Climate-related extreme events are becoming increasingly frequent, posing significant threats to bridges, which are critical components of transportation infrastructure. This paper offers an overview of recent advancements in methodologies and technologies for conducting structural health monitoring (SHM) of bridges over large areas, where deploying sensors on every structure may be cost-prohibitive for local administrations. It specifically examines two approaches that have garnered interest in the past decade: indirect SHM, which involves instrumenting vehicles and analyzing their dynamic responses to infer information about bridges, and satellite interferometric radar data, which offer static displacement measurements for large regions and has recently been exploited for civil SHM purposes. Additionally, it reviews the recent developments in population-based SHM, which facilitates knowledge-sharing among structures with similar characteristics within a population. Through an analysis of the advantages and limitations of these three rapidly developing research areas, the paper outlines future opportunities and lays the roadmap for a comprehensive “regional-scale SHM” approach based on remote and/or crowdsourced data, supported by population-level analyses. Specific topics addressed include strategies for similarity assessment among monitored structures, available data sources, and feature extraction/integration approaches for different scenarios.
ZhangGLiuYLiuJ, et al. Causes and statistical characteristics of bridge failures: a review. J Traffic Transp Eng2022; 9: 388–406.
2.
KocECetinerBRoseA, et al. CRAFT: comprehensive resilience assessment framework for transportation systems in urban areas. Adv Eng Informatics2020; 46: 101159.
3.
EidsvigUSantamaríaMGalvãoN, et al. Risk assessment of terrestrial transportation infrastructures exposed to extreme events. Infrastructures2021; 6: 163.
4.
ArgyroudisSAMitoulisSAChatziE, et al. Digital technologies can enhance climate resilience of critical infrastructure. Clim Risk Manag2022; 35: 100387.
5.
FarrarCRWordenK.Structural health monitoring: a machine learning perspective. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2012.
6.
HaoHBiKChenW, et al. Towards next generation design of sustainable, durable, multi-hazard, resistant, resilient, and smart civil engineering structures. Eng Struct2023; 277: 115477.
7.
KaewunruenSAbdelHadiMKongpuangM, et al. Digital twins for managing railway bridge maintenance, resilience, and climate change adaptation. Sensors2023; 23: 252.
8.
FigueiredoEPeresNMoldovanI, et al. Impact of climate change on long-term damage detection for structural health monitoring of bridges. Struct Heal Monit2024: 14759217231224254.
9.
ShokraviHShokraviHBakharyN, et al. Vehicle-assisted techniques for health monitoring of bridges. Sensors2020; 20: 1–29.
10.
MatarazzoTJDabbaghchianICroninL, et al. Quality analyses of crowdsourced smartphone trips for bridge dynamic monitoring. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering (IALCCE), 2–6 July 2023, Milan, Italy, pp. 825–832. CRC Press.
11.
GkoumasKGkoktsiKBonoF, et al. The way forward for indirect structural health monitoring (iSHM) using connected and automated vehicles in Europe. Infrastructures2021; 6: 43.
12.
SelvakumaranSPlankSGeißC, et al. Remote monitoring to predict bridge scour failure using Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) stacking techniques. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf2018; 73: 463–470.
13.
GosligaJHesterDWordenK, et al. On population-based structural health monitoring for bridges. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 173: 108919.
14.
GosligaJGardnerPABullLA, et al. Foundations of population-based SHM, part II: heterogeneous populations – graphs, networks, and communities. Mech Syst Signal Process2021; 148: 107144.
15.
DeloGBunceACrossEJ, et al. When is a bridge not an aeroplane? part ii: a population of real structures. Lect Notes Civ Eng2023; 254: 965–974.
16.
BullLAGardnerPAGosligaJ, et al. Foundations of population-based SHM, part I: homogeneous populations and forms. Mech Syst Signal Process2021; 148: 107141.
17.
GardnerPBullLAGosligaJ, et al. Foundations of population-based SHM, part III: heterogeneous populations – mapping and transfer. Mech Syst Signal Process2021; 149: 107142.
18.
TsialiamanisGMylonasCChatziE, et al. Foundations of population-based SHM, part IV: the geometry of spaces of structures and their feature spaces. Mech Syst Signal Process2021; 157: 107692.
19.
FigueiredoEBrownjohnJ.Three decades of statistical pattern recognition paradigm for SHM of bridges. Struct Heal Monit2022; 21: 3018–3054.
20.
WordenKBullLAGardnerP, et al. A brief introduction to recent developments in population-based structural health monitoring. Front Built Environ2020; 6: 146.
21.
SinghPMittalSSadhuA.Recent advancements and future trends in indirect bridge health monitoring. Pract Period Struct Des Constr2023; 28: 03122008.
22.
MacchiaruloVMililloPBlenkinsoppC, et al. Multi-temporal InSAR for transport infrastructure monitoring: recent trends and challenges. Proc Inst Civ Eng Bridg Eng2023; 176: 92–117.
23.
YangYBLinCWYauJD.Extracting bridge frequencies from the dynamic response of a passing vehicle. J Sound Vib2004; 272: 471–493.
24.
CanteroDMcGetrickPKimCW, et al. Experimental monitoring of bridge frequency evolution during the passage of vehicles with different suspension properties. Eng Struct2019; 187: 209–219.
25.
LockeWRedmondLSchmidM.Evaluating OMA system identification techniques for drive-by health monitoring on short span bridges. J Bridg Eng2022; 27: 4022079.
26.
SittonJDZeinaliYRajanD, et al. Frequency estimation on two-span continuous bridges using dynamic responses of passing vehicles. J Eng Mech2020; 146: 04019115.
27.
MayR.Effects of operational traffic variability on iSHM. In: Rizzo P and Milazzo A (eds) European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring - Vol 1. EWSHM 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 2023, pp. 700–710. Cham: Springer.
28.
SiringoringoDMFujinoY.Estimating bridge fundamental frequency from vibration response of instrumented passing vehicle: Analytical and experimental study. Adv Struct Eng2012;15:417–33. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.3.417.
29.
FujinoYKitagawaKFurukawaT, et al. Development of vehicle intelligent monitoring system (VIMS). In: TomizukaM (ed.) Smart Structures and Materials 2005: Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems, Proc. SPIE 5765. 2005, p. 148.
30.
ReitererMBettinelliLStollwitzerA, et al. Vehicle-based indirect SHM of an Austrian railway bridge: simulation and in-situ test. In: Rizzo, P., Milazzo, A. (eds) European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring – Vol 1. EWSHM 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 2023, 2023, pp. 721–731. Cham: Springer.
31.
GkoumasKBonoFGalassiMC, et al. State of play and challenges for the successful implementation of indirect structural health monitoring (iSHM) for bridges. CRC Press2021: 392–398.
32.
CerdaFGarrettJBielakJ, et al. Indirect structural health monitoring in bridges: scale experiments. In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Resilience and Sustainability, 2012, pp. 346–353.
33.
KeenahanJOBrienEJMcGetrickPJ, et al. The use of a dynamic truck-trailer drive-by system to monitor bridge damping. Struct Heal Monit2014; 13: 143–157.
LiWJiangZWangT, et al. Optimization method based on Generalized Pattern Search Algorithm to identify bridge parameters indirectly by a passing vehicle. J Sound Vib2014; 333: 364–380.
36.
TanCUddinNOBrienEJ, et al. Extraction of bridge modal parameters using passing vehicle response. J Bridg Eng2019; 24: 04019087.
37.
TanCElhattabAUddinN.Wavelet-entropy approach for detection of bridge damages using direct and indirect bridge records. J Infrastruct Syst2020; 26: 04020037.
MatarazzoTJKondorDMilardoS, et al. Crowdsourcing bridge dynamic monitoring with smartphone vehicle trips. Commun Eng2022; 1: 29.
40.
EshkevariSSCroninLMatarazzoTJ, et al. Bridge modal property identification based on asynchronous mobile sensing data. Struct Heal Monit2023; 22: 2022–2037.
41.
McGetrickPJHesterDTaylorSE.Implementation of a drive-by monitoring system for transport infrastructure utilising smartphone technology and GNSS. J Civ Struct Heal Monit2017; 7: 175–189.
42.
OBrienEJMcCrumDPKhanMA, et al. Wavelet-based operating deflection shapes for locating scour-related stiffness losses in multi-span bridges. Struct Infrastruct Eng2023; 19: 238–253.
43.
TanCZhaoHOBrienEJ, et al. Exploring time-varying characteristics in drive-by bridge frequency extraction with the second-order synchrosqueezing transform. J Bridg Eng2023; 28: 04023010.
LiJZhuXLawS-S, et al. A two-step drive-by bridge damage detection using dual Kalman filter. Int J Struct Stab Dyn2020; 20: 2042006.
46.
CorballyRMalekjafarianA.Examining changes in bridge frequency due to damage using the contact-point response of a passing vehicle. J Struct Integr Maint2021; 6: 148–158.
47.
MokalledSLockeWAbuodehO, et al. Drive-by health monitoring of highway bridges using Bayesian estimation technique for damage classification. Struct Control Heal Monit2022; 29; e2944.
48.
LockeWSybrandtJRedmondL, et al. Using drive-by health monitoring to detect bridge damage considering environmental and operational effects. J Sound Vib2020; 468: 115088.
49.
HesserDFAltunKMarkertB.Monitoring and tracking of a suspension railway based on data-driven methods applied to inertial measurements. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 164: 108298.
50.
LiuJChenSBergésM, et al. Diagnosis algorithms for indirect structural health monitoring of a bridge model via dimensionality reduction. Mech Syst Signal Process2020; 136: 106454.
51.
LiZLinWZhangY.Drive-by bridge damage detection using Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients and support vector machine. Struct Heal Monit2023; 22: 3302–3319.
52.
LiZLinWZhangY.Real-time drive-by bridge damage detection using deep auto-encoder. Structures2023; 47: 1167–1181.
53.
Calderon HurtadoAKaurKMakki AlamdariM, et al. Unsupervised learning-based framework for indirect structural health monitoring using adversarial autoencoder. J Sound Vib2023; 550: 117598.
54.
CheemaPAlamdariMMChangKC, et al. A drive-by bridge inspection framework using non-parametric clusters over projected data manifolds. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 180: 109401.
55.
LanYZhangYLinW.Diagnosis algorithms for indirect bridge health monitoring via an optimized AdaBoost-linear SVM. Eng Struct2023; 275: 115239.
CrosettoMMonserratOCuevas-GonzálezM, et al. Persistent scatterer interferometry: a review. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens2016; 115: 78–89.
61.
FerrettiAPratiCRoccaF.Permanent scatterers in SAR interferometry. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2001; 39: 8–20.
62.
WrightTJParsonsBELuZ.Toward mapping surface deformation in three dimensions using InSAR. Geophys Res Lett2004; 31: 169–178.
63.
FerrettiASavioGBarzaghiR, et al. Submillimeter accuracy of InSAR time series: experimental validation. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2007; 45: 1142–1153.
64.
Di MartireDIglesiasRMonellsD, et al. Comparison between differential SAR interferometry and ground measurements data in the displacement monitoring of the earth-dam of Conza della Campania (Italy). Remote Sens Environ2014; 148: 58–69.
MililloPRignotERizzoliP, et al. Heterogeneous retreat and ice melt of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica. Sci Adv2019; 5: eaau3433.
67.
Dalla ViaGCrosettoMCrippaB. Resolving vertical and east-west horizontal motion from differential interferometric synthetic aperture radar: the L’Aquila earthquake. J Geophys Res Solid Earth2012; 117: B02310.
68.
SalzerJTMililloPVarleyN, et al. Evaluating links between deformation, topography and surface temperature at volcanic domes: results from a multi-sensor study at Volcán de Colima, Mexico. Earth Planet Sci Lett2017; 479: 354–365.
69.
FornaroGRealeDVerdeS.Bridge thermal dilation monitoring with millimeter sensitivity via multidimensional SAR imaging. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett2013; 10: 677–681.
70.
MacchiaruloVMililloPBlenkinsoppC, et al. Monitoring deformations of infrastructure networks: a fully automated GIS integration and analysis of InSAR time-series. Struct Heal Monit2022; 21: 1849–1878.
71.
CostantiniMMinatiFTrilloF, et al. EGMS: Europe-wide ground motion monitoring based on full resolution insar processing of all sentinel-1 acquisitions. In: Proceedings of the IGARSS 2022–2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 17–22 July 2022. IEEE, 2022, pp. 5093–5096.
72.
FerrettiAFumagalliANovaliF, et al. A new algorithm for processing interferometric data-stacks: SqueeSAR. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2011; 49: 3460–3470.
73.
AmitranoDDi MartinoGGuidaR, et al. Earth environmental monitoring using multi-temporal synthetic aperture radar: a critical review of selected applications. Remote Sens2021; 13: 604.
74.
GlaudeQOrbanA.Missions actuelles en télédétection par radar à synthèse d’ouverture, et applications. Bull La Société Géographique Liège2022.
75.
FarnetiECavalagliNVenanziI, et al. Residual service life prediction for bridges undergoing slow landslide-induced movements combining satellite radar interferometry and numerical collapse simulation. Eng Struct2023; 293: 116628.
76.
AoMWangCXieR, et al. Monitoring the land subsidence with persistent scatterer interferometry in Nansha District, Guangdong, China. Nat Hazards2015; 75: 2947–2964.
77.
ParcharidisIFoumelisMBenekosG, et al. Time series synthetic aperture radar interferometry over the multispan cable-stayed Rio-Antirio Bridge (central Greece): achievements and constraints. J Appl Remote Sens2015; 9: 096082.
78.
HoppeEJNovaliFRucciA, et al. Deformation monitoring of posttensioned bridges using high-resolution satellite remote sensing. J Bridg Eng2019; 24: 04019115.
79.
EskandariRScaioniM.European Ground Motion Service for bridge monitoring: temporal and thermal deformation cross-check using cosmo-skymed insar. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci2023; XLVIII-1/W: 1235–1241.
80.
SelvakumaranSSadeghiZCollingsM, et al. Comparison of in situ and interferometric synthetic aperture radar monitoring to assess bridge thermal expansion. Proc Inst Civ Eng Smart Infrastruct Constr2022; 175: 73–91.
81.
JungJKimDPalanisamy VadivelSK, et al. Long-term deflection monitoring for bridges using X and C-band time-series SAR interferometry. Remote Sens2019; 11: 1258.
82.
ZhangZWangMLiuX, et al. Deformation feature analysis of Qinghai–Tibet railway using TerraSAR-X and Sentinel-1A time-series interferometry. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens2019; 12: 5199–5212.
83.
MililloPGiardinaGPerissinD, et al. Pre-collapse space geodetic observations of critical infrastructure: the Morandi Bridge, Genoa, Italy. Remote Sens2019; 11: 1403.
84.
QinXLiaoMYangM, et al. Monitoring structure health of urban bridges with advanced multi-temporal InSAR analysis. Ann GIS2017; 23: 293–302.
85.
Matteo Del SoldatoMDSRoberto TomásRTJavier PontJP, et al. A multi-sensor approach for monitoring a road bridge in the Valencia harbor (SE Spain) by SAR Interferometry (InSAR). Rend Online Della Soc Geol Ital2016; 41: 235–238.
86.
SadeghiZWrightTHooperA, et al. Using ray tracing to improve bridge monitoring with high-resolution SAR satellite imagery. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens2024; 17: 1155–1166.
87.
D’AmicoFGagliardiVBianchini CiampoliL, et al. Integration of InSAR and GPR techniques for monitoring transition areas in railway bridges. NDT E Int2020; 115: 102291.
88.
QuFZhangQLuZ, et al. Land subsidence and ground fissures in Xi’an, China 2005–2012 revealed by multi-band InSAR time-series analysis. Remote Sens Environ2014; 155: 366–376.
89.
ZhangLSunQHuJ.Potential of TCPInSAR in monitoring linear infrastructure with a small dataset of SAR images: application of the Donghai Bridge, China. Appl Sci2018; 8: 425.
90.
AlaniAMTostiFCiampoliLB, et al. An integrated investigative approach in health monitoring of masonry arch bridges using GPR and InSAR technologies. NDT E Int2020; 115: 102288.
91.
QinXLiQDingX, et al. A structure knowledge-synthetic aperture radar interferometry integration method for high-precision deformation monitoring and risk identification of sea-crossing bridges. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf2021; 103: 102476.
92.
HooperABekaertDSpaansK, et al. Recent advances in SAR interferometry time series analysis for measuring crustal deformation. Tectonophysics2012; 514–517: 1–13.
93.
HooperA.A multi-temporal InSAR method incorporating both persistent scatterer and small baseline approaches. Geophys Res Lett2008; 35: L16302.
94.
MarinkovicPKetelaarGVan LeijenF, et al. InSAR quality control: analysis of five years of corner reflector time series. In: LacosteHOuwehandL (eds) Fifth international workshop on ERS/Envisat SAR interferometry ‘FRINGE07’, Frascati, Italy, 26–30 November 2007, pp. 1–8. ESA Communication Production Office.
95.
HooperAZebkerHSegallP, et al. A new method for measuring deformation on volcanoes and other natural terrains using InSAR persistent scatterers. Geophys Res Lett2004; 31: 23.
96.
FerrettiANovaliFBürgmannR, et al. InSAR permanent scatterer analysis reveals ups and downs in San Francisco Bay Area. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union2004; 85: 317–324.
97.
LiuXCaoQWangS, et al. Optimized method for selecting common master image in PS-DINSAR. J Eng Sci Technol Rev2018; 11: 208–215.
98.
MaSXuCShaoX, et al. A large old landslide in Sichuan Province, China: surface displacement monitoring and potential instability assessment. Remote Sens2021; 13: 2552.
99.
ZebkerHAPepinK. Maximum temporal baseline for InSAR time series. In: 2021IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS, 11–16 July, 2021, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 2652–2654. IEEE.
100.
ZhangHZengQLiuY, et al. The optimum selection of common master image for series of differential SAR processing to estimate long and slow ground deformation. In: Proceedings of 2005 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS’05, 25–29 July, 2005, Seoul, Korea, vol. 7, pp. 4586–4589. IEEE.
101.
LuYZhangJTongX, et al. Selection of persistent scatterer interferometric synthetic aperture radar master image considering temporal baseline, spatial baseline and doppler centroid frequency difference. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci2020; V-3–2020: 141–148.
102.
MadsenSN.Estimating the doppler centroid of SAR data. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst1989; 25: 134–140.
103.
CostantiniMFalcoSMalvarosaF, et al. Persistent scatterer pair interferometry: approach and application to COSMO-SkyMed SAR data. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens2014; 7: 2869–2879.
104.
WangRZhangJLiuX.A most-unfavorable-condition method for bridge-damage detection and analysis using PSP-InSAR. Remote Sens2021; 14: 137.
105.
BerardinoPFornaroGLanariR, et al. A new algorithm for surface deformation monitoring based on small baseline differential SAR interferograms. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2002; 40: 2375–2383.
106.
LanariRMoraOManuntaM, et al. A small-baseline approach for investigating deformations on full-resolution differential SAR interferograms. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2004; 42: 1377–1386.
107.
LanariRBonanoMCasuF, et al. Automatic generation of sentinel-1 continental scale DInSAR deformation time series through an extended P-SBAS processing pipeline in a cloud computing environment. Remote Sens2020; 12: 2961.
108.
LazeckýMSpaansKGonzálezPJ, et al. LiCSAR: an automatic InSAR tool for measuring and monitoring tectonic and volcanic activity. Remote Sens2020; 12: 2430.
