Structural Health Monitoring (SHM)

  • Raffaele ZinnoEmail author
  • Serena Artese
  • Gabriele Clausi
  • Floriana Magarò
  • Sebastiano Meduri
  • Angela Miceli
  • Assunta Venneri
Part of the Internet of Things book series (ITTCC)


This work tries to fit structural health monitoring into the Internet of Things (IoT), the main topic of the research carried out in the context of the PON-DOMUS project [1]. The structural analysis has always used electrical and electronic methods for defining the deformation state of a structure. Examples are the displacement transducers, the strain gauges, the accelerometers. Here we have tried to coordinate and to connect the activities and the information of these sensors through the controls and the information transfer that allow the capabilities of IoT. The problems faced and solved by the other groups operating in the research project have also been transferred to the structural engineering part, thus allowing an on-line and real-time assessment of the structural health of the building and, therefore, an interaction with the subjects in charge maintenance or for the facilitation of the emergency management phases [2, 3].


  1. 1.
    F. Cicirelli, A. Guerrieri, G. Spezzano, A. Vinci, An edge-based platform for dynamic Smart City applications. Future Gen. Comput. Syst. 76, 106–118 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Fortino, P. Trunfio (eds.), Internet of Things Based on Smart Objects: Technology, Middleware and Applications (Springer International Publishing, 2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Guerrieri, V. Loscri, A. Rovella, G. Fortino (eds.), Management of Cyber Physical Objects in the Future Internet of Things. (Springer International Publishing, 2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Deruyter, M. Hennau, V. De Wolf, N. De Wulf, Approach for comparing design and as built models based on data acquisition using a 3rd terrestrial laser scanner, a case study. In: 4th International Workshop on 3rd Geo-Information, pp. 101–116 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    I. Lubowiecka, J. Armesto, P. Arias, H. Lorenzo, Historic bridge modelling using laser scanning, ground penetrating radar and finite element methods in the context of structural dynamics. Eng. Struct. 31, 2667–2676 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Artese, J.L. Lerma, G. Zagari, R. Zinno, The survey, the representation and the structural modeling of a dated bridge, in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Archaeology, Computer Graphics, Cultural Heritage and Innovation ‘Arqueológica 2.0’ in Valencia (Spain), 5–7 Sept 2016Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Detchev, A. Habib, M. El-Badry (2011) Case study of beam deformation monitoring using conventional close range photogrammetry. In: ASPRS 2011 Annual Conference. ASPRS. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Artese, V. Achilli, R. Zinno (2018) Monitoring of bridges by a laser pointer: dynamic measurement of support rotations and elastic line displacements: methodology and first test. Sensors 18(2), 338Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Vosselman, B.G. Gorte, G. Sithole, T. Rabbani, Recognising structure in laser scanner point clouds. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 46(8), 33–38 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H.M. Zogg, H. Ingensand, Terrestrial laser scanning for deformation monitoring—load tests on the felsenau viaduct (CH). Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. XXXVII(B5), 555–562 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    EN 12504–4:2005: Testing concrete in structures—Part 4: Determination of ultrasonic pulse velocityGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    EN 12504-2:2012: Testing concrete in structures—Part 2: Non-destructive testing - Determination of rebound numberGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EN 12504-3:2005: Testing concrete in structures—Part 3: Determination of pull-out forceGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM C900—06: Standard Test Method for Pullout Strength of Hardened ConcreteGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    EN 12504-1:2009: Testing concrete in structures—Part 1: Cored specimens—Taking, examining and testing in compressionGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R.D. Borcherdt, Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 60(1), 29–61 (1970)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Y. Nakamura, A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Quaterly Rep. Railw. Tech. Res. Inst. 30(1), 25–30 (1989)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Madeo, R. Casciaro, G. Zagari, R. Zinno, G. Zucco, A mixed isostatic 16 dof quadrilateral membrane element with drilling rotations, based on Airy stresses. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 89, 52–66 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D.J. Ewins, Modal testing: theory and practice, vol. 15 (Research Studies Press, Letchworth, 1984)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Potter, M. Richardson, Mass, stiffness and damping matrices from measured modal parameters, in ISA International Instrumentation-Automation Conference, New York, New York, Oct 1974Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. delle Infrastrutture, Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Min. Inf 14 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    B. Peeters, G. De Roeck, Stochastic system identification for operational modal analysis: a review. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 123(4), 659–667 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raffaele Zinno
    • 1
    Email author
  • Serena Artese
    • 1
  • Gabriele Clausi
    • 1
  • Floriana Magarò
    • 1
  • Sebastiano Meduri
    • 1
  • Angela Miceli
    • 1
  • Assunta Venneri
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Calabria, DIMES, Ponte P. Bucci, Arcavacata di Rende, CSRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations