Condition monitoring of structures: a
Engrs Structs &
briefing note for clients and owners
J. R. Maguire, BSc, PhD, CEng, FICE, FIStructE
& This brie®ng note provides a short intro-
duction to condition monitoring of struc-
tures. It is intended primarily for clients
and owners but will also be of use to
designers, contractors and maintenance
organizations.
Keywords: buildings, structure & design;
maintenance & inspection; structural
frameworks
What is condition monitoring?
The objective of condition monitoring is to
collect and assess data from the structure being
monitored to ensure it maintains the integrity
of the design, construction and operation. Con-
dition monitoring is de®ned here as periodic or
continuous monitoring of a structure which is
subject to change.
2. Condition monitoring is characterized by
the collection and processing of information
resulting in advice in the form of an alarm,
alert, remedial action or report. Condition
monitoring provides the data to allow an
assessment of a structure's ability to ful®l its
function throughout its life cycle.
3. For maximum bene®ts a condition-
monitoring system should be considered at the
very beginning of the life cycle and should
operate throughout the life of the structure.
Often initial designs are conservativeÐa
condition-monitoring system can allow assess-
ment of these conservatisms throughout the life
cycle, thereby aiding either life extension or
reassessment to carry increased loadings.
4. It should be noted that there are other
terms which can be considered to be equivalent
to condition monitoring, including ongoing
NDT (non-destructive testing), ongoing NDE
(non-destructive evaluation), ongoing health
monitoring, in-service inspection and surveil-
lance programmes.
Why consider condition monitoring?
5. There are safety, economic, environmen-
tal, legislative and other reasons for designing,
installing and operating a condition-monitoring
system. This section gives a brief overview of
these matters.
Safety
6. Persons using or operating a structure
may be placed at considerable risk as a direct
result of failure which might have been pre-
Downloaded by [ University of Ottawa Library System] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Proc. Instn Civ.
Bldgs, 1999, 134,
Aug., 279 ± 280
Technical Note 11827
Written discussion
closes 26 November
vented by a condition-monitoring system. 1999
Others may be at risk because of consequent
hazards.
Economic (financial and performance)
7. As well as possible loss of revenue
caused by a failure, adverse public reaction can
a€ect future trading pro®tability. The cost of
redesigning and replacing structures, together
with any collateral damage caused at failure
and increased insurance premiums, must also
be considered. If the likely occurrence of fail-
ures is reduced by providing information on
defects, weaknesses or failure probabilities,
structures can be operated more economically
and maintenance costs can be reduced (by
reducing the maintenance requirement and/or
extending the maintenance interval).
8. Signi®cant ®nancial bene®ts can also
accrue from extending the life of structures.
This issue is growing in importance across a
range of industries and throughout the infra-
structure, and may require the deployment of
condition-monitoring systems as an important
part of the life extension strategy.
Environmental
9. Leakage of hazardous material from
failed containment structures can cause both
short- and long-term environmental damage
and can generate severe adverse publicity.
There may also be legal repercussions from
such an incident. Other related issues to be
considered include depletion of resources, use
of space, inappropriate use of resources, etc. As
well as `uncontrolled' emissions such as
leakage, a condition-monitoring system may be
required to monitor `controlled' environmental
pollution to ensure that it remains within
agreed limits.
Legal
10. Licensing bodies often require a demon-
stration of acceptable safety limits for critical
structures. In this case, condition monitoring,
as part of an integrated strategy, is essential.
This combined safety/legal requirement is now
growing.
11. In many cases economics seem to have
been the principal `driver'. However, economics,
particularly improved maintenance, should not J. R. Maguire, Lloyd's
be seen as the sole justi®cation for condition Register, Technical
monitoring. Whereas `owners' may be driven by Investigation
performance/maintenance reasons, `regulators' Department, Croydon
279
 MAGUIRE
Table 1. Bene®ts and costs of condition monitoring
Bene®ts
Increased service life (eciency)
Improved operational safety and pro®tability
Reduced frequency/severity of in-service failures
Identi®cation of design improvements/feedback into
standards
Reduced repair/maintenance costs
Energy savings
(such as classi®cation societies) may be driven
by safety/®nancial reasons.
What are the benefits and costs?
12. Condition monitoring must be assessed
on the bene®ts and costs involved. Table 1
lists commonly quoted bene®ts and costs of
condition-monitoring systems.
What should be monitored?
13. Condition monitoring involves the mea-
surement of a number of structural parameters.
These are often classi®ed as either physical,
electrical or chemical parameters. Some of the
most commonly measured ones are listed below
in alphabetical order.
. acceleration
. corrosion
. current
. displacement
. load
. lubricant composition
. oxidation
. pressure
. strain (displacement)
. temperature
. velocity
. vibration
. voltage (potential di€erence)
. wear
14. The choice of parameters depends on
those which best characterize the operation of
the structure and likely faults to be monitored.
This may vary depending on industry codes,
standards and/or experience in a particular
industry or type of system, the criticality of the
system, the cost of ®tting sensors and the
potential cost bene®t.
Where should I go for more information?
15. Although there is currently a wealth of
Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to The Publisher: email:
Wilson_l@ice.org.uk; fax: 0171 799 1325; or post to Lesley Wilson, Journals
Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1±7 Great George Street, London
SW1P 3AA.
280
Downloaded by [ University of Ottawa Library System] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Costs
Design (preliminary and detailed studies)
Procurement (equipment selection and purchase)
Installation and commissioning
Operational (ongoing)
Personnel training (measurement and evaluation)
Related organization changes (e.g. rede®nition of
maintenance department role)
material available relating to the condition
monitoring of machinery there is a relative lack
of information regarding structures. Some
references listed below are suggested, for
general reading 1±4 and for structure-speci®c
reading. 5±8
Acknowledgement
16. Much of the material contained in this
brie®ng note is derived from the DTA Condi-
tion Monitoring Primer 2 and is reproduced with
the permission of the Dynamic Testing Agency.
References
1. R A O B. K. N. Handbook of Condition Monitoring.
Elsevier Science, 1996, 1st edn.
2. D Y N A M I C T E S T I N G A G E N C Y . DTA Condition Mon-
itoring Primer. Dynamic Testing Agency, London,
1995.
3. M C G O W N S., W R I G H T H. D., I N N E S J. and M I C H I E C.
Integrated, multilevel condition monitoring of
structures. The Structural Engineer, 1997, 75, No.
6, 91±94.
4. M C G O W N S., W R I G H T H. D., I N N E S J. and M I C H I E C.
Integrated, multilevel condition monitoring of
structures [discussion]. The Structural Engineer,
1997, 75, No. 14, 245±257.
5. M O S S R. M. and M A T T H E W S S. L. In-service
structural monitoring: a state of the art review.
The Structural Engineer, 1995, 73, No. 2, 23±31.
6. M O S S R. M. and M A T T H E W S S. L. In-service
structural monitoring: a state of the art review
[discussion]. The Structural Engineer, 1995, 73,
No. 13, 214±217.
7. F EÂ D EÂ R A T I O N I N T E R N A T I O N A L E D E L A P R EÂ C O N -
T R A I N T E . Inspection and Maintenance of Re-
inforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures: FIP
Guide to Good Practice. Thomas Telford, London,
1986.
8. I N S T I T U T I O N O F S T R U C T U R A L E N G I N E E R S . Apprai-
sal of Existing Structures. Institution of Struc-
tural Engineers, London, 1996, 2nd edn.