109.
ZhangLDingXLuZ.Modeling PSInSAR time series without phase unwrapping. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2011; 49: 547–556.
110.
Blanco-SánchezPMallorquíJJDuqueS, et al. The Coherent Pixels Technique (CPT): an advanced DInSAR technique for nonlinear deformation monitoring. Pure Appl Geophys2008; 165: 1167–1193.
111.
LiSXuWLiZ.Review of the SBAS InSAR time-series algorithms, applications, and challenges. Geod Geodyn2022; 13: 114–126.
112.
MoraOMallorquiJJBroquetasA.Linear and nonlinear terrain deformation maps from a reduced set of interferometric sar images. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2003; 41: 2243–2253.
113.
PastorJLTomásRLettieriL, et al. Multi-source data integration to investigate a deep-seated landslide affecting a bridge. Remote Sens2019; 11: 1878.
114.
DongLWangCTangY, et al. Improving CPT-InSAR algorithm with adaptive coherent distributed pixels selection. Remote Sens2021; 13: 4784.
115.
BayerBSchmidtDSimoniA.The influence of external digital elevation models on PS-InSAR and SBAS results: implications for the analysis of deformation signals caused by slow moving landslides in the Northern Apennines (Italy). IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2017; 55: 2618–2631.
116.
DuYFengGLiZ, et al. Effects of external digital elevation model inaccuracy on StaMPS-PS processing: a case study in Shenzhen, China. Remote Sens2017; 9: 1115.
117.
XuZZhangXXieH, et al. Deformation monitoring and sensitivity analysis of under-construction bridges considering PS optimization. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci2023; XLVIII-1/W: 1289–1295.
118.
SchlöglMDorningerPKwapiszM, et al. Remote sensing techniques for bridge deformation monitoring at millimetric scale: investigating the potential of satellite radar interferometry, airborne laser scanning and ground-based mobile laser scanning. PFG – J Photogramm Remote Sens Geoinf Sci2022; 90: 391–411.
119.
SelvakumaranSRossiCMarinoniA, et al. Combined InSAR and terrestrial structural monitoring of bridges. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2020; 58: 7141–7153.
120.
SchlöglMWidhalmBAvianM.Comprehensive time-series analysis of bridge deformation using differential satellite radar interferometry based on Sentinel-1. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens2021; 172: 132–146.
121.
CaspaniVFTonelliDRoccaA, et al. Satellite InSAR technology for structural health monitoring of road bridges and the surrounding territory: a case study. In: SuZLimongelliMPGlisicB (eds) Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2023, Proc. SPIE 12486, 2023, p. 20.
122.
GagliardiVTostiFBianchini CiampoliL, et al. Monitoring of bridges by MT-InSAR and unsupervised machine learning clustering techniques. In: SchulzKNikolakopoulosKGMichelU (eds) Earth Resources and Environmental Remote Sensing/GIS Applications XII, Proc. SPIE 11863, 2021, p. 16.
123.
GiordanoPTurksezerZPrevitaliM, et al. Damage detection on a historic iron bridge using satellite DInSAR data. Struct Heal Monit2022; 21: 2291–2311.
124.
Reyes-CarmonaCBarraAGalveJ, et al. Sentinel-1 DInSAR for monitoring active landslides in critical infrastructures: the case of the rules reservoir (Southern Spain). Remote Sens2020; 12: 809.
125.
LiuZMeiGSunY, et al. Investigating mining-induced surface subsidence and potential damages based on SBAS-InSAR monitoring and GIS techniques: a case study. Environ Earth Sci2021; 80: 817.
126.
ZhouLLiXPanY, et al. Deformation monitoring of long-span railway bridges based on SBAS-InSAR technology. Geod Geodyn2024; 15: 122–132.
127.
Rodríguez-AntuñanoIMartínez-SánchezJCabaleiroM, et al. Anticipating the collapse of urban infrastructure: a methodology based on earth observation and MT-InSAR. Remote Sens2023; 15: 3867.
128.
FarnetiECavalagliNCostantiniM, et al. A method for structural monitoring of multispan bridges using satellite InSAR data with uncertainty quantification and its pre-collapse application to the Albiano-Magra Bridge in Italy. Struct Heal Monit2023; 22: 353–371.
129.
EntezamiADe MicheleCArslanAN, et al. Detection of partially structural collapse using long-term small displacement data from satellite images. Sensors2022; 22: 4964.
130.
LanariRRealeDBonanoM, et al. Comment on “Pre-Collapse Space Geodetic Observations of Critical Infrastructure: The Morandi Bridge, Genoa, Italy” by Milillo et al. (2019). Remote Sens2020; 12: 4011.
131.
MililloPGiardinaGPerissinD, et al. Reply to Lanari, R., et al. Comment on “Pre-Collapse Space Geodetic Observations of Critical Infrastructure: The Morandi Bridge, Genoa, Italy” by Milillo et al. (2019). Remote Sens2020; 12: 4016.
132.
Reluis. Linee Guida per l’uso dei dati interferometrici satellitari finalizzato all’interpretazione e alla valutazione del comportamento strutturale delle costruzioni. 2003.
133.
YangMDheenathayalanPLópez-DekkerP, et al. On the influence of sub-pixel position correction for PS localization accuracy and time series quality. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens2020; 165: 98–107.
134.
KelevitzKWrightTJHooperAJ, et al. Novel corner-reflector array application in essential infrastructure monitoring. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens2022; 60: 1–18.
135.
QuqaSPalermoAUbertiniF, et al. Regional-scale bridge condition monitoring using InSAR displacements and environmental data. Struct Heal Monit2023.
136.
ChenXTessariGFabrisM, et al. Comparison between PS and SBAS InSAR techniques in monitoring shallow landslides. In: MikošMArbanasŽYinY (eds) Understanding and Reducing Landslide Disaster Risk, Proceedings of the Workshop on world landslide forum, 2021, pp. 155–161.
137.
LasriOGiordanoPFLimongelliMP, et al. Remote monitoring of a concrete bridge: validation of SAR satellite monitoring results using GNSS data. 2nd Conf Eur Assoc Qual Control Bridg Struct2023, pp. 2009–2016.
138.
XiongSZengQJiaoJ, et al. Improvement of PS-InSAR atmospheric phase estimation by using WRF model. In: 2014 IEEE geoscience and remote sensing symposium, 2014, pp. 2225–2228. IEEE.
139.
FuhrmannTCaro CuencaMKnöpflerA, et al. Estimation of small surface displacements in the Upper Rhine Graben area from a combined analysis of PS-InSAR, levelling and GNSS data. Geophys J Int2015; 203: 614–631.
140.
FerrettiAPasseraECapesR.End-to-end implementation and operation of the European Ground Motion Service (EGMS): algorithm theoretical basis document, 2021.
141.
ColesantiCLocatelliRNovaliF.Ground deformation monitoring exploiting SAR permanent scatterers. In: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2022: 1219–1221.
142.
WordenKMansonG.The application of machine learning to structural health monitoring. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci2007; 365: 515–537.
143.
CherkasskyVMulierFM.Learning from data: concepts, theory, and methods, vol. 43, 2nd ed. Wiley-IEEE Press; 2007.
144.
DardenoTABullLAMillsRS, et al. Modelling variability in vibration-based PBSHM via a generalised population form. J Sound Vib2022; 538: 117227.
145.
DardenoTABullLAMillsRS, et al. Hierarchical Bayesian modelling of a family of FRFS, 2023.
146.
BullLADi FrancescoDDhadaM, et al. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling for knowledge transfer across engineering fleets via multitask learning. Comput Civ Infrastruct Eng2023; 38: 821–848.
147.
SmithSMHughesAJDardenoTA, et al. Anomaly detection in offshore wind turbine structures using hierarchical bayesian modelling. In: Farhangdoust S, Guemes A and Chang F-K (eds) Structural Health Monitoring 2023: Designing SHM for Sustainability, Maintainability, and Reliability - Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, 2023, pp. 2767–2775.
148.
HughesAJBullLAGardnerP, et al. On robust risk-based active-learning algorithms for enhanced decision support. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 181: 109502.
149.
HughesAJPooleJDervilisN, et al. A decision framework for selecting information-transfer strategies in population-based SHM. In: Structural Health Monitoring 2023: Designing SHM for Sustainability, Maintainability, and Reliability - Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, pp. 2844–2853.
150.
HughesAJDeloGPooleJ, et al. Quantifying the value of positive transfer: an experimental case study2024; arXiv preprint ID: 2407.14342.
151.
WordenKHesterDBunceA, et al. When is a bridge not an aeroplane? Part II: a population of real structures. In: Rizzo P and Milazzo A (eds) European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring – Vol 2. EWSHM 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 2023. pp. 965–974.
152.
WickramarachchiCTGosligaJCrossEJ, et al. On the use of graph kernels for assessing similarity of structures in population-based structural health monitoring. Lect Notes Civ Eng2023; 254: 995–1004.
153.
DeloGSuraceCWordenK, et al. On the influence of structural attributes for assessing similarity in population-based structural health monitoring, In: Structural Health Monitoring 2023: Designing SHM for Sustainability, Maintainability, and Reliability - Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, 2023, pp.1597–1606.
154.
BrennanDSRogersTJCrossEJ, et al. On quantifying the similarity of structures via a graph neural network for population-based structural health monitoring, In: Proceedings of ISMA 2022 - International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering and USD 2022 - International Conference on Uncertainty in Structural Dynamics, 2023, pp. 3713–3721.
155.
BrennanDSRogersTJCrossEJ, et al. Calculating structure similarity via a graph neural network in population-based structural health monitoring: part II. In: Cross EJ and Worden K (eds) Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, 2024, pp. 151–158.
156.
PooleJGardnerPHughesAJ, et al. Physics-informed transfer learning in pbshm: a case study on experimental helicopter blades. In: Farhangdoust S, Guemes A and Chang F-K (eds) Structural Health Monitoring 2023: Designing SHM for Sustainability, Maintainability, and Reliability - Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, 2023, pp. 2230–2240.
157.
RytterA.Vibrational based inspection of civil engineering structures. Aalborg University, 1993.
158.
PanSJYangQ.A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng2010; 22: 1345–1359.
159.
GardnerPLiuXWordenK.On the application of domain adaptation in structural health monitoring. Mech Syst Signal Process2020; 138: 106550.
160.
GardnerPBullLADervilisN, et al. On the application of kernelised Bayesian transfer learning to population-based structural health monitoring. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 167: 108519.
161.
BullLAGardnerPADervilisN, et al. On the transfer of damage detectors between structures: an experimental case study. J Sound Vib2021; 501: 116072.
162.
GardnerPBullLAGosligaJ, et al. A population-based SHM methodology for heterogeneous structures: transferring damage localisation knowledge between different aircraft wings. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 172: 108918.
163.
PooleJGardnerPDervilisN, et al. On statistic alignment for domain adaptation in structural health monitoring. Struct Heal Monit2022; 22: 147592172211104.
164.
LuleciFNecati CatbasF.Condition transfer between prestressed bridges using structural state translation for structural health monitoring. AI Civ Eng2023; 2: 7.
165.
TronciEMBeigiHFengMQ, et al. A transfer learning SHM strategy for bridges enriched by the use of speaker recognition x-vectors. J Civ Struct Heal Monit2022; 12: 1285–1298.
166.
GiglioniVPooleJVenanziI, et al. On the use of domain adaptation techniques for bridge damage detection in a changing environment. Ce/Papers2023; 6: 975–980.
167.
PeetersBDe RoeckG.One-year monitoring of the Z24-Bridge: environmental effects versus damage events. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn2001; 30: 149–171.
168.
MaesKVan MeerbeeckLReyndersEPB, et al. Validation of vibration-based structural health monitoring on retrofitted railway bridge KW51. Mech Syst Signal Process2022; 165: 108380.
169.
DöhlerMHilleFMevelL, et al. Structural health monitoring with statistical methods during progressive damage test of S101 Bridge. Eng Struct2014; 69: 183–193.
170.
Omori YanoMFigueiredoEda SilvaS, et al. Foundations and applicability of transfer learning for structural health monitoring of bridges. Mech Syst Signal Process2023; 204: 110766.
171.
CuryACremonaCDumoulinJ.Long-term monitoring of a PSC box girder bridge: operational modal analysis, data normalization and structural modification assessment. Mech Syst Signal Process2012; 33: 13–37.
172.
CremonaC.Dynamic monitoring applied to the detection of structural modifications: a high-speed railway bridge study. Prog Struct Eng Mater2004; 6: 147–161.
173.
FigueiredoEOmori YanoMda SilvaS, et al. Transfer learning to enhance the damage detection performance in bridges when using numerical models. J Bridg Eng2023; 28: 04022134.
174.
PanQBaoYLiH.Transfer learning-based data anomaly detection for structural health monitoring. Struct Heal Monit2023; 22: 3077–3091.
175.
ZhangWPengGLiC, et al. A new deep learning model for fault diagnosis with good anti-noise and domain adaptation ability on raw vibration signals. Sensors2017; 17: 425.
176.
LiXJiaXDZhangW, et al. Intelligent cross-machine fault diagnosis approach with deep auto-encoder and domain adaptation. Neurocomputing2020; 383: 235–247.
177.
IerimontiLCavalagliNVenanziI, et al. A transfer Bayesian learning methodology for structural health monitoring of monumental structures. Eng Struct2021; 247: 113089.
TanJ-SElbazKWangZ-F, et al. Lessons learnt from bridge collapse: a view of sustainable management. Sustainability2020; 12: 1205.
180.
XuFYZhangMJWangL, et al. Recent highway bridge collapses in china: review and discussion. J Perform Constr Facil2016; 30:04016030.
181.
DiazEEMMorenoFNMohammadiJ.Investigation of common causes of bridge collapse in Colombia. Pract Period Struct Des Constr2009; 14: 194–200.
182.
WardhanaKHadiprionoFC.Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States. J Perform Constr Facil2003; 17: 144–150.
183.
TaricskaMR.An analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States (2000–2012). The Ohio State University, 2014.
184.
CookW.Bridge failure rates, consequences, and predictive trends. Logan, Utah: Utah State University, 2014.
185.
GargRKChandraSKumarA.Analysis of bridge failures in India from 1977 to 2017. Struct Infrastruct Eng2022; 18: 295–312.
186.
EdeANwankwoCOyebisiS, et al. Failure trend of transport infrastructure in developing nations: cases of bridge collapse in Nigeria. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2019; 640: 012102.
187.
ChenT-T.Factors in bridge failure, inspection, and maintenance. J Perform Constr Facil2017; 31: 04017070.
188.
SchaapHSCanerA.Bridge collapses in Turkey: causes and remedies. Struct Infrastruct Eng2022; 18: 694–709.
189.
ImamBMChryssanthopoulosMK.Causes and consequences of metallic bridge failures. Struct Eng Int2012; 22: 93–98.
190.
LópezSMakoondNSánchez-RodríguezA, et al. Learning from failure propagation in steel truss bridges. Eng Fail Anal2023; 152: 107488.
191.
BallioFBianchiAFranzettiS, et al. Vulnerabilità idraulica dei ponti fluviali. Atti del XVI Convegno di Idraul e Costr Idraul 9-13 settembre 1998, Catania, 1998.
192.
MartinGHooperAWrightTJ, et al. Blind source separation for MT-InSAR analysis with structural health monitoring applications. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens2022; 15: 7605–7618.
193.
PedutoDEliaFMontuoriR.Probabilistic analysis of settlement-induced damage to bridges in the city of Amsterdam (The Netherlands). Transp Geotech2018; 14: 169–182.
194.
BiondiFAddabboPUlloSL, et al. Perspectives on the structural health monitoring of bridges by synthetic aperture radar. Remote Sens2020; 12: 3852.
195.
TonelliDCaspaniVFValentiniA, et al. Interpretation of bridge health monitoring data from satellite InSAR technology. Remote Sens2023; 15: 5242.
196.
LiuXWangPLuZ, et al. Damage detection and analysis of urban bridges using terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), ground-based microwave interferometry, and permanent scatterer interferometry synthetic aperture radar (PS-InSAR). Remote Sens2019; 11: 580.
197.
PedutoDGiangrecoCVenmansAAM. Differential settlements affecting transition zones between bridges and road embankments on soft soils: numerical analysis of maintenance scenarios by multi-source monitoring data assimilation. Transp Geotech2020; 24: 100369.
198.
DePrekelKBoualiEHOommenT.Monitoring the impact of groundwater pumping on infrastructure using geographic information system (GIS) and persistent scatterer interferometry (PSI). Infrastructures2018; 3: 57.
199.
LazeckyMHlavacovaIBakonM, et al. Bridge displacements monitoring using space-borne X-band SAR interferometry. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens2016; 10: 205–210.
200.
QinXZhangLYangM, et al. Mapping surface deformation and thermal dilation of arch bridges by structure-driven multi-temporal DInSAR analysis. Remote Sens Environ2018; 216: 71–90.
201.
MaPLiTFangC, et al. A tentative test for measuring the sub-millimeter settlement and uplift of a high-speed railway bridge using COSMO-SkyMed images. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens2019; 155: 1–12.
202.
HuangQCrosettoMMonserratO, et al. Displacement monitoring and modelling of a high-speed railway bridge using C-band Sentinel-1 data. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens2017; 128: 204–211.
203.
ZhaoJWuJDingX, et al. Elevation extraction and deformation monitoring by multitemporal InSAR of Lupu Bridge in Shanghai. Remote Sens2017; 9: 897.
204.
HuangQMonserratOCrosettoM, et al. Displacement monitoring and health evaluation of two bridges using Sentinel-1 SAR images. Remote Sens2018; 10: 1714.
205.
SousaJJBastosL.Multi-temporal SAR interferometry reveals acceleration of bridge sinking before collapse. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci2013; 13: 659–667.
206.
CussonDTrischukKHébertD, et al. Satellite-based InSAR monitoring of highway bridges: validation case study on the North Channel Bridge in Ontario, Canada. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board2018; 2672: 76–86.
207.
WangHChangLMarkineV.Structural health monitoring of railway transition zones using satellite radar data. Sensors2018; 18: 413.
208.
PonzoFCAulettaGIelpoP, et al. DInSAR–SBAS satellite monitoring of infrastructures: how temperature affects the “Ponte della Musica” case study. J Civ Struct Heal Monit2024; 14: 745–761.
209.
PonzoFCIacovinoCDitommasoR, et al. Transport infrastructure SHM using integrated SAR data and on-site vibrational acquisitions: “Ponte Della Musica–Armando Trovajoli” case study. Appl Sci2021; 11: 6504.
210.
MatarazzoTKondorDMilardoS, et al. Source data for crowdsourcing bridge dynamic monitoring with smartphone vehicle trips, Communication Engineering 2022; 1: 29.
211.
GkoumasKGalassiMCAllaixDL, et al. Indirect structural health monitoring (iSHM) of transport infrastructure in the digital age, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 2023; 20: 1174–1196.
212.
Bauer-MarschallingerB.Copernicus global land operations “vegetation and energy”– validation report – soil water index, collection 1km, Version 1.0, Issue I1.11. 2020.
213.
HersbachHBellBBerrisfordP, et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q J R Meteorol Soc2020; 146: 1999–2049.
214.
Muñoz-SabaterJDutraEAgustí-PanaredaA, et al. ERA5-Land: a state-of-the-art global reanalysis dataset for land applications. Earth Syst Sci Data2021; 13: 4349–4383.
