Categories of SHM Deployments: Technologies and Capabilities

Abstract

The findings of an extensive literature survey focusing on bridge structural health monitoring (SHM) deployments are presented. Conventional, maturing, and emerging technologies are reviewed as well as deployment considerations for new SHM endeavors. The lack of published calibration studies (and quantification of uncertainty studies) for new sensors is highlighted as a major concern and area for future research. There are currently very few examples of SHM systems that have clearly provided significant value to the owners of monitored structures. The results of the literature survey are used to propose a categorization system to better assess the potential outcomes of bridge SHM deployments. It is shown that SHM studies can be categorized as one (or a combination) of the following: (1) anomaly detection, (2) sensor deployment studies, (3) model validation, (4) threshold check, and (5) damage detection. The new framework aids engineers specifying monitoring systems to determine what should be measured and why, hence allowing them to better evaluate what value may be delivered to the relevant stakeholders for the monitoring investments.

Management of structural monitoring data of bridges using BIM

“…Therefore, it is important to define clear objectives for the monitoring systems and to consider the future interpretation of the acquired data. As noted by Webb et al (2014), the objectives of most structural monitoring systems can be categorised as follows: (a) anomaly detection, to detect fluctuations on measured parameters; (b) sensor deployment studies, to test different sensor technologies; (c) model validation, to validate whether the initial assumptions and the predicted responses correctly represent the actual physical situation; (d) threshold check, to detect when monitored parameters surpass a predetermined threshold, which could indicate problems; and lastly (e) damage detection, to determine type, location, extent and rate of damage in the structure. These objectives are prescribed by the stakeholders, for example, asset owners, asset managers and operators, structural engineers, contractors, researchers, authorities, users and so on, depending on the condition of the asset in consideration or the phase of the project if the asset is yet to be built.…”

Discussion: Assessing the potential value of bridge monitoring systems

“…Clearly it is important to know what it is you are trying to measure or monitor before you start, hence the relevance and importance of the classification system proposed by Webb et al (2015). This enables the SHM consultant to identify the possible reasons why an SHM system may deliver value to different stakeholders.…”

“…Using monitoring and model updating to determine changes of the 'reserve capacity' of bridge structures (Pasquier and Smith, 2016;Smith, 2015) is another use of SHM that falls within the 'model validation' category proposed by Webb et al (2015).…”

Rapid deployment of a WSN on the Clifton Suspension Bridge, UK

“…Andersen and Vesterien, 2006;Catbas et al, 2013;Middleton et al, 2016;. Webb et al (2015) presented a categorisation framework for classifying SHM deployments for bridges, suggesting that bridge monitoring systems can fit within one (or several) of the following: (a) anomaly detection, (b) sensor deployment studies, (c) model validation, (d ) threshold check and (e) damage detection.…”

“…The study is essentially a 'sensor deployment study' (cf. Webb et al, 2015). This iconic structure is the subject of ongoing research such as the vibration response caused by pedestrians and wind loading (Macdonald, 2008;Nikitas et al, 2011).…”