An optimization-based methodology for the definition of amplitude thresholds of the ground penetrating radar
- 33 Downloads
Existing infrastructure is aging, while the demands are growing for a better infrastructure system in response to the high standards of safety, health, population growth, and environmental protection. Bridges are subjected to severe deterioration agents such as variable traffic loading, deferred maintenance, cycles of freeze and thaw. The development of Bridge Management Systems (BMSs) has become a fundamental imperative nowadays due to the huge variance between the need for maintenance actions and the available funds to perform such actions. Condition assessment is regarded as one of the most critical and vital components of BMSs. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is one of the nondestructive techniques that are used to evaluate the condition of bridge decks which are subjected to the rebar corrosion. There is a major issue associated with the GPR which is the absence of a scale for the amplitude values. The objective of the proposed model is to compute standardized amplitude thresholds for corrosion maps. The proposed model considers eight un-supervised clustering algorithms to obtain the thresholds. The proposed model incorporates a multi-objective optimization-based methodology that employs three evolutionary optimization algorithms to calculate the optimum thresholds which are: (1) genetic algorithm, (2) particle swarm optimization algorithm, and (3) shuffled frog-leaping algorithm. Five multi-criteria decision-making techniques are used to provide a ranking for the solutions. Finally, group decision-making is performed to aggregate the results and obtain a consensus and compromise solution. The standardized thresholds obtained from the proposed methodology are: − 16.7619, − 8.8161, and − 2.9744 dB.
KeywordsBridge Management System Ground penetrating radar Nondestructive techniques Corrosion Amplitude thresholds Evolutionary optimization algorithms Multi-criteria decision-making
This project was funded by the Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT), Egypt, JESOR-Development Program—Project ID: 40.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- AASHTO Highways Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (2011) The manual for bridge evaluation, 2nd edn. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Akyene T (2012) Cell phone evaluation base on entropy and TOPSIS. Interdiscip J Res Bus 1(12):9–15Google Scholar
- Czepiel E (1995) Bridge management systems literature review and search. Northwestern University, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
- Dobbs R, Pohl H, Lin D-Y, Mischke J, Garemo N, Hexter J, Matzinger S, Palter R, Nanavatty R (2013) Infrastructure productivity: how to save $1 trillion a year. Mckinsey Global Institute, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Felio G (2016) Canadian infrastructure report card. Canadian Construction Association, Canadian Public Works Association, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, and Federation of Canadian Municipalities, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Garg R, Mittal S (2014) Optimization by genetic algorithm. Int J Adv Res Comput Sci Softw Eng 4:3–5Google Scholar
- Golden Software LLC (2014) Surfer12 software. http://www.goldensoftware.com/products/surfer. Accessed 05 June 2016
- Heidari E, Movaghar A (2011) An efficient method based on genetic algorithm to solve sensor network optimization problem. Int J Appl Graph Theory Wirel Ad hoc Netw Sens Netw 3(1):18–33Google Scholar
- Ishibuchi H, Hiroyuki M, Yuki T, Yusuke N (2014) Difficulties in specifying reference points to calculate the inverted generational distance for many-objective optimization problems. In: 2014 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), Florida, United States of America, pp 1–14Google Scholar
- KNIME Company (2016) KNIME 3.3.1 software. https://www.knime.org/. Accessed 06 Aug 2016
- Kühn M, Severin T, Salzwedel H (2013) Variable mutation rate at genetic algorithms: introduction of chromosome fitness in connection with multi-chromosome representation. Int J Comput Appl 72:31–38Google Scholar
- Mackenzie H (2013) Canada’s infrastructure gap: where it came from and why it will cost so much to close. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, OttawaGoogle Scholar
- MathWorks (2013) Matlab R2013a software. https://www.mathworks.com/. Accessed 06 Sept 2014
- Mirza S (2007) Danger ahead: the coming collapse of canada’s municipal infrastructure. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, OttawaGoogle Scholar
- Nebro AJ, Durillo JJ, Coello CAC (2013) Analysis of leader selection strategies in a multi-objective particle swarm optimizer. In: 2013 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Cancún, pp 3153–3160Google Scholar
- RapidMiner Inc (2016) RapidMiner 7.5 software. https://rapidminer.com/products/studio/. Accessed 06 Aug 2016
- Riquelme N, Lucken C, Baran B (2015) Performance metrics in multi-objective optimization. In: 2015 XLI Latin American Computing Conference (CLEI), Peru, pp 1–11Google Scholar
- Sawant KB (2015) Efficient determination of clusters in K-mean algorithm using neighborhood distance. Int J Emerg Eng Res Technol 3(1):22–27Google Scholar
- Shami A (2015) Ground penetrating radar-based deterioration assessment of bridge decks. M.Sc thesis, Concordia UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Statistics Canada (2009a) Age of public infrastructure: a provincial perspective. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-621-m/11-621-m2008067-eng.htm. Accessed 20 Dec 2016
- Statistics Canada (2009b) Average age of public infrastructure by province and type of infrastructure, 2007. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-621-m/2008067/tables/5002061-eng.htm#archived. Accessed 20 Dec 2016
- Statistics Canada (2014) From roads to rinks: government spending on infrastructure in Canada, 1961 to 2005. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-010-x/00907/10332-eng.htm. Accessed 20 Dec 2016