remains the same as in Eqn. 4, there is

∆Φ2=N[A0µ0(∆H)] (5)

Divided (3) by (4), and with µ=µ0∆B/∆H, we have

A0 ∆Φ1
µ(σ,T)= ( -1)+1 (6)
A f ∆Φ 2

According to Farady’s Law, there is V = -∆Φ/∆t,

so ∆Φ1= Vdt , and ∆Φ2= Vdt . The time boundaries of the integration are determined by

∆t 1 ∆t 2
the working points which represent certain current values through the primary coil, which
determine the H field within the primary coil (Griffths 1999). It should be noted that the
relative magnetic field should be high enough to technically saturate the steel rod. The
magnetic field in the solenoid was studied in UIC (Horvorka 2002).

Therefore the relative permeability of the steel rod could be rewritten into

A0 Vout (σ , T )
µ(σ,T) = 1+ [ -1] (7)
Af V0

where µ means permeability, σ is tensile stress, T is temperature, Vout indicates the integrated
voltage with the rod in the solenoid while V0 is the integrated voltage without the rod in the
solenoid.

Through calibration, the temperature and stress dependence of the relative permeability is
revealed. Such characterization is therefore used in stress monitoring of the steel rod. During
in-situ monitoring, with temperature and relative permeability measured, the tensile stress can
be calculated. Due to the specific advantages of the elastomagnetic sensors, such as
non-contact measurement, high repeatability, and low cost, they are drawing an increasing
attention in load monitoring of the ferromagnetic cables.

QIANGJIANG No. 4 BRIDGE

QJ No. 4 bridge under construction in Hangzhou of China is the longest double-deck and
multi-arch bridge in China, the upper deck is a six-lane highway, while the lower one is for
railway with sidewalk for pedestrians, as seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. To guarantee the reliability
of its service, the state-of-the-art health monitoring system was built during the bridge
construction, including the EM stress sensors on the hangers and post-tensioned tendons.
 Figure 1. Indicative painting of QJ No. 4 Bridge

Figure 2. Bridge under construction

EQUIPMENT AND MEASUREMENT SETUP

The data acquisition and load monitoring is realized through the PowerStress Measurement
System (PSM System), composed of the signal filtering hardware and data treatment software,
which were innovated in the Infrastructures Sensor Technology Laboratory of UIC. The PSM
System can principally undertake the following tasks. (I) It provides a large pulsed current to
magnetize the steel cable. (II) It picks up the signals from the primary coil, secondary coil, as
well as temperature sensor and conduct proper data treatment. (III) Through multiplexers and
logic switches, each unit can sequentially manipulate dozens of EM stress sensors. The PSM
System working chart is shown in Fig. 3.

EM stress S
 σ(t)

Current Pulse + E-M Sensor

Generator Pre-Amp Conditioner
DAQ
-

σ(t)
σ(t)
Iex id

t t F

Figure 3. Indicative working chart of PowerStress Magnetic Measurement System developed

in the Infrastructures Sensor Technology Laboratory of UIC
EM sensors can be used in stress monitoring either in single wire or big cable. For Florida 0.6
inch strand, the calibration setup is indicated in Fig. 4. In Qiangjiang No. 4 bridge, there are
four kinds of cables/tendons that need to be monitored: (1) 109_7mm hangers, (2) 85_7mm
hangers, (3) 55_7mm hangers and (4) 37_15.5mm post-tensioned tendons. All are made from
cold drawn, low relaxation cable or strand. The material is high strength piano steel. The
hangers, (1)~(3), are pre-anchored in cable factory - Liuzhou OVM company, the 37_15.5mm
tendons are to be erected on the bridges. With every part sealed with polyurethane resin in steel
tube, the sensors were manufactured in the Infrastructure Sensor Technology Laboratory of the
Univ. of Ill. at Chicago (UIC), then shipped to cable factory – Liuchou OVM Company and
bridge construction field for mounting. The mounting pictures are given in Fig. 5.

Figure 4. Florida wire Stress monitoring test of the EM sensor

 I. II.

III. IV.
Figure 5. Pictures of Sensors, I-sensor manufactured in UIC, II-Sensor mounted on hanger,
III. post-tensioned tendon with EM sensor, IV- Hanger with sensor on bridge

LOAD MONITORING CALIBRATION

The stress monitoring calibration for Florida strand was conducted in the lab, with the results
given in Fig. 6. The calibrations for the three kinds of hangers used in QJ bridge are close to
each other, as shown in Fig. 7. The slope of the calibration curve is constant regardless of the
working point variation in a large range, as shown in Fig. 8. Therefore, a small shift in initial
permeability does not change the slope of the calibration curve.

Measured results difference between the sensors inside and away

from the anchorage

45
2 nd Degree Fitting
40 STDEV=0.31
Readings from Load-cell (kips)

Relative Accuracy: 2.3%

35

30

25

20

15
Readings from EM sensors
10
away from the anchorage
5 Readings from the sensor
inside the anchorage
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Readings from EM sensor (kips)

Figure 6. The stress monitoring of the 0.6inch Florida wire

 1000
900
800
700
Stress, Mpa

600
500
400
300 D109_7mm
200 D85_7mm
100 D55_7mm
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(permeability - intial permeability)

Figure 7. The calibration curves for the three types of hangers employed in the construction of
Qianjiang No. 4 bridge

700
y = 378.69x - 1537.1
600
y = 379.68x - 1776.3
Tensile stress, Mpa

500 y = 379.03x - 1653.5

y = 381.71x - 1919
400
1.95-1.75V
300 2.05-1.85V
200 2.15-1.95V
100 2.25-2.05V
0
4 5 6 7
relative Permeability

Figure 8. The calibration curves for 55_7mm hanger with different working point
For better accuracy, two-dimensional calibration functions were derived for in-situ load
monitoring. For example, F(in Mpa)=-19.854((µ( , T) - µ(0, T))^2 +405.15((µ( , T) - µ(0, T))
is used as a calibration function for 55_7mm cable. The one-dimensional substitute is F(in
Mpa)=377.86((µ( ,T)-µ(0,T)). With the consideration of temperature compensation(see
section of Temperature Influence), µ(0, T)=-0.018T(C )+4.97.
During load monitoring, the high repeatability of zero point - µ(0, T) is extremely important.
To achieve the stabilization of the value of µ(0, T), it is necessary to magnetically saturate the
cable section near the location of the EM sensor, via many trials prior to the reading being
recorded. The repeatability of the single wire and multi-rod cable were shown respectively in
Fig. 9 and Fig. 10.
The stress maintaining tests of all three kinds of cables are given in Table I. Temperature
variations were taken into the consideration in stress calculation according to (0,
T)=-0.018At+Bt. It should be noted that load cell relaxation can not be avoided.

Comparison of load cell and EM Sensor measurement for 0.6in

bare strand
50
Load Cell(kips)
EM Unit(kips)-End
40
Load(kips)

30

20

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Load Steps

Figure 9. Monitoring repeatability tests for the EM sensor on 0.6 inch Florida strand

predicted load, KN Cyclic loading test

gauge reading, KN
1500
1300
1100
900
Load, KN

700
500
300
100
-100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Loading status (even: under 100% utility tension, odd: tension free)

Figure 10. Monitoring repeatability tests for the EM sensor on 109_7mm hanger
 Table I
Load maintaining tests for the three kinds of hangers, including temperature influence

Cable Time and date Gauge reading, Tem.(C) Calculated load, Error
KN KN
55_7mm 5PM,12/27/2003 843 18.5 832 -1.3%
9AM,12/28/2003 826 13.5 803 -2.8%
85_7mm 6PM,11/22/2003 2630 23.7 2620.7 -0.4%
9AM,11/23/2003 2583 17.9 2499 -3.3%
109_7mm 8:30PM, 09/03/2003 1407 32.3 1425 1.2%
9AM, 09/04/2003 1373 29.3 1411 2.8%

IN-SITU STRESS CALIBRATION OF THE POST-TENSIONED TENDON

In order to load the post-tensioned tendon of 190meters long for QJ No. 4 Bridge, two
hydraulic loading cells were mounted on both sides of cable, and pulled alternatively at a step
of 20mm toward both ends. The tendon was pulled to 45% of the yielding strength,
accordingly the total elongation is around 880mm for each cable.

For the convenience of the sensor calibration, the total loading process was principally divided
into four procedures. Measurement was conducted during the intervals, after the hydraulic
pressure was maintained for at least three minutes for stress stabilization. The measurement
was plotted in Fig. 11. We can see the measurement results of both sensors consistent with
each other. Figure 12 indicates the monitoring function (stress dependence of differential
permeability) of the post-tensioned tendon is similar to that of the single 7mm wire and
15.5mm strand.

900
800
700
600
Stress (Mpa)

500
400
sensor E
300
Sensor D
200
100
0
4 5 6 7 8
Permeability

Figure 11. Stress monitoring of the two EM sensors for the 140mm tendons
 1200

1000

800
Stress, Mpa

600 7mm, 1.5m

400 15.5mm, 1.5m

200 37_15.5mm, 190m

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

(permeability - intial permeability)

Figure 12. Stress vs. differential permeability of multi-strand tendon and single 7mm wire
and 15.5mm strand

To find the monitoring function, let us take an example of Sensor E,

F(Mpa)=18.909*(µ( , T) -µ(0,T))^2+236.13*(µ( , T) -µ(0,T))

= 18.909*(µ( , T) -(AT⋅T+BT))^2+236.13*(µ( , T) -( AT⋅T+BT)) (8)

µ(0,T)=4.83 at T=20.84C, and µ(0,T)= AT⋅T+BT=-0.018×20.8+ BT,

so BT = 5.20,
therefore, the monitoring function of sensor E is
F(Mpa)=18.909*(µ-(-0.018⋅T+5.20))^2+236.13*(*(µ-(-0.018⋅T+5.20)) (9)

The monitoring function of the hangers (109_7mm, 85_7mm and 55_7mm) deviated from that
of the single rod. But that of the 140mm tendon is close to that of single rod. It is because there
is a difference between hanging cables and tendons in the respect of their structures. Within the
hanging cables, the wires contact each other, with each galvanized with zinc. While within the
tendons, each wire is covered with anti-corrosion epoxy resin layer. So for the former, the eddy
current can introduce a greater radial magnetic field gradient than the latter.
During stress monitoring, the integration and temperature are the only parameters that need to
be measured. For example, for the 140mm tendons, the stress can be calculated through Eqn.
7 and Eqn. 9. Table II gives the stress measurement of the 140mm tendons two weeks later
following the pulling of the tendons.
 Table II
Stress measurement for the 140mm tendons, Vcharge=430V, working point: 2.8~2.6V, sensor 1
and 4 are on both ends of one diagonal of the steel box, while 2 and 3 are on the other diagonal

sensor Vinte( , T) temp. V0 ( , T) BT F(Mpa)
No.1 141.06 28 54.12 7.07 5.05 717
No.2 143.05 28 53.29 7.37 5.3 731
No.3 143.37 30 53.35 7.38 5.15 798
No.4 139.47 30 52.99 7.17 5 778

It can be seen that the measured tension is lower than designed (804Mpa). There are two
reasons. First, there is a tension loss due to the load cell relaxation. Second, on the day of the
measurement, the temperature was high, which can lead to a drop in tension. For example, a
temperature variation of 10°C can introduce a stress change of 12.0×10-6×(10-0)
×2×105=24Mpa.

TEMPERATURE INFLUENCE

Temperature obviously affects the magnetic behaviors of the steel, as Fig. 13 indicates.

1.8

1.6
Saturation
1.4 Magnetization
-10C increases as temp.
1.2 drops
10C
B, T

1
23C
0.8 66C
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
H, KA/m

Figure 13. Hysteresis curve of the 7mm piano steel wire tested at different temperatures

With temperature fluctuation, the EM sensor calibration curve shifts in a parallel manor, as
shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15, which is consistent with previous research at UIC (Chen 2000).
Therefore, to exclude the influence of temperature, we just need to find the temperature
dependence of (0, T). Tests show that for China 15.5mm strand, the temperature affects the
(0, T) value in the same way as it does that of the China 7mm rod, and even the Japan
37_7mm hanger, as given in Fig. 16. This phenomenon is due to the similarity of the
microstructure of the mentioned strand/rod/cable. For the working point considered, we have
µ(0,T)= AT⋅T+BT=-0.018T+ BT.

26.4C 4.7C
12
-16.8C -25.6C
11

Relative permeability 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Stress, Mpa

Figure 14. Temperature influence of stress-permeability correlation for 7mm piano wire

5.5
Relative permeability

4.5
26C
4
34C
3.5

3
0 100 200 300 400 500

Stress, MPa

Figure 15. Temperature influence of stress-permeability correlation for 7mm piano wire
6
7mm piano rod, 0.85-0.65V
5.5 37_7mm, 3.5-3.3V
Relative permeability

15.5mm twisted strand, 0.91-0.71V

5

4.5

3.5 .
3
-40 -20 0 20 40 60

T, C

Figure 16. (0, T) vs. T of China 7mm, rod, 15.5mm twisted strand and Japan 37_7mm hanger,
slope is about -0.018/°C
The measurement in the field also coincides with the above observation. For example, For
sensor E for 140mm tendon, on March 23, 2004, µ(0, T)=5.03 at 9.50°C, while on April 03,
2004, µ(0, T)=4.83 at 20.84°C. Therefore the slope of the permeability-temperature curve is,
(5.03-4.83)/(10.05-20.84)=-0.0185/°C, as showed in Fig. 17. The influence of the cable sheath
on heat transmission was studied by Lloyd at UIC (Lloyd & Singh et al. 2002).

6 37_15.5mm, sensor D
5.8 37_15.5mm, sensor E
Relative permeability

5.6 sensor on 109_7mm

5.4
5.2 y = -0.019x + 5.2137
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
0 10 20 30 40
T, C

Figure 17. (0, T) vs. T for hanger and post-tensioned tendons

CONCLUSIONS

Through the stress monitoring calibration of the sensors for three types of hangers, it can be
asserted that the stress dependence of the differential permeability is the same, only if the cable
is composed of the same type of steel rods. While for the post-tensioned tendons, the stress
dependence is close to that of the single wires, as the tendon is composed of isolated 15.5mm
strands. A small shift of (0, T) does not change the correlation of differential permeability and
stress, from the point of engineering consideration. It was also found that temperature
influence is the same for all the cables. In general, to monitor the tension of the cables we need
to know: I. The value of V0, this value is fixed for each sensor, II. The value of µ(0, T) and
temperature T before tension is applied, III. The value of µ(σ, T) and temperature T when
tension is applied.

REFERENCES

Bozorth, R. M. (1951). Ferromagnetism, D. Van Nostrand Company, INC., Canada

Chen, Z. (2000). Characterization and Constitutive Modeling of Ferromagnetic Materials for

Measurement of Stress, PhD thesis, the Univ. of Ill. At Chicago

Cullity, B. D. (1972). Introduction to Magnetic Materials, Adision-Welsley Publishing

Company, Reading MA.
Daughton, J. M., (1999). GMR applications, J. Magn. Magn. Mat., 192, 334-342.

Griffths, D. J. (1999). Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc.

Hovorka, O. (2002). Measurement of Hysterisis Curves for Computational Simulation of

Magnetoelastic Stress Sensors, MS thesis, the Univ. of Ill. at Chicago.

Lloyd, G. M., Singh, V., Wang, M. L. (2002). Experimental evaluation of differential thermal
errors in magnetostatic stress sensors for Re<180, IEEE Sensors 2002, Magnetic Sensing III,
Paper No. 6.54.

Mix, P. E. (1987). Introduction to nondestructive testing, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken,
NJ.

Joule, J. P. (1842). On a new class of magnetic forces, Ann. Electr. Magn. Chem. 8, 219-224.

Schaer, R., Boni, H, Fabo, P and Jarosevic, A. (2002). Method of and Device for Determining
a Time-Dependent Gradient of a Shock Wave in a Ferromagnetic Element Subjected to a
Percussion Load, United State Patent, Patent No.: US 6,356,077 B1.

Singh, V., Lloyd, G. D., Wang, M., L. (2003). Effects of Temperature and Corrosion
Thickness and Composition on Magnetic Measurement of Structural Steel Wires, the 6th
ASME-JSME of 2003.

Stablik, M. J. and Jiles, D. (1993). Coupled magnetoelastic theory magnetic and

magnetostrictive hysteresis, IEEE Trans. Magn. 29, 2113-2123.

Tayalia, P., D. Heider, D and Gillespie, J. W. Jr. (2000). Characterization and theoretical
modeling of magnetostricitve strain sensors, Sensors and actuators A, Vol. 111, 267-274.

Wang, M. L., Chen, Z. L., Koontz, S. S., and Lloyd, G. D. (2000). Magneto-elastic
permeability measurement for stress monitoring, In Proceeding of the SPIE 7th Annual
Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, Health Monitoring of the Highway
Transportation Infrastructure, 6-9 March, CA, Vol. 3995, 492-500.

Wang, M. L., Koontz, S., and Jarosevic, A. (1998). Monitoring of cable forces using
magneto-elastic sensors, 2nd U. S. -China Symposium workshop on Recent Developments and
Future trends of computational mechanics in structural engineering, May 25-28, Dalian, PRC.
337-349.

Wang, M.L., Lloyd, G., and Hovorka. O. (2001). Development of a remote coil
magneto-elastic stress sensor for steel cables, SPIE 8th Annual International Symposium on
Smart Structures and Material, Health Monitoring and Management of Civil Infrastructure
Systems; Newport Beach CA, Vol. 4337, 122-128.