Article

Structural Health Monitoring

10(5) 523–537

Temperature effects on cable stayed ! The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
bridge using health monitoring system: DOI: 10.1177/1475921710388970
shm.sagepub.com
a case study

Yinghong Cao1, Jinsuk Yim2, Yang Zhao2 and Ming L Wang1

Abstract
The Zhanjiang Bay Bridge, located in an inner gulf of South China, is a cable stayed bridge with a main span of 480 m. An
analysis on the thermal effects experienced by the bridge is presented according to a health monitoring system (HMS)
that began operation in 2006. The parameters studied in the analysis include thermal time lags and gradients of the steel
box girder, concrete tower, and stayed cables, as well as displacements at center span and tops of the towers. Among the
findings, temperature gradient in the steel girder was larger than the design specification, concrete temperature lagged
significantly behind ambient air, and stayed cable temperatures were between those of ambient air and concrete.
Additional findings were obtained by comparing the measured data to values calculated using a finite element model.
The comparison made it possible to approximate the unmeasured thermal gradient on the surface of the towers, and to
determine that an expansion joint was likely jammed and contributing to the bridge’s asymmetrical displacement. This
article presents these findings in a thorough manner, and in doing so conveys the ability of a HMS to provide realistic
examples of thermal behavior, to estimate conditions at locations free of measurement devices, and to suggest areas of
concern for future manual inspections. Furthermore, it provides evidence that a HMS is not only helpful for bridge design
and management, but also for the development of itself.

Keywords
bridge, cable stayed, health monitoring, temperature, displacement

statistical process,12 as well as displacement and strain

Introduction
Due to their impressive stature and many years of
public existence, bridges often appear to be invincible.
However, bridges are vulnerable to the harsh natural
environment and their sudden failure can lead to sig-
nificant human casualties and property loss. As key
elements of the highway transportation system, it is
important that bridges have inspection processes that
allow for effective monitoring, detection, and repair.
Health monitoring systems (HMSs) can be important
components of these inspection processes. They have
been gaining acceptance as useful aids in maintaining
and retrofitting bridges since their inception in the
1930s,1 and have been installed on modern long-span
bridges2 as well as older bridges experiencing symptoms
of cracking, corrosion, and settlement.3–5
Extensive studies have proven the effectiveness of
damage detection using HMS’, among them are asso-
ciated frequency response,6–10 possibilistic approach,11
analysis.13–15 Furthermore, the performance of HMS
instrumentation16–18 and the limitations of structural
identification using a HMS19 have also been investi-
gated. Despite these studies and the increasing com-
monality of HMS’, there are few studies that use
HMS data to discuss the thermal behavior of bridges.
Moreover, the majority of existing non-HMS based
thermal research, on which thermal gradient20,21 and
expansion coefficient22 models are based, pertains
only to bridges composed entirely of concrete, or of
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern
University, Boston, MA, USA.
2
Intelligent Instrument System Inc., Burr Ridge, IL 60527, USA.
Corresponding author:
Yinghong Cao, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA
Email: yi.cao@neu.edu

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

524
steel girders and a concrete deck. Therefore, while
design codes use these existing studies to provide rec-
ommendations,23–26 their accuracy is limited to the
specific cases analyzed in research, and may diminish
when a structure of differing material properties is
considered.
This article furthers previous research efforts by uti-
lizing a HMS to investigate the thermal behavior on a
cable stayed bridge of steel girder and steel deck con-
struction. The core components of the HMS are the
sensors, as they provide data indicating structural
behavior. By using this data to study thermal gradient
and deformation, as well as to perform a comparison
analysis with a finite element (FE) model, it was possi-
ble to determine the thermal behavior of this specific
bridge type. Furthermore, it was possible to determine
the existence of an abnormal structural condition, and
thus provide recommendations for future manual
bridge inspections.
HMS of Zhanjiang Bay Bridge
The Zhanjiang Bay Bridge is located in an inner gulf of
Zhanjiang city in south China. It is a cable stayed
bridge with a main span of 480 m and total length of
3981 m. The bridge consists of five box girder spans;
two reinforced concrete end spans and three steel inte-
rior spans. Additional steel is found in the parallel steel
wires that compose the prefabricated stay cables. Aside
from the mentioned girders and cables, all remaining
bridge components are reinforced concrete or pre-
stressed concrete.
Upon completion of the bridge, in December, 2006,
a permanent HMS was installed. The goal of the HMS
was to monitor structural behavior in conditions of
extremely high temperature, humidity, and sea chlorin-
ity. In order to achieve this goal, following sensor appli-
cations were chosen; GPS rovers for displacement,
strain gages for longitudinal strain, thermometers for
temperature, and electromagnetic (EM)27–29 sensors for
cable forces. While EM sensors were installed directly
on 14 of the stay cables, all other sensors were installed
at the center of the main girder, with strain gages being
installed on both the girder’s top and bottom plates.
Additional installations included GPS rovers at the
top of the east and west towers, and thermometers
in the west tower. The sensor layout can be seen in
Figures 1–3.
Regarding the handling of data, the sensors are clas-
sified into three sensor groups. Each group corresponds
to a separate substation in the main girder where raw
data is sent for preprocessing and temporary storage.
After passing these substations, the data is sent to a
server located at the bridge’s monitoring center. It is
here where the user client interface and server software
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015
Structural Health Monitoring 10(5)
can be utilized to manipulate the data for real-time
structural health monitoring and evaluation.
The HMS has allowed for over 2 years of continuous
bridge monitoring. In this time, the collected data has
been used to: establish a baseline for the as-built struc-
tural behavior; study reactions to extreme events
including a typhoon as well as an overloaded truck;
and warn management authorities of abnormalities
that are detected with the server’s automatic processing
software. Further detail regarding the HMS and the
analysis of data collected during extreme events will
be reported in the future. This article, however, focuses
on using the HMS to analyze the affects of daily
temperature.
Temperature gradient
A structural component’s thermal conductivity is
dependent on its material characteristics; therefore,
temperature distribution can vary between structural
components of differing materials. Moreover, if surface
exposure to sunlight or shade varies between them,
components of the same material can also experience
varying temperature distributions. These temperature
variations and gradients can lead to internal forces
when a structure’s thermal expansion is constrained.
For this reason, many design codes account for pat-
terns of temperature variation by providing specifica-
tion values. However, for many bridges, the difference
between these approximated specifications and real
temperature patterns is still unknown. Data collected
by the Zhanjiang Bay Bridge HMS will provide an
example of real temperature patterns for cable stayed
bridges.
Temperature gradient in the steel girder
Temperature measurements were collected from July 27
to August 1, 2008, and can be seen in Figure 4. The
largest temperature variations occurred at thermometer
2; located on the main girder’s top plate. These loca-
tions experienced the maximum temperature variations
due to the high heat conductivity of steel, and the top
plate’s direct exposure to sun. The smallest temperature
variation occurred at the thermometer 4 located on the
main girder’s bottom plate.
In order to analyze the maximum temperature gra-
dient and compare it with design values, an estimate
was developed by comparing the peak values of ther-
mometers 1 and 4. This estimate, of 21 C, was com-
pared to the 10 C30 used in the bridge’s original design,
as well as to the 20 C24 provided in the 2004 edition of
Design Code for Design of Highway Bridges and
Culverts. It can be seen that the estimated maximum
gradient was more than twice the original design value,
Cao et al. 525

Figure 1. HMS layout and sensor distribution (m).

Figure 2. Sensor locations (mm): (a) elevation of span center; (b) cross section of tower; and (c) cross section of span center.

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

526 Structural Health Monitoring 10(5)

WN-S14 WN-S7 WN-C1 WN-C14 EN-C14 EN-C1 EN-S7

WS-S14 WS-S7 WS-C1 WS-C14 ES-C14 ES-C1 ES-S7

West tower East tower

Figure 3. Cables monitored with EM sensor.

Thermo 5:west
Thermo 6:east
Thermo 2:top
65
Thermo 1:top inside
Thermo 4:bottom Thermo 2
60 Thermo 3:bottom inside
Ambient temperature
55

50
Thermo 6 Thermo 1
Temperature

Thermo 5
45

40
Thermo 3
Thermo 4
35

30

25 Ambient

7/27/2008 7/28/2008 7/29/2008 7/30/2008 7/31/2008 8/1/2008

Date

Figure 4. Temperature gradient in towers and steel girder ( C).

and slightly larger than the 2004 specification (Table 1).
To supplement these findings, a comparison was made
with the climatically equivalent Tsing Ma Bridge in
Hong Kong.31 It was found that its measured values
of 18.3–26.0 C were very similar to those of the
Zhanjiang Bay Bridge.
Temperature difference between the structure
and ambient air
In addition to the temperature data provided by
thermometers spread throughout the structure, the
bridge’s weather station provided ambient tempera-
tures as well; ranging from 24 C to 35 C. By plotting
these ambient and structural temperatures together
(Figure 4), several patterns were identified. Regarding
the west tower, both thermometers measured smaller
variations and significantly higher averages than
ambient air; indicating that the tower was able to pre-
serve heat within itself. Regarding the steel girder, the
bottom plate was close to ambient air throughout the
day and night; the top plate, however, experienced
greater variations during the day and was only
close to ambient air around midnight and the early
morning hours.
The significance lies in the fact that the girder’s tem-
perature was approximately that of ambient air during
the early morning hours. Namely, the phenomenon
indicates that during this time the steel structure had
uniform and stable features. This verifies that during
construction the center span was closed at an optimal
time. It was closed between 1:00 and 3:00 am on June
21, 2006, when the temperature of the entire steel girder
was approximately 28 C.

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

Cao et al. 527

Table 1. Temperature gradient in girder (August 1, 2008)

AASHTO China Euro code Measured

T1 23 20 18 61
T2 6 6.7 8 40
Gradient 17 13.3 10 21
Note: The values given are in  C.

because the cable forces were considered to be outside

the primary focus of this study, it was decided to save
Thermo 5:west
Thermo 6:east their analysis for future publishing. Thus, this article
40 Thermo 4:bottom
5h15m
maintains its focus by utilizing only the temperature
Thermo 3:bottom inside
Ambient temperature data from the EM sensors. The results indicated that
Thermo 5
6h40m 20:30 there was no obvious temperature lag between the
Temperature

15:15
35
11:50
Thermo 6
Thermo 4
30
Thermo 3
5:10 Ambient
25
7/28/2008
Date
Figure 5. Temperature lag between girder and tower ( C).
Temperature lag between the steel girder and
concrete tower
Analysis of the data in Figure 5 allowed for the identi-
fication of a temperature lag between the steel girder
and concrete tower. As seen in the figure, the tower
reached its minimum temperature at 11:50 am, which
was 6 h and 40 min later than ambient air at 5:10 am.
Similarly, the tower reached its maximum temperature
at 8:30 pm, which was 5 h and 15 min later than ambi-
ent air at 3:15 pm. These observations indicated that the
temperature in the concrete tower lagged behind ambi-
ent air by 5–6 h.
Cable temperatures
Electromagnetic sensors enwrap the stay cables shown
in Figure 3; they were installed in the cables’ steel
anchor pipes and enclosed by caps (Figure 6(a)). By
taking advantage of their integrated thermal detector,
the EM sensors were able to monitor both the cable
temperatures and forces simultaneously. However,
cables and tower (Figure 6(b)).
The daily temperatures of the cables were between
those of the tower and ambient air (Figure 6(b)).
However, due to the thickness of the EM sensors’
enclosure, it is possible that changes in the cable tem-
peratures were postponed, and that overall variation
7/29/2008 was reduced. In considering this design feature, it was
suspected that the actual temperatures of the cables
should have been closer to ambient air.
The maximum temperature gradient, between
the stay cables and tower, was less than 6.3 C
(Figure 6(b)). This value is smaller than the 10 C
used in the bridge’s original design.12 However, because
the temperature data was only collected over a 3-day
period, it is possible that larger gradients will occur
over the course of an entire year.
Temperature-induced deformation
Measured thermal displacement
To investigate the displacement induced by changes in
temperature, data recorded from a GPS rover was uti-
lized. The original data, which was collected in a fre-
quency of 20 Hz, contains the effects of both
temperature and random traffic load. Based on the
daily temperature’s slow rate of change, it was decided
to average this data at 10-min intervals. The averaging
filtered out temporary deformations from random traf-
fic loads, while maintaining those from temperature
effects. Figures 7 and 8 shows the filtered tower and
girder deformations in the longitudinal and vertical
directions, respectively.
By comparing the displacements in Figures 7 and 8
to the ambient temperature in Figure 4, it was possible

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

528 Structural Health Monitoring 10(5)

WS-S14 WN-S14
WS-S7 WN-S7
(b) 40 WS-C1 WN-C1
WS-C14 WN-C14
38 Thermo 5:west Thermo 6:east
Ambient temperature
(a)
36

Temperature
34

32

30

28

26
Maximal difference is 33.3-27=6.3
7/28/2008 7/29/2008 7/30/2008 7/31/2008
Date

Figure 6. Temperature of cables in comparison with tower and air ( C): (a) EM sensor before enclosed and (b) temperature
comparison.

West tower
140 East tower
Morning Afternoon Girder vertical
120
Displacement (mm)

100
80
60
40
20
0
–20
–40
–60
–80
–100
8/3/2008 8/4/2008 8/5/2008
Date

Figure 7. Longitudinal displacement of towers compared with vertical displacement of girder.

behavior observed in Figures 7 and 8 can be seen in

to identify the following characteristics:
. In the early mornings, when ambient temperature
was lowest, the longitudinal displacement of the
girder restored to nearly zero.
. In the early afternoons, when ambient temperature
was highest, both the west tower and girder reached
their maximum negative displacements.
. In the late afternoons, the east tower reached its
maximum positive displacement, while the girder
restored and began to move in the positive direction.
These characteristics can be seen in Figure 9.
Additionally, an averaged summary of the
Table 2.
By combining all of the previously identified temper-
ature characteristics, it was possible to determine the
bridge’s daily behavior.
. During the morning’s rising temperatures, the girder
began to deform upwards and to the west.
Additionally, the towers moved away from
each other; with the west tower deforming at a
faster rate.
. In the early afternoon, the west tower displaced by
nearly twice the amount of the east tower,
and reached its maximum western displacement.

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

Cao et al.
18:20
60 56.3
32.4
Displacement (mm)
40
20 –10.2
0 –29.2
–20
–12.5
–40 –24.5
–27.2
–60
–58.2
–80
14:40
–100
8/3/2008
Figure 8. Longitudinal displacement of towers and girder.
The girder reached its maximum western displace-
ment at the same time.
. At mid-afternoon, the girder reached its maximum
vertical displacement and the towers displaced to the
east. As the towers moved, the difference in displace-
ment between them remained nearly the same as was
observed in the early afternoon.
. In the late afternoon, the east tower had deformed
nearly twice as much as the west tower, and reached
its maximum deformation. The girder restored to its
original position at the same time.
These characteristics can be seen in Figure 9.
Structural engineering theory and experience were
used to determine the most probable explanations for
the identified behavior seen in Figure 9. Assuming that
all components of the HMS were functioning properly,
these explanations are provided below:
. Tower displacement in opposite directions resulted
from expansion of the girder. The expansion was
caused by a uniform temperature increase that can
be seen in Figure 4.
. Vertical deflection of the girder resulted from a uni-
form temperature increase of the entire structure,
and/or a localized temperature increase at the gir-
der’s top plate. Both temperature patterns can be
seen in Figure 4.
. Greater early afternoon displacement occurred in
the western tower as a result of the sun rising in
the east. The sun’s energy was focused on the eastern
surfaces of the towers; causing them to experience
warmer temperatures and expansion. Data from
internal thermometers located on the west tower
provided evidence supporting this explanation
(Figure 10).
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015
529
West tower
18:10 16:30 East tower
Firder longitudinal
16:30
60.3 53.0
22.1 47.0
37.9 33.9
12.1
–17.4
–2.6 –3.0
–15.0
–29.0
–59.2 –82.5 –53.0
–67.1
15:00 14:20 14:10
8/4/2008 8/5/2008
Date
. Greater late afternoon displacement occurred in the
eastern tower as a result of the sun setting in the
west. The sun’s energy was now focused on the west-
ern surfaces; causing them to experience warmer
temperatures and expansion. Evidence supporting
this explanation can be seen in Figure 10.
. Longitudinal displacement of the main girder was
suspected to have resulted from the uneven tower dis-
placement. However, in order to conform to earlier
behavior, the girder should have experienced an east-
ern displacement similar in magnitude to the western
displacement from the early afternoon. As seen in
Table 2, these displacements were significantly differ-
ent. Therefore, it is suspected that factors in addition
to the uneven tower displacement contributed to the
girder’s longitudinal movement. A factor that likely
contributed is that friction at the east end of the girder
was significantly greater than at the west end. This
uneven friction could have resulted from an abnor-
mal condition in the bridge’s expansion joints.
Calculated thermal displacement
In theory, when subjected to equivalent loads, an accu-
rately designed model should experience the same
behavior as the structure it represents. On this princi-
ple, a FE model was created in ANSYS based on the
bridge’s design plans and dimensional/sectional prop-
erties (Tables 3 and 4). The calculated temperature
induced displacements were obtained from this model,
and compared to the measured displacements. Results
from the comparison provided a means by which to
check the validity of the structure’s displacement expla-
nations (section ‘Measure thermal displacement’), as
well as to identify the existence of structural abnormal-
ities. The model can be seen in Figure 11.
530 Structural Health Monitoring 10(5)

Figure 9. Daily bridge deformations (mm): (a) early afternoon; (b) mid-afternoon; and (c) late afternoon.

The model’s accuracy was verified using results from
a load test that was performed shortly after the bridge’s
construction. In the load test, shown in Figure 12,
12-test trucks were placed at mid span of the main
girder, they caused a vertical displacement of
334.7 mm.32 The test was replicated in the model by
applying several loads in the vertical direction; the cal-
culated displacement was 346.5 mm. This difference in
displacement of 11.8 mm, at a relative error of 3.5%,
was considered acceptable. The FE model was not
updated to eliminate this small error due to uncertainty
in the error’s source.
In order to determine the calculated displacements,
and perform a subsequent comparison with the
measured structure, it was necessary to apply an
accurate temperature loading to the FE model. The
key components in developing this temperature loading
were the temperature patterns associated with Table 5.

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

Cao et al. 531

Table 2. Average bridge displacement (mm)

August 2, August 3, August 4, August 5,

Date 2008 2008 2008 2008 Average

Early afternoon Time 14:40 15:00 14:20 14:10 14:33

(west tower reached Displacement of west tower 58.2 59.2 82.5 53.10 63.25
maximum) Vertical displacement of girder 32.4 62.3 78.0 50.0 55.68
Longitudinal displacement of girder 27.2 12.5 29.2 15.0 20.98
Displacement of east tower 32.4 37.9 22.1 33.9 31.58
Middle afternoon Time 16:10 16:10 15:20 14:30 15:33
(girder reached Displacement of west tower 39.8 38.9 75.0 49.9 50.9
maximum) Vertical displacement of girder 93.4 88.6 88.7 71.1 85.45
Longitudinal displacement of girder 9.8 12.8 21.0 19.3 15.73
Displacement of east tower 49.0 43.7 42.1 35.2 42.5
Late afternoon Time 18:20 18:10 16:30 16:30 17:23
(east tower reached Displacement of west tower 24.5 2.6 67.1 29.0 30.8
maximum) Vertical displacement of girder 48.9 53.9 79.1 29.7 53.9
Longitudinal displacement of girder 10.2 12.1 17.4 3.0 0.48
Displacement of eat tower 56.3 60.3 53.0 47.0 54.15
Note: The values given are in millimeters.

Thermo 5: west
Thermo 6: east
36
Morning Morning Morning
35

34 East side is
warmer in
33
Temperature

the morning
32

31

30
East side is
29 cooler in
Afternoon the afternoon Afternoon Afternoon
28

8/2/2008 8/3/2008 8/4/2008 8/5/2008 8/6/2008

Time

Figure 10. Temperature difference between the west tower’s two inner surfaces ( C).

These patterns were based on the measured
temperature data, however, because there were no ther-
mometers located on the external surfaces of the
towers, patterns 3 and 4 were assigned an (*) to signify
that they were approximated using thermometers
located on the interior surfaces. The thermometers
measured an east/west surface difference of 0.2 C.
Therefore, on the basis that these thermometers were
sheltered within the concrete tower, it was suspected
that the actual difference in external surface
temperatures was much greater. To account for this
difference, the temperatures for patterns 3 and 4 were
defined as >0.2 C.
Temperature loadings were applied to the FE
model through unit temperature patterns. The patterns
were developed according to Table 5 and are shown
below:
. Pattern 1: temperature of the entire structure
increases by 1.0 C.

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

532 Structural Health Monitoring 10(5)

Table 3. Structural dimensions

Item Parameters

Span arrangement (m) 60 + 120 + 480 + 120 + 60 ¼ 840

Main girder Top width (m) 28.5
Height (m) 3.0
Interval of transversal beam (m) Concrete, 4; Steel, 3.2
Material Concrete, C50; Steel, Q345qC
Stayed cable Anchorage Cold cast
Standard interval at girder (m) Concrete, 8; Steel, 16
Standard interval at tower (m) 2
Material 7 mm pre-fabricated wire
Strength (MPa) Ry ¼ 1670
Tower Height (m) 150.64
Cross section (m*) 3.2  6.0–7.0  8.0
Transversal beam section (m*m) 7.0  8.0
Material Concrete, C50
Side piers Height (m) 49.2
Cross section (m*m) 3.6  3.8
Material Concrete: C40

Table 4. Element cross section properties

Element Area (m2) Inertia (m4) Centroid from top (m)

Steel girder 1.165 1.487 1.23

Concrete girder 18.76 18.22 1.24
Upper tower 13.73–20.20 65.0–142.26 3.01–4.0
Lower tower 21.31–25.67 171.14–224.79 4.0
Side pier 6.6 11.16 1.8

. Pattern 2: temperature of the girder’s top plate the girder was significantly greater than at the west end.
increases by 1.0 C. To investigate this scenario, the east end of the main
. Pattern 3: temperature of the towers’ east surfaces girder was fixed, and a subsequent FE analysis was
increases by 1.0 C. performed on this modified structure. The results are
. Pattern 4: temperature of the towers’ west surfaces shown in Figure 14; excluding pattern 4 which had the
increases by 1.0 C. opposite effect of pattern 3.

The calculated displacements were obtained

using the ANSYS software. They are shown in Figure
13, excluding pattern 4 which had the opposite effect
of pattern 3. The figure shows that the displace-
ments were representative of how the bridge was
designed, and therefore occurred in a symmetric
manner.
In comparing the calculated displacements to the
asymmetrical measured displacements, few similarities
were identified. Thus, further evidence was provided
that the bridge was experiencing abnormal conditions.
As mentioned in section ‘Measure thermal displace-
ment’, it was possible that friction at the east end of
Comparison of the measured and calculated
thermal displacements
The calculated displacements were determined based on
unit temperature loadings. Therefore, in order to bring
these displacements to the correct scaling, it was neces-
sary to multiply them by the measured temperatures.
Additionally, to be able to use the calculated results in
identifying conditions at the east end of the main
girder, it was necessary to develop an equation that
implemented different percentages of fixity at this loca-
tion. The equation was developed based on the rules of

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

Cao et al. 533

Figure 11. 3D FE model.

Figure 12. Comparison of test truck loads and simulated FE model loads: (a) test truck deployment and (b) loads on FE model.

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

534 Structural Health Monitoring 10(5)

Table 5. Average measured thermal pattern between August 2 and August 5, 2008

Time 14:33 15:33 17:23

Pattern 1: uniformly temperature increasing 9 10 8

Pattern 2: temperature increasing at girder top 15 16 10
*Pattern 3: temperature increasing at east surface of towers (in the morning) >0.2 0 –
*Pattern 4: temperature increasing at west surface of towers (in the afternoon) – 0 >0.2
Note: The values given are in  C.

(a) –3.08 3.08

–1.81 1.81
(b)

3.36

(c) –8.18 –2.2

–4.75

Figure 13. Calculated thermal displacement for original structure (mm): (a) uniform temperature increment of 1.0 C (pattern 1);
(b) temperature increment of 1.0 C at top of girder (pattern 2); and (c) temperature increment of 1.0 C at east surface of two towers
(pattern 3).

linear systems and is provided below: displacement of original structure induced by tempera-
ture pattern i;  the ratio of fixity at the east end of the
X
3   main girder.
D¼ Ti dif þ ð1  Þdi0 ð1Þ The final calculated displacements were then com-
i¼1
pared to the measured displacements, and reasons for
the actual structure’s behavior could be identified.
where D is the final calculated displacement; Ti the Results indicated that the model behaved most simi-
measured temperature of pattern i at time of concern; larly to the measured structure when subjected to the
dif the calculated displacement of fixed structure following conditions: the temperature difference
induced by temperature pattern i; di0 the calculated between the exterior surfaces on each tower was

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

Cao et al. 535

(a) –9.38 –8.82

–7.31

0.97

(b) –3.7

–1.75

3.31

(c) –1.85 –0.95

1.32

Figure 14. Calculated thermal displacement for a structure that is fixed (longitudinal direction) at the east end of the main
girder (mm): (a) uniform temperature increment of 1.0 C (pattern 1); (b) temperature increment of 1.0 C at top of girder (pattern 2);
and (c) temperature increment of 1.0 C at east surface of two towers (pattern 3).

1–2 C, and the east end girder was 10–20% fixed. The It is evident that strong similarities existed between
comparison between the measured and calculated dis- the calculated and measured displacements.
placements can be seen in Table 6. Nevertheless, other surface temperature of towers and
The following is a summary of the key points in extend of girder fixity may also be possible solutions,
Table 6: depending on how the overall similarity is judged.

. The general direction and magnitude of the calcu-

lated and measured displacements were in confor-
mance at all times.
. The majority of relative errors were less than 30%,
which is small in practical implementation.
. The only relative error of 115.32% came from tiny
absolute displacements, 0.48 mm by measurement
and 1.03 mm by calculation. This error can be rea-
sonably neglected in comparison with the system
error of GPS’s static accuracy of 3 mm in horizontal
direction.
. The remaining three relative errors from 38.46% to
42.42% may result from some uncertain factors,
such as complexity of temperature field.
Conclusion
A distributed HMS was installed on the Zhanjiang Bay
Bridge to monitor its post-construction behavior and
health status. Among the large amount of data col-
lected by the HMS’ various sensors, this article inves-
tigates the temperature induced displacement. The
following conclusions were reached by analyzing these
measured displacements, and also, by comparing them
to the calculated displacements from a FE model:
. The steel box girder’s positive temperature gradient
was slightly larger than the value provided in the

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

536 Structural Health Monitoring 10(5)

Table 6. Comparison between measured and calculated thermal displacement

Measured Calculated Relative error (%)

Item A B C ¼ (B–A)/A

Early afternoon at time 14:33 Displacement of west tower 63.25 78.38 23.93
Vertical displacement of girder 55.68 50.88 8.63
Longitudinal displacement of girder 20.98 19.71 6.06
Displacement of east tower 31.58 31.94 1.14
Middle afternoon at time 15:33 Displacement of west tower 50.9 71.95 41.35
Vertical displacement of girder 85.45 52.59 38.46
Longitudinal displacement of girder 15.73 11.33 28.00
Displacement of east tower 42.5 47.21 11.08
Late afternoon at time 17:23 Displacement of west tower 30.8 39.32 27.66
Vertical displacement of girder 53.9 31.15 42.21
Longitudinal displacement of girder 0.48 1.03 115.31
Displacement of eat tower 54.15 44.97 16.96
Note: The values given are in millimeters.

current design specification, and nearly twice the
value used in the original design.
. Temperature of the concrete lagged behind ambient
air by 5–6 h.
. Temperature variation within the stay cables’ steel
anchor pipes (detected by the EM sensor) was
between the ambient air and concrete tower.
Furthermore, there was no obvious temperature
lag between the stay cables and tower.
. Four temperature patterns were identified: uniform
increase of the entire structure; increase at the top
plate of the main girder; increase on the east surfaces
of the towers; and increase on the west surfaces of
the towers.
. The measured temperature displacements corre-
sponded to the four temperature patterns. During
the afternoon’s high temperatures, the towers dis-
placed in opposite directions and the main girder
moved upwards. Similarly, during the early morn-
ing’s low temperatures, the bridge restored to its
original position.
. Few similarities were found in the initial compari-
son between the measured and calculated displace-
ments. However, this comparison was based on a
FE model that was missing information regarding
the temperature gradient on the surface of the
towers, as well as friction conditions at the ends
of the girder. To account for the missing informa-
tion, the FE model was adjusted in these locations
based on what was expected to be causing the struc-
ture’s asymmetrical displacement. Subsequently, a
second comparison was performed in which the
measured and calculated displacements were gener-
ally in conformance; relative errors were less
than 40%.
. Similarities between the measured and calculated
values indicated that the adjusted FE model was rep-
resentative of the bridge’s actual conditions.
Therefore, the temperature gradient on the surfaces
of the towers was determined to be 1.0–2.0 C. And
similarly, the east end of the main girder was deter-
mined to be 10–20% fixed; possibly resulting from
abnormal congestion in its expansion joint. Among
these identified conditions, further development of
the congestion in the expansion joint could lead to
costly damage of the joint itself and/or cracking of
the local concrete. Therefore, it is important to verify
the joints actual condition with a manual inspection,
as well as to provide long term monitoring of its
behavior.
The HMS was effective at estimating the unmea-
sured bridge conditions, and is likely valuable for
broader applications. Nevertheless, by altering the
method used to evaluate the relative errors between
the measured and calculated displacements, it may be
possible to extract further information from the
Zhanjiang Bay Bridge. In future research, an evaluation
method of a higher sophistication can be developed and
used in conjunction with a HMS; in turn, higher accu-
racy estimations of missing bridge conditions will be
obtained. Furthermore, the continued research of
HMS data will provide invaluable knowledge for the
management of bridges and further development of
HMSs themselves.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by China Guangdong Department
of Transportation under grant no. 2002-15, and National
Science Foundation (NSF) under grant no. 0937196 with

