Influence of the Primary Bridge Component Condition on the Overall Bridge Condition Rating

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Springer Tracts on Transportation and Traffic book series (STTT, volume 9)

Abstract

Bridge condition rating is evaluated based on the material condition of the secondary and primary bridge components. This paper aims to investigate the influence of the condition of the primary bridge components to the overall condition of pre-stressed concrete beam bridge (PCBB), reinforced concrete beam bridge (RCBB) and steel beam bridge (SBB). Four primary bridge components namely surfacing, deck slab, beam/girder and abutments are used as input parameters and bridge condition rating as output parameters. This study utilizes multiple linear regression analysis (MRA) and artificial neural networks (ANN) to investigate the variance of the bridge condition rating with respect to the condition of the primary bridge components. The MRA results show that 62.83, 91.77 and 86.18 % of the proportion of the variance in the condition rating of PCBB, RCBB and SSB are explained by all the primary bridge components in the range of the training data set. Meanwhile ANN yields 67.35, 90.54 and 81.77 % for PCBB, RCBB and SSB, respectively. The results indicate that the condition rating of surfacing, deck slab, beam/girder and abutments highly contribute to the condition rating of RCBB and SSB, however for the PCBB, the influence is slightly lower. In term of modeling, MRA shows better performance for RCBB and SBB; however ANN seems suitable for PCBB.

Keywords

Artificial Neural Network Hide Layer Mean Square Error Artificial Neural Network Model Multiple Regression Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) of Malaysia for this work, which forms part of a project on the “Development of condition rating procedure of integral bridges” (Project Number: 06-01-02-SF0323). The authors also thank the Public Works Department of Malaysia for providing the data.

References

  1. 1.
    Othman MR, Choong CW, Heng LC (2002) Bridge management in Malaysia. Intertraffic Asia, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shuqing Z (2012) An uncertainty modeling for concrete bridge structures management. In: International conference on education technology and management engineeringGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tserng HP et al (2009) Maintenance strategy for bridge components on the basis of performance. J Perform Constructed Facil 23:234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yanev B (1998) The management of bridges in New York City. Eng Struct 20(11):1020–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sasmal S et al (2006) Fuzzy logic based condition rating of existing reinforced concrete bridges. J Perform Constructed Facil 20(3):261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen MA (2008) Neural network approach for existing bridge evaluation based on grid. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Melhem H (1994) Fuzzy logic for bridge rating using an eigenvector of priority settings. In: IEEE conference proceedings of the first international joint conference of the North American fuzzy information processing society biannual conference; the industrial fuzzy control and intelligent systems conference; and the NASA joint technolo (NAFIPS/IFIS/NASA)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang YM, Elhag TMS (2008) Evidential reasoning approach for bridge condition assessment. Expert Syst Appl 34(1):689–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Srinivasan R, Parlikad AK (2013) Value of condition monitoring in infrastructure maintenance. Comput Ind Eng 66(2):233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saydam D, Bocchini P, Frangopol DM (2013) Time-dependent risk associated with deterioration of highway bridge networks. Eng Struct 54:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jain AK, Mao J, Mohiuddin K (1996) Artificial neural networks: A tutorial. Computer 29(3):31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang YM, Elhag T (2007) A comparison of neural network, evidential reasoning and multiple regression analysis in modelling bridge risks. Expert Syst Appl 32(2):336–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee TL et al (2007) Neural network modeling for estimation of scour depth around bridge piers. J Hydrodyn Ser B 19(3):378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    JKR (2003) Annual bridge inspection manual. Jabatan Kerja Raya, JKR MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bolukbasi M (2004) Estimating the future condition of highway bridge components using national bridge inventory data. Pract Periodical Struct Des Constr 9:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adhikary BB, Mutsuyoshi H (2002) Use of fuzzy sets in condition rating of rc highway bridge structure. Proc Jpn Concr Instit 24(2):1525–1530Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pan N (2007) Forecasting bridge deck conditions using fuzzy regression analysis. J-Chin Inst Eng 30(4):593Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Demuth, H.B. and M. Beale, Neural Network Toolbox: for use with MATLAB2000: CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shamseldin A, Nasr A, O’Connor K (2002) Comparison of different forms of the multi-layer feed-forward neural network method used for river flow forecasting. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 6(4):671–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built EnvironmentUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaBangiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations