Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ultrasonics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ultras

Cluster analysis of stress corrosion mechanisms for steel wires used in

bridge cables through acoustic emission particle swarm optimization
Dongsheng Li a, Wei Yang b,⇑, Wenyao Zhang b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
b
Fujian Academy of Building Research, Fuzhou 350025, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Stress corrosion is the major failure type of bridge cable damage. The acoustic emission (AE) technique
Received 12 April 2016 was applied to monitor the stress corrosion process of steel wires used in bridge cable structures. The
Received in revised form 12 January 2017 damage evolution of stress corrosion in bridge cables was obtained according to the AE characteristic
Accepted 16 January 2017
parameter figure. A particle swarm optimization cluster method was developed to determine the rela-
Available online 18 January 2017
tionship between the AE signal and stress corrosion mechanisms. Results indicate that the main AE
sources of stress corrosion in bridge cables included four types: passive film breakdown and detachment
Keywords:
of the corrosion product, crack initiation, crack extension, and cable fracture. By analyzing different types
Bridge cable
Stress corrosion
of clustering data, the mean value of each damage pattern’s AE characteristic parameters was deter-
Acoustic emission mined. Different corrosion damage source AE waveforms and the peak frequency were extracted. AE par-
Particle swarm ticle swarm optimization cluster analysis based on principal component analysis was also proposed. This
Cluster analysis method can completely distinguish the four types of damage sources and simplifies the determination of
the evolution process of corrosion damage and broken wire signals.
Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction monitoring of bridge cable stress corrosion are scarce. Common

The cable structure is one of the most important load-carrying
members of long-span bridges. When positioned in natural envi-
ronments for a long time, the polyethylene (PE) sheath wrapped
on the steel surface of bridge cables, especially those located in
damp environments in the sea, presents different levels of cracks.
After the emergence of a crack on the PE sheath, the steel strands
or high-tensile steel wires inside the sheath are exposed to the
external environment; thus, corrosion occurs. Under the effect of
stress, the localized corrosion pit on the surface of steels exhibits
stress concentration. This stress concentration significantly affects
the mechanical property of steels. Rupture failure will occur
although the stress is far less than the yield strength of steels [1–
3]. Therefore, stress corrosion monitoring of bridge cables plays
an important role in ensuring the safety of bridges.
The stress corrosion mechanisms in bridge cables are highly
complex. Different damage types involve various damage source
signals, such as passive file breakdown, production of hydrogen
bubbles, hydrogen embrittlement, corrosive pitting, initialization
and extension of cracks, and fracture. Effective methods for the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ywluck@qq.com (W. Yang).
existing methods include artificial detection, ultrasonic testing,
and magnetic leakage [4–7]. Artificial detection cannot identify
internal defects nor quantitatively evaluate the damage state. Thus,
its outcome involves many human factors. Ultrasonic testing is the
most common means to detect corrosion in bridge cables. The
exact location and damage condition of corrosion can be deter-
mined with this method. However, experiment results have indi-
cated that although this method can detect the locations of
damage near the head of steel wires, effective corrosion damage
monitoring of the wires in the distance remains challenging. Mag-
netic leakage method is also commonly utilized to detect damage
in metal materials. However, this method has several apparent dis-
advantages. When used to detect bridge cables with protection, the
monitoring signals are too weak to receive, the monitoring accu-
racy does not meet the requirements, and different types of defects
cannot be distinguished. This study introduces the application of
acoustic emission (AE) technology to monitor stress corrosion in
bridge cables. AE is a dynamic monitoring method. The monitoring
signal originates from the structure itself, and sensor placement is
convenient. All-weather monitoring can thus be realized without
delaying traffic. Stress corrosion monitoring with AE has been
extensively applied, and several research achievements have been
attained. Characteristic AE features (e.g., amplitude, energy, dura-
tion, rise time, counts, and frequency) are commonly extracted to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2017.01.012
0041-624X/Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.
 D. Li et al. / Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31
analyze the micro failure mechanisms of different materials. AE
waveform features, such as duration and frequency, generally carry
information about the mode of the crack. Additionally, the AE
amplitude recorded during loading is proportional to the intensity
of the damage event and the emission energy that is connected to
the intensity of the crack. AE counts characterize the oscillation
frequency of the damage signal.
Ramadan [8] investigated high-strength steel stress corrosion
cracking with the AE technique. This study produced promising
results for the potential in situ use of AE in real-time health mon-
itoring of eutectoid steel cables. AE has been utilized to monitor
concrete and steel wire damage and failure in pre-stressed con-
crete [9–11]. AE can detect corrosion, macro cracks, and crack
propagation in representative structures. AE has also been
employed as a tool to detect corrosion processes in 304 stainless
steel [12–14]. Different damage types (uniform corrosion, pitting,
and crevice corrosion) can be identified with typical AE feature sig-
nals. However, related studies on the description of stress corro-
sion mechanisms in bridge cables according to AE signals and
identification of the damage source at different stages are rela-
tively scarce. AE is influenced by the signal characteristics and
attenuation properties of bridge cables. Uncertainty is also an
important issue in damage classification. Uncertainty exists in
material properties, sensor characteristics, noise and nucleation,
and evolution [15]. Different damage sources are affected by one
another. Distinguishing the different stages of damage in a corrod-
ing structure is difficult when the traditional AE analysis method is
utilized. For the cluster algorithm, the most frequently used meth-
ods are k-means, self-organized map combined with k-means, and
fuzzy-c means algorithm. The k-means algorithm is the simplest
and most effective method for AE signal clustering. Cluster analysis
includes three main steps: AE characteristic parameter extraction,
clustering algorithm selection, and validation of the defined clus-
ters [16,17]. Calabrese [18] proposed a combination of principal
component analysis and self-organizing map algorithms as a new
procedure to identify the progression of different damage mecha-
nisms in pre-stressed concrete beams. Johnson [19] developed a
new AE uncorrelated feature to solve the dependency of the clus-
tering process on varying parameters. With the AE signal differ-
ence, Máthis et al. [18] identified plastic deformation and crack
propagation during stress corrosion cracking of stainless steel. Li
et al. [21] adopted k-means clustering to study the stress corrosion
process of 304 stainless steel for AE signal classification. Several
researchers applied the signal process method to identify different
corrosion sources. Piotrkowski et al. [22] studied corroded galva-
nized steel through wavelet and bi-spectrum analyses of AE
signals.
In the current study, a stress corrosion experiment was con-
ducted on steel wires used in bridge cables. The AE characteristic
signal at different damage stages was obtained. A particle swarm
optimization cluster algorithm was proposed to obtain the AE
characteristic signal and determine the corrosion mechanisms of
different damage sources. Subsequently, to improve the effect of
clustering, a particle swarm optimization clustering algorithm
based on principal component analysis was introduced.
2. AE particle swarm optimization cluster algorithm
2.1. Basic principle of the particle swarm optimization cluster
algorithm
The shortcoming of conventional clustering algorithms is that
they easily fall into the local optima. In this paper, a global optimal
particle swarm cluster algorithm is presented. Particle swarm opti-
mization can produce collective intelligence to guide the optimal
23
search through cooperation and competition between particles.
The solutions of each generation exhibit double excellence: self-
learning for individual improvement and learning from others.
Thus, the algorithm can obtain the optimal solution after a few
iterations only.
Given an n-dimensional space containing m particles z = {z1,
z2, . . . , zm}, each particle can be considered the solution of one
combinational optimization problem, and the position coordinates
of each particle are denoted by zi = {zi1, zi2, . . . , zin}. Each particle
has a unique direction of motion denoted by Vi = {vi1, vi2, . . . , vin}.
The entire particle swarm moves in the solution space. The parti-
cles adjust their location to search for a new solution through local
and global extrema. During the motion, each particle searches and
records the optimal solution, which is denoted by Pid (local optimal
extremum). The best solution identified by all particles is denoted
by Pgd (global optimal extremum). When these two optimal solu-
tions are found, the updating displacement–velocity formula is
obtained as follows:
v id ðt þ 1Þ ¼ w  v id ðtÞ þ g1  randðÞ  ðPid  zid ðtÞÞ þ g2  randðÞ
 ðPgd  zid ðtÞÞ; ð1Þ
zid ðt þ 1Þ ¼ zid ðtÞ þ v id ðt þ 1Þ; ð2Þ
where vid(t + 1) is the speed of the ith particle in the dth dimension
during the (t + 1)th iteration. To prevent particles from moving too
fast, speed limit Vmax is necessary. When vid(t + 1) > vmax, vid(t + 1)
= vmax; when vid(t + 1) < vmax, vid(t + 1) = vmax. This transforma-
tion can be realized with Formula (3).
wmax  wmin
w ¼ wmax  iter  ; ð3Þ
itermax
where iter denotes the current number of iterations and iter max
denotes the default maximum number of iterations. w represents
inertia weight, which can be utilized to help a particle maintain
its inertia. If w = 0, the speed of a particle will not have memorabil-
ity. The particle swarm will directly shrink to the current global
optimal position and lose the ability to conduct subsequent
searches. As a general rule, w is a random number between 0 and
1. g1 and g2 are the acceleration constant and the speed regulation
parameter. They denote the acceleration weight of particles moving
to extreme points Pid and Pgd, and rand() is a random number
between 0 and 1.
The preceding formula shows that velocity updating of particles
has three parts. The updating mechanism is shown in Fig. 1. The
three parts are as follows:
(1) a particle’s original speed, vid(t);
(2) the direction between the particle and the best position it
has experienced, Pid–zid(t);
(3) the direction between the particle and the best position all
the particles have experienced, Pgd–zid(t).
Pgd
n2*rand
Zid˄t˅
Vid˄t+1˅
Zid˄t+1˅
n1*rand˄˅
w
Vid˄t˅
Pid
Fig. 1. Schematic of particle update.
24 D. Li et al. / Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31
The specific flow of solving the clustering issue through particle
swarm optimization was as follows.
(1) The sample data were inputted, the particle swarm was ini-
tialized, and clustering number M and number of particles m
were determined. The initial speed of the center of the par-
ticle swarm was set to 0, and the fitness value of each parti-
cle was calculated according to the initial data.
(2) The personal best position of each particle Pid and the global
best position Pgd were obtained according to the initial data.
(3) The velocity and position of particles were updated accord-
ing to Pid and Pgd.
(4) A code was created according to the particles’ center of clus-
tering, and a cluster partition was applied to each sample
based on the nearest neighbor rule.
(5) The new center of clustering and the fitness value of the new
particle were recalculated according to the relevant cluster
partition.
(6) The personal best position of each particle Pid and the global
best position Pgd of the particle swarm were updated.
(7) If the terminal condition has not been met, return to the
third step and perform iterations.
3. Experiment
3.1. Experimental setup
To examine the stress corrosion features of steel wires in cable
bridges, a type of steel strand with a diameter of 15.2 mm (1  7
strands) and ultimate strength standard value of 1860 MPa was
utilized as the experimental specimen. The chemical constitution
of the steel wire is shown in Table 1. Stress level was controlled
to about 20% of the ultimate strength. The experimental measuring
system is shown in Fig. 2. NaCl solution (5%) was adopted as the
corrosive medium. To accelerate the corrosion rate of steel wires,
stable direct current was applied to the outside of the steel wires.
The steel wires were connected to the positive pole, and the copper
sheet was connected to the negative pole and soaked in the solu-
tion. The corrosive current was 0.2 A.
3.2. AE monitoring system
The AE monitoring system utilized in this experiment was
SAMOSTM, which is a third-generation digital multi-channel AE
detection analysis system produced by Physical Acoustics Corpo-
ration (PAC) in America. The sensor adopted in this experiment
was a broadband sensor called PICO produced by PAC. The fre-
quency of the sensor is approximately 100–1000 kHz. During
the experiment, both ends of the steel wires were clamped by
anchorage, and pre-stress was loaded. The middle part of the
steel wires (approximately 10 cm long) was soaked in the 5%
NaCl solution, and the AE sensors were placed in the steel wires
about 10 cm away from the corrosion box. The specific laying
method is as follows: polish the steel wires, smear the coupling
agent on the steel wires, and fix the sensor on the steel wires
with adhesive tape. During the experiment, the AE monitoring
system was utilized to collect and record the AE signal produced
during the corrosion process of steel wires. Before this
Table 1
Chemical compositions (wt.%) of the steel wires.
Compositions C Si
wt.% 0.75–0.85 0.12–0.32
experiment, a lead-break experiment was conducted for demar-
cation to ensure the sensitivity of each sensor and eliminate
environmental noise. The parameter settings of the AE
monitoring system are shown in Table 2.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. AE parameter of steel wire corrosion in bridge cables
The typical AE characteristic signal was recorded throughout
the entire experimental process of steel wire stress corrosion.
The AE characteristic parameters are shown in Fig. 3.
As shown in Fig. 3, the entire experiment produced sufficient AE
signals. Three AE characteristic parameter figures present consis-
tency and regularity. These AE characteristic parameters can effec-
tively describe the process of steel wire stress corrosion in bridge
cables. The AE accumulated hits, counts, and energy increased
slowly at the beginning; at the end of the corrosion stage, the AE
accumulated features increased sharply. The stress corrosion of
steel wires can be divided into three stages. The first stage
appeared in the 0–27 h period, in which AE signals were relatively
stable. The signals mainly originated from passive film breakdown
of steel wires and detachment of the corrosion product, corrosive
pitting initiation, and rapid release of hydrogen bubbles. Anode
reaction was promoted because of the existence of activated anio-
nic (e.g., Cl). Meanwhile, cathode reaction was promoted by the
oxidant. Thus, pitting, which is also a source of stress corrosion,
existed in the steel wires. This stage is called the corrosion crack
initiation stage. The second stage occurred in the 27–50 h period
with an increasing number of AE characteristic parameters. The
passive film outside the specimen broke again and led to stress
concentration in corrosive pitting. The micro cracks induced by
stress concentration are likely to cause anode dissolution and cap-
ture H from the acidification area at the crack tip. The existence of
H accelerated the initialization and extension of cracks in the pit-
ting flaw. Cracks initialized at the bottom of the corrosion pit
and extended to the deep part when the value of AE presented
intermittent changes. This stage is called the crack extension stage.
With the increasing number of corrosion cracks, the sectional area
of the corrosion pit decreased continuously. Under the effect of
stress, a large AE event occurred after 36 h. One wire exhibited
fracture. Afterward, many corrosion pits produced AE signals from
crack extension under the effect of stress. When time reached 80 h,
the AE characteristic parameters increased sharply within a short
time. All the wires ruptured, and this stage is called the fracture
stage.
4.2. Steel wire stress corrosion in bridge cables by AE signal cluster
analysis
Stress corrosion in bridge cables is not only a simple deepening
process of one type of corrosion pattern but is also a complex evo-
lution process composed of many corrosion types. These different
types of corrosion patterns might intersect mutually. Thus, fully
distinguishing among these types cannot be realized through
whole-process monitoring only. If we only depend on the overall
analysis of signals, we cannot discuss the stress corrosion evolution
mechanism comprehensively. To fully utilize the advantages of AE,
Mn P S Cu
0.60–0.90 60.025 60.025 60.20
 D. Li et al. / Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31 25

Fig. 2. Experiment testing system.

Table 2
AE monitoring system parameter setup.

Threshold (dB) Pre-amplifier (dB) Sample Rate (MHz) PDT (ls) HDT (ls) HLT (ls)
40 20 5 200 800 1000

time-accumulated hits
800 x 10 4 time –accumulated counts
3.5

3
600
2.5
Counts

2
Hits

400
1.5

200 1

0.5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time (h) time (h)

(a) Accumulated hits vs. time (b) Accumulated counts vs. time
time-accumulated energy
7000

6000
Energy (Eu)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time (h)

(c) Accumulated energy vs. time

Fig. 3. AE characteristic parameter of steel wire stress corrosion.

we need to distinguish the different types of corrosion and their technologies (e.g., clustering signal and pattern recognition) to
corresponding AE signals, provide more detailed reference to test further process the AE signal collected in the experiment and
corrosion, investigate the corrosion mechanism, and apply other identify the sources and features of the corrosion.
26
The particle swarm optimization cluster analysis mentioned in
Section 2 was adopted in this study. The common AE clustering
parameters are count, amplitude, energy, rise time, duration, aver-
age frequency, and so on. The clustering number must be deter-
mined before using the particle swarm optimization cluster
method. The commonly used evaluation indexes are DBI index
and the distance cost function. DBI was selected as the index to
determine the clustering number (minimum value of the DBI
index) in this study. DBI can be calculated as follows:
8 8 99
> >
>
< min dðx; yÞ >
>
< >>
=>
=
x2ci ;y2cj
DIðcÞ ¼ min min 

i2c >
>j2c;i–j>
> >>
: :max maxdðx; yÞ >
;>
;
k2c x;y2c
As shown in Fig. 4, the source of stress corrosion in bridge
cables can be divided into four categories, which is highly consis-
tent with the change rule of AE characteristic parameters of stress
corrosion in bridge cables.
The steel wire stress corrosion clustering distribution figures
of the different AE characteristic parameters are shown in
Fig. 5. The AE signal of a steel wire can be divided into four cat-
egories. When cluster 1 (pink) shows a continuous upward
trend, count, energy, duration, and amplitude are at a low level;
however, the average frequency is distributed dispersedly. The
explanation for this phenomenon is the electro-chemical dissolu-
tion of steel wires and the initialization and cracking of hydro-
gen gas bubbles, which generates many signals. The corrosion
is active at this stage. The corrosive pit and corrosion products
on the surface of the steel wires are highly consistent with those
described in Ref. [18]. Cluster 2 (green) is similar to cluster 1 in
terms of the distribution regularities of AE characteristic param-
eters, but they are different in terms of frequency range. The
reason is that the corrosion products adhere to and fall off the
steel wires alternately and thus form a relatively stable packed
structure attached to the steel wires. When the production accu-
mulates to a certain degree, a local occlusion galvanic cell is
formed, which leads to local sour corrosion and hydrogen
release. When the corrosion products fall off, the release of
hydrogen bubbles can stop the local occlusion galvanic battery
reaction. This constitutes the almost simultaneous process of
uplifting and release of hydrogen bubbles and corrosion sedi-
ments. In short, cluster 1 shares many similar signal features
with cluster 2, but cluster 2 contains several high-frequency sig-
nals from the dropping of corrosion products and low-frequency
signals from homogeneous corrosion. The rise time, count,
energy, duration, and amplitude of cluster 3 (blue) are higher
than those of the former two signals. Its frequency is also lower,
and it is more likely to occur in a later period than the former
45
40
DBI value
35
30
25
20
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
K damage evolution process of stress corrosion in bridge cables
Fig. 4. DBI values as a function of the number of clusters, k.
D. Li et al. / Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31
two signals because the signals produced at the stage where
stress corrosion cracks appear develop rapidly. Each parameter
of cluster 4 (red) is higher than that in the other categories.
The feature of this cluster is that each of the parameters is at
a high level, except for frequency, and the corresponding time
mainly occurs near the end of the experiment because the signal
originates from the unstable development and fracture of cracks
in steel wires. The AE characteristic parameters of the different
clusters are shown in Table 3.
To compare the clustering results of particle swarm optimiza-
tion with those of popular k-means, the steel wire stress corrosion
k-means clustering distribution figures of the typical AE character-
ð4Þ
istic parameters are shown in Fig. 6.
As shown in Figs. 5 and 6, the AE characteristic parameter
clustering results of K-means have more coincident places than
those of the particle swarm optimization method. The cluster
bounds for different damage sources are not obvious. They
easily fall into a local optimum and exhibit low computing
efficiency.
The different sources of stress corrosion stage damage on the
steel wires are shown in Fig. 7.
5. Particle swarm optimization cluster analysis based on
principal component analysis
Fig. 5 shows that although the particle swarm optimization
cluster algorithm can effectively classify the AE sources of stress
corrosion in steel wires, the AE characteristic parameter figures
still contain many coincident places. The reason for this phe-
nomenon is that several correlations exist among the AE charac-
teristic parameters. Principal component analysis was thus
conducted on the AE characteristic parameters to project data
with multi-dimensional characteristics onto a few comprehensive
feature spaces; this procedure can reduce the correlation among
different features. On the one hand, calculation complexity can
be significantly reduced. On the other hand, each principal com-
ponent feature with a high rate of contribution can be identified.
Through projection transformation, several comprehensive factors
were selected to represent the original data. These comprehensive
factors represent the initial data as much as possible and are rel-
atively independent from one another. Then, the AE data sub-
jected to principal component analysis were clustered with the
particle swarm method. Table 4 lists the cross-correlation coeffi-
cients of seven typical AE features. AE rise time, amplitude, and
signal strength are weakly correlated with the other AE features,
which means that they are almost independent from other AE
features; peak frequency is strongly correlated with AE count,
energy, and duration. In summary, as obtained from the correla-
tion analysis, the selected features for steel wires stress corrosion
were AE rise time, amplitude, signal strength, and peak fre-
quency; these were used for PCA analysis in the clustering
process.
The first three-order principal components whose principal
component contributor rates reached 91% were selected for
the analysis. The contribution rate of the first three-order prin-
cipal components is 51.7%, 23.9%, and 16.4%. The relationship
between principal component 1 and time change is shown in
Fig. 8.
To understand the distribution structure of the data further,
we observed the distribution in the principal component space
(Fig. 9).
27 30 The cluster analysis result can make the AE source and
clearer (Fig. 9). Stress corrosion damage can be divided into
three stages: crack initialization, crack extension, and fracture
 D. Li et al. / Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31 27

3000 3000

Rise-time( s)
Rise-time(us)
2000 2000

1000 1000

0
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Duration( s) 4
Counts x 10

(a) Count and rise-time (b) Duration and rise-time

3000 3000

Rise-time( s)
Rise-time( s)

2000 2000

1000
1000

0
0 40 60 80 100
0 200 400 600 Amplidute (dB)
Energy (Eu)

(c) Energy and rise-time (d) Amplitude and rise-time

600 2000

1500
Energy (Eu)

Counts

400
1000
200 500

0 0
40 60 80 100 40 60 80 100
Amplitude dB Amplitude(dB)

(e) Amplitude and energy (f) Amplitude and count

4
100 x 10
2
Amplitude(dB)

1.5
Duration( s)

80

1
60
0.5

40 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Average frequency (KHz) Average frequency(KHz)

(h) Average frequency and amplitude (i) Average frequency and amplitude

Fig. 5. AE characteristic parameter cluster analysis of steel wire stress corrosion.

Table 3
Mean value of AE characteristic parameters of the different clusters.

Rise time, ls Count Energy Duration, ls Amplitude, dB Average frequency, kHz

First class 125 16 14 1521 47 538
Second class 275 102 20 2462 58 275
Third class 494 413 52 5430 64 184
Fourth class 637 697 276 13,020 75 115
28 D. Li et al. / Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31

Fig. 6. AE characteristic parameter k-means cluster analysis of steel wire stress corrosion.

Hydrogen bubbles

Passivation film rupture

Pitting initiation

(a) First stage (corrosion crack initiation stage)

Crack extension
Passivation film rupture

(b) Second stage ( crack extension stage)

All the wires fracture

One wire fracture

(c) Third stage (steel wires fracture stage)

Fig. 7. Different stress corrosion stage damage sources of steel wires.

Table 4
Cross correlation coefficient of different AE features.

Rise time Count Energy Duration Amplitude Peak frequency Signal strength
Rise time 1.0000 0.4717 0.4170 0.4838 0.2314 0.4787 0.0800
Count 0.4717 1.0000 0.9646 0.9946 0.4438 0.9748 0.0093
Energy 0.4170 0.9646 1.0000 0.9595 0.3831 0.9236 0.0092
Duration 0.4838 0.9946 0.9595 1.0000 0.4814 0.9638 0.0140
Amplitude 0.2314 0.4438 0.3831 0.4814 1.0000 0.3251 0.0191
Peak frequency 0.4787 0.9748 0.9236 0.9638 0.3251 1.0000 0.0123
Signal strength 0.0800 0.0093 0.0092 0.0140 0.0191 0.0123 1.0000

12
10
10 Principal Component
8
6
4
2
0 cable stress corrosion source can be classified into four types. To
-2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time s
Fig. 8. Time distribution of principal component 1.
of steel wires. Different damage stages have typical AE features.
Fig. 9 shows the change in the AE characteristic parameters of
stress corrosion damage in steel wires and the time when wire
fracture occurred. Combined analysis of Fig. 9a, b, and c shows
that the four types of damage sources were separated com-
pletely after principal component cluster analysis. The correlo-
gram of components 1 and 2 reveals that the four types of
damage sources presented an apparent spatial distribution. In
addition, clusters 1 and 2 always shared similar signal features.
The characteristic value was relatively low and the number was
large, which further testifies that they resulted from the break-
down and detachment of the passive film in steel wires, nucle-
ation of cracks in corrosive pitting, existence of hydrogen, and
release and fracture of hydrogen bubbles. However, cluster 1
has a large component on the axis of cluster 2 mainly because
the average frequency of the cluster 1 signal was distributed
widely. With the increase in corrosion time, the cracks of
10
20 Principal Component
5
0
-5
-20
10 Principal Component
D. Li et al. / Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31 29
corrosion pitting extended constantly, the crevice accumulated
constantly, and the number of AE characteristic parameters
increased significantly. The signal of cluster 3 played a domi-
nant role. In the last stage of corrosion, the steel wires frac-
tured and thus produced a large amount of AE signals
(cluster 4).
6. AE characteristic waveform of bridge cable stress corrosion
According to the cluster results in Sections 4 and 5, the bridge
better understand the different corrosion types of AE characteristic
3 3.5 parameter distribution, a different cluster AE waveform was
5 extracted and is shown in Fig. 10.
x 10
A distinct difference was observed in the different cluster
AE waveforms in Fig. 10. The steel wire surface pitting
corrosion propagation signals were mainly continuous AE
waveforms with a peak frequency of about 120–160 kHz. This
type of waveform was released throughout the entire experi-
ment, especially in the experiment initiation stage. The AE
waveform for the release of hydrogen bubbles and corrosion
products was similar and contained noise signals, and its
peak frequency range exhibited a wide distribution. It was
characterized by an AE waveform with a peak frequency of
50–2000 kHz and low amplitude. These signals also appeared
in the experiment initiation stage. Cluster 3’s AE signal was
mainly steel wire corrosion crack propagation. The AE
waveform peak frequency was about 200 kHz. This type of
waveform was observed mainly in the second experimental
stage. Cluster 4’s AE waveform with high amplitude was
attributed to steel wire corrosion failure in the third experi-
mental stage. Its peak frequency was about 250 kHz. Similar
results for different corrosion damage source AE waveform
peak frequencies were reported by Ramadan [23], whose
results showed that AE peak frequency is suitable for identify-
ing different corrosion damage sources.
30 Principal Component
5
0
-5
0 20 40 -20 0 20 40
10 Principal Component
(a ) (b)
5
30 Principal Component
-5
-5 0 5 10
20 Principal Component
(c)
Fig. 9. Principal component analysis result.
30 D. Li et al. / Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31

evolution rule of stress corrosion damage in bridge cables. The evo-

Amplitude (mv)

0.1
lution of acoustic activity during the tests supports the presence of
0 three stages: crack initialization, crack extension, and fracture of
the bridge cable. With the increase in corrosion time, AE activeness
-0.1
-5 0 5 10 15 increased. When the steel wires broke, amplitude and energy were
Time(s) x 10-4 both high. Several stress corrosion mechanisms were analyzed
x 10-3
4 based on the different corrosion stages of AE features and particle
Amplitude

swarm optimization clustering and principal component analysis

2 results. The main acoustic sources of stress corrosion in bridge
cables involve four stages: passive film breakdown of the cable
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 and detachment of the corrosion product, existence of hydrogen
Frequency (KHz) and release and fracture of hydrogen bubbles, crack extension,
and cable fracture. Different cluster AE waveforms were extracted.
(a) Typical AE waveform of steel wire surface pitting corrosion In the three different damage stages, AE peak frequency was about
0.05 120–160, 200, and 250 kHz.
Amplitude (mv)

0
Acknowledgements
-0.05
-5 0 5 10 15
Time (s) x 10
-4 The authors are grateful for the financial support from National
x 10-4 Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant Nos.
4
51278083 and 51478079, the Fundamental Research Funds for
Amplitude

2 the Central Universities (Project No. DUT15LAB11) and Science

and Technology Project of Fujian Province (Grant No. 2012Y0021).
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
References
Frequency (KHz)
(b) Typical AE waveform for releasing of hydrogen bubble and corrosion products [1] V. Périera, L. Dieng, L. Gaillet, Fretting-fatigue behaviour of bridge engineering
cables in a solution of sodium chloride, Wear 267 (2009) 308–314.
0.05
[2] G.C. Sih, X.S. Tang, Z.X. Li, et al., Fatigue crack growth behavior of cables and
Amplitude (mv)

steel wires for the cable-stayed portion of Runyang bridge: disproportionate

0 loosening and/or tightening of cables, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 49 (2009) 1–
25.
[3] H. Li, J.P. Ou, Z. Zhou, Applications of optical fibre Bragg gratings sensing
-0.05 technology-based smart stay cables, Opt. Laser Technol. 47 (2009) 1077–1084.
-5 0 5 10 15
Time(s) x 10
-4 [4] G.A. Washer, Developments for the non-destructive evaluation of highway
x 10-3 bridges in the USA, NDT&E Int. 31 (4) (1998) 245–249.
1
[5] R. Christen, A. Bergamini, M. Motavalli, Three-dimensional localization of
Amplitude

defects in stay cables using magnetic flux leakage methods, J. Nondestr. Eva. 22
0.5 (3) (2003) 93–101.
[6] J. Martin, K.J. Broughton, A. Giannopolous, Ultrasonic tomography of grouted
duct post-tensioned reinforced concrete bridge beams, NDT&E Int. 34 (2001)
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 107–113.
Frequency (KHz) [7] W.X. Ren, G. Chen, W.H. Hu, Empirical formulas to estimate cable tension by
cable fundamental frequency, Struct. Eng. Mech. 20 (3) (2005) 363–380.
(c) Typical AE waveform for steel wire corrosion crack propagation [8] S. Ramadan, L. Gaillet, C. Tessier, et al., Detection of stress corrosion cracking of
high-strength steel used in prestressed concrete structures by acoustic
0.1
Amplitude (mv)

emission technique, Appl. Surf. Sci. 254 (2008) 2255–2261.

[9] K.E. Mohamed, P.H. Ziehl, L. Aaron, et al., Acoustic emission monitoring for
0 assessment of prestressed concrete beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 58 (2014) 46–
53.
[10] A.E. Hisham, P. Rhys, M.H. Karen, Damage assessment of corrosion in
-0.1 prestressed concrete by acoustic emission, Constr. Build. Mater. 40 (2013)
-5 0 5 10 15
Time (s) x 10
-4 925–933.
-3
x 10 [11] K. Yuma, W. Shota, O. Takahisa, Evaluation for RC specimen damaged from
3
rebar corrosion by acoustic emission technique, Constr. Build. Mater. 67
Amplitude

2 (2014) 157–164.
[12] J. Xu, X.Q. Wu, E.H. Han, Acoustic emission response of sensitized 304 stainless
1 steel during intergranular corrosion and stress corrosion cracking, Corros. Sci.
0
73 (2013) 262–273.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 [13] G. Du, J. Li, W.K. Wang, Detection and characterization of stress-corrosion
Frequency (KHz) cracking on 304 stainless steel by electrochemical noise and acoustic emission
techniques, Corros. Sci. 53 (2011) 2918–2926.
(d) Typical AE waveform for steel wire corrosion failure [14] J. Xu, X.Q. Wu, E.H. Han, Acoustic emission during pitting corrosion of 304
stainless steel, Corros. Sci. 53 (2011) 1537–1546.
Fig. 10. Typical AE waveform for different cluster. [15] F. Alireza, C.M. Anastasios, E.M. Theodore, et al., Fracture mode identification
in cementitious materials using supervised pattern recognition of acoustic
emission features, Constr. Build. Mater. 67 (2014) 129–138.
[16] Li Li, Stepan V. Lomov, Xiong Yan, Valter Carvelli, Cluster analysis of acoustic
7. Conclusions emission signals for 2D and 3D woven glass/epoxy composites, Compos.
Struct. 116 (2014) 286–299.
[17] M. Sause, A. Gribov, A. Unwin, S. Horn, Pattern recognition approach to identify
The AE characteristic parameters of different damage sources natural clusters of acoustic emission signals, Pattern Recogn. Lett. 33 (2012)
were obtained by combining an AE monitoring experiment on 17–23.
stress corrosion in bridge cables with particle swarm optimization [18] L. Calabrese, G. Campanella, E. Proverbio, Identification of corrosion
mechanisms by univariate and multivariate statistical analysis during long
cluster analysis to reveal the stress corrosion mechanism. AE time- term acoustic emission monitoring on a pre-stressed concrete beam, Corros.
accumulated hits, counts, and energy, can effectively reveal the Sci. 73 (2013) 161–171.
 D. Li et al. / Ultrasonics 77 (2017) 22–31 31

[19] M. Johnson, Waveform based clustering and classification of AE transients in
composite laminates using principal component analysis, NDT & E Int. 35 (6)
(2002) 367–376.
[21] J. Li, G. Du, C. Jiang, S. Jin, The classification of acoustic emission signals of 304
stainless steel during stress corrosion process based on k-means clustering,
Anti-Corros. Meth. Mater. 59 (2012) 76–80.
[22] Piotrkowski, E. Castro, A. Gallego, Wavelet power, entropy and bispectrum
applied to AE signals for damage identification and evaluation of corroded
galvanized steel, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 23 (2009) 432–445.
[23] S. Ramadan, L. Gaillet, C. Tessier, H. Idrissi, Detection of stress corrosion
cracking of high-strength steel used in prestressed concrete structures by
acoustic emission technique, Appl. Surf. Sci. 254 (2008) 2255–2261.