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015

Cao et al.
Dr Shih-Chi Liu as program manager. The help provided by
Zhanjiang Bay Bridge Co. Ltd. is also greatly appreciated.
References
1. Carder DS. Observed vibrations of bridges. Bull Seismol
Soc Am 1937; 27: 267–303.
2. Ko JM and Ni YQ. Technology developments in struc-
tural health monitoring of large-scale bridges. Eng Struct
2005; 27: 1715–1725.
3. Olund J and DeWolf J. Passive structural health moni-
toring of Connecticut’s bridge infrastructure.
J Infrastruct Syst 2007; 13(4): 330–339.
4. Wang ML. Long term health monitoring of post-tension-
ing box girder bridges. Int J Smart Struct Syst 2008; 4(6):
711–726.
5. Barr PJ, Woodward CB, Najero B and Amin, Md N.
Long-term structural health monitoring of the San
Ysidro Bridge. J Perform Constructed Facil 2006; 20(1):
14–20.
6. Hsieh KH, Halling MW and Barr PJ. Overview of vibra-
tional structural health monitoring with representative
case studies. J Bridge Eng 2006; 11(6): 707–715.
7. Zang C, Friswell MI and Imregun M. Structural health
monitoring and damage assessment using frequency
response correlation criteria. J Eng Mech 2007; 133(9):
981–993.
8. Xu YL, Guo WW, Chen J, Shum KM and Xia H.
Dynamic response of suspension bridge to typhoon and
trains, I: field measurement results. J Struct Eng 2007;
133(1): 3–11.
9. Cigada A, Caprioli A, Redaelli M and Vanali M.
Vibration testing at meazza stadium: reliability of opera-
tional modal analysis to health monitoring purposes.
J Perform Constructed Facil 2008; 22(4): 228–237.
10. Mooney MA, Gorman PB and Gonzalez JN. Vibration-
based health monitoring of earth structures. Struct
Health Monit 2005; 4(2): 137–152.
11. Altunok E, Reda Taha MM and Ross TJ. Possibilistic
approach for damage detection in structural health mon-
itoring. J Struct Eng 2007; 133(9): 1247–1256.
12. Hoon Sohn H, Czarnecki JA and Farrar CR. Structural
health monitoring using statistical process control.
J Struct Eng 2000; 126(11): 1356–1363.
13. Watson C, Watson T and Coleman R. Structural moni-
toring of cable-stayed bridge: analysis of GPS versus
modeled deflections. J Surveying Eng 2007; 133(1): 23–28.
14. Cardini AJ. Long-term structural health monitoring of a
multi-girder steel composite bridge using strain data.
Struct Health Monit 2009; 8(1): 47–58.
15. Howell DA and Shenton III HW. System for in-service
strain monitoring of ordinary bridges. J Bridge Eng 2006;
11(6): 673–680.
16. Farhey DN. Bridge instrumentation and monitoring for
structural diagnostics. Struct Health Monit 2005; 4(4):
301–318.
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 6, 2015
537
17. Farhey DN. Long-term performance monitoring of the
tech 21 all-composite bridge. J Compos Constr 2005; 9(3):
255–262.
18. Farhey DN. Instrumentation system performance for
long-term bridge health monitoring. Struct Health
Monit 2006; 5(2): 143–153.
19. Catbas FN, Ciloglu SK, Hasancebi O, Grimmelsman K
and Aktan AE. Limitations in structural identification of
large constructed structures. J Struct Eng 2007; 133(8):
1051–1066.
20. Lmbsen, RA, Vandershaf, DE, Schamber, RA and Nutt,
RV. Thermal effects in concrete bridge superstructures.
NCHRP Program Report 276, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, 1985.
21. Wang ML. 2009. Load and temperature effects of a
bridge. In: Boller C, Chang F-K and Fujino Y (eds)
Encyclopedia of structural health monitoring. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2009, pp.2327–2342.
22. Ndon UJ and Bergeson KL. Thermal expansion of con-
cretes: case study in Iowa. J Mater Civil Eng 1995; 7(4):
246–251.
23. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials). LRFD bridge design specifica-
tion. USA: AASHTO, 1998.
24. MOC (Ministry of Communication). Design specification
for highway bridges. China: MOC, 2004.
25. ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers). EN 1991: Eurocode
1-1: Actions on structures. UK: ICE, 2008.
26. BSI (British Standard Institution). Steel, concrete and
composite bridges: specification for loads, BS 5400:
Part 2. London: BSI, 1978.
27. Wang ML. 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.
Dalian: PRC, 1998.
28. Wang, ML, Sunitro, S and Jarosevic, A. Elasto-magnetic
sensor utilization on steel cable stress measurement. In:
FIB Congress. Osaka, Japan, 2002, pp.13–19.
29. Wang, ML and Zhao, Y. Applications of magneto-elastic
sensors to force measurement in large bridge cables. In:
Structural Materials Technology: NDE/NDT for
Highways and Bridges, Buffalo, NY, USA, 2004, pp.14–17.
30. BRDI (Zhongtie Major Bridge Reconnaissance & Design
Institute Co., Ltd). Preliminary design for Zhanjiang Bay
Bridge. China: BRDI, 2002.
31. Tong M, Tham LG and Au FTK. Extreme thermal load-
ing on steel bridges in tropical region. J Bridge Eng 2002;
7(6): 357–366.
32. Guangdong Test Center for Highway Construction. Test
report for the cable stayed bridge of Zhanjiang Bay Bridge
project. China: Guangdong Test Center for Highway
Construction, 2006.