Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring

Chapter 4
Design Knowledge Gain by Structural
Health Monitoring
Stefania Arangio and Franco Bontempi
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome,
Rome, Italy
Abstract
The design of complex structures should be based on advanced approaches able to take
into account the behavior of the constructions during their entire life-cycle. Moreover,
an effective design method should consider that the modern constructions are usually
complex systems, characterized by strong interactions among the single components
and with the design environment. A modern approach, capable of adequately consider-
ing these issues, is the so-called performance-based design (PBD). In order to profitably
apply this design philosophy, an effective framework for the evaluation of the overall
quality of the structure is needed; for this purpose, the concept of dependability can
be effectively applied. In this context, structural health monitoring (SHM) assumes
the essential role to improve the knowledge on the structural system and to allow
reliable evaluations of the structural safety in operational conditions. SHM should be
planned at the design phase and should be performed during the entire life-cycle of the
structure. In order to deal with the large quantity of data coming from the continu-
ous monitoring various processing techniques exist. In this work different approaches
are discussed and in the last part two of them are applied on the same dataset. It is
interesting to notice that, in addition to this first level of knowledge, structural health
monitoring allows obtaining a further more general contribution to the design knowl-
edge of the whole sector of structural engineering. Consequently, SHM leads to two
levels of design knowledge gain: locally, on the specific structure, and globally, on the
general class of similar structures.
Keywords
ANCRiSST benchmark problem, complex structural systems, dependability, enhanced
frequency domain decomposition, neural networks, performance-based design, soft
computing, structural health monitoring, structural identification, system engineering,
Tianjin Yonghe bridge.
4.1 Introduction
In recent years more and more demanding structures and infrastructures, like tall build-
ings or long span bridges, are designed, built and operated to satisfy the increasing
DOI: 10.1201/b17073-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b17073-5
Design Knowledge Gain by Structural
Health Monitoring

96 Maintenance and Safety of Aging Infrastructure
needs of society. These constructions require high performance levels and should be
designed taking into account their durability and their behavior in accidental con-
ditions (Koh et al., 2010; Petrini & Bontempi, 2011; Crosti et al., 2011; 2012;
Petrini & Palmeri, 2012). Their design should be able to consider their intrinsic
complexity that can be related to several aspects, such as for example the strong non-
linear behavior in case of accidental actions and the fact that, while safety checks
are carried out considering each structural element per sé, structures are usually sys-
tems composed by deeply interacting components. Moreover the structural response
shall be evaluated taking into account the influence of several sources of uncertainty,
both stochastic and epistemic, that characterize either the actions or the structural
properties, as well as the efficiency and consistency of the adopted structural model
(Frangopol & Tsompanakis, 2009; Elnashai & Tsompanakis, 2012, Biondini et al.,
2008; Bontempi & Giuliani, 2010). Only if these aspects are properly considered, the
structural response can be reliably evaluated, and the performance of the constructions
ensured.
Furthermore, the recent improvement in data measurement and in elaboration
technologies has created the proper conditions to improve the decisional tools based
on the performance on site, leading to a system design philosophy based on the per-
formance, known as performance-based design (PBD). In order to apply the PBD
approach, an effective framework for the evaluation of the overall quality of a struc-
ture is needed. For this purpose, a specific concept has been proposed: the so-called
structural dependability. This is a global concept that was originally developed in the
field of computer science but that can be extended to civil engineering systems (Arangio
et al., 2010).
In this context, structural health monitoring assumes an essential role to improve
the knowledge on the structural system and to allow reliable evaluations. It should be
planned since the design phase and carried out during the entire life-cycle because it rep-
resents an effective way to control the structural system in a proactive way (Frangopol,
2011): the circumstances that may eventually lead to deterioration, damage and unsafe
operations can be diagnosed and mitigated in a timely manner, and costly replacements
can be avoided or delayed.
Different approaches exist for assessing the structural performance starting from the
monitoring data: they are based on deterministic indexes or on sophisticated proba-
bilistic evaluations and they can be developed at different levels of accuracy, according
to the considered situation. In the last part of the work, a case study is analyzed by
using two different approaches, the structural identification in the frequency domain
and a neural network-based damage detection strategy, and the results are compared.
The concepts discussed above are schematized in the flow chart in Figure 4.1 and
detailed in the following paragraphs.
4.2 Knowledge and Design
It is well known, and perhaps it is an abused slogan, that we are in the Era of Knowl-
edge. This is of course true in the field of structural design. Generally speaking, the
knowledge of the people involved in structural design can be schematically represented
by the large rectangle shown in Figure 4.2. But this actual knowledge usually does not
cover all the design necessities and there are areas of knowledge that are not expected
Downloadedby[FrancoBontempi]at04:0412December2014

Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring 97
Figure 4.1 Logical process for an innovative design by exploiting the knowledge gained by
structural health monitoring.
Figure 4.2 Knowledge gain process.

at the beginning of the project. According to the required additional knowledge, design
can be classified as:
I. evolutive design (small rectangle at the bottom) that does not require a large
amount of new knowledge because well-known concepts, theories, schemes, tools
and technologies are employed;
II. innovative design (small rectangle at the top) that does need new expertise because
something new is developed and introduced.
At the end of each project the design team gains further areas of knowledge
and this is an important point in engineering: one acquires expertise making things
directly. Also, the order of the knowledge, meaning having the right thing at the
right place, is an a-posteriori issue: sense-making is often organized after, looking at
the past.
A rational question can be raised looking at Figure 4.2: generally speaking, is the
necessity for the designers of an innovative structure so well-founded, to have already a
strong experience in this kind of structures? This question seems, but only superficially,
very provocative. In fact, if one is framed by its self-experience and culture, it is
reasonable to expect him to be caged in ideas and schemes securely useful in evolutive
situations, where only small changes are expected, whereas a largely innovative context
needs new frameworks that cannot be extrapolated from the past.
This concept is presented also in Figure 4.3 where the trend of the structural quality
vs. the design variables is shown for both types of design. In the case of evolutive
designs, the variables are few and it is possible to obtain the optimal structural con-
figuration with a local optimization. On the other hand, innovative design allows
reaching higher values of structural quality but needing a global optimization that
involves numerous variables.
Figure 4.3 Structural quality or performance vs. design variables for evolutive and innovative
design.

4.3 System Engineering Approach & Performance-based
Design
In order to define an appropriate procedure for dealing with complex structures, it
is interesting to define first the aspects that make a construction complex. They can
be understood looking at the plot in Figure 4.4 (adapted from Perrow (1984)) that
shows in an ideal but general way a three dimensional Cartesian space where the axes
indicate:
1 the nonlinearities of the system. In the structural field the nonlinearities affect the
behavior at different levels: at a detailed micro-level, for example, they affect
the mechanical properties of the materials; at a macro-level they influence the
behavior of single elements or even the entire structure as in the case of instability
phenomena;
2 the interactions and connections between the various parts;
3 the intrinsic uncertainties; they could have both stochastic and epistemic nature.
In this reference system the overall complexity of the system increases as the values
along each of the axes increase.
In order to adequately face all these aspects, complex structures require high per-
formance levels and should be designed taking into account their durability during
the entire life cycle and their behavior in accidental situations. All these requirements
are often in contrast with the simplified formulations that are still widely applied in
structural design.
It is possible to handle these aspects only evolving from the simplistic idealization of
the structure as a device for channeling loads to the more complete idea of the struc-
tural system, intended as a set of interrelated components working together toward a
common purpose (NASA – SE Handbook, 2007), and acting according System Engi-
neering, which is a robust approach to the creation, design, realization and operation
of an engineered system. It has been said that the notion of structural systems is a
‘marriage of Structural Engineering and Systems Science’ (Skelton, 2002).
Figure 4.4 Aspects that increase the complexity of a system (adapted by Perrow, 1984).

Figure 4.5 Functional/hierarchical breakdown of a system/problem.
In the System Engineering framework, an operational tool that can be useful for deal-
ing with complex systems is the breakdown. The hierarchical/functional breakdown
of a system (or a problem) can be represented graphically (as shown in Figure 4.5) by a
pyramid, set up with various objects positioned in a hierarchical manner. The peak of
the pyramid represents the goal (the whole system), the lower levels represent a descrip-
tion of fractional objects (the sub-systems/problems in which it can be divided), and the
base corresponds to basic details. By applying a top-down approach, a problem can be
decomposed by increasing the level of details one level at a time. On the other hand, in
those situations where the details are the starting point, a bottom-up approach is used
for the integration of low-level objectives into more complex, higher-level objectives.
In common practice, however, actual problems are unclear and lack straightforward
solutions. In this case, the strategy becomes a mixed recipe of top-down and bottom-
up procedures that may be used alternately with reverse-engineering approaches and
back analysis techniques.
The whole structural design process can be reviewed within this system view,
considering also that the recent improvement in measurement and elaboration data
technologies have created the proper conditions to integrate the information on the
performance on site in the design process, leading to the so-called performance-based
design (PBD) (Smith, 2001; Petrini & Ciampoli, 2012). The flow chart in Figure 4.6
summarizes the concepts at the base of the PBD. The first five steps in the figure
are those considered in the traditional design approach and lead to the “as built’’
construction; they are:
1 formulation of the problem;
2 synthesis of the solution;
3 analysis of the proposed solution;
4 evaluation of the solution performances;
5 construction.

Figure 4.6 Steps of the Performance Based Design (PBD) approach (adapted from Smith,
2001).
Difficulties associated with this kind of approach are evident: the as built structure
could be very different from the as designed one for various reasons, as fabrication mis-
takes or unexpected conditions during the construction phase, or also non-appropriate
design assumptions. In order to evaluate the accomplishment of the expected perfor-
mance, a monitoring system can be used. Under this perspective, three further steps
will be added to the aforementioned traditional ones:
6 monitoring of the real construction;
7 comparison of monitored and expected results;
8 increase of the accuracy of the expectation.
These three additional steps are the starting point of the PBD and lead to other
following steps devoted to the possible modification of the project in order to fulfill
the expected performance:
9 reformulation: development of advanced probabilistic methods for a more
accurate description of the required performance;
10 weak evaluation, that assumes that the analysis is exact and all the actions are
known, from the probabilistic point of view;
11 improvement of the model;
12 strong evaluation that is carried out when the improvement (see point 11) aims
at assigning more accurate values to the assigned parameters.

