Risk Assessment Method for Forecasting Time-Dependent Aging Effects on Corrosion Rate: Preemptive Bridge Assets Management
Publication: Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 30, Issue 3
Abstract
Current bridge assets management (BAM) is based on a site inspection–based condition rating methodology. Mitigation measures are adapted to assets’ condition assessment results. The reaction approach of bridge infrastructure structural evaluation does not help in judicious planning for repair and rehabilitation in prioritization for bridge assets management. This research paper presents a risk assessment method (RAM) developed upon the statistical data analysis using analytical tools and techniques of the aging effect on the corrosion anomaly rate (CAR), as proposed by the authors. The proposed RAM methodology is developed in order to provide the bridge asset manager with an analytical tool for risk-based BAM optimization. A cluster of 92 New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) steel girder with reinforced concrete deck bridges was selected. The main objectives of this research paper are to (1) develop a risk rating methodology (RAM) for preemptive bridge assets management, (2) compare the RAM-based risk rating (RR) with the primary member condition rating (CR) of 92 NYCDOT nonrehabilitated steel girder with reinforced concrete deck bridges, and (3) provide analytical tools for bridge life-cycle determination for different vulnerability levels and for forecasting the financial risk of prolonged delayed rehabilitation. This innovative paper illustrates the RAM application for predicting the aging process on the CAR and its disposition for a preemptive BAM planning and development.
Practical Applications
Extending the useful service life of aging bridges is a critical issue of global interest. One problem faced globally by the transportation industry is the degradation of structural components of bridges. The purpose and practical application of this paper is to demonstrate a risk assessment approach for BAM relying on statistical data analysis for prioritizing the repair/rehabilitation of deteriorating bridge system. This research presents the deterioration rate concept in BAM framework consisting of estimating the useful service life expectancy of deteriorating bridge system through statistical data analysis, developing a deterioration rate model. The current BAM is based on a site inspection–based condition rating methodology, which depends upon structural evaluator’s judgments. The outcomes of this research have demonstrated, through statistical data analysis, that the pattern of aging effects on the time-dependent CAR value may effectively serve as a substantial time-dependent early degradation indicator for life-cycle state evaluation and serviceability performance degradation. BAM provides valuable aid for bridge owner decision makers in forecasting the degradation rate of bridge system and making preemptive decisions for rehabilitation investment prioritization. One practical application of this research is forecasting the cost implications of deferred repair/rehabilitation along with associated financial risk.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Bridge data for this innovative research are made available through the data sharing agreement between NYCDOT (New York City Department of Transportation) and NYU (New York University). These bridge data are not available in the public domain. All data, models, or code generated or used during the study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be provided with restrictions.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge and thank NYCDOT professionals for their kind support and assistance in providing access to bridge data with data sharing agreement and creative discussions with reference to bridge assets management.
References
ASCE. 2021. A comprehensive assessment of America’s infrastructure. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Biondini, F., and D. M. Frangopol. 2014. “Life-cycle performance of structural systems under uncertainty.” In Proc., Structures Congress 2014. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413357.196.
Biondini, F., and D. M. Frangopol. 2019. “Life-cycle performance of deteriorating structures.” In Life-cycle design, assessment, and maintenance of structures and infrastructure systems, 33–64. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784415467.ch02.
Brown, A. W., K. A. Kaiser, and D. B. Allison. 2018. “Issues with data and analyses: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115 (11): 2563–2570. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708279115.
Cantos, W., and I. Juran. 2019. “Infrastructure aging risk assessment for water distribution systems.” Water Supply 19 (3): 899–907. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2018.139.
Cesare, M., J. C. Santamarina, C. J. Turkstra, and E. Vanmarcke. 1993. “Risk-based bridge management.” J. Transp. Eng. 119 (5): 742–750. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1993)119:5(742).
Chang, M., M. Maguire, and Y. Sun. 2017. “Framework for mitigating human bias in selection of explanatory variables for bridge deterioration modeling.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 23 (3): 04017002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000352.
Commerceiets. 2019. “10 limitations of statistics.” Commerceiets. Accessed December 30, 2022. https://commerceiets.com/limitations-of-statistics/.
Craig, T., et al. 2021. “AASHTO—Strategic highway research program 2—Service life design for bridges.” Accessed May 15, 2024. https://shrp2.transportation.org/Pages/ServiceLifeDesignforBridges.aspx.
Dataworks. 2019. “The 5 stages of data lifecycle management—Data integrity.” Accessed December 30, 2023. https://www.dataworks.ie/5-stages-in-the-data-managementlifecycle-process/.
Frangopol, D. M., and J. S. Kong. 2001. “Life-cycle safety and costing for maintenance of aging bridges.” In Structures 2001: A structural engineering odyssey, 1–6. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/40558(2001)9.
Furuta, H. 2010. “Bridge management and life cycle performance in Japan.” In Proc., Structures congress 2010, 2757–2768. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/41130(369)249.
He, X., and X. Lin. 2020. “Challenges and opportunities in statistics and data science: Ten research areas.” Sci. Rev. 2 (3). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.95388fcb.
Jang, S., J. Li, and B. F. Spencer. 2013. “Corrosion estimation of a historic truss bridge using model updating.” J. Bridge Eng. 18 (7): 678–689. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)be.1943-5592.0000403.
Jiang, Y., and K. C. Sinha. 1989. “Bridge service life prediction model using the Markov chain.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1223 (1): 24–30.
Kenett, R. S. 2014. “Statistics: A life cycle view.” Qual. Eng. 27 (1): 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/08982112.2015.968054.
Kobayashi, K., K. Kaito, and N. Lethanh. 2010. “Deterioration forecasting model with multistage Weibull hazard functions.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 16 (4): 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000033.
Kumar, K., and H. Merulia. 2018. “What are the main limitations of statistics? Can these short comings be overcome?” Careers360. Accessed May 14, 2024. https://www.careers360.com/question-what-are-the-main-limitations-of-statistics-can-these-short-comings-be-overcome.
Kumar Verma, S., S. Singh Bhadauria, and S. Akhtar. 2013. “Estimating residual service life of deteriorated reinforced concrete structures.” Am. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 1 (5): 92–96. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-1-5-1.
Le, B., and J. Andrews. 2013. “Modelling railway bridge asset management.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part F: J. Rail Rapid Transit 227 (6): 644–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954409713490924.
Liang, Y., D. Wu, G. Liu, Y. Li, C. Gao, Z. J. Ma, and W. Wu. 2016. “Big data-enabled multiscale serviceability analysis for aging bridges.” Digital Commun. Networks 2 (3): 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2016.05.002.
Mishra, P., C. M. Pandey, U. Singh, A. Keshri, and M. Sabaretnam. 2019. “Selection of appropriate statistical methods for data analysis.” Ann. Card. Anaesth. 22 (3): 297–301. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_248_18.
New York City DOT. 2022. Bridges and tunnels annual condition report. New York: New York City DOT.
New York State DOT. 2017. Bridge inspection manual. New York: New York State DOT.
Ng, S. K., and F. Moses. 2014. “Prediction of bridge service life using time-dependent reliability analysis.” Bridge Manage. 3 (Mar): 26–33.
Prasad, A., I. Juran, and B. Yanev. 2022. “Statistical data analysis of the aging effect on time-dependent corrosion rate for steel girder bridges with concrete decks.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 28 (2): 04022002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000674.
Sobanjo, J., P. Mtenga, and M. Rambo-Roddenberry. 2010. “Reliability-based modeling of bridge deterioration hazards.” J. Bridge Eng. 15 (6): 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000074.
Strauss, A., K. Bergmeister, S. Hoffmann, R. Pukl, and D. Novák. 2008. “Advanced life-cycle analysis of existing concrete bridges.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (1): 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:1(9).
Struzinsky, M., et al. 2017. “Bridge inspection manual—NYSDOT.” Accessed May 14, 2022. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/repository/manuals/inspection/nysdot_bridge_inspection_manual_2017.pdf.
Tran, D. H., A. W. Ng, K. J. McManus, and S. Burn. 2008. “Prediction models for serviceability deterioration of stormwater pipes.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 4 (4): 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470600792236.
USDOT. 1999. “The infrastructure assets management goal consists of costeffectively and efficiently improving asset performance, as measured by attributes such as infrastructure service life.” Online TDM encyclopedia—Asset management. Accessed May 14, 2022. https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm109.htm.
Xie, Y. 2011. “Values and limitations of statistical models.” Res. Social Stratification Mobility 29 (3): 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2011.04.001.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 16, 2022
Accepted: Mar 15, 2024
Published online: Jun 6, 2024
Published in print: Sep 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Nov 6, 2024
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.