See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264168953

Field application of elasto-magnetic stress sensors for monitoring of cable

tension force in cable-stayed bridges

Article in Smart Structures and Systems · September 2013

DOI: 10.12989/sss.2013.12.3_4.465

CITATIONS READS

47 2,228

7 authors, including:

Jinsuk Yim Chung-Bang Yun

Samsung C&T Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS 313 CITATIONS 191 PUBLICATIONS 6,158 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hyung-Jo Jung Jeong-Tae Kim

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Pukyong National University
260 PUBLICATIONS 6,360 CITATIONS 297 PUBLICATIONS 5,536 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeong-Tae Kim on 23 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tension Force Monitoring of Cable-Stayed Bridge under Construction

Using In-Situ EM Sensors

Jinsuk Yim1, Sung Woo Shin2,*, Seung-Hyun Eem3, Ming L. Wang4, Chung-Bang Yun5,

Hyung-Jo Jung6, and Jeong-Tae Kim7

1. Chief Technical Officer, Intelligent Instrument System Inc., 1002 Burr Ridge, Illinois, USA

2. Assistant Professor, Department of Safety Engineering, Pukyong National University, 100 Yongdang-dong, Nam-gu,
Busan 608-739, Korea

3. Graduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology, 373-1 Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Korea

4. Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, USA

5. Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology, 373-1 Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Korea

6. Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
373-1 Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Korea

7. Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, Pukyong National University, 599-1 Daeyeon-3dong, Nam-gu, Busan
608-737, Korea

1
ABSTRACT

Tension monitoring in steel cables and tendons for pre-stressed concrete structures and cable-stayed

bridges is extremely valuable during construction and subsequent structural monitoring. Measurements

need to be rapid, at low cost, portable at a remote site, and with little or no field preparation. With

theoretically unlimited service life, the magneto elastic (EM) sensor can monitor the tension of steel

cables coated with high-density polyethylene and make contact-free stress monitoring feasible with high

accuracy at comparatively low cost. Therefore, these features provide an alternative for force monitoring

of steel cables, tendons, and reinforcement used in infrastructures. In this study, two EM sensors are

applied to the cables of a cable-stayed bridge under-construction. This paper describes the procedure of

the installation of the sensors and the in-situ calibration conducted during the second tensioning

procedure for the geometric control of the bridge. Finally, monitoring results from the sensors have

depicted tension redistribution by the re-tensioning works.

Keywords: EM sensor, Structural Health Monitoring, Cable-stayed Bridge, Cable Tension

1. INTRODUCTION

The magneto-elastic properties of ferromagnetic materials can be described using magnetic domain

theory [1]. In a demagnetized and unloaded ferromagnetic sample, magnetic domains are arranged

randomly, and as a result, there is a net magnetization of zero. When a ferromagnetic material is

subjected to an applied magnetic field, the domains rotate and align along the direction of the magnetic

field. Barkhausen noise can also be introduced as a secondary effect when the material is being

magnetized [2]. It has been known that the magnetic properties of the ferromagnetic material vary with
2
stress [3, 4]. Such observation has been used in non-destructive evaluation of stress of cables [5, 6, 7, 8].

Elasto-Magentic (EM) sensor has been developed for monitoring tension force by utilizing the direct

dependence of the magnetic properties of structural steels on the state of stress. Stress sensing principle

of the EM sensor is very simple. The magnetic properties are measured by subjecting the steels to a

pulsed or periodic magnetic field. Changes in magnetic flux in the steels are used to estimate the

magnetic permeability through Ampere’s law and Faraday's law. The EM sensor can be designed for all

sizes of steel cables, pre-stressed tendons, and reinforced bars. It is suitable for measuring quasi-static

loads under most environmental conditions. The sensor can be embedded in concrete or fabricated in

situ for exposed cables. Particularly, the sensor is entirely suitable for sheathed cables because it

requires no physical contact with the wires or strands in the cables.

This paper furthers the application of the EM sensor technology on monitoring the tension of cables of

an under-constructing cable-stayed bridge. By fabricating the sensor on the existing multi-strand cables

coated with a 200mm diameter of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) duct, this work proved that the EM

sensor can be applied to a large cable. By using the reference force from a regular inspection method

(lift-off test), it was possible to save the cost and efforts of the calibration. Furthermore, it was possible

to investigate the tension redistribution that occurs during re-tensioning.

2. RELATIONSHIP OF PERMEABILITY WITH STRESS AND TEMPERATURE

The EM sensor is based on the magneto elastic phenomenon, i.e. the modification of the magnetic

hysteresis loop of ferromagnetic materials. The main magnetic characteristic of ferromagnetic materials

is the relationship between magnetic field strength H and inner magnetic field flux density B. In the EM

sensor, two coils, the primary and secondary sensing coils, are wound on ferromagnetic materials. The

primary coil with an applied current produces magnetic field strength in the solenoid, a phenomenon

3
called magnetizing, which in turn induces the integrated voltage Vout, measured by the secondary coil in

the solenoid, to the secondary coil due to the magnetic field flux density. The magnetic permeability m is

defined as ratio B/H, and the relative permeability mr is defined as ratio m/m0, where m0 is the

permeability of air with no steel in the solenoid.

The output voltage from the secondary coil changes when the relative permeability (mr) of the core

changes. The output voltage can then be calibrated to measure the applied stress (σ). With a pulsed

primary current fixed, the relative permeability of the steel can be derived from

A0 æ Vout (s , T ) ö
m r (s , T ) = 1 + ç - 1÷ (1)
Af ç Vemp ÷
è ø

where Vemp is the integrated voltage without steel in the solenoid. A0 and Af represent the cross section

areas of the sensing coil and the steel, respectively. When a specimen and its optimized EM sensor are

defined, the two cross section areas and Vemp at left side of equation (1) become constants. Then, the

relative permeability can be expressed solely as a function of the integrated voltage at the condition of a

stress and a temperature.

The permeability must be measured under the technical magnetic saturation state in order to diminish

the effect from the eddy current and achieve a uniform magnetization within the material. The

temperature (T) and stress (σ) dependency with respect to relative permeability (mr) is calibrated

extensively through many real sizes of cables and different kinds of strands from different countries as

shown in Fig. 1. In general, the magnitude of stress is proportional to the relative permeability

subtracted from the initial permeability at zero stress. The size of cables does not have a severe effect on

the calibrated curve of the same material.

4
 1000

750
Stress (MPa)

500 109x7mm hanger cable

85x7mm hanger cable
55x7mm hanger cable
250 37x15.5mm post-tensioned cable
7mm pino steel wire
15.25mm strand
0
0 1 2 3 4
Relative Permeability

(a) Stress and permeability relationship of various steels

7.5
7mm, 0.91-0.71V

7mm, 0.88-0.68V

6.5 7mm, 0.85-0.65V

y = -0.0175x + 6.0886
Relative Permeability

37_7mm, 3.5-3.3V
High Strength Steel
37_7mm, 3.3-3.1V
5.5
37_7mm, 3.1-2.9V

37_7mm, 2.9-2.7V

4.5 0.6inch, 0.88-0.68V

0.6inch, 0.85-0.65V

3.5 12.5mm, 0.75-0.55V

Rebar
12.5mm, 0.8-0.6V
y = -0.0048x + 4.4923
12.5mm, 0.9-0.7V
2.5
-20 0 20 40 60
Temp.(°C)

(b) Temperature and permeability relationship of various high strength steels and reinforcing bars

Figure 1. Characteristics of permeability

Variation of temperature affects the permeability of cable-stayed bridges. It is important to classify and

compensate the temperature effect on the permeability. The temperature coefficients of the permeability

5
are typically -0.0175 ºC-1 for high strength steels (such as strands or wires) and -0.0048 ºC-1 for stress-

proof reinforcements shown in Fig. 2. By compensating the temperature effect on the sensor, the

estimated tension only relies on the stress at the measured point. The magneto elastic calibration

coefficient is derived from the correlation with equation (1) and reference force.

m m
s = å Cn ( m ) n = å Cn [ m (s , T ) - m (0, T0 ) + a (To - T )]n (2)
n =0 n =0

where Cn is the calibration coefficient which is independent on temperature, m is the temperature-

compensated relative permeability, a is the temperature coefficient of the sensor, T is the temperature

of the steel in ºC, and T0 is the steel temperature at the moment of calibration.

3. IN-SITU EM SENSOR FOR A STAYED CABLE BRIDGE: HWA-MYUNG BRIDGE

A cable-stayed bridge (Hwa-Myung Bridge), whose total length is 500 meter and main span is 270

meter, is located in Pusan, Korea (see figure 2). It is the longest stayed bridge with concrete box girder

in Korea. The cable is a single plane and a multi-strand type consisting of 15.2 mm diameter strands, a

so-called MS cable. Two short cables (BLC02 and BLC04) at the outside span were selected to monitor

the tension with the in-situ EM sensors. These cables have 49 strands, each of which is galvanized

individually. These strands are coated with 200 mm diameter HDPE duct, and the helical strip is applied

on the duct surface to prevent rain-wind induced vibration. The detailed specification for cable is

described at Table 1.

6
 BLC02
BLC04

115 270 115

500

Figure 2. Hwa-Myung Bridge (Cable-Stayed Bridge, Pusan, Korea, units: meter)

Table 1. Characteristics of Multi-Strand Cables Selected for the In-situ EM Sensor Test

MS Cable Strand
Nominal Area (Af) 7,350 mm2 150 mm2
Tensile Strength 13,671 kN 279 kN
2
Elastic Modulus 195 kN/mm 195 kN/mm2
Unit Weight 67.54 kg/m 1.30 kg/m

49 strands
(BLC02, BLC04)

In general, the cable tensioning process on a cable-stayed bridge consists of 3 steps. The first tensioning

is applied to hold the extended segment of concrete girder. The second tensioning is applied for

geometric control right after the final key segment is constructed. The final tensioning is to adjust

several cables; this step is also known as a fine-tuning. At this final stage all the cables fit into a design

range, and the whole structure becomes also geometrically stable. This fine-tuning, however, is not

always required as long as the results from second tensioning satisfies that all tensions are in the design

range as well as in the estimation by FE analysis. Two EM sensors are installed before the second

tensioning begins so that the EM sensors can measure the difference of the permeability after the second

tensioning.

7
Two In-situ EM sensors were installed to BLC02 and BLC04 cables (figure 2). Each cable has the 49

strands. The inner and outer diameters and the length of a cable are respectively 220 mm, 294 mm, and

455 mm. The cross sectional area (A0) of a sensing coil is 39,380 mm2. The integrated voltage at no steel

in solenoid (Vemp) is set to be 2,600 V. The procedure of the installation is as follows:

(1) Put a spliced bobbin over the duct of the cable.

(2) Wind the secondary coil.

(3) Wind the primary coil.

(4) Attach a thermistor to the bobbin.

(5) Connect a lead wire with 6 contacts to the primary and the secondary coils and the thermistor.

(6) Make a connector to connect the sensor and the read-out unit.

(7) Cover the copper wire with grease or epoxy for protection.

The EM sensors are operated with a read-out unit. The unit is composed of an energizing current supply,

signal-filtering hardware, and data-analysis software. The unit can principally undertake the following

tasks:

(1) It generates a large pulsed current, up to 500V, to magnetize the steel cable.

(2) It receives the analog signals from the primary coil, the secondary coil, and the thermistor.

(3) It sequentially manipulates a series of the EM sensors through multiplexers and logic switches.

8
 Cover Primary Coil

Bobbin Secondary Coil

? 20
? 94
455

Figure 3. In-situ EM Sensor System (left: EM sensor, right: installed sensor and read-out unit)

4. LIFT-OFF TEST AND CALIBRATION

The lift-off test is a mechanical method performed to quantify the force applied to a material. This test

measures the force of a cable in situ at the post-tensioning field. This direct measurement requires heavy

devices, such as hydraulic jack and pump, and human efforts to get a force reading.

Load Cell
C
B
)llec daol( ecroF

Intersection point, B

A Before wedge take off

After wedge take off
Hydraulic Jack
Wedge

Displacement Anchor block

Figure 4. Lift-off Test

9
 5 3 1 2 4 6
7 9 11 13 12 10 8
14 16 18 20 21 19 17 15
22 24 26 28 27 25 23
29 31 33 35 36 34 32 30
37 39 41 43 42 40 38
44 46 48 49 47 45

Figure 5. Numbering of strands of BLC02 and BLC04 cables and jacking for lift-off test.

During the period of jacking a strand, the load cell and LVDT measure the force and the displacement of

a cable. The displacement increases slowly as the force reading increases until the incremental force

reaches the maximum force that the wedge can hold. Above the critical force, the displacement increases

more rapidly. In the force-displacement plot, the force at the intersection point between these two

conditions is called the seat force (see figure 4). Several jacking results are similar, so that the averaging

force can be multiplied to the total number of strands to estimate a current cable force.

In this study, 5 strands were selected for the lift-off tests. The selected strands are described in Fig. 5 and

Table 2. The tests were conducted before and after the second tensioning, and repeated several times to

validate the reproducibility (Table 2). The force changes were around 1500 kN for BLC02 and around

1800 kN for BLC04, corresponding to more than 32% of their final tension values. These lift-off test

results are used as a reference force for the calibration of the EM sensor data as described below.

10
Table 2. Lift-off test results for the BLC04 and BLC02 cables before and after tensioning

Lift-off Test for BLC04 Lift-off Test for BLC02

(cable temperature: T0 = 3 ºC) (cable temperature: T0 = 0 ºC)

Before tensioning After tensioning Before tensioning After tensioning

8:40 PM 12/20/2010 11:35 PM 12/20/2010 2:34 AM 12/21/2010 4:12 AM 12/21/2010

strand force (kN) strand force (kN) strand force (kN) strand force (kN)

1 66.89 1 104.5 1 63.45 1 94.7

6 66.96 8 103.7 8 64.80 8 94.9

14 65.82 14 103.9 23 65.39 23 96.1

30 65.70 18 102.8 30 65.66 30 96.5

49 65.74 49 103.2 46 65.78 46 96.6

AVG. 66.22 AVG. 103.6 AVG. 65.02 AVG. 95.8

Total 3244.9 Total 5077.4 Total 3185.8 Total 4692.6

The second tensioning was conducted at night in order to minimize the temperature difference among

materials, such as cable, concrete girder, and pylon, and air. The second tensioning of the BLC04 cable

started at 8:40 PM on December 20th, 2010. In the test, each of the 49 strands was jacked out up to a

target force with a hydraulic jack. The hydraulic jack was controlled by a hydraulic pump that was

programmed to operate until the applied force reached the target force. It took one minute from moving

the jack to one strand and pulling it out to the target force. The EM sensor measured the voltage out

three times whenever the jack moved to the next strand. The number of measurements (voltage out) and

jacking steps during the second tensioning is 49; however, the BLC04 cable was pulled out 50% of the

target force at the first jacking. Therefore, the number of measurements and jacking steps for the BLC04

cable is 98 as shown in figure 6. The apparent linearity confirms the proper functionality of the EM

sensors within the applied force range. The EM sensor detected the change of permeability of a center

11
strand out of 49 strands during jacking. This result supports the fact that the sensor has provided fully

magnetic saturation to all strands equally

6500 6500

6400
6400

Vout (V, EM sensor)

Vout (V, EM sensor)

6300
6300
6200

BLC04 6200 BLC02

6100 Total 49 strands Total 49 strands
Total 98 jacking steps Total 49 jacking steps

6000 6100
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50
Jacking Step (Hydraulic Jack) Jacking Step (Hydraulic Jack)

Figure 6. Measured Vout during Jacking (Left: BLC04, Right: BLC02)

On the basis of the lift-off test results as a reference force, the number of jacking steps can be converted

into the corresponding force. By using the linear regression, the voltage out at no stress Vout(0,T0) is

extrapolated to be 5379.8 for BLC04 cable and 5447.7 for BLC02 cable (see figure 7).

6500
y = 0.2119x + 5447.7
R² = 0.9989
6400

6300
Vout (V)

BLC02 y = 0.2069x + 5379.8

R² = 0.9989
6200

6100
BLC04

6000
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Force (kips)

12
 Figure 7. Relative permeability and force (Left: BLC04 Vzero = 5379.8, Right: BLC02 Vzero = 5447.7)

By using equation (1) and (2), the integrated voltage Vout is substituted into the permeability. In equation

(2), temperature T0 and T are equal at the calibration, so that the term of temperature compensation

a (To - T ) is negligible. By the 1st order linear regression, calibration coefficients C1 are 2345.6 for

BLC04 and 2290 for BLC02. The sensitivity of the stress measurement is mr = 3.1×10-3 ~ 3.2×10-3 MPa-
1
, which is better than the sensitivity of the strain gauge measurement (DR/R ≈ 10-5 MPa-1).

6000 2.5

y = 2345.6x BLC02
BLC04
R² = 0.9989 y = 0.0032x
Relative Permeability (m/m0)

R² = 0.9989
5000 2.0
Force (kN)

y = 0.0031x
R² = 0.9989
BLC04
4000 1.5

BLC02 y = 2290x
R² = 0.9989

3000 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 400 500 600 700
Relative Permeability (m/m0) Stress (MPa)

Figure 8. Correlation with relative permeability and force (BLC04 C1=2345.6, BLC02 C1=2290)

5. TENSION MONITORING RESULTS: TENSION REDISTRIBUTION

5.1 Field test results

The tension monitoring results from the lift-off test and the EM sensor measurement are described and

compared in this chapter. The tension history of all cables is shown in figure 9. The tension of each

cable was measured by the lift-off test after the installation (x mark). The results demonstrate that earlier

13
constructed cables located closer to a pylon seem to show larger change in force (◊ mark). The

magnitudes become smaller for longer cables, which were built more recently. This trend is mostly due

to the temporal relaxation of the cables. After the second tensioning, the final tension was almost

equivalent to the design force. Therefore, no fine-tuning was needed.

10000
)40 CLB ( rosn eS ME

)20 CLB ( rosn es ME

9000

8000
Force (kN, Lift-off)

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000
tnemges yeK

Before Key-seg (9/4/2009-9/13/2010)

1 nolyP

2 nolyP
2000 After Key-seg (12/17/2010)
Final, after re-tension (12/25/2010)
1000
Design
0
SLC18
SLC17
SLC16
SLC15
SLC14
SLC13
SLC12
SLC11
SLC10
SLC09
SLC08
SLC07
SLC06
SLC05
SLC04
SLC03
SLC02
SLC01
BRC01
BRC02
BRC03
BRC04
BRC05
BRC06
BRC07
BRC08
BRC09
BRC10
BRC11
BRC12
BRC13
BRC14
BRC15
BRC16
BRC17
BRC18
BLC18
BLC17
BLC16
BLC15
BLC14
BLC13
BLC12
BLC11
BLC10
BLC09
BLC08
BLC07
BLC06
BLC05
BLC04
BLC03
BLC02
BLC01

SRC01
SRC02
SRC03
SRC04
SRC05
SRC06
SRC07
SRC08
SRC09
SRC10
SRC11
SRC12
SRC13
SRC14
SRC15
SRC16
SRC17
SRC18
Location of Cables

Figure 9. Tension History (9/4/2009 – 12/26/2010)

Eighteen cables out of total 72 cables were selected for the second tensioning. Among these, 8 short

cables and 6 long cables at the center span were re-tensioned for 5 days (see figure 10). Most cables

showed large changes in tension during the second tensioning, especially the cables in which the

external force was applied directly. Forces of the tensioned cables were increased, while those of the

non-tensioned cables were decreased.

14
 ② 12/21/2010: 5 cables ⑤ 12/24/2010: 5 cables
BRC01, BRC02, BRC03, BRC04, BRC16 SLC01, SLC02, SLC03, SLC04, SLC16

③ 12/22/2010: BRC17, BRC18

④ 12/23/2010: SLC17, BRC18

① 12/20/2010: 8 cables
BLC01, BLC02, BLC03, BLC04, SRC01, SRC02, SRC03, SRC04

Figure 10. The second tensioning schedule for geometric control (12/20/2010 – 12/24/2010)

The EM sensors installed on the BLC02 and BLC04 cables measured the temporal variations in the

voltage out and the temperature of the cables. The temperature at the calibration was 3 ºC for the BLC04

cable and 0 ºC for the BLC02 cable. The voltage out is converted to the relative permeability by using

equation (2). The force measured by the EM sensors was calibrated by the temperature compensation

with the temperature coefficient of -0.0175 ºC-1 (Table 3). On December 25th 2010, the force

measurement using the EM sensors was conducted just before the lift-off test. The force difference

between the lift-off test and the EM sensor measurement was -11 kN (-0.6%) for BLC04 and 70 kN

(+1.5%) for BLC02.

It was observed that the tension of a cable changed as an adjacent cable was tensioned, and this is mostly

due to the tension re-distribution effect. The EM sensors were used to monitor the daily variation in the

tension re-distribution as the second tensioning work was progressing (see figure 11). The results show

that the seating force of the cable was decreased as much as 230 kN to 300 kN (around 5%) by re-

tension of the adjacent cables. However, the final forces after completion of the re-tensioning work

appeared to recover the original seating force.

Table 3. Tension History by EM sensor during the Second Tensioning

15
 BLC04 Cable BLC02 Cable
T (cable temperature: T0 = 3 ºC) (cable temperature: T0 = 0 ºC)
Date, Time
(ºC) F F
Vout DT m- m o a×DT Vout DT m- m o a×DT
(kN) (kN)
Before re-tension
6042 0 1.365 0.0 3245 6117 0 1.378 0.0 3186
12/20/2010
After re-tension
6424 0 2.152 0.0 5077 6443 0 2.051 0.0 4693
12/20/2010
12/21/2010 16:15 3.3 6366 -0.3 2.032 0.0053 4779 6366 -3.3 1.892 0.0587 4468

12/22/2010 17:00 7.5 6330 -4.5 1.958 0.0801 4782 6330 -7.5 1.819 0.1335 4471

12/23/2010 16:54 5.1 6356 -2.1 2.012 0.0374 4806 6361 -5.1 1.881 0.0908 4516

12/24/2010 16:26 0 6439 3 2.182 -0.0534 4993 6456 0 2.078 0.0000 4759

12/25/2010 20:42 -2 6443 5 2.191 -0.0890 4930 6459 2 2.084 -0.0356 4690
Lift-Off Test
4959 4620
12/25/2010 21:03

5500

5000

4500
Force (kN)

4000

BLC04
3500
BLC02

3000
12/18 12/20 12/22 12/24 12/26
Date

Figure 11. Tension Re-distributions (Field Test)

16
 5.2 Numerical Verification

To numerically verify the effectiveness of the EM sensor, the cable tension forces of a few cables (i.e.,
(i.e.

BLC04 and BLC02) weree calculated by the finite

finite element analysis, and then their results were compared

with those measured from the field tests. Figure 12 shows the finite element model of the bridge, which

consists of 120 beam elements and 72 truss elements.

elements

Figure 12.
1 Finite element model of the bridge

In
n order to check the finite element model of the bridge, the structural analysis was performed by using

MIDAS Software. The numerical simulation results were compared with the results of the lift-off test on

December 20th. Table 4 shows the comparison results between lift-off

off test and numerical simulation. In

the table, the values in parenthesis represent the errors

error between the lift-off
off test results and numerical

simulation results. It is demonstrated from the table that the finite element model well represents the

behavior of the bridge.

17
Table 4. Comparison between the lift-off test and numerical simulation results.

Lift-off test (kN) Numerical Simulation (kN)

Date & Time Descriptions
BLC04 BLC02 BLC03 BLC04 BLC02 BLC03

3244.1 3359.3 3556.9

Before re-tension - 3252.2 3366.4 3564.7
(0.25%) (0.21%) (0.22%)
3244.1
12/20/2010 20:40 Before jacking 3244.9 - - - -
(0.02%)
3359.3
12/20/2010 20:52 Before jacking - 3364.8 - - -
(0.16%)
5077.4
12/20/2010 23:35 After jacking 5077.4 - - - -
(0.0%)
3231.1
12/20/2010 23:44 - - 3287.0 - - -
(1.70%)
3409.5
12/21/2010 00:21 - - - 3471.7 - -
(1.71%)

Also, the cable tension forces after re-tensioning were estimated by the results of the lift-off tests on

December 20th and applied to the finite element model. Figure 13 shows the cable tension forces of each

date by numerical simulations. In Tables 5 and 6, the tension forces of BLC04 and BLC02 measured by

the EM sensor are compared with those calculated from numerical simulations. As shown in the tables,

the cable tension forces of BLC04 and BLC02 were considerably increased. That is because the 2nd

tensioning process was performed on December 20th. After the re-tensioning process was finished, both

cable tension forces were slightly decreased on December 21th. And then, from December 21th through

December 24th, the cable tension forces were increased gradually. It was also observed from the tables

that the errors between the field tests and numerical simulations are a range of -8.2% ~ 0.4%. The errors

on December 20th are relatively small (i.e., 0.0% for BLC04 and -2.1% for BLC02) compared with the

errors on other dates because the re-tensioning forces of the cables on that date were estimated with high

accuracy. In numerical simulations, a series of linear static analyses were performed without considering

the nonlinear effects or dynamic properties (e.g. the cable sag, the cable relaxation, the damping ratios of

the cable, etc.).

18
 5500

5000
Force (kN)

4500

4000
BLC04

3500 BLC02

3000
12/17 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23 12/24
Date

Figure 13. Tension Re-distributions (Numerical simulation)

Table 5. Tension forces of BLC04 measured by EM sensor and calculated from numerical simulation

Date EM Sensor Numerical Difference Error

(kN) simulation (kN) (kN) (%)
Before re-tension 3252.2 3244.1 8.1 0.25
12/20 5077.4 5077.4 0.0 0.0
12/21 4779.4 4891.8 -112.39 -2.35
12/22 4781.7 4997.5 -215.79 -4.51
12/23 4806.2 5007.9 -201.66 -4.20
12/24 4992.5 4968.4 24.13 0.48

Table 6. Tension forces of BLC02 measured by EM sensor and calculated from numerical simulation

Date EM Sensor Numerical Difference Error

(kN) simulation (kN) (kN) (%)
Before re-tension 3364.8 3359.3 -5.5 -0.16 %
12/20 4692.6 4791.1 -98.47 -2.10 %
12/21 4468.0 4709.9 -241.90 -5.41 %
12/22 4471.2 4836.5 -365.31 -8.17 %
12/23 4515.9 4816.9 -300.98 -6.67 %
12/24 4759.1 4786.2 -27.07 -0.57 %

19
 6. CONCLUSION

The magneto elastic stress sensors were installed on large cables of a cable-stayed bridge to monitor the

cable force and tension behavior during construction. The following general findings can be summarized.

· The in situ calibration was successfully completed by using a reference from a lift-off test that is

a regular mechanical inspection method during construction. Thus, there was no additional cost

on the large cable calibration, which has been listed as a demerit of the EM sensor technology in

the past.

· The EM sensor measured the relative permeability at the moment when 49 strands in a cable

were pulled out one by one (see Fig. 6). The linearity between the jacking step and the voltage

out indicates that the EM sensor can precisely monitor the change of the average stress of the

multi-strand cable.

· The EM sensor detected the change of permeability of a center strand out of 49 strands during

jacking. This result supports the fact that the sensor has provided fully magnetic saturation to all

strands equally.

· The stress measurement using the EM sensor provides the sensitivity of m/m0 = 3.1×10-3 ~

3.2×10-3 MPa-1 (see figure 8), superior to that of the normal strain gauge measurement (DR/R ≈

10-5 MPa-1).

· The EM sensor monitored the tension redistribution and its history of two short cables during re-

tensioning works within ±2% accuracy.

The application of the in situ EM sensor for large cable tension monitoring is an effective and accurate

method for fabricating and calibrating at the job-site. In future research, an evaluation method of a

20
cable-stayed bridge can be developed and used in conjunction with a Structural Health Monitoring

(SHM) system by applying the in situ EM sensor to all cables. Furthermore, the continued research of

cable tension monitoring data will provide invaluable knowledge for the management of bridges and for

the understanding of the structural behavior.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the National Science Foundation for the support for this

investigation. We also appreciate the efforts of Prof. C. B. Yun and Hyundai Engineering and

Construction.

REFERENCES

1. Weiss, P., 1907. Hysteresis of the molecular field.

2. Bertotti, G., 1992. Hysteresis in Magnetism, Academic Press Series in Electromagnetism, MD.

3. Stablik, M. J. and Jiles, D. C., 1993. Coupled magnetoelastic theory of magnetic and

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

4. Mix, P. E., 1987. Introduction to Non-destructive Testing, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

5. 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.

6. 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.

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

Measurement of Stress, PhD thesis, the University of Illinois at Chicago.

21
8. 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.

9. Weischedel, H. R. and Chaplin, C. R., 1992. The Inspection of Offshore Wire Ropes: The State-of-

the-Art, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 6969, 227-239.

10. Birkett, A. J., Corner, W. D., Tanner, B. K. and Thompson, S.M., 1989. Influence of Plastic

Deformation on Barkhausen Power Spectra in Steels, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 22, pp.

1240-1242.

11. Bydzovsky, J., Ludek, K., Svec, P. and Pasquale, M., 2004. Magnetoelastic Sensors for the Outdoors

Application, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 272-274, pp. e1743-e1745, 2004.

12. Hovorka, O., 2002. Measurement of Hysteresis Curves for Computational Simulation of

Magnetoelastic Stress Sensors, MS thesis, the University of Illinois at Chicago.

13. Koontz, S., 2000. Magnetoelastic Measurement of Permeability for Non-destructive Testing Force

Monitoring in Prestressed Cables, MS thesis, Department of Civil and Materials Engineering,

University of Illinois at Chicago.

14. 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.

15. Polar, A., Indacochea, J. E., Wang, M. L., Singh, V. and Lloyd, G., 2004. Measurement and

Microstructural Evaluation of Creep-Induced Changes in Magnetic Properties of a 410 Stainless

Steel, ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 126, pp.392-397.

22
 16. Rumiche, F., Indacochea, J. E. and Wang, M. L., 2006. Early Corrosion Detection in Structural

Carbon Steels using Electromagnetic Sensors, Proceedings for the Smart Structures and materials

and NDE for Health Monitoring and Diagnostics Conference, Feb. 2006, San Diego, CA, USA.

17. Singh, V., 2003. Measurement of Corrosion of Steel Reinforcement by Electromagnetic Non-

destructive Evaluation Technique, PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Materials Engineering,

University of Illinois at Chicago.

18. Wang, G. and Wang, M. L., 2004. The Utilities of U-shape EM sensors in stress monitoring,

Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 17, No. 3-4, 291-302.

19. 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.

23

View publication stats