Skip to main content
Log in

A Theoretical Framework for Risk–Cost-Optimized Maintenance Strategy for Structures

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical framework for developing a risk–cost optimised maintenance strategy for structures during their whole service life. A time-dependent reliability method is employed to determine the probability of structural failure and a generic form of stochastic model is developed for structural responses. To facilitate practical application of the proposed framework, a general algorithm is developed and programmed in a user-friendly manner. The merit of the proposed framework is that, in predicting when, where and what maintenance is required for the structure, all structural components and multi-failure modes are considered. It is found in the paper that, to ensure the safe and serviceable operation of the structure as a whole, some components need maintenance multiple times for different failure modes, whilst other components need “do nothing”. It is also found that ignorance of correlation amongst structural components and failure modes would underestimate the risk of structural failures in longer term and that the components with higher cost of structural failures require more maintenance actions. The paper concludes that the proposed framework can equip structural engineers, operators and asset managers with a tool for developing a risk–cost optimal maintenance strategy for structures under their management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hao S (2009) I-35W bridge collapse. J Bridge Eng 15(5):608–614

    Google Scholar 

  2. Yang W, Baji H, Li CQ (2018) Time-dependent reliability method for service life prediction of reinforced concrete shield metro tunnels. Struct Infrastruct Eng 14(8):1095–1107

    Google Scholar 

  3. Piratla KR, Yerri SR, Yazdekhasti S et al (2015) Empirical analysis of water-main failure consequences. Proced Eng 118:727–734

    Google Scholar 

  4. Richards J (1998) Inspection, maintenance and repair of tunnels: international lessons and practice. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 13(4):369–375

    Google Scholar 

  5. U.S. Department of Transportation (2016) Bridge replacement unit costs 2012. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/sd2012.cfm

  6. Whitmore DW, Ball JC (2004) Corrosion management. ACI Concr Int 26(12):82–85

    Google Scholar 

  7. Russell HA, Gilmore J (1997) Inspection policy and procedures for rail transit tunnels and underground structures. Transport Res Board 1:104

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mori Y, Ellingwood BR (1994) Maintaining reliability of concrete structures. II: optimum inspection/repair. J Struct Eng 120(3):846–862

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thoft-Christensen P, Sorensen JD (1987) Optimal strategy for inspection and repair of structural systems. Civ Eng Syst 4(2):94–100

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang S, Zhou W (2014) Cost-based optimal maintenance decisions for corroding natural gas pipelines based on stochastic degradation models. Eng Struct 74:74–85

    Google Scholar 

  11. Luque J, Straub D (2019) Risk-based optimal inspection strategies for structural systems using dynamic Bayesian networks. Struct Saf 76:68–80

    Google Scholar 

  12. Faber MH, Straub D, Maes MA (2006) A computational framework for risk assessment of RC structures using indicators. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 21(3):216–230

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stewart MG, Rosowsky DV, Val DV (2001) Reliability-based bridge assessment using risk-ranking decision analysis. Struct Saf 23(4):397–405

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kim S, Frangopol DM (2018) Multi-objective probabilistic optimum monitoring planning considering fatigue damage detection, maintenance, reliability, service life and cost. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57(1):39–54

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Barone G, Frangopol DM (2014) Life-cycle maintenance of deteriorating structures by multi-objective optimization involving reliability, risk, availability, hazard and cost. Struct Saf 48:40–50

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sánchez-Silva M, Frangopol DM, Padgett J et al (2016) Maintenance and operation of infrastructure systems: review. J Struct Eng 142(9):F4016004

    Google Scholar 

  17. Barone G, Frangopol DM (2013) Hazard-based optimum lifetime inspection and repair planning for deteriorating structures. J Struct Eng 139(12):04013017

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sommer AM, Nowak AS, Thoft-Christensen P (1993) Probability-based bridge inspection strategy. J Struct Eng 119(12):3520–3536

    Google Scholar 

  19. Moan T (2005) Reliability-based management of inspection, maintenance and repair of offshore structures. Struct Infrastruct Eng 1(1):33–62

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stewart M, Estes A, Frangopol DM (2004) Bridge deck replacement for minimum expected cost under multiple reliability constraints. J Struct Eng 130(9):1414–1419

    Google Scholar 

  21. Val DV, Stewart MG (2003) Life-cycle cost analysis of reinforced concrete structures in marine environments. Struct Saf 25(4):343–362

    Google Scholar 

  22. Weyers RE (1998) Service life model for concrete structures in chloride laden environments. ACI Mater J 95(4):445–453

    Google Scholar 

  23. Akgül F, Frangopol DM (2005) Lifetime performance analysis of existing reinforced concrete bridges. II: application. J Infrastruct Syst 11(2):129–141

    Google Scholar 

  24. Barone G, Frangopol DM, Soliman M (2013) Optimization of life-cycle maintenance of deteriorating bridges with respect to expected annual system failure rate and expected cumulative cost. J Struct Eng 140(2):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  25. Estes AC, Frangopol DM (1999) Repair optimization of highway bridges using system reliability approach. J Struct Eng 125(7):766–775

    Google Scholar 

  26. Li CQ, Ian Mackie R, Lawanwisut W (2007) A risk-cost optimized maintenance strategy for corrosion-affected concrete structures. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 22(5):335–346

    Google Scholar 

  27. Melchers RE (1999) Structural reliability analysis and prediction. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Thoft-Cristensen P, Baker MJ (1982) Structural reliability theory and its applications. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jardine AK, Tsang AH (2013) Maintenance, replacement, and reliability: theory and applications. Taylor & Francis Inc, Bosa Roca

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Sánchez-Silva M, Klutke GA (2016) Reliability and life-cycle analysis of deteriorating systems. Springer, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  31. Li CQ, Firouzi A, Yang W (2016) Closed-form solution to first passage probability for nonstationary lognormal processes. J Eng Mech 142(12):04016103

    Google Scholar 

  32. Firouzi A, Yang W, Li CQ (2018) Efficient solution for calculation of upcrossing rate of nonstationary gaussian process. J Eng Mech 144(4):04018015

    Google Scholar 

  33. Li CQ, Melchers R (1993) Outcrossings from convex polyhedrons for nonstationary Gaussian processes. J Eng Mech 119(11):2354–2361

    Google Scholar 

  34. Papoulis A, Pillai SU (2002) Probability, random variables, and stochastic processes. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Li CQ, Melchers RE (2005) Time-dependent risk assessment of structural deterioration caused by reinforcement corrosion. ACI Struct J 102(5):754–762

    Google Scholar 

  36. Li CQ, Yang Y, Melchers RE (2008) Prediction of reinforcement corrosion in concrete and its effects on concrete cracking and strength reduction. ACI Mat J 105(1):3–10

    Google Scholar 

  37. Li CQ, Melchers RE, Zheng JJ (2006) Analytical model for corrosion-induced crack width in reinforced concrete structures. ACI Struct J 103(4):479–487

    Google Scholar 

  38. Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. MATLAB (2017) Global optimization toolbox user’s guide. Mathworks, Natick

    Google Scholar 

  40. JCSS, Probabilistic model code (2019) Technical University of Denmark. http://www.jcss.ethz.ch

  41. Bournonville M, Dahnke J, Darwin D (2004) Statistical analysis of the mechanical properties and weight of reinforcing bars. University of Kansas, Lawrence, p 194

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mirza SA, MacGregor JG (1979) Variability of mechanical properties of reinforcing bars. J Struct Div 105(5):921–937

    Google Scholar 

  43. Vu KA, Stewart MG (2005) Predicting the likelihood and extent of reinforced concrete corrosion-induced cracking. J Struct Eng 131(11):1681–1689

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vu KA (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills

    Google Scholar 

  45. Higgins C, Farrow WC, Turan OT (2012) Analysis of reinforced concrete beams with corrosion damaged stirrups for shear capacity. Struct Infrastruct Eng 8(11):1080–1092

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The financial support from the Australian Research Council under DP140101547, LP150100413 and DP17010224, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China with Grant no. 51820105014 are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chun-Qing Li.

Appendix

Appendix

According to the theory of stochastic processes (Papoulis and Pillai 2002), all variables in Eq. (9) can be determined, for a given Gaussian stochastic process with mean function μS(t), and auto-covariance function \(C_{SS} (t_{i} ,t_{j} )\), as follows:

$$\mu_{{\dot{S}|S}} = E[\dot{S}|S = L] = \mu_{{\dot{S}}} + \rho \frac{{\sigma_{{\dot{S}}} }}{{\sigma_{S} }}(L - \mu_{S} ),$$
(30)
$$\sigma_{{\dot{S}|S}} = \left[ {\sigma_{{\dot{S}}}^{2} (1 - \rho^{2} )} \right]^{1/2} ,$$
(31)

where

$$\mu_{{\dot{S}}} = \frac{{{\text{d}}\mu_{S} (t)}}{{{\text{d}}t}},$$
(32)
$$\sigma_{{\dot{S}}} = \left[ {\frac{{\partial^{2} C_{\text{SS}} (t_{i} ,t_{j} )}}{{\partial t_{i} \partial t_{j} }}|_{i = j} } \right]^{1/2} ,$$
(33)
$$\rho = \frac{{C_{{S\dot{S}}} (t_{i} ,t_{j} )}}{{\left[ {C_{SS} (t_{i} ,t_{j} ) \cdot C_{{\dot{S}\dot{S}}} (t_{i} ,t_{j} )} \right]^{1/2} }},$$
(34)

and the cross-covariance function is

$$C_{{S\dot{S}}} (t_{i} ,t_{j} ) = \frac{{\partial C_{\text{SS}} (t_{i} ,t_{j} )}}{{\partial t_{j} }}.$$
(35)

Based on the above relationships, all the variables in Eq. (9) can be determined.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, W., Baji, H. & Li, CQ. A Theoretical Framework for Risk–Cost-Optimized Maintenance Strategy for Structures. Int J Civ Eng 18, 261–278 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00470-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00470-x

Keywords

Navigation