Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Akmal Abdelfatah
 -- 2568 2023-12-14 10:07:51 |
2 Reference format revised.
Lindsay Dong
 Meta information modification 2568 2023-12-19 02:55:34 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Al-Rashed, R.; Abdelfatah, A.; Yehia, S. Factors Impacting Bridge Deterioration in Gulf Cooperation Council. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52741 (accessed on 05 July 2024).
Al-Rashed R, Abdelfatah A, Yehia S. Factors Impacting Bridge Deterioration in Gulf Cooperation Council. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52741. Accessed July 05, 2024.
Al-Rashed, Rawan, Akmal Abdelfatah, Sherif Yehia. "Factors Impacting Bridge Deterioration in Gulf Cooperation Council" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52741 (accessed July 05, 2024).
Al-Rashed, R., Abdelfatah, A., & Yehia, S. (2023, December 14). Factors Impacting Bridge Deterioration in Gulf Cooperation Council. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52741
Al-Rashed, Rawan, et al. "Factors Impacting Bridge Deterioration in Gulf Cooperation Council." Encyclopedia. Web. 14 December, 2023.
Factors Impacting Bridge Deterioration in Gulf Cooperation Council
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/designs7060126

The deterioration module (DM) is one of the four major modules necessary for any bridge management system (BMS). Environmental conditions, structural systems, bridge configuration, geographic location, and traffic data are some of the major factors that affect the development of deterioration modules. This emphasizes the need for the development of deterioration models that reflect the local conditions. 

bridge management systems deterioration models environmental factors bridge evaluation

1. Introduction

Transportation infrastructure plays a crucial role within major cities around the world. Within the GCC countries, there has been a major development in transportation infrastructure over the past few decades. Bridges are considered one of the most important infrastructure projects that require a significant budget and a high degree of safety. Moreover, the number of bridges within the GCC region is increasing. This increase and the age of existing bridges highlight the need for plans to maintain these bridges in excellent operational conditions, which requires huge funds and efforts. Bridge deterioration is one of the major threats that may cause the sudden failure of some bridges. A bridge management system (BMS) is one of the effective tools that has been proposed to improve the efficiency in managing the inspection, maintenance, condition prediction, and budget allocation for bridges at both project and network levels. A BMS usually contains four basic modules, database, maintenance cost, deterioration, and decision making and optimization. The deterioration module is a very important module because it predicts the future condition of the bridge to assess proper planning for maintenance strategies and allocation of the budgets. Concrete bridges are widely constructed and preferred in the GCC countries due to their durability and the availability of raw material and workmanship. However, concrete bridges are exposed to many external deterioration mechanisms originating from environmental influences that decrease their serviceability and may compromise their integrity. Identifying the factors that affect bridge deterioration will help in developing reliable deterioration models.
Deterioration models are one of the main modules in any BMS as they facilitate the prediction of the maintenance requirements to preserve the bridge’s integrity and the safety of the public. Identifying the key factors that should be considered, when developing deterioration models within the GCC, is an essential step towards the development of realistic models. Identifying these factors can be of great benefit for the authorities managing bridges in the GCC and could be utilized to develop deterioration models that reflect the local conditions.

2. Factors Impacting Bridge Deterioration in Gulf Cooperation Council

2.1. Bridge Management Systems

A bridge management system (BMS) is considered one of the best tools used to monitor bridge activities and the health condition of the bridges. It is a process to help in making decisions regarding the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of bridges in the most efficient approach [1][2].
The need for BMS was first realized in the United States after the “Silver Bridge” incident. On 15 December 1967, the Silver Bridge collapsed under the weight of rush-hour traffic. Accordingly, recommendations were made to the US Secretary of Transportation to begin a research program aimed at developing new inspection procedures. From that perspective, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) introduced the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), where all the states are required to report all inspection data, which eventually became the inventory of all BMS in the USA [3]. The BMS helps in maintaining the health and well-being of the bridges [4][5][6].

2.1.1. BMS Modules and Software

The four major modules of BMSs were defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines in 1993 and were re-defined by Czepiel [7]. These modules are the database, the maintenance cost, the deterioration, and the decision making and optimization.
The FHWA through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) initiated a research project for the development of a BMS and came up with the first BMS software called PONTIS 1.0. The software was first developed in 1991 and then licensed by AASHTO in 1994 [5][8]. Approximately 50% of the U.S. transportation agencies have adopted PONTIS for their bridge management activities [9]. However, the accuracy of the predicted conditions of bridges might not be reliable enough if the input data are based on visual inspections only [10].
Another BMS software that is commonly used in the USA is BRIDGIT 1.0. It was developed by NCHRP in 1998 and has similar functions to PONTIS. The major difference is that BRIDGIT has an optimization module, called OPBRIDGE, which uses a “bottom-up” analysis method for cost planning [10].

2.1.2. Common BMS Practices around the World

There are currently numerous BMS packages in service around the world. Some of these systems were genuinely adopted from the PONTIS or BRIDGIT systems but were modified to fit the local conditions. A brief discussion on the common BMSs around the is summarized in Table 1. The information in Table 1 provides some observations on the developed BMSs in different parts of the world. In addition, it discusses the historical development of each system. Development of BMSs is discussed in detail in several previous studies [1][5][6][7][9].
Table 1. Summary of BMS practices around the world.
Region Comments
North America Although PONTIS and BRIDGIT were mainly used in the U.S., some other states and provinces in North America such as New York, Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Denver, and Ontario have developed their own bridge management systems [3][5][7][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].
Europe Denmark developed a BMS, which includes six modules, called DANBRO (DANish Bridges and Roads) in 1988 [13][23]. Although DANBRO does not include a condition deterioration module, it has been implemented in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Croatia, and Malaysia [24].
A bridge management software named SIHA was developed in Finland. At the beginning, the system included inventory data only [25]. The latest version of the system included a deterioration module that optimizes the maintenance and repair costs using a probabilistic Markov Chain model [3][26]. Another BMS named Highway Structural Management Information System (HiSMIS) was developed in the UK [27]. Belgium, Norway, and Sweden operated a functionally complete BMS that included inventory, inspection, and maintenance modules. However, only Belgium’s BMS included a deterioration model [28]. The BMS applied in Belgium and Sweden lacks a life-cycle cost analysis module to plan for optimal maintenance planning [13][29]. Finally, France, Germany, Hungary, and Italy have developed basic BMSs to manage the bridge activities. Their BMSs basically involve inspection and condition ratings [30][31]. A maintenance decision support system is implemented in Germany and Italy [28][32].
Africa and Asia The South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) developed a BMS named STRUMAN by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) [33].
The first BMS in Japan was developed in 1995 and it was mainly for bridge condition ratings and rehabilitation strategies [3]. Miyamoto et al. [34] proposed a comprehensive bridge management system for Japan called J-BMS.
The Indonesian Directorate General of Highways developed a bridge management system that contains modules to store inspection data, rank the bridges, prepare a report with annual and five-year programs of bridge work, and optimize the required repair works [13].
Australia and New Zealand A report was initiated with the proposed BMS by Steele et al. [35] that included four modules: activities, engineering inputs, management inputs, and outputs. The engineering inputs module provides a set of feasible actions that can be taken [12]. The output module provides data on the bridge condition prediction, options for maintenance, and estimated costs [13].

2.2. Deterioration Models

Concrete bridges tend to deteriorate with time. Thompson et al. [36] emphasize that an effective BMS should be equipped with a reliable deterioration model. Deterioration models are models designed to predict the future condition of the bridge to assess proper planning for maintenance strategies and allocation of the budgets. Many deterioration models have been developed to help in predicting the condition of the bridge elements. The models are developed through different techniques that can be classified into deterministic, stochastic, and artificial intelligence.
Deterministic deterioration models are obtained through statistical and regression analysis based on the historical data on the structural deterioration [37]. These models do not provide enough accuracy for prediction of the bridge performance and may underestimate or overestimate the bridge condition at a specific time [38].
Stochastic models are probabilistic models that consider the uncertainty and randomness within deterioration conditions. A stochastic approach can also be used to incorporate environmental influences and material characteristics into the deterioration model [39]. Models developed using this approach can be state-based models or time-based models [40].
Artificial intelligence (AI) models are computational models that use AI techniques like Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) [41]. The ANN consists of networks of an input layer, hidden layers, and an output layer, which are parallelly interconnected [42].

2.3. Factors Included in Deterioration Models

2.3.1. Factors Considered in North America

Although some of the states used the same methods and types in developing the deterioration models, different factors were considered in each model, based on the local conditions. Age, average daily traffic (ADT), and average daily truck traffic (ADTT) were found to be the most common factors adopted in the deterioration models developed in North America [8][38][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62].
Madanat et al. [44], Moomen et al. [14], and Saeed et al. [53] have developed different deterioration models for Indiana. The common factors found in the three studies were the following: age, ADT, state or non-state type of bridges, freeze and thaw cycles, number of spans, bridge length, skewness, and type of services under the bridge. Deck protection was adopted only by Moomen et al. [14]. Madanat et al. [44] were the only ones to consider the humidity, wearing surface type, bridge width, and structure type in their model.
In Ohio, Ramani [56] considered geographical location and bridge material type, while AlThaqafi and Chou [57] included skewness, ADT, design type, number of spans, bridge length, deck width, and design load in their model. The age of the bridge was the only common factor between the two models.
Winn [42] and Chyad [58] used ANN, deterministic, and stochastic approaches to develop a deterioration model in Michigan. Common factors used in these studies were age, ADT, and structure type.
Weissmann et al. [60] developed a deterioration model in Texas utilizing inventory data, which considered climate factors such as rainfall. Other studies [10][59][60][61] have also considered the environmental effects on bridge deterioration when developing different deterioration models. Shengzhi et al. [62] categorized the US into five zones: