Evaluation of Safety and Operational Efficiency using Structural Health

Monitoring Enhancement

Abstract. This research examines the importance of structural health monitoring in maintaining the safety and
operational effectiveness of bridges, utilizing the North AL-Samawah Bridge as a case study. Transportation
infrastructure deterioration presents substantial issues that require routine monitoring in order to identify
structural defects as soon as possible. In order to assess the bridge's design safety and compliance with
structural regulations, the research makes use of cutting-edge sensor technologies and numerical modeling
tools such as CSI Bridge V.24. This research aims to offer significant insights for transportation network
security enhancement and infrastructure management by a comparative examination of simulation results and
real-world tests. The study's conclusions advance the more general objective of preserving excellent
infrastructure to promote economic growth and raise standard of living in general.

Keywords :structural health monitoring, bridge safety, infrastructure management, transportation networks,
numerical modeling, CSI bridge software.

1. INTRODUCTION:
The deterioration of transportation infrastructure is a matter of great importance for bridge designers and
researchers in every nation. It is essential to protect critical infrastructure networks in order to maintain a high
quality of life and promote economic growth. Regular monitoring of infrastructure safety is crucial to detect any
structural flaws caused by heavy loads or external factors and to take prompt remedial action. By doing so,
the cost of repairs and rehabilitation can be significantly reduced. A well-maintained infrastructure is necessary
for any nation that aims to ensure a high standard of living and foster economic development. Advances in
sensor technology have made long-term monitoring of structural systems practical and cost-effective[1], [2].
However, the uncertainties that arise during design, construction, and usage pose challenges for engineers
and organizations responsible for structural safety, maintenance, and operation . Therefore, the state of
transportation infrastructure is a crucial concern for researchers and designers of bridges[3] .The bridges in
operation today may have a number of structural issues These issues may compromise the bridge's safety
and operation. Loss of material, material degradation, discontinuity (breaking/cracking/fracture), deformation,
and displacement are the main forms of damage that compromise the mechanical performance of structures
[4] .Installing a system that can detect damage early on to the load bearing structure is a very intriguing option
to consider [5] .
That kind of consistent classification that could be used to any form of structure is one of the grounds of
management strategies or expert tools that are components of Bridge Management Systems. Monitoring and
analyzing structural displacement, for example, is critical for structural health monitoring (SHM) [6]. SHM
systems make use of novel sensing technologies that have emerged during the last two decades [7] .
In this context, this study aims to analyze the condition of a specific bridge using the CSI Bridge numerical
simulation program, in addition to conducting practical tests on the bridge itself. By comparing simulation
results with actual measurements, the safety of the bridge design will be evaluated and it is determined whether
it meets the approved requirements and specifications for structural safety and serviceability. This will help
provide valuable information to better manage infrastructure and ensure the quality and security of
transportation networks.
1. Characterization of Case Study
The north AL-Samawah Bridge is located in the city of AL-Samawah and is considered one of the most
important bridges in the city because it is located on a vital link road as in Figure 1.

Figure 1: site of the Al- samawah Bridge

The length of the North Samawah Bridge is 240 meters and its width is 16.5 metres. It consists of four
lanes, two lanes forward and two lanes backward. It consists of seven spaces, including four spaces with
simple support from precast concrete beams and three from a continuous steel beam above the three central
spaces with a length of 144 meters. The length of space 1,2,6,7 is 24 meters for each span , and the three
middle spaces 3,4,5 are 45,54,45 meters respectively as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 :side view for bridge

A- Concrete span
B- Steel span
Figure 3 : superstructure for bridge

2. Design load
The design load for this structure is based on the requirements to withstand the live loads generated by
Class 100 tracked vehicles, as outlined in the Iraqi Standard Standards for Road Bridges. The specific loading
pattern associated with this particular loading class involves a 907 kilonewton (KN) load. This means that the
structure is engineered and constructed to safely support the weight and forces exerted by vehicles of this
class, ensuring structural integrity and safety according to the specified standards and regulations.
3. Strategies for Instrumentation
A data acquisition system that collects data in accordance with the famous Arduino engineering software
LabView, which analyzes, processes, displays, and stores data at the same time[8]. shows how the 6 collecting
data ports and maximum collection rate of 80 samples per second per channel are configured on the data
gathering equipment as show in figure 4.

Figure 4 : A data acquisition

The researchers monitored and collected statistics on the bridge before installing the sensors. They found
that most of the loads pass through the eastern side of the bridge, specifically span No. 6, which carries the
concrete girder, and span No. 5, which carries the steel girder. They pointed out that 90% of trucks pass
through lane 1, while only 10% use lane 2 ,Based on these observations, the researchers chose to install the
sensors in the following locations: Concrete beam No. 6 and Steel Beam No. 5 extends on the east side of the
bridge, where these areas see the highest passage of large trucks.The data acquisition system has ports for
connecting 2 Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) displacement sensors as well as 2 strain gauge
mounted on the steel beam and concrete beam, respectively. By analyzing the data collected from these
sensors, it is possible to understand the behavior of the bridge and evaluate its condition Figure 6.

Figure 5: location static load test

 Figure 6 : location for LVDT

Static test was conducted to evaluate the bridge’s performance under daily traffic and test truck loading
conditions. The test vehicle used was a Mercedes-Benz SK 3544 8x4 tipper truck, weighing 30 tons loaded .
During static load tests, the truck was placed in sections 1-1 and 2-2 across both mid-spans (5 and 6) for
maximum load impact. The time history of the vehicle crossing the bridge in each travel lane was recorded.
Static load testing, which involves the use of vehicles with known axial weights to simulate the test load, is
commonly referred to as the most common form of load testing.

3. Constructing and Revising a Finite Element Framework

Bridge analysis and design have become simpler due to the availability of easy-to-use high-capacity
computational systems based on the finite element method (FEM). The )FEM) is one of the most common
methods in the analysis of engineering structures, as it allows the structure to be divided into small elements
(finite elements) to accurately analyze the behavior of the structure[9].
CSI Bridge software version 24 [10] was used to build a mathematical model using the (FEM)
based on technical documentation, building plans and structural specifications. This model includes accurate
material properties and dimensions and additional technical details from the data provided to analyze and
evaluate structural performance. The displacement and pressure results were simulated on the structure's
response to the applied loads and forces.
Real-time sensor data was used to improve the original mathematical model within the CSI Bridge software,
allowing updates to the (FEM). As a result, modifications were made to the model to improve facility
performance and enhance its overall safety .
The displacement obtained from the field experimental was compared with the requirements of AASHTO.

`.Figure 7 :FEM concret span and steel span

4. Static Behavior Evaluation

An essential understanding of each bridge girder's response to vehicle loads can be obtained from the load
test data. Basic observations allow pertinent performance comparisons between various girder situations,
particularly when more complicated behaviors occur. Comparing the measured data to the anticipated
responses from finite element modeling (FEM) and fundamental concepts of material strength is also helpful
in this process. To aid in the evaluation of the load test results, was isolate the behavior of the girders from
other structural bridge components. The girder reaction, which was thought to be most impacted by the moving
cars, was the study's main emphasis [11]. As such, the live load data analysis that follows focuses on
displacements that have been recorded. Furthermore, static evaluation is employed to evaluate the structure's
linear behavior[12].
Among the special design documents for the bridge, construction plans and ultimate design stresses were
used, as follows:
• cast in place concrete f’c 40 MPa
• prestressed concrete f’c 50 Mpa
• for steel structure fy 345 Mpa
• modules elasticity for steel E 210000 Mpa
• modules elasticity for concrete E 29000 Mpa
The purpose of creating a model in the FEM program is to match the results obtained from the experimental
test and update the modeling and be compatible with behaver the bridge.

6.Distribution Factors (DF)

Analyzing the load factor distribution across the structure is a crucial step towards evaluating the bridge's reaction and
load-bearing capabilities. The deflection data acquired for each girder, as explained in the table 1 above, may be used to
compute these factors. The load distribution factors (DF) which is calculated from equation (1&2) AASHTO 2017 (9)
which are essential for assessing the bridge's overall performance and load-bearing capability. The concrete and steel
space was loaded, as shown in the figure showing the location of the truck, where the static load was checked.
Finally, the (DF) is essential to evaluate the overall performance and load bearing capacity of the bridge. The results of
this study will provide valuable information about the behavior of the structure under actual loading conditions.
Table : 1 distribution factor
Spans DF
External span Inertial span
Concrete girder 0.43 0.43
Steel girder 0.9 0.9

𝑆 0.4 𝑆 0.3 𝐾𝑔 0.1

0.06 + (4300) (𝐿 ) (𝐿𝑡 3 ) ………………………….(1)
𝑠
S 0.6 S 0.2 Kg 0.1
0.075 + (2900) (L) (Lt3 ) ………….…………….(2)
s
Where is:
S = girder spacing (ft)
L = span length (ft)
ts = slab thickness (in.)
𝑘𝑔 = 𝑛(𝐼𝑔 + 𝑒𝑔2𝐴) ;
Kg = n(I + Aeg 2 )
n = modular ratio of girder and deck slab
𝐼𝑒 = moment of inertia of girder (in.4)
𝑒𝑔 = girder eccentricity, the distance from girder centroid to middle centroid of slab (in).
A = girder area (in.²)

By using equation (3)

𝑃𝑖
𝐷𝐹 = ∑𝑛 …………………………………….………………… (3)
𝑗=1 𝑃𝑗
p = displacement of girder
i, j = girder number

DISPLACEMENT AASHTO DISPLACEMENT AASHTO

1 0.6
DISTRIBUTION FACTOR(DF)
DISTRIBUTED FACTOR(FD)

0.8 0.5

0.6 0.4
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.2
0 0.1
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 0
STEEL GIRDER G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
CONCRETE GIRDER

Figure 8 : Distribution Factor for Experimental, FEM AND AASHT

5. Checking Deflection Limits

One of the primary tests used to assess how bridges behave under stress and ascertain whether or not
they satisfy serviceability standards is the deflection limit test. By dividing the span length by 800 [9],one may
find the allowed deflection limit, as per the AASHTO (2017)[13] standard .Since span 5 in the current research
example measured around 45 meters in length, the permitted deflection limit was roughly 56 millimeters. The
deflection limit for span 6, which measured 24 meters, was 25 mm. Both numerical models and experimental
testing techniques were used to track the maximum deflection values at the midpoint of these two spans[14].
Table (1) displays the observed values for span 5 (girder 2) and span 6 (girder 3) The recorded values for
static loading conditions were significantly lower than the previously indicated limits. The main reasons behind
this positive behavior are two key factors:
 Table 2: the deflection in span 5 and span 6

Cases Experimental FEM AASHTO

(mm) (mm) (mm)
Span5 8.5 8 25

Span 6 2.2 2 56

7.Conclusions
The maximum deflection values at static loading are well below lower than the L/800 limit derived from the
AASHTO code. Based on the results obtained from the use of static load status experimental data and the
improvement of the updated finite element model of the bridge, it is recommended that:
a. The updated (FEM) calibrated using experimental data is fully reliable and compatible ,and can be used
confidently for deeper bridge analysis.
b. The value of the (DF) in the case of static load was 0.35, which is less than 0.9 specified in the AASHTO
code, indicating that the bridge has structural efficiency above the standard requirements.
c. The updated (FEM) also provided a value of 0.35 for this coefficient, confirming the accuracy and reliability
of the results.
d. The maximum deflection values in the case of static load are significantly lower than the minimum derived
from the AASHTO code (L/800), indicating that the bridge has good bearing capacity and exceeds the
required standards.
Therefore, it is recommended that the updated (FEM) continue to be used in subsequent bridge analyzes and
relied upon to effectively evaluate performance and ensure structural integrity.

References
[1] Sharma N, Nocera F, Gardoni P. Classification and mathematical modeling of infrastructure
interdependencies. Sustain Resilient Infrastruct [Internet]. 2021;6(1–2):4–25. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2020.1753401
[2] Mondal TG, Chen G. Artificial intelligence in civil infrastructure health monitoring—Historical
perspectives, current trends, and future visions. Front Built Environ. 2022;8(September):1–24.
[3] Smolenski PJ. FIELD INSTRUMENTATION AND LIVE LOAD TESTING TO EVALUATE. 2004;(May).
[4] Kamiński T. Defects and Failures Influencing the Mechanical Performance of Bridge Structures.
Procedia Eng. 2016;161:1260–7.
[5] Kay Christian Ackermann. Self-Sensing Concrete for Structural Health Monitoring of Smart
Infrastructures. 2018;47. Available from: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/1285/
[6] Hosseiny B, Amini J, Aghababaei H. Structural displacement monitoring using ground-based synthetic
aperture radar. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf [Internet]. 2023;116(December 2022):103144 Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2022.103144
[7] Chen Z, Zhou X, Wang X, Dong L, Qian Y. Deployment of a smart structural health monitoring system
for long-span arch bridges: A review and a case study. Sensors (Switzerland). 2017;17(9).
[8] Marsh J, Dunlap C, Pierson S, Hu H. Introducing LabVIEW and Arduino as Data Acquisition System
Alternatives. 2024;
[9] Tina Jose EJESMBMT. IRJET- Structural Analysis and Reinforcement Design of a Simply Supported
Bridge at Edayar using CSiBridge Software. Irjet. 2021;8(9):1400–4.
[10] Jalalul Akbar S, Maizuar M, Yusuf K, Arfiandi J. Monitoring the Dynamic Behavior of PCI Bridges Using
Short Period Seismograph and CSI Bridge Modeling. Int J Eng Sci Inf Technol. 2021;1(4):51–8.
[11] Smolenski PJ. Field instrumentation and live load testing to evaluate behaviors of three reinforced
concrete bridge decks. Montana State University-Bozeman, College of Engineering; 2004.
[12] Kaloop MR, Kim KH, Elbeltagi E, Jin X, Hu JW. Service-life evaluation of existing bridges subjected to
static and moving trucks using structural health monitoring system: case study. KSCE J Civ Eng.
2020;24(5):1593–606.
[13] Units SI. AASHTO LRFD Bridge AASHTO LRFD Bridge. Transportation. 2007.
[14] Unsal I, Tokgoz S, Cagatay IH, Dundar C. A study on load-deflection behavior of two-span continuous
concrete beams reinforced with GFRP and steel bars. Struct Eng Mech. 2017;63(5):629–37.