Novel Prioritization Mechanism to Enhance Long-Term Performance Predictions for Bridge Asset Management
Publication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 35, Issue 1
Abstract
Current strategies for prioritizing bridge preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement (MRR) include predicting future conditions by delineating depreciation rates from existing conditions and preventive MRR activities. Such predictions are overly conservative because element interactions, although present, are not considered in quantifying bridge deterioration. This study proposes a novel prioritization mechanism that leverages time-dependent element interactions, referred to as coactiveness, in predicting bridge performance resulting from MRR activities. The proposed coactive model hypothesizes that if one repairs one element, it should reduce the deterioration of other elements. The improved elements in turn reduce the deterioration of the repaired element, improving the overall health of a bridge. The element-level bridge inspection data from three southeastern US states (Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) are investigated to illustrate the capability of the proposed mechanism. In Georgia, the results show that changes in the condition of expansion joints are most critical to the long-term performance of bridge elements. Alabama’s bridge management strategy slows the depreciation of expansion joints when more MRR resources are allocated to its deck elements. It is concluded that early preventive maintenance implemented in Florida is effective and has a similar effect as leveraging the proposed prioritization mechanism in enhancing bridge long-term performance.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All plots and analysis input and output data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The study presented in this paper was funded by the Georgia DOT (RP 17-28), particularly the depreciation models developed for Georgia bridges, and the University of Georgia. The funding sponsors had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of data. The opinions, findings, and conclusions may not reflect the views of the funding agency or other individuals.
References
AASHTO. 2019. Manual for bridge element inspection. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Adarkwa, O., and N. Attoh-Okine. 2017. “Prediction of structural deficiency ratio of bridges based on multiway data factorization.” ASCE ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. Part A: Civ. Eng. 3 (2): F4016002. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000882.
Alsharqawi, M., T. Zayed, and S. A. Dabous. 2018. “Integrated condition rating and forecasting method for bridge decks using visual inspection and ground penetrating radar.” Autom. Constr. 89 (May): 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.01.016.
Bu, G., J. Lee, H. Guan, M. Blumenstein, and Y.-C. Loo. 2011. “Improving reliability of Markov-based bridge deterioration model using artificial neural network.” In Proc., IABSE-IASS Symp.: Taller, Longer, Lighter. London: International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.
Campbell, L., C. Perry, R. Connor, and J. Lloyd. 2016. Element level bridge inspection: Benefits and use of data for bridge management. West Lafayette, IN: Indiana DoT and Purdue Univ.
Chang, K., S. Lim, S. Chi, and B.-G. Hwang. 2019. “Sequential pattern analyses of damages on bridge elements for preventive maintenance.” In Advances in informatics and computing in civil and construction engineering, 521–527. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Chorzepa, M. G., S. Durham, S. S. Kim, and O. B. Oyegbile. 2019. Bridge asset valuation utilizing condition states obtained from element-based inspection inventories and depreciation models over the life cycle of the assets. Atlanta: Georgia DOT.
Embrechts, P., A. J. McNeil, and D. Straumann. 2002. “Correlation and dependence in risk management: Properties and pitfalls.” In Risk management: Value at risk and beyond, 176–223. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferguson, D., I. Godson, and S. Gleason. 2019. “Will you still need me… when I’m sixty-four? A story of ageing bridges.” In Proc., 9th Australian Small Bridges Conf. Wentworthville, Australia: LB Australia.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2018. “Bridge condition by highway system.” Accessed June 18, 2020. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/condition18.cfm.
Garder, J., S. Aaleti, L. Zhong, and S. Sritharan. 2019. Connection details and field implementation of UHPC piles—Phase II. Ames, IA: Iowa State Univ.
Inkoom, S., and J. Sobanjo. 2018. “Availability function as bridge element’s importance weight in computing overall bridge health index.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 14 (12): 1598–1610. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2018.1476561.
Jeong, Y., W. Kim, I. Lee, and J. Lee. 2018. “Bridge inspection practices and bridge management programs in China, Japan, Korea, and US.” J. Struct. Int. Maint. 3 (2): 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2018.1461548.
Jiang, Y., and K. C. Sinha. 1989. “Bridge service life prediction model using the Markov chain.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1223 (1): 24–30.
Karaaslan, E., S. Hiasa, and F. N. Catbas. 2018. “Framework for infrastructure support technologies, a decision support implementation for bridge networks.” In Proc., Transportation Research Board 97th Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Maizuar, M., L. Zhang, S. Miramini, P. Mendis, and C. Duffield. 2020. “Structural health monitoring of bridges using advanced non-destructive testing technique.” In Proc., ACMSM25, 963–972. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Oyegbile, O. B. 2020. “Novel element-data driven coactive prioritization for bridge asset management.” Ph.D. dissertation, College of Engineering, Univ. of Georgia.
Oyegbile, O. B., and M. G. Chorzepa. 2020. “Co-active prioritization by means of contingency tables for analyzing element-level bridge inspection results and optimizing returns.” Infrastructures 5 (13): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures5020013.
Shim, H. S., S. H. Lee, and B. S. Kang. 2017. “Pareto front generation for bridge deck management system using bi-objective optimization.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21 (5): 1563–1572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-2569-8.
Sobanjo, J. O., and P. D. Thompson. 2016. Implementation of the 2013 AASHTO manual for bridge element inspection. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Univ.
Virginia DOT. 2020. “Bridge condition.” Accessed March 9, 2020. http://dashboard.virginiadot.org/Pages/Maintenance/Bridge.aspx.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 35 • Issue 1 • February 2021
Copyright
© 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Mar 24, 2020
Accepted: Jul 6, 2020
Published online: Nov 18, 2020
Published in print: Feb 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Apr 18, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.