Looking at the flow chart in Figure 4.6, it is possible to make two observations:
I. the structural monitoring plays a key role in the PBD approach because it is the
tool that allows the first comparison between the ‘as designed’ structure with the
‘as built’ one. If it is managed in the right way, it can lead to a significant gain of
design knowledge that can assure the long term exploitation of the structure;
II. in order to evaluate the quality of the structure it is necessary to take into account
numerous aspects and to consider at the same time how the system works as a
whole, and how the elements behave singularly. For a comprehensive evaluation
of the overall performance a new concepts should be used, as for example that of
structural dependability discussed in the next section.
Finally, step 10, weak evaluation, can lead to a local specific increase of knowledge,
while step 12, strong evaluation, can lead to a global – general increase of knowledge
referring to a whole class of structures or even to a whole sector of the structural
engineering. If these knowledge step increases are recognized and organized by the
design team, the overall scheme reported in Figure 4.1 is developed.
4.4 Structural Dependability
As anticipated, for the purpose of evaluation of the overall quality of structural systems
a new concept has been recently proposed: the structural dependability. It can be intro-
duced looking at the scheme in Figure 4.7, where the various aspects discussed in the
previous section are ordered and related to this concept (Arangio, 2012). It has been
said that a modern approach to structural design requires evolving from the simplistic
idea of ‘structure’ to the idea of ‘structural system’, and acting according to the System
Engineering approach; in this way it is possible to take into account the interactions
between the different structural parts and between the whole structure and the design
environment. The grade of non-linearity and uncertainty in these interactions deter-
mines the grade of complexity of the structural system. In case of complex systems,
it is important to evaluate how the system works as a whole, and how the elements
behave singularly.
In this context, dependability is a global concept that describes the aspects assumed
as relevant to describe the quality of a system and their influencing factors (Bentley,
1993). This concept has been originally developed in the field of computer science
but it can be reinterpreted in the civil engineering field (Arangio et al., 2010). The
dependability reflects the user’s degree of trust in the system, i.e., the user’s confidence
that the system will operate as expected and will not ‘fail’ in normal use: the system
shall give the expected performance during the whole lifetime.
The assessment of dependability requires the definition of three elements
(Figure 4.8):
• the attributes, i.e. the properties that quantify the dependability;
• the threats, i.e. the elements that affect the dependability;
• the means, i.e. the tools that can be used to obtain a dependable system.

Figure 4.7 Roadmap for the analysis and design of complex structural systems (Arangio, 2012).
In structural engineering, relevant attributes are reliability, safety, security, main-
tainability, availability, and integrity. Note that not all the attributes are required for
all the systems and they can vary over the life-cycle.
The various attributes are essential to guarantee:
• the ‘safety’ of the system under the relevant hazard scenarios, that in current
practice is evaluated by checking a set of ultimate limit states (ULS);
• the survivability of the system under accidental scenarios, considering also the
security issues; in recent guidelines, this property is evaluated by checking a set of
‘integrity’ limit states (ILS);
• the functionality of the system under operative conditions (availability), that in
current practice is evaluated by checking a set of serviceability limit states (SLS);
• the durability of the system.
The threats to system dependability can be subdivided into faults, errors and fail-
ures. According to the definitions given in (Avižienis et al., 2004), an active or dormant
fault is a defect or an anomaly in the system behavior that represents a potential cause
of error; an error is the cause for the system being in an incorrect state; failure is
a permanent interruption of the system ability to perform a required function under
specified operating conditions. Error may or may not cause failure or activate a fault.

Figure 4.8 Dependability: attributes, threats and means (from Arangio et al., 2010).
In case of civil engineering constructions, possible faults are incorrect design, construc-
tion defects, improper use and maintenance, and damages due to accidental actions or
deterioration.
With reference to Figure 4.5, the problem of conceiving and building a dependable
structural system can be considered at least by four different points of view:
1 how to design a dependable system, that is a fault-tolerant system;
2 how to detect faults, i.e., anomalies in the system behavior (fault detection);
3 how to localize and quantify the effects of faults and errors (fault diagnosis);
4 how to manage faults and errors and avoid failures (fault management).
In general, a fault causes events that, as intermediate steps, influence or determine
measurable or observable symptoms. In order to detect, locate and quantify a system
fault, it is necessary to process data obtained from monitoring and to interpret the
symptoms.
A system is taken as dependable if it satisfies all requirements with regards to various
dependability performance and indices, so the various attributes, such as reliability,
safety or availability, which are quantitative terms, form a basis for evaluating the
dependability of a system. Dependability evaluation is a complex task because this is
a term used for a general description of the quality of a system and it cannot be easily

expressed by a single measure. The approaches for its evaluation can be qualitative
or quantitative and usually are related to the phase of the life cycle that it is consid-
ered (design or assessment). In the early design phase a qualitative evaluation is more
appropriate than a detailed one, as some of the subsystems and components are not
completely conceived or defined.
Qualitative evaluations can be performed, for example, by means of failure mode
analyses approaches, as the Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)
or the failure tree analysis (FTA), or by using reliability block diagrams. On the other
hand, in the assessment phase, numerous aspects should be taken into account and
all of them are affected by uncertainties and interdependencies, so quantitative evalu-
ations, based on probabilistic methods, are more suitable. It is important to evaluate
whether the failure of a component may affect other components, or whether a recon-
figuration is involved upon a component failure. These stochastic dependencies can be
captured for example by Markov chains models, which can incorporate interactions
among components and failure dependence. Other methods are based on Petri Nets
and stochastic simulation. At the moment, most of the applications are on electrical
systems (e.g., Nahman, 2002) but the principles can be applied in the civil engineering
field. When numerous different factors have to be taken into account and dependabil-
ity cannot be described by using analytical functions, linguistic attributes by means of
the fuzzy logic reasoning could be helpful (Ivezi´c et al., 2008).
4.5 Structural Health Monitoring
As aforementioned, structural monitoring has a fundamental role in the PBD because it
is the tool that allows the comparison between the expected behavior and the observed
one in order to verify the accomplishment of the expected performance and guarantee
a dependable system. Moreover, the recent technological progresses, the reduction
of the price of hardware, the development of accurate and reliable software, not to
mention the decrease in size of the equipment have laid the foundations for a widely
use of monitoring data in the management of civil engineering systems (Spencer et al.,
2004).
However, it is also important to note that the choice of the assessment method
and level of accuracy is strictly related to the specific phase of the life-cycle and to
the complexity and importance of the structure (Bontempi, 2006; Casas, 2010). The
use of advanced methods is not justified for all structures; the restriction in terms of
time and cost is important: for each structural system a specific assessment process,
which would be congruent with the available resources and the complexity of the
system, should be developed. In Bontempi et al. (2008) for example, the structures
are classified for monitoring purposes in the following categories: ordinary, selected,
special, strategic, active and smart structures. The information needed for an efficient
monitoring, shown in Figure 4.9 by means of different size circles, increases with the
complexity of the structure.
For those structural systems subjected to long term monitoring, data processing is
a crucial step because, as said earlier, they represent the measurable symptoms of the
possible damage (fault). However, the identification of the fault from the measurement
data is a complex task, as explained in Figure 4.10. The relationship between fault and
symptoms can be represented graphically by a pyramid: the vertex represents the fault,

Figure 4.9 Relationship between classification of structures and characteristics of the monitoring
process.
Figure 4.10 Knowledge-based analysis for structural health monitoring.
the lower levels the possible events generated by the fault and the base corresponds
to the symptoms. The propagation of the fault to the symptoms follows a cause-effect
relationship, and is a top-down forward process. The fault diagnosis proceeds in the
reverse way. To solve the problem implies the inversion of the causality principle; but

one cannot expect to rebuild the fault-symptom chain only by measured data because
the causality is not reversible or the reversibility is ambiguous: the underlying physical
laws are often not known in analytical form, or too complicated for numerical cal-
culation. Moreover, intermediate events between faults and symptoms are not always
recognizable (as indicated in Figure 4.3).
The solution strategy requires integrating different procedures, either forward or
inverse; this mixed approach has been denoted as the total approach by Liu and Han
(2004), and different computational methods have been developed for this task, that
is, to interpret and integrate information coming from on site inspection, database
and experience. In Figure 4.10 an example of knowledge-based analysis is shown. The
results obtained by instrumented monitoring (the detection and diagnosis system on
the right side) are processed and combined with the results coming from the analytical
or numerical model of the structural response (the physical system on the left side).
Information Technology provides the tool for such integration.
The processing of experimental data is the bottom-up inverse process, where the
output of the system (the measured symptoms: displacements, acceleration, natural
frequencies, etc.) is known but the parameters of the structure have to be determined.
For this purpose different methods can be used; a great deal of research in the past
30 years has been aimed at establishing effective local and global assessment meth-
ods (Doebling et al., 1996; Sohn et al., 2004). The traditional global approaches are
based on the analysis of the modal parameters obtained by means of structural iden-
tification. On the other hand, in recent years, also other approaches based on soft
computing techniques have been widely applied. These methods, as for example the
neural networks applied in this work, have proved to be useful in such case where con-
ventional methods may encounter difficulties. They are robust and fault tolerant and
can effectively deal with qualitative, uncertain and incomplete information, making
them highly promising for smart monitoring of civil structures. In the sequence both
approaches are briefly presented and, in the last part of the work, they are applied on
the same dataset and the results are compared.
4.5.1 Structural Identification
Structural identification of a civil structure includes the evaluation of its modal param-
eters, which are able to describe its dynamic behavior. The basic idea behind this
approach is that modal parameters (natural frequencies, mode shapes, and modal
damping) are functions of the physical properties of the structure such as mass, damp-
ing and stiffness. Therefore, changes in the physical properties, as for example the
reductions of stiffness due to damage, will cause detectable changes in the modal
properties. During the last three decades extensive research has been conducted in
vibration-based damage identification and significant progress has been achieved (see
for example: Doebling, 1996; Sohn et al. 2004; Gul & Catbas 2008; Frangopol et al.,
2012; Li et al., 2006; Ko et al., 2009).
The methods for structural identification belong to two main categories: Experimen-
tal Modal Analysis (EMA) and Operational Modal Analysis (OMA or output-only
analysis). The first class of methods requires knowledge of both input and output,
which are related by a transfer function that describes the system. This means that
the structure has to be artificially excited in such a way that the input load can be

measured. In case of large structures, to obtain satisfactory results, it is necessary to
generate a certain level of stress to overcome the ambient noise, but this is difficult
and expensive and moreover could create undesired nonlinear behavior. Operational
modal analysis, on the other hand, requires only measurement of the output response,
since the excitation system consists of ambient vibrations, such as wind and traffic.
For these reasons, in recent years, output-only modal identification techniques have
being largely used. This can lead to a considerable saving of resources, since it is not
necessary any type of equipment to excite the structure. In addition, it is not necessary
to interrupt the operation of the structure, which is very important in case of strategic
infrastructures that, in case of closure, will strongly affect the traffic. Another key
aspect is that the measurements are made under real operating conditions. In this work,
the used approach belongs to this latter category: the identification was carried out
by using an output only approach in the frequency domain, the Enhanced Frequency
Domain Decomposition (EFDD) technique (Brincker et al., 2001).
4.5.2 Neural Network-based Data Processing
Whenever a large quantity of noisy data need to be processed in short time there
are other methods, based on soft computing techniques, that have proven to be very
efficient (see for example: Adeli, 2001; Arangio & Bontempi, 2010; Ceravolo et al.,
1995; Choo et al., 2009; Dordoni et al., 2010; Freitag et al., 2011; Ni et al., 2002; Kim
et al., 2000; Ko et al., 2002; Sgambi et al., 2012; Tsompanakis et al., 2008) and have
attracted the attention of the research community. In particular, in this work a neural
network-based approach is applied for the assessment of the structural condition of a
cable-stayed bridge.
The neural network concept has its origins in attempts to find mathematical repre-
sentations of information processing in biological systems, but a neural network can
also be viewed as a way of constructing a powerful statistical model for nonlinear
regression. It can be described by a series of functional transformations working in
different correlated layers (Bishop, 2006):
yk(x, w) = h


M
j=1
w
(2)
kj
g


D
j=1
w
(1)
ji xi + b
(1)
j0

 + b
(2)
k0

 (4.1)
where yk is the k-th neural network output; x is the vector of the D variables in
the input layer; w consists of the adaptive weight parameters, w
(1)
ji and w
(2)
kj
, and the
biases, b
(1)
j0 and b
(2)
k0
; H is the number of units in the hidden layer; and the quantities in
the brackets are known as activations: each of them is transformed using a nonlinear
activation function (h and g).
Input–output data pairs from a system are used to train the network by ‘learning’ or
‘estimating’ the weight parameters and biases. Usually, the values of the components
of w are estimated from the training data by minimizing a proper error function. The
estimation of these parameters, i.e. the so called model fitting, can be also derived as
a particular approximation of the Bayesian framework (MacKay, 1992; Lampinen &
Vethari, 2001). More details are given in (Arangio & Beck, 2012).

A key aspect in the use of neural network models is the definition of the optimal
internal architecture that is the number of weight parameters needed to adequately
approximate the required function. In fact, it is not correct to choose simply the model
that fits the data better: more complex models will always fit the data better but
they may be over–parameterized and so they make poor predictions for new cases.
The problem of finding the optimal number of parameters provides an example of
Ockham’s razor, which is the principle that one should prefer simpler models to more
complex models, and that this preference should be traded off against the extent to
which the models fit the data (Sivia, 1996). The best generalization performance is
achieved by the model whose complexity is neither too small nor too large.
The issue of model complexity can be solved in the framework of Bayesian proba-
bility. In fact, the most plausible model class among a set M of NM candidate ones can
be obtained by applying Bayes’ Theorem as follows:
p(Mj|D, M) ∝ p D|Mj p Mj|M (4.2)
The factor p(D/Mj) is known as the evidence for the model class Mj provided by the
data D. Equation (4.2) illustrates that the most plausible model class is the one that
maximizes p(D/Mj)p(Mj) with respect to j. If there is no particular reason a priori to
prefer one model over another, they can be treated as equally plausible a priori and a
non informative prior, i.e. p(Mj) = 1/NM, can be assigned; then different models with
different architectures can be objectively compared just by evaluating their evidence
(MacKay, 1992; Lam et al., 2006).
4.6 Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring:
A Case Study
4.6.1 Description of the Considered Bridge and Its Monitoring System
In the following it is presented a case study that shows the key role of structural
monitoring for increasing our knowledge on the operational behavior of the structures,
allowing the detection of anomalies in a timely manner. The considered structure is a
real bridge, the Tianjin Yonghe Bridge, proposed as benchmark problem by the Asian-
Pacific Network of Centers for Research in Smart Structure Technology (ANCRiSST
SHM benchmark problem, 2011) (see Figure 4.11). In October 2011 they shared some
data of the long term monitoring of the bridge with the Structural Health Monitoring
community. The benchmark data included also an ANSYS finite element model of the
structure that was at the base of the numerical analyses carried out in this work.
The Tianjin Yonghe Bridge is one of the earliest cable-stayed bridges constructed in
mainland China. It has a main span of 260 m and two side spans of 25.15 + 99.85 m
each. The full width of the deck is about 13.6 m, including a 9 m roadway and
sidewalks. The bridge was opened to traffic since December 1987 and significant
maintenance works were carried out 19 years later. In that occasion, for ensuring the
future safety of the bridge, a sophisticated SHM system has been designed and imple-
mented by the Research Center of Structural Health Monitoring and Control of the
Harbin Institute of Technology (Li et al., 2013).

Figure 4.11 Skyline of the Tianjin Yonghe bridge with the main dimensions (top); cross section
(bottom). The distribution of the sensors is indicated.
The continuous monitoring system designed for the bridge includes 14 uniaxial
accelerometers permanently installed on the bridge deck and 1 biaxial accelerometer
that was fixed on the top of one tower to monitor its horizontal oscillation. An
anemometer was attached on the top of the tower to measure the wind speed in three
directions and a temperature sensor were installed at the mid-span of the girder to
measure the ambient temperature. The accelerometers of the deck were placed half
downstream and half upstream. The skyline of the bridge with the main dimensions
of the structure and the scheme of the distribution of the sensor is shown in Fig-
ure 4.11. While it was monitored, the bridge experienced some damages, thus, the
data that were made available for the researchers regard both health and damaged
conditions.
Data in the health condition include time histories of the accelerations recorded
by the 14 deck sensors and environmental information (wind and temperature). They
consist in registrations of 1 hour that have been repeated for 24 hours on January 17th,
2008. The sampling frequency is 100 Hz. The second part of available data includes
other measurements recorded at the same locations after some months, on July 31st,
2008. The damage observed in the meantime regarded cracking at the closure segment
of both side spans and damage at the piers (partial loss of the vertical supports due
to overloading). The dataset includes again registrations of 1 hour repeated for the 24
hours at the same sampling frequency (100 Hz). The available data have been processed
by using both a structural identification approach and a neural network-based strategy.
In the following the results are presented and compared.
4.6.2 Application of the Enhanced Frequency Domain
Decomposition
In this work the structural identification has been carried out by using the Enhanced
Frequency Domain Decomposition (EFDD) technique that is based on the analysis of
the frequency content of the response by using the auto-cross power spectral density

Figure 4.12 Averaged Singular Values Decompositions (health condition – left; damaged
condition – right).
(PSD) functions of the measured time series of the responses. The PSD matrix is then
decomposed by using the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) tool. The singular
values contain information from all spectral density functions and their peaks indicate
the existence of different structural modes, so they can be interpreted as the auto
spectral densities of the modal coordinates, and the singular vectors as mode shapes
(Brincker et al., 2001).
It should be noted that this approach is exact when the considered structure is lightly
damped and excited by a white noise, and when the mode shapes of closed modes
are geometrically orthogonal (Ewins, 2000). If these assumptions are not completely
satisfied, the SVD is an approximation, but the obtained modal information is still
enough accurate (Brincker et al., 2003). The first step of the FDD is to construct a PSD
matrix of the ambient responses G(f ):
G(f ) = E[A(f )AH
(f )] (4.3)
where the vector A(f ) collects the acceleration responses in the frequency domain, the
superscript H denotes the Hermitian transpose operation and E denotes the expected
value. In the considered case, the spectral matrix G(f ) was computed by using the
Welch’s averaged modified periodogram method (Welch, 1967). In addition, an over-
lapping of 50% between the various segments was considered and a periodic Hamming
windowing was applied to reduce the leakage.
After the evaluation of the spectral matrix, the FDD technique involves the Singular
Value Decomposition (SVD) of G(f ) at each frequency and the inspection of the curves
representing the singular values (SV). The SVD have been carried out for the 24 hour
registrations carried out on January 17th, 2008. The consistency of the spectral peaks
and the time invariance of resonant frequencies has been investigated by analyzing the
auto-spectra of the vertical accelerations acquired at different time of the day and by
evaluating the corresponding average auto-spectral estimates.
The averaged SVD plot in health conditions is shown in the left side of Figure 4.12.
The attention was focused on the frequencies below 2 Hz. The selection of this range
has been done for two reasons: first, because the most important modes for the dynamic

Figure 4.13 FEM model of the bridge (left); Comparison of the frequencies of the first six
modes obtained from the Finite Element Model (FEM) and from the vibration-based
identification in undamaged and damaged conditions (right).
description of large structural systems generally are below 2 Hz; in addition, the avail-
able data included the measurements of 14 stations (7 downstream and 7 upstream)
that made difficult to identify clearly higher frequency. Looking at the plot, is possible
to note that the fourth mode is not characterized by a single well-defined peak on the
SV line, but by different close peaks around the frequency 1 Hz, suggesting a nonlinear
behavior of the bridge.
The same procedure has been applied for processing the time series of the response
in damaged conditions. In the plot on the right of Figure 4.12 the related averaged
SVD is shown. It is possible to note three singular values coming up around 1.1 and
1.3 Hz that indicate the presence of three modes in this range. The other modes are
reasonable separated.
The results of the vibration-based identification have been compared with the output
of the modal analysis carried out with the finite element model of the structure. For this
comparison it has to be considered that the FE model represents the “as built’’ bridge
where the mechanical properties and the cross sections were assigned as reported in
the original project, while the monitored data represent the behavior of the bridge
after years of operation. The comparison of the first six frequencies is summarized in
the table on the right side of Figure 4.13 and the first three mode shapes are shown
in Figure 4.14. More details are given in (Arangio et al., 2013; Arangio & Bontempi,
2014).
Looking at the plots in Figure 4.14, it is possible to note that the mode shapes iden-
tified using the time series recorded in undamaged condition are in good agreement
with those given by the finite element model. The mode shapes remains similar also
after damage because probably it affects the higher modes. The deterioration of the
structure during time and the occurrence of damage are suggested by the decrement of
the frequencies: those of the FEM model, which represent the “as built’’ structure are
higher of those obtained from the signal recorded in January 2008, showing that the

Figure 4.14 Comparison of the first three mode shapes obtained from the Finite Element
Model (FEM) and from the vibration-based identification in undamaged and damaged
conditions.
years of operation have reduced the overall stiffness of the structure. This phenomenon
is even more evident looking at the decrement of the frequencies in the damaged
condition.
4.6.3 Application of a Neural Networks-based Approach
The results obtained with the structural identification have been cross validated with
those obtained by applying a neural network-based strategy. The proposed method
consists in building different neural network models, one for each measurement point
and for each hour of measurements (that is, the number of network models is equal
to 14 (sensor locations) × 24 (hours) = 336). The neural network models are built and
trained using the time-histories of the accelerations recorded in the selected points in
the undamaged situation. The purpose of these models is to approximate the behavior
of the undamaged bridge taking into account the variation of the traffic during the
different hours of the day.
The procedure for network training is shown in Figure 4.15. The time-history of
the response f is sampled at regular intervals, generating series of discrete values ft.
In order to obtain signals that could be adequately reproduced, the time series needed

Figure 4.15 Scheme of the proposed damage detection strategy.
to be pre-processed by applying appropriate scaling and smoothing techniques. After
that, a set d of values of the processed time series, ft−d+1, . . . , ft, is used as input of
the network model, while the next value ft+1 is used as target output. By stepping
along the time axis, a training data set consisting of many sets of input vectors with
the corresponding output values is built, and the network models are trained.
The architecture of the model is chosen by applying the Bayesian approach discussed
in section 4.2 and the models with the highest evidence have been selected. They
have four inputs and three internal units. The performance of the models is tested by
proposing to the trained networks input patterns of values recorded some minutes after
those used for training ft+n−d . . . ft+n, and by predicting the value of ft+n+1. The models
are considered well trained when they show to be able to reproduce the expected values
with a small error. Subsequently, these trained neural networks models are tested with
data recorded in the following days. The testing patterns include time series recorded
in both undamaged and damaged conditions.
For each pattern of four inputs, the next value is predicted and compared with the
target output. If the error in the prediction is negligible the models show to be able to
reproduce the monitoring data and the bridge is considered undamaged; if the error
in one or more points is large, the presence of an anomaly (that may represent or
may not represent damage) is detected. The results of the training and test phases are
elaborated as shown in Figure 4.16. The two plots show the difference err between the
network output value y and the target value t at several time steps for both training
and testing, in undamaged (left) and damaged (right) conditions. It is possible to note

Figure 4.16 Error in the approximation for training and test in health and damaged conditions.
that the mean values of err (indicated by the straight lines) obtained in training and test
are comparable ( e ∼= 0) if the structure remains undamaged. In contrast, in case of
anomalies that may correspond to damage, there is a significant difference e between
the values of the error in testing and training.
To distinguish the actual cause of the anomaly, the intensity of e is checked at
different measurement points: if e is large in several points, it can be concluded that
the external actions (wind, traffic) are probably changed. In this case, the trained neural
network models are unable to represent the time-histories of the response parameters,
and they have to be updated and re-trained according to the modified characteristics
of the action. If e is large only in one or few points it can be concluded that the bridge
experienced some damage.
In the following the results of the strategy are shown. As previously mentioned, 14
groups of neural networks have been made, one group for each measurement point,
which have been trained with the time histories of the accelerations in health conditions
(data recorded on January 17th, 2008). In order to take into account the change in the
vibrations of the structures caused by the different use during the day, one network
model for each hour of monitoring has been created (24 network models for each
point). For the training phase of each model, 4 steps of the considered time history
are given as input and the following step as output. The training set of each network
model includes 5000 examples chosen randomly in the entire set.
The trained networks have been tested by using the time histories of the accelerations
recorded at the same points and at the same time some month after, on July 31st 2008.
The difference between the root mean squares of the error, ERMS, calculated in the
two dates for each point is shown in Figures 4.17 and 4.18. Each plot represents one
hour of the day (H1, H3, etc.) and has on the x-axis the measurement points and on
the y-axis the value of the difference of the errors ERMS; the results every two hours
are shown. The measurement points are represented on two rows: the first one (deep
grey) represents the results of the downward sensors (#1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13) while the
second one (light grey) represents the results of the upward sensors (#2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10,
12, 14) (see also Figure 4.11 for the location of the sensors).
Looking at the plots, it is possible to notice that, apart from some hours of the day
that look difficult to reproduce, the neural networks models are able to approximate
the time history of the acceleration with a small error in almost all the measurement
points, except that around sensor #10. Considering that in the undamaged situation

Figure 4.17 Root mean square of the error in the 14 locations of the sensors (from H1 to H11).
Figure 4.18 Root mean square of the error in the 14 locations of the sensors (from H13 to H23).
the error was small in all the points, this difference is interpreted as the presence of an
anomaly (damage) in the structure. Between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and around 9 p.m. the
error is larger in various sensors but it is possible that this depends on the additional
vibrations given by the traffic in the busiest hours of operation of the bridge.
Note that there is another factor which was not examined in this study, but which
could have partially influenced the results: the dependence on the temperature, as
stated by (Li et al., 2010). Actually, the two signals have been recorded in two different
periods of the year that are characterized by significant climatic differences. However,
the results obtained with the two methods suggest that the detected anomalies do
not depend only on the temperature, but they could be related to the presence of
deterioration or damage.

4.7 Conclusions
The design of complex structural systems requires an accurate definition of the project
requirements and a detailed verification of the expected performance. In this sense,
structural health monitoring is an essential tool that allows the comparison between
the as built structure and the as designed one and enriches the engineer’s knowledge
on the structure, making the required modifications possible.
A key aspect is the interpretation of the monitoring data and the assessment of
the structural conditions. It has been shown that different approaches exist, ranging
from the traditional identification procedures up to the application of advanced soft
computing technique. For each situation it will be necessary to choice the appropriate
approach. Where possible, additional information can be gained by using different
strategies and by cross-validating the obtained results.
To illustrate this process a characteristic bridge has been analyzed. In particular,
the available time histories of the acceleration have been processed by using first an
identification procedure in the frequency domain and then a neural network-based
strategy. Both methods detected the occurrence of an anomaly but were not able to
identify clearly where. Those results have been compared also with those obtained from
the finite element model of the bridge and the comparison highlights the difference of
the behavior between as built conditions and the current state after several years of
operation.
Acknowledgments
Prof. Hui Li and Prof. Wensong Zhou of the Harbin Institute of Technology, Eng. Silvia
Mannucci, the team www.francobontempi.org from Sapienza University of Rome are
gratefully acknowledged. Prof. Jim Beck of Caltech is acknowledged for his contribu-
tion to the development of the Bayesian framework for neural networks models. This
research was partially supported by StroNGER s.r.l. from the fund “FILAS – POR
FESR LAZIO 2007/2013 – Support for the research spin off’’.
4.8 References
Adeli, H., (2001). Neural networks in civil engineering: 1989–2000. Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 16(2), 126–142.
ANCRiSST, (2013). ANCRiSST SHM benchmark problem. Center of Structural Monitoring
and Control of the Harbin Institute of Technology, China, (last accessed January 2013),
http://smc.hit.edu.cn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&Itemid=81.
Arangio, S., (2012). Reliability based approach for structural design and assessment: perfor-
mance criteria and indicators in current European codes and guidelines, International Journal
of Lifecycle Performance Engineering, 1(1), 64–91.
Arangio, S., and Beck, J.L., (2012). Bayesian neural networks for bridges integrity assessment,
Structural Control & Health Monitoring, 19(1), 3–21.
Arangio, S., and Bontempi, F., (2010). Soft computing based multilevel strategy for bridge
integrity monitoring, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 25, 348–362.
Arangio, S., Bontempi, F., and Ciampoli, M., (2010). Structural integrity monitoring for
dependability. Structure and infrastructure Engineering, 7(1), 75–86.
Arangio, S., Mannucci, S., and Bontempi, F., (2013). Structural identification of the cable stayed
bridge of the ANCRiSST SHM benchmark problem, Proceedings of the 11th International

Conference on Structural Safety & Reliability (ICOSSAR 201), June 16–20, 2013, New York,
USA.
Arangio, S., and Bontempi, F., (2014). Structural health monitoring of a cable-stayed bridge
with Bayesian neural networks, Structure and infrastructure Engineering, in press.
Avizienis, I., Laprie, J.C., and Randell, B., (2004). Dependability and its threats: a taxon-
omy, Proccedings of 18th IFIP World Computer Congress, Building the Information Society.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Toulouse, France, pp. 91–120.
Bentley, J.P., (1993). An introduction to reliability and quality engineering, Longman: Essex.
Biondini, F., Frangopol, D.M., and Malerba, P.G., (2008). Uncertainty effects on lifetime
structural performance of cable-stayed bridges, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 23(4):
509–522.
Bishop, C.M., (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer: Berlin.
Bontempi, F., (2006). Basis of design and expected performances for the Messina Strait Bridge,
Proceedings of BRIDGE 2006 Conference, Hong Kong.
Bontempi, F., Gkoumas, K., and Arangio, S. (2008). Systemic approach for the maintenance of
complex structural systems, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 4, 77–94.
Bontempi, F., and Giuliani, L., (2010). Basic aspects for the uncertainty in the design and analysis
of bridges, 5th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management
(IABMAS 2010), Philadelphia, PA, 11–15 July 2010, pp. 2205–2212.
Brincker, L., Zhang, L., and Andersen, P., (2001). Modal identification of output-only systems
using frequency domain decomposition, Smart Materials and Structures, 10(3), 441–445.
Brincker, R., Ventura, C.E., and Andersen, P., (2003). Why output-only modal testing is a
desirable tool for a wide range of practical applications, 21st International Modal Analysis
Conference (IMAC-XXI), Kissimmee, FL, 3–6 February 2003, 8 p.
Casas, J.R., (2010). Assessment and monitoring of existing bridges to avoid unnecessary
strengthening or replacement, 5th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety
and Management (IABMAS 2010), Philadelphia, PA, 11–15 July 2010, pp. 2268–2276.
De Stefano, A. and Sabia, D. (1995). Hierarchical use of neural techniques in structural damage
recognition, Smart Materials and Structures, 4(4), 270–280.
Choo, J.F., Ha, D.-H., and Koh, H.M., (2009). Neural network-based damage detection
algorithm using dynamic responses measured in civil structures, Fifth International Joint
Conference on INC, IMS and IDC 2009, pp. 682–685.
Crosti, C., Olmati, P., and Gentili, F., (2012). Structural response of bridges to fire after
explosion, 6th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management
(IABMAS 2012), Stresa, Lake Maggiore, Italy, 8–12 July 2012, pp. 2017–2023.
Crosti, C., Duthinh, D., and Simiu, E., (2011). Risk consistency and synergy in multihazard
design, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(8), 844–849.
Doebling, S.W., Farrar, C.R., Prime, M.B., and Shevitz, D.W., (1996). Damage identification
and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibration
characteristics: A literature review, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-13070-MS
1996.
Dordoni, S., Malerba, P.G., Sgambi, L., and Manenti, S., (2010). Fuzzy reliability assessment of
bridge piers in presence of scouring, 5th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance,
Safety and Management (IABMAS 2010), Philadelphia, PA, 11–15 July 2010, pp. 1388–
1395.
Elnashai, A.S. and Tsompanakis, Y. (2012). Uncertainties in life-cycle analysis and design of
structures and infrastructures, Guest editorial, Special issue on uncertainties in life-cycle anal-
ysis and design of structures and infrastructures, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
8(10), 891–892.
Ewins, D.J., (2000). Modal testing. Theory, practice and application, 2nd Edition. Research
Studies Press Ltd, Baldock, England.

Frangopol, D.M., (2011). Life-cycle performance, management, and optimization of structural
systems under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges. Structure and infrastructure
Engineering, 7(6), 389–413.
Frangopol, D.M., Saydam, D., and Kim, S., (2012). Maintenance, management, life-cycle design
and performance of structures and infrastructures: a brief review, Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 8(1), 1–25.
Frangopol, D.M., and Tsompanakis, Y., (2009). Optimization under uncertainty with empha-
sis on structural applications, Guest editorial, Special issue on structural optimization
considering uncertainties, Structural Safety, 31(6), 449.
Freitag, S., Graf, W., and Kaliske, M., (2011). Recurrent neural networks for fuzzy data,
Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering – Data Mining in Engineering, 18(3), 265–280.
Gul, M., and Catbas, F.N., (2008). Ambient vibration data analysis for structural identification
and global condition assessment, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 134(8), 650–662.
Kim, S.H., Yoon, C., and Kim, B.J., (2000). Structural monitoring system based on sensitivity
analysis and a neural network, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering; 15(4),
309–318.
Ko, J.M., Sun, Z.G., and Ni, Y.Q., (2002). Multi-stage identification scheme for detecting
damage in cable-stayed Kap Shui Mun Bridge. Engineering Structures, 24, 857–68.
Ko, J.M., Ni, Y.Q., Zhou, H.F., Wang, J.Y., and Zhou, X.T., (2009). Investigation con-
cerning structural health monitoring of an instrumented cable-stayed bridge, Structure and
Koh, H.M., Kim, H.J., Lim, J.H., Kang, S.C., and Choo, J.F., (2010). Lifetime design of
cable-supported super-long-span bridges, 5th International Conference on Bridge Mainte-
nance, Safety and Management (IABMAS 2010), Philadelphia (PA), 11–15 July 2010, pp.
35–52.
Ivezić, D., Tanasijević, M., and Ignjatović, D., (2008). Fuzzy approach to dependability
performance evaluation, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 24(7), 779–792.
Lam, H.F., Yuen, K.V., and Beck, J.L., (2006). Structural health monitoring via measured
Ritz vectors utilizing Artificial Neural Networks, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 21, 232–241.
Lampinen, J., and Vethari, A., (2001). Bayesian approach for neural networks – review and case
studies. Neural Network; 14(3), 257–274.
Li, H., Ou, J., Zhao, X., Zhou, W., Li, H., and Zhou, Z., (2006). Structural health monitor-
ing system for Shandong Binzhou Yellow River Highway Bridge, Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering; 21(4), 306–317.
Li, H., Li, S., Ou, J., and Li, H., (2010). Modal identification of bridges under varying environ-
mental conditions: temperature and wind effects, Structural Control and Health Monitoring;
17, 495–512.
Li, S., Li, H., Liu, Y., Lan, C., Zhou, W., and Ou, J., (2013). SMC structural health monitoring
benchmark problem using monitored data from an actual cable-stayed bridge, Structural
Control and Health Monitoring, published online March 2013, DOI: 10.1002/stc.1559.
Liu, G.R., and Han, X., (2004). Computational inverse techniques in nondestructive evaluation.
Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
MacKay, D.J.C., (1992). A practical Bayesian framework for back-propagation networks.
Neural Computation, 4(3), 448–472.
Nahman, J., (2002). Dependability of engineering systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
NASA, (1995). Systems engineering handbook. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Available online at: www.nasa.gov (last accessed April 24, 2013).
Ni, Y.Q., Wong, B.S., and Ko, J.M., (2002). Constructing input vectors to neural networks for
structural damage identification. Smart Materials and Structures, 11, 825–833.
Perrow, C., (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies, University Press.

Petrini, F., and Bontempi, F., (2011). Estimation of fatigue life for long span suspension bridge
hangers under wind action and train transit, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7(7–8),
491–507.
Petrini, F., and Palmeri, A., (2012). Performance-based design of bridge structures sub-
jected to multiple hazards: A review, 6th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance,
Safety and Management (IABMAS 2012), Stresa, Lake Maggiore, Italy, 8–12 July 2012,
pp. 2040–2047.
Petrini, F., and Ciampoli, M., (2012). Performance-based wind design of tall buildings, Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, 8(10), 954–966.
Sgambi, L., Gkoumas, K., and Bontempi, F., (2012). Genetic algorithms for the dependability
assurance in the design of a long-span suspension bridge, Computer-Aided Civil and
Sivia, D.S., (1996). Data analysis: A Bayesian tutorial. Oxford Science.
Skelton, R.E., (2002). Structural system: a marriage of structural engineering and system science,
Journal of Structural Control, 9, 113–133.
Smith, I., (2001). Increasing Knowledge of structural performance, Structural Engineering
International, 12(3), 191–195.
Sohn, H., Farrar, C.R., Hemez, F.M., Shunk, D.D., Stinemates, D.W., Nadler, B.R., and
Czarnecki, J.J., (2004). A review of structural health monitoring literature: 1996–2001,
Report LA-13976-MS 2004, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.
Spencer, B.F.Jr, Ruiz-Sandoval, M.E., and Kurata, N., (2004). Smart sensing technology:
opportunities and challenges, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 11, 349–368.
Tsompanakis, Y., Lagaros, N.D., and Stavroulakis, G., (2008). Soft computing techniques in
parameter identification and probabilistic seismic analysis of structures, Advances in
Engineering Software, 39(7), 612–624.
Welch, D., (1967). The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a
method based on time averaging over short modified periodograms, IEEE Transactions on
Audio and Electroacoustics, 15(2), 70–73.

Maintenance and Safety of Aging Infrastructure

Structures and Infrastructures Series
ISSN 1747-7735
Book Series Editor:
Dan M. Frangopol
Professor of Civil Engineering and
The Fazlur R. Khan Endowed Chair of Structural Engineering and Architecture
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems (ATLSS Center)
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA, USA
Volume 10

Maintenance and Safety of
Aging Infrastructure
Dan M. Frangopol andYiannis Tsompanakis

Cover illustration:
View of Brooklyn bridge maintenance, New York, USA
Photograph taken by Yiannis Tsompanakis, June 2013
Colophon
Book Series Editor :
Dan M. Frangopol
Volume Authors:
Dan M. Frangopol and Yiannis Tsompanakis
CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Typeset by MPS Ltd, Chennai, India
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the
publishers.
Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the
information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage
to the property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the
information contained herein.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Maintenance and safety of aging infrastructure / edited by Dan M. Frangopol and Yiannis
Tsompanakis.
pages cm. – (Structures and infrastructures series, ISSN 1747-7735 ; volume 10)
Summary: ‘‘This edited volume presents the latest scientific research and application practice
findings in the engineering field of maintenance and safety of aging infrastructure. The selected
invited contributions will provide an overview of the use of advanced computational and/or
experimental techniques in damage and vulnerability assessment as well as maintenance and
retrofitting of aging structures and infrastructures (buildings, bridges, lifelines, etc) for
minimization of losses and life-cycle-cost’’ — Provided by publisher.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-415-65942-0 (hardback) — ISBN 978-0-203-38628-6 (ebook)
1. Structural dynamics—Data processing. 2. Structural engineering—Data processing.
3. Buildings—Maintenance and repair. 4. Bridges—Maintenance and repair.
I. Frangopol, Dan M., editor. II. Tsompanakis, Yiannis, 1969- editor.
TA654.M285 2014
624.1–dc23
2014019414
Published by: CRC Press/Balkema
P.O. Box 11320, 2301 EH Leiden, The Netherlands
e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com
www.crcpress.com – www.taylorandfrancis.com
ISBN: 978-0-415-65942-0 (Hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-38628-6 (e-book)
Structures and Infrastructures Series: ISSN 1747-7735
Volume 10
DOI: 10.1201/b17073-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b17073-1

Table of Contents
Editorial XIX
About the Book Series Editor XXI
Preface XXV
About the Editors XXXV
Contributors List XXXVII
Author Data XLI
Chapter 1 Reliability-based Durability Design and Service Life Assessment
of Concrete Structures in a Marine Environment 1
Mitsuyoshi Akiyama, Dan M. Frangopol and Hiroshi Matsuzaki
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Durability Design Criterion of RC Structures in a Marine Environment 2
1.2.1 Reliability Prediction 2
1.2.2 Durability Design Criterion based on Reliability 8
1.3 Life-Cycle Reliability Estimation of Deteriorated Existing RC Structures 13
1.3.1 Effect of Spatial Distribution of Rebar Corrosion on Flexural
Capacity of RC Beams 13
1.3.2 Updating the Reliability of Existing RC Structures by
Incorporating Spatial Variability 20
1.4 Conclusions 23
1.5 References 24
Chapter 2 Designing Bridges for Inspectability and Maintainability 27
Sreenivas Alampalli
2.1 Introduction 27
2.2 Bridge Inspection 28
2.3 Bridge Maintenance 31
2.4 Role of Planning and Design 34
2.5 Designing for Inspectability and Maintainability 36
2.5.1 Bridge Type Selection 36
2.5.1.1 Redundancy 36
2.5.1.2 Jointless Bridges 39
2.5.1.3 Weathering Steel 40
2.5.1.4 Skew 40
2.5.1.5 Material Type 41

VI Table of Contents
2.5.2 Bridge Details 41
2.5.2.1 Bearings and Jacking Details 41
2.5.2.2 Deck Drainage and Scuppers 42
2.5.2.3 Joints 43
2.5.2.4 Steel Details 43
2.5.3 Access 44
2.5.3.1 Abutments and Piers 44
2.5.3.2 Trusses and Arches 45
2.5.3.3 Girder Bridges 47
2.5.3.4 Bridge Railing and Fencing 47
2.6 Complex, Unique and Signature Bridges 47
2.6.1 Specialized Procedures Requirement for Complex and
Unique Bridges 48
2.6.2 Movable Bridges 50
2.6.3 Signature Bridges 51
2.6.4 Bridge Security 52
2.7 Conclusions 52
2.8 References 53
Chapter 3 Structural Vulnerability Measures for Assessment of Deteriorating
Bridges in Seismic Prone Areas 55
Alice Alipour and Behrouz Shafei
3.1 Introduction 55
3.2 Numerical Modeling of Chloride Intrusion 56
3.2.1 Evaporable Water Content 57
3.2.2 Chloride Binding Capacity 59
3.2.3 Reference Chloride Diffusion Coefficient 62
3.3 Chloride Diffusion Coefficient 63
3.3.1 Ambient Temperature 63
3.3.2 Relative Humidity 64
3.3.3 Age of Concrete 67
3.3.4 Free Chloride Content 67
3.4 Estimation of Corrosion Initiation Time 68
3.5 Extent of Structural Degradation 71
3.6 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Models 74
3.6.1 Material Properties 76
3.6.2 Superstructure 76
3.6.3 Columns 77
3.6.4 Abutments 77
3.6.5 Foundation 78
3.7 Structural Capacity Evaluation of Deteriorating Bridges 79
3.8 Seismic Performance of Deteriorating Bridges 82
3.8.1 Probabilistic Life-Time Fragility Analysis 83
3.8.2 Seismic Vulnerability Index for Deteriorating Bridges 88
3.9 Conclusions 92
3.10 References 92

Table of Contents VII
Chapter 4 Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring 95
4.1 Introduction 95
4.2 Knowledge and Design 96
4.3 System Engineering Approach & Performance-based Design 99
4.4 Structural Dependability 102
4.5 Structural Health Monitoring 105
4.5.1 Structural Identification 107
4.5.2 Neural Network-based Data Processing 108
4.6 Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring: A Case Study 109
4.6.1 Description of the Considered Bridge and Its
Monitoring System 109
4.6.2 Application of the Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition 110
4.6.3 Application of a Neural Networks-based Approach 113
4.7 Conclusions 117
4.8 References 117
Chapter 5 Emerging Concepts and Approaches for Efficient and Realistic
Uncertainty Quantification 121
Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou and Edoardo Patelli
5.1 Introduction 121
5.2 Advanced Stochastic Modelling and Analysis Techniques 122
5.2.1 General Remarks 122
5.2.2 Versatile Signal Processing Techniques for Spectral Estimation in
Civil Engineering 123
5.2.2.1 Spectral Analysis: The Fourier Transform 123
5.2.2.2 Non-Stationary Spectral Analysis 124
5.2.3 Spectral Analysis Subject to Limited and/or Missing Data 126
5.2.3.1 Fourier Transform with Zeros 126
5.2.3.2 Clean Deconvolution 126
5.2.3.3 Autoregressive Estimation 126
5.2.3.4 Least Squares Spectral Analysis 126
5.2.3.5 Artificial Neural Networks: A Potential Future Research
Path 127
5.2.4 Path Integral Techniques for Efficient Response Determination
and Reliability Assessment of Civil Engineering Structures
and Infrastructure 127
5.2.4.1 Numerical Path Integral Techniques: Discrete
Chapman-Kolmogorov Equation Formulation 128
5.2.4.2 Approximate/Analytical Wiener Path Integral
Techniques 129
5.3 Generalised Uncertainty Models 129
5.3.1 Problem Description 129
5.3.2 Classification of Uncertainties 130
5.3.3 Imprecise Probability 131
5.3.4 Engineering Applications of Imprecise Probability 132
Chapter 4 Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring4 Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring 95
4.1 Introduction 95
4.2 Knowledge and Design 96
4.3 System Engineering Approach & Performance-based Design 99& Performance-based Design 99
4.4 Structural Dependability 102
4.5 Structural Health Monitoring 105
4.5.1 Structural Identification 107
4.5.2 Neural Network-based Data Processing 108Processing 108
4.6 Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring: A Case Study 109by Structural Health Monitoring: A Case Study 109
4.6.1 Description of the Considered Bridge and Its
Monitoring System 109
4.6.2 Application of the Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition 110of the Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition 110
4.6.3 Application of a Neural Networks-based Approach 113of a Neural Networks-based Approach 113
4.7 Conclusions 117
4.8 References 117

VIII Table of Contents
5.3.5 Fuzzy Probabilities 138
5.3.6 Engineering Applications of Fuzzy Probability 141
5.4 Monte Carlo Techniques 141
5.4.1 General Remarks 141
5.4.2 History of Monte Carlo and Random Number Generators 142
5.4.2.1 Random Number Generator 143
5.4.3 Realizations of Random Variables and Stochastic Processes 143
5.4.4 Evaluation of Integrals 145
5.4.5 Advanced Methods and Future Trends 146
5.4.5.1 Sequential Monte Carlo 147
5.4.6 High Performance Computing 149
5.4.7 Approaches to Lifetime Predictions 150
5.4.7.1 Monte Carlo Simulation of Crack Initiation 151
5.4.7.2 Monte Carlo Simulation of Crack Propagation 151
5.4.7.3 Monte Carlo Simulation of Other Degradation Processes 152
5.4.7.4 Lifetime Prediction and Maintenance Schedules 152
5.5 Conclusions 153
5.6 References 154
Chapter 6 Time-Variant Robustness of Aging Structures 163
Fabio Biondini and Dan M. Frangopol
6.2 Damage Modeling 165
6.2.1 Deterioration Patterns 166
6.2.2 Deterioration Rate 167
6.2.3 Local and Global Measures of Damage 168
6.3 Structural Performance Indicators 169
6.3.1 Parameters of Structural Behavior 169
6.3.2 Pseudo-Loads 170
6.3.3 Failure Loads and Failure Times 172
6.4 Measure of Structural Robustness 173
6.5 Role of Performance Indicators and Structural Integrity 174
6.5.1 A Comparative Study 174
6.5.2 Structural Integrity Index 177
6.6 Damage Propagation 178
6.6.1 Propagation Mechanisms 178
6.6.2 Fault-Tree Analysis 179
6.7 Structural Robustness and Progressive Collapse 179
6.8 Structural Robustness and Static Indeterminacy 182
6.9 Structural Robustness, Structural Redundancy and Failure Times 186
6.9.1 Case Study 188
6.9.2 Corrosion Damage and Failure Loads 188
6.9.3 Robustness and Redundancy 189
6.9.4 Failure Times 193
6.10 Role of Uncertainty and Probabilistic Analysis 194
6.11 Conclusions 196
6.12 References 197

Table of Contents IX
Chapter 7 Extending Fatigue Life of Bridges Beyond 100 Years by
using Monitored Data 201
Eugen Brühwiler
7.2 Proposed Approach 202
7.2.1 Introduction 202
7.2.2 Structural Safety Verification Format 203
7.2.3 Determination of Updated Action Effect 203
7.2.4 Safety Requirements 204
7.3 Case Study of a Riveted Railway Bridge 205
7.3.1 Description of the Bridge 205
7.3.2 Model for Structural Analysis 205
7.3.3 Monitoring 206
7.3.4 Fatigue Safety Verification 207
7.3.4.1 Step 1: Fatigue Safety Verification with Respect to the
Fatigue Limit 209
7.3.4.2 Step 2: Fatigue Damage Accumulation Calculation and
Fatigue Safety Verification 209
7.3.5 Discussion of the Results 210
7.4 Case Study of a Highway Bridge Deck in
Post-tensioned Concrete 211
7.4.1 Motivation 211
7.4.2 Monitoring System 212
7.4.3 Investigation of Extreme Action Effects 213
7.4.4 Investigation of Fatigue Action Effects 213
7.4.5 Discussion of the Results 213
7.5 Conclusions 214
7.6 References 214
Chapter 8 Management and Safety of Existing Concrete Structures via
Optical Fiber Distributed Sensing 217
Joan R. Casas, Sergi Villalba and Vicens Villalba
8.2 OBR Technology: Description and Background 219
8.3 Application to Concrete Structures 221
8.3.1 Laboratory Test in a Reinforced Concrete Slab 222
8.3.1.1 OBR Sensors Application 223
8.3.2 Prestressed Concrete Bridge 228
8.3.2.1 Reading Strains under 400 kN Truck 230
8.3.2.2 Reading Strains under Normal Traffic and 400 kN Static
Load 230
8.3.3 Concrete Cooling Tower 233
8.3.3.1 OBR Sensors Application 236
8.4 Results and Discussion 241
8.5 Conclusions 243
8.6 References 244

X Table of Contents
Chapter 9 Experimental Dynamic Assessment of Civil Infrastructure 247
Álvaro Cunha, Elsa Caetano, Filipe Magalhães and
Carlos Moutinho
9.1 Dynamic Testing and Continuous Monitoring of Civil Structures 247
9.2 Excitation and Vibration Measurement Devices 248
9.3 Modal Identification 251
9.3.1 Overview of EMA and OMA Methods 251
9.3.2 Pre-processing 253
9.3.3 Frequency Domain Decomposition 254
9.3.4 Stochastic Subspace Identification 256
9.3.5 Poly-reference Least Squares Frequency Domain 260
9.4 Mitigation of Environmental Effects on Modal Estimates and
Vibration Based Damage Detection 264
9.5 Examples of Dynamic Testing and Continuous
Dynamic Monitoring 267
9.5.1 Dynamic Testing 267
9.5.2 Continuous Dynamic Monitoring 270
9.5.2.1 Continuous Monitoring of Pedro e Inês
Lively Footbridge 270
9.5.2.2 Continuous Monitoring of Infante
D. Henrique Bridge 274
9.5.2.3 Continuous Monitoring of Braga Stadium
Suspension Roof 277
9.6 Conclusions 283
9.7 References 285
Chapter 10 Two Approaches for the Risk Assessment of Aging
Infrastructure with Applications 291
David De Leon Escobedo, David Joaquín Delgado-Hernandez
and Juan Carlos Arteaga-Arcos
10.2 Use of the Expected Life-Cycle Cost to Derive Inspection Times
and Optimal Safety Levels 292
10.2.1 Highway Concrete Bridge in Mexico 292
10.2.2 Oil Offshore Platform in Mexico 295
10.2.2.1 Assessment of Structural Damage 296
10.2.2.2 Initial, Damage and Life-Cycle Cost 296
10.2.2.3 Optimal Design of an Offshore Platform 298
10.2.2.4 Effects of Epistemic Uncertainties 298
10.2.2.5 Minimum Life-Cycle Cost Designs 298
10.3 Using Bayesian Networks to Assess the Economical Effectiveness of
Maintenance Alternatives 300
10.3.1 Bayesian Networks 300
10.3.2 BN for the Risk Assessment of Earth Dams in
Central Mexico 301
10.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 303
10.5 References 304

Table of Contents XI
Chapter 11 Risk-based Maintenance of Aging Ship Structures 307
Yordan Garbatov and Carlos Guedes Soares
11.2 Corrosion Deterioration Modelling 309
11.3 Nonlinear Corrosion Wastage Model Structures 312
11.3.1 Corrosion Wastage Model Accounting for Repair 315
11.3.2 Corrosion Wastage Model Accounting for the Environment 316
11.3.3 Corrosion Degradation Surface Modelling 320
11.4 Risk-based Maintenance Planning 324
11.4.1 Analysing Failure Data 325
11.4.2 Optimal Replacement – Minimization of Cost 327
11.4.3 Optimal Replacement – Minimization of Downtime 329
11.4.4 Optimal Inspection to Maximize the Availability 330
11.4.5 Comparative Analysis of Corroded Deck Plates 332
11.4.6 Risk-based Maintenance of Tankers and Bulk Carriers 333
11.6 References 337
Chapter 12 Investigating Pavement Structure Deterioration with a Relative
Evaluation Model 343
Kiyoyuki Kaito, Kiyoshi Kobayashi and Kengo Obama
12.2 Framework of the Study 344
12.2.1 Deterioration Characteristics of the Pavement Structure 344
12.2.2 Benchmarking and Relative Evaluation 346
12.3 Mixed Markov Deterioration Hazard Model 347
12.3.1 Preconditions for Model Development 347
12.3.2 Mixed Markov Deterioration Hazard Model 348
12.3.3 Estimation of a Mixed Markov Deterioration Hazard Model 351
12.3.4 Estimation of the Heterogeneity Parameter 353
12.4 Benchmarking and Evaluation Indicator 355
12.4.1 Benchmarking Evaluation 355
12.4.2 Road Surface State Inspection and Benchmarking 355
12.4.3 Relative Evaluation and the Extraction of Intensive Monitoring
Sections 356
12.4.4 FWD Survey and the Diagnosis of the Deterioration of a
Pavement Structure 357
12.5 Application Study 358
12.5.1 Outline 358
12.5.2 Estimation Results 359
12.5.3 Relative Evaluation of Deterioration Rate 362
12.5.4 FWD Survey for Structural Diagnosis 365
12.5.5 Relation between the Heterogeneity Parameter and the Results
of the FWD Survey 370
12.5.6 Perspectives for Future Studies 375
12.7 References 377

XII Table of Contents
Chapter 13 Constructs for Quantifying the Long-term Effectiveness of
Civil Infrastructure Interventions 379
Steven Lavrenz, Jackeline Murillo Hoyos and Samuel Labi
13.2 The Constructs for Measuring Interventions Effectiveness 381
13.2.1 Life of the Intervention 382
13.2.1.1 Age-based Approach 383
13.2.1.2 Condition-based Approach 384
13.2.1.3 The Issue of Censoring and Truncation on the Age- and
Condition-based Approaches 386
13.2.2 Extension in the Life of the Infrastructure due to
the Intervention 387
13.2.3 Increase in Average Performance of the Infrastructure over the
Intervention Life 391
13.2.4 Increased Area Bounded by Infrastructure Performance Curve
due to the Intervention 393
13.2.5 Reduction in the Cost of Maintenance or Operations
Subsequent to the Intervention 396
13.2.6 Decrease in Initiation Likelihood or Increase in Initiation Time
of Distresses 400
13.4 References 403
Chapter 14 Risk Assessment and Wind Hazard Mitigation of
Power Distribution Poles 407
Yue Li, Mark G. Stewart and Sigridur Bjarnadottir
14.2 Design of Distribution Poles 408
14.3 Design (Nominal) Load (Sn) 409
14.4 Design (Nominal) Resistance (Rn) and Degradation of
Timber Poles 409
14.5 Hurricane Risk Assessment of Timber Poles 410
14.6 Hurricane Mitigation Strategies and Their Cost-effectiveness 412
14.6.1 Mitigation Strategies 412
14.6.2 Cost of Replacement (Crep) and Annual Replacement
Rate (δ) 413
14.6.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC) for Cost-effectiveness
Evaluation 413
14.7 Illustrative Example 414
14.7.1 Design 414
14.7.2 Risk Assessment 415
14.7.2.1 Hurricane Fragility 416
14.7.2.2 Updated Annual pf Considering Effects of Degradation
and Climate Change 417
14.7.3 Cost-effectiveness of Mitigation Strategies 418
14.9 References 425

Table of Contents XIII
Chapter 15 A Comparison between MDP-based Optimization Approaches
for Pavement Management Systems 429
Aditya Medury and Samer Madanat
15.2 Methodology 431
15.2.1 Top-Down Approach 432
15.2.2 Bottom-Up Approaches 433
15.2.2.1 Two Stage Bottom-Up Approach 433
15.2.2.2 Modified Two Stage Bottom-Up Approach:
Incorporating Lagrangian Relaxation Methods 435
15.2.3 Obtaining Facility-Specific Policies using Top-Down Approach:
A Simultaneous Network Optimization Approach 440
15.3 Parametric Study 441
15.3.1 Results 443
15.3.2 Implementation Issues 445
15.4 Conclusions and Future Work 445
15.5 References 446
Chapter 16 Corrosion and Safety of Structures in Marine Environments 449
Robert E. Melchers
16.2 Structural Reliability Theory 450
16.3 Progression of Corrosion with Time 453
16.4 Plates, Ships, Pipelines and Sheet Piling 456
16.5 Mooring Chains 459
16.6 Extreme Value representation of Maximum Pit Depth Uncertainty 461
16.7 Effect of Applying the Frechet Extreme Value Distribution 463
16.8 Discussion of the Results 464
16.10 References 465
Chapter 17 Retrofitting and Refurbishment of Existing Road Bridges 469
Claudio Modena, Giovanni Tecchio, Carlo Pellegrino,
Francesca da Porto, Mariano Angelo Zanini and Marco Donà
17.2 Retrofitting and Refurbishment of Common RC Bridge Typologies 474
17.2.1 Degradation Processes 476
17.2.1.1 Concrete Deterioration due to Water Penetration 476
17.2.1.2 Cracking and Spalling of Concrete Cover due to
Carbonation and Bar Oxidation 478
17.2.2 Original Design and Construction Defects 478
17.2.3 Rehabilitation and Retrofit of Existing RC Bridges 482
17.2.3.1 Rehabilitation and Treatment of the Deteriorated
Surfaces 483
17.2.3.2 Static Retrofit 485
17.2.3.3 Seismic Retrofit 501
17.2.3.4 Functional Refurbishment 505

XIV Table of Contents
17.3 Assessment and Retrofitting of Common Steel Bridge Typologies 509
17.3.1 Original Design Defects – Fatigue Effects 509
17.3.2 Degradation Processes 512
17.3.3 Rehabilitation and Retrofit of the Existing Steel Decks 515
17.3.3.1 Repair Techniques for Corroded Steel Members 515
17.3.3.2 Rehabilitation and Strengthening Techniques for
Fatigue-induced Cracks 517
17.4 Assessment and Retrofitting of Common Masonry Bridge Typologies 519
17.4.1 Degradation Processes and Original Design Defects 520
17.4.2 Rehabilitation and Retrofit of Existing Masonry Arch
Bridges 524
17.4.2.1 Barrel Vault 524
17.4.2.2 Spandrel Walls, Piers, Abutments and Foundations 525
17.6 References 531
Chapter 18 Stochastic Control Approaches for Structural Maintenance 535
Konstantinos G. Papakonstantinou and Masanobu Shinozuka
18.2 Discrete Stochastic Optimal Control with Full Observability 537
18.2.1 State Augmentation 540
18.3 Stochastic Optimal Control with Partial Observability 541
18.3.1 Bellman Backups 544
18.4 Value Function Approximation Methods 546
18.4.1 Approximations based on MDP and Q-functions 547
18.4.2 Grid-based Approximations 547
18.4.3 Point-based Solvers 549
18.4.3.1 Perseus Algorithm 549
18.5 Optimum Inspection and Maintenance Policies with POMDPs 552
18.5.1 POMDP Modeling 553
18.5.1.1 States and Maintenance Actions 553
18.5.1.2 Observations and Inspection Actions 556
18.5.1.3 Rewards 558
18.5.1.4 Joint Actions and Summary 559
18.6 Results 560
18.6.1 Infinite Horizon Results 560
18.6.2 Finite Horizon Results 565
18.8 References 570
Chapter 19 Modeling Inspection Uncertainties for On-site Condition
Assessment using NDT Tools 573
Franck Schoefs
19.2 Uncertainty Identification and Modeling during Inspection 576
19.2.1 Sources of Uncertainties: From the Tool to the Decision 576
19.2.1.1 Aleatory Uncertainties 576
19.2.1.2 Epistemic Uncertainties 577

Table of Contents XV
19.2.2 Epistemic and Aleatory Uncertainty Modelling 579
19.2.2.1 Probabilistic Modeling of PoD and PFA from
Signal Theory 580
19.2.2.2 Probabilistic Assessment of PoD and PFA from
Statistics (Calibration) 584
19.2.2.3 The ROC Curve as Decision Aid-Tool and Method
for Detection Threshold Selection: The α–δ Method 586
19.2.2.4 Case of Multiple Inspections 593
19.2.2.5 Spatial and Time Dependence of ROC Curves and
Detection Threshold for Degradation Processes 595
19.3 Recent Concepts for Decision 601
19.3.1 Bayesian Modeling for Introducing New Quantities 601
19.3.2 Discussion on the Assessment of PCE 604
19.3.3 Definition of the Cost Function for a Risk Assessment 604
19.3.3.1 Modelling and Illustration 604
19.3.3.2 Use of the α–δ Method 607
19.3.4 Definition of a Two Stage Inspection Model 610
19.4 Recent Developpements about Spatial Fields Assesment and
Data Fusion 614
19.5 Summary 615
19.6 References 616
Chapter 20 The Meaning of Condition Description and Inspection
Data Quality in Engineering Structure Management 621
Marja-Kaarina Söderqvist
20.2 Engineering Structures 622
20.3 The Inspection System 623
20.3.1 General Description 623
20.3.2 Goals of Inspection 623
20.3.3 Inspection Types and Intervals 623
20.3.4 Handbooks and Guidelines 624
20.3.5 Inspection Data 625
20.3.6 Use of Inspection Results 625
20.4 Condition Indicators 627
20.4.1 General 627
20.4.2 Data Estimated in Inspections 627
20.4.3 Data Processed by the Owner 628
20.5 The Management of Bridge Inspection Data Quality 628
20.5.1 General Rules 628
20.5.2 Tools for Data Quality Control 628
20.5.3 Training of Inspectors 629
20.5.4 Quality Measurement Process: A Case Application 630
20.5.4.1 Bridge Inspector Qualifications 630
20.5.4.2 Day for Advanced Training 630
20.5.4.3 Quality Measurements 632
20.5.4.4 Quality Reports of the Bridge Register 633
20.5.4.5 Follow up of Quality Improvement Methods 633

XVI Table of Contents
20.6 Prediction of Structure Condition 635
20.6.1 Age Behaviour Modelling 635
20.6.2 The Finnish Reference Bridges 636
20.6.2.1 Model Simulation 636
20.7 Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation Policy 637
20.7.1 Goals and Targets 637
20.7.2 Central Policy Definitions in the Management Process 638
20.7.3 Maintenance and Repair Planning 638
20.9 References 639
Chapter 21 Climate Adaptation Engineering and Risk-based Design and
Management of Infrastructure 641
Mark G. Stewart, Dimitri V. Val, Emilio Bastidas-Arteaga,
Alan O’Connor and Xiaoming Wang
21.2 Modelling Weather and Climate-related Hazards in Conditions of
Climate Change 644
21.2.1 Climate Modelling 644
21.2.2 Modelling Extreme Events under Non-Stationary Conditions 646
21.2.2.1 Generalised Extreme Value Distribution for
Block Maxima 646
21.2.2.2 Generalised Pareto Distribution for
Threshold Exceedance 647
21.2.2.3 Point Process Characterisation of Extremes 648
21.3 Impacts of Climate Change 648
21.3.1 Corrosion and Material Degradation 648
21.3.2 Frequency and Intensity of Climate Hazards 649
21.3.3 Sustainability and Embodied Energy Requirements for
Maintenance Strategies 650
21.4 Risk-based Decision Support 651
21.4.1 Definition of Risk 651
21.4.2 Cost-Effectiveness of Adaptation Strategies 658
21.5 Case Studies of Optimal Design and Management
of Infrastructure 659
21.5.1 Resilience of Interdependent Infrastructure Systems
to Floods 659
21.5.2 Strengthening Housing in Queensland Against Extreme Wind 661
21.5.3 Climate Change and Cost-Effectiveness of Adaptation
Strategies in RC Structures Subjected to Chloride Ingress 665
21.5.4 Designing On- and Offshore Wind Energy Installations to
Allow for Predicted Evolutions in Wind and Wave Loading 670
21.5.5 Impact and Adaptation to Coastal Inundation 676
21.6 Research Challenges 677
21.8 References 678

Table of Contents XVII
Chapter 22 Comparing Bridge Condition Evaluations with
Life-Cycle Expenditures 685
Bojidar Yanev
22.1 Introduction: Networks and Projects 685
22.2 Network and Project Level Condition Assessments 686
22.2.1 Potential Hazards (NYS DOT) 688
22.2.2 Load Rating (AASHTO, 2010) 688
22.2.3 Vulnerability (NYS DOT) 689
22.2.4 Serviceability and Sufficiency (NBI) 689
22.2.5 Diagnostics 690
22.3 Bridge-Related Actions 690
22.3.1 Maintenance 691
22.3.2 Preservation 692
22.3.3 Repair and Rehabilitation 692
22.4 The New York City Network – Bridge Equilibrium of Supply/Demand 692
22.5 Network Optimization/Project Prioritization 694
22.5.1 The Preventive Maintenance Model 695
22.5.2 The repair model 701
22.7 References 704
Chapter 23 Redundancy-based Design of Nondeterministic Systems 707
Benjin Zhu and Dan M. Frangopol
23.2 Redundancy Factor 709
23.2.1 Definition 709
23.2.2 Example 709
23.3 Effects of Parameters on Redundancy Factor 711
23.4 Redundancy Factors of Systems with Many Components 719
23.4.1 Using the RELSYS program 719
23.4.2 Using the MCS-based program 721
23.5 Limit States for Component Design 726
23.6 A Highway Bridge Example 728
23.6.1 Live Load Bending Moments 729
23.6.2 Dead Load Moments 730
23.6.3 Mean Resistance of Girders 730
23.6.4 An Additional Case: βsys,target = 4.0 733
23.8 References 736
Author Index 739
Subject Index 741
Structures and Infrastructures Series 745

Editorial
Welcome to the Book Series Structures and Infrastructures.
Our knowledge to model, analyze, design, maintain, manage and predict the life-
cycle performance of structures and infrastructures is continually growing. However,
the complexity of these systems continues to increase and an integrated approach
is necessary to understand the effect of technological, environmental, economical,
social and political interactions on the life-cycle performance of engineering structures
and infrastructures. In order to accomplish this, methods have to be developed to
systematically analyze structure and infrastructure systems, and models have to be
formulated for evaluating and comparing the risks and benefits associated with various
alternatives. We must maximize the life-cycle benefits of these systems to serve the needs
of our society by selecting the best balance of the safety, economy and sustainability
requirements despite imperfect information and knowledge.
In recognition of the need for such methods and models, the aim of this Book Series
is to present research, developments, and applications written by experts on the most
advanced technologies for analyzing, predicting and optimizing the performance of
structures and infrastructures such as buildings, bridges, dams, underground con-
struction, offshore platforms, pipelines, naval vessels, ocean structures, nuclear power
plants, and also airplanes, aerospace and automotive structures.
The scope of this Book Series covers the entire spectrum of structures and infrastruc-
tures. Thus it includes, but is not restricted to, mathematical modeling, computer and
experimental methods, practical applications in the areas of assessment and evalua-
tion, construction and design for durability, decision making, deterioration modeling
and aging, failure analysis, field testing, structural health monitoring, financial plan-
ning, inspection and diagnostics, life-cycle analysis and prediction, loads, maintenance
strategies, management systems, nondestructive testing, optimization of maintenance
and management, specifications and codes, structural safety and reliability, system
analysis, time-dependent performance, rehabilitation, repair, replacement, reliability
and risk management, service life prediction, strengthening and whole life costing.
This Book Series is intended for an audience of researchers, practitioners, and
students world-wide with a background in civil, aerospace, mechanical, marine and
automotive engineering, as well as people working in infrastructure maintenance,
monitoring, management and cost analysis of structures and infrastructures. Some vol-
umes are monographs defining the current state of the art and/or practice in the field,
and some are textbooks to be used in undergraduate (mostly seniors), graduate and

XX Editorial
postgraduate courses. This Book Series is affiliated to Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering (http://www.informaworld.com/sie), an international peer-reviewed
journal which is included in the Science Citation Index.
It is now up to you, authors, editors, and readers, to make Structures and
Infrastructures a success.
Dan M. Frangopol
Book Series Editor

About the Book Series Editor
Dr. Dan M. Frangopol is the first holder of the Fazlur R.
Khan Endowed Chair of Structural Engineering and Archi-
tecture at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA,
and a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmen-
tal Engineering at Lehigh University. He is also an Emeritus
Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Colorado
at Boulder, USA, where he taught for more than two decades
(1983–2006). Before joining the University of Colorado,
he worked for four years (1979–1983) in structural design
with A. Lipski Consulting Engineers in Brussels, Belgium. In
1976, he received his doctorate in Applied Sciences from the
University of Liège, Belgium, and holds three honorary doctorates (Doctor Honoris
Causa) from the Technical University of Civil Engineering in Bucharest, Romania, the
University of Liège, Belgium, and the Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Ias´
i,
Romania.
Dr. Frangopol is an Honorary Professor at seven universities (Hong Kong Polytech-
nic, Tongji, Southeast, Tianjin, Dalian, Chang’an and Harbin Institute of Technology),
and a Visiting Chair Professor at the National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology. He is a Distinguished Member of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers (ASCE), Inaugural Fellow of both the Structural Engineering Institute and the
Engineering Mechanics Institute of ASCE, Fellow of the American Concrete Institute
(ACI), Fellow of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering
(IABSE), and Fellow of the International Society for Health Monitoring of Intelli-
gent Infrastructures (ISHMII). He is also an Honorary Member of the Romanian
Academy of Technical Sciences, President of the International Association for Bridge
Maintenance and Safety (IABMAS), Honorary Member of the Portuguese Association
for Bridge Maintenance and Safety (IABMAS-Portugal Group), Honorary Member
of the IABMAS-China Group, and Honorary President of both IABMAS-Italy and
IABMAS-Brazil Groups.
Dr. Frangopol is the initiator and organizer of the Fazlur R. Khan Distinguished Lec-
ture Series (http://www.lehigh.edu/frkseries) at Lehigh University. He is an experienced
researcher and consultant to industry and government agencies, both nationally and
abroad. His main research interests are in the application of probabilistic concepts and
methods to civil and marine engineering, including structural reliability, probability-
based design and optimization of buildings, bridges and naval ships, structural health

Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring

Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring

Similar to Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring (20)

More from Franco Bontempi

More from Franco Bontempi (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Design Knowledge Gain by Structural Health Monitoring