Abstract
On-going developments in smart technologies such as wireless sensor networks, micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), computer vision, fibre optics and advanced data interpretation techniques may revolutionise structural health monitoring (SHM). Dedicated SHM of bridge assets has the potential to produce valuable data-sets and provide owners and managers with information to aid with key questions such as: current performance, margins of safety, actual loading, stress history and risk of fatigue, extent of deterioration and residual life. However, the parameters measured and value of the data obtained will differ when viewed from the perspectives of different stakeholders such as asset owners, designers, contractors and researchers. In this paper the purposes of monitoring are reviewed. A methodology is proposed to facilitate formal discussions between the key stakeholders before any deployment is specified and to ensure that scarce resources are not wasted in the pursuit of data as opposed to information. This approach can be used to determine if there is a prima facie case for the specification of SHM on a project and assess the potential value of any information that may be obtained. The developed methodology has been trialled with five historical monitoring case studies on bridges with which the authors are familiar.
Highlights
Structural health monitoring (SHM) is becoming a standard feature of many major bridge projects (e.g., Catbas et al, 2013; Ko and Ni, 2005)
A value assessment methodology for bridge engineers to decide if a proposed SHM deployment will deliver value to bridge owners is presented
To provide value for the bridge owner input is needed from three key players: SHM engineers, structural engineers and the bridge’s owners
Summary
Structural health monitoring (SHM) is becoming a standard feature of many major bridge projects (e.g., Catbas et al, 2013; Ko and Ni, 2005). There have been numerous publications discussing how to deploy SHM systems and obtain data (e.g., Andersen and Vesterinen, 2006; BTS, 2011; Catbas et al, 2013; Feltrin, 2007; Gastineau et al, 2009; Koo et al, 2013; Kurata et al, 2013). Maser (1988) wrote: In spite of the current climate of technological abundance, these developments are significantly inhibited by the absence of a clear connection between the sensor system capabilities and the needs of the infrastructure management organization. Five categories developed by Webb et al (2015) are shown in Table 1 and describe different ways in which monitoring data can be used to provide different types of information. As was noted by Webb et al (2015), many SHM deployments have aspects that can fit into more than one of the categories, namely: sensor deployment studies, anomaly detection, model validation, threshold check and damage detection
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
