Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 137–148

Probability-based multiple-criteria optimization of bridge maintenance using monitoring and expected error in the decision process

Industrial Application


In the context of limited financial resources under uncertainty, an important challenge is to introduce monitoring concepts in the general assessment, maintenance and repair frameworks of highway bridges. Structural health monitoring (SHM) provides new information on structural performance. As the monitoring duration increases, additional information becomes available. The knowledge of the structure is more accurate, but the monitoring costs are greater. Based on the accuracy of monitoring, different decisions can be made. These decisions involve uncertainties, and, consequently, are expressed in terms of probabilities. A probability-based approach for multiple criteria optimization of bridge maintenance strategies based on SHM is proposed. A measure of the error in the decision process, based on monitoring occurrence and duration, is proposed. Optimal solutions are obtained considering multiple criteria such as expected failure cost, expected monitoring/maintenance cost, expected accuracy of monitoring results, and ensuring that all constraints are satisfied.


Optimization Structural health monitoring Uncertainty Maintenance Cost 


  1. AASHTO (2007) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD bridge design specifications, 4th edn. AASHTO, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Akgül F, Frangopol DM (2004) Lifetime performance analysis of existing steel girder bridge superstructures. J Struct Eng ASCE 130(12):1875–1888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ang AH-S, Tang HW (1984) Probability concepts in engineering planning and design, vol II. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Connor RJ, Fisher JW (2002) Report on field inspection, assessment, and analysis of floorbeam connection cracking on the Birmingham Bridge Pittsburgh PA. ATLSS Report No. 02-10. Lehigh University, BethlehemGoogle Scholar
  5. Cremona CF, Lukic M (1998) Probability-based assessment and maintenance of welded joints damaged by fatigue. Nucl Eng Des 182(3):253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ditlevsen O (1979) Narrow reliability bounds for structural systems. J Struct Mech 7(4):453–472Google Scholar
  8. Estes AC (1997) A system reliability approach to the lifetime optimization of inspection and repair of highway bridges. Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  9. Estes AC, Frangopol DM (2001) Minimum expected cost-oriented optimal maintenance planning for deteriorating structures: applications to concrete bridge deck. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 73(3):281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frangopol DM (2010) Life-cycle performance, management, and optimization of structural systems under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges. Struct Infrastr Eng. doi:10.1080/15732471003594427 Google Scholar
  11. Frangopol DM, Liu M (2007) Maintenance and management of civil infrastructure based on condition, safety, optimization, and lifecycle cost. Struct Infrastr Eng 3(1):29–41Google Scholar
  12. Frangopol DM, Messervey TB (2009) Maintenance principles for civil structures. In: Boller C, Chang F-K, Fujino Y (eds) Encyclopedia of structural health monitoring, chapter 89, vol 4. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1533–1562Google Scholar
  13. Frangopol DM, Strauss A, Kim S (2008a) Bridge reliability assessment based on monitoring. J Bridge Eng ASCE 13(3):258–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frangopol DM, Strauss A, Kim S (2008b) Use of monitoring extreme data for the performance prediction of structures: general approach. Eng Struct 30(12):3644–3653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gumbel EJ (1958) Statistics of extremes. Columbia University Press, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Hess PE (2007) Structural health monitoring for high-speed naval ships. In: Chang F-K (ed) Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on structural health monitoring. DEStech Publications (keynote paper)Google Scholar
  17. Hua XG (2006) Structural health monitoring and condition assessment of bridge structures. Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim S, Frangopol DM (2010) Inspection and monitoring planning for RC structures based on minimization of expected damage detection delay. Probab Eng Mech. doi:10.1016/j.probengmech.2010.08.009 Google Scholar
  19. Klinzmann C, Schnetgöke R, Hosser D (2006) A framework for reliability-based system assessment based on structural health monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European workshop on structural health monitoring. Granada, SpainGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu M, Frangopol DM, Kim S (2009) Bridge safety evaluation based on monitored live load effects. J Bridge Eng ASCE 14(4):257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mahmoud HN, Connor RJ, Bowman CA (2005) Results of the fatigue evaluation and field monitoring of the I-39 Northbound Bridge over the Wisconsin River. ATLSS Report No. 05-04. Lehigh University, BethlehemGoogle Scholar
  22. McCuen RH, Albrecht P (1995) Composite modeling of atmospheric corrosion penetration data. Application of accelerated corrosion tests to service life prediction of materials. ASTM STP 1194, Philadelphia, pp 65–102Google Scholar
  23. Ni YQ, Hua XG, Ko JM (2006a) Reliability-based assessment of bridges using long-term monitoring data. Key Eng Mater 217–222Google Scholar
  24. Ni YQ, Hua XG, Ko JM (2006b) Reliability-based assessment of bridges using long-term monitoring data. Key Eng Mater 321–323Google Scholar
  25. Orcesi AD, Cremona CF (2010) Optimal maintenance strategies for bridge networks using the supply and demand approach. Struct Infrastr Eng. doi:10.1080/15732470902978566 Google Scholar
  26. Orcesi AD, Frangopol DM (2010a) Inclusion of crawl tests and long-term health monitoring in bridge serviceability analysis. J Bridge Eng ASCE 15(3):312–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Orcesi AD, Frangopol DM (2010b) The use of lifetime functions in the optimization of nondestructive inspection strategies for bridges. J Struct Eng ASCE. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000304 Google Scholar
  28. Orcesi AD, Frangopol DM (2011) Optimization of bridge maintenance strategies based on structural health monitoring information. Struct Saf 33(1):26–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orcesi AD, Frangopol DM, Kim S (2010) Optimization of bridge maintenance strategies based on multiple limit states and monitoring. Eng Struct 32(3):627–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss A, Frangopol DM, Kim S (2008) Use of monitoring extreme data for the performance prediction of structures: Bayesian updating. Eng Struct 30(12):3654–3666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thoft-Christensen P, Sørensen J (1987) Optimal strategies for inspection and repair of structural systems. Civ Eng Syst 4:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Townsend HE, Zoccola JC (1982) Eight-year atmospheric corrosion performance of weathering steel in industrial, rural and marine environments. Atmospheric corrosion of metals. ASTM STP 767, Philadelphia, pp 45–59Google Scholar
  33. Yuan X-X, Pandey MD (2005) Analysis of approximations for multinormal integration in system reliability integration. Struct Saf 28:361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LCPC, Bridges and Structures DepartmentSafety and Durability of StructuresParis Cedex 15France
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ATLSS Engineering Research CenterLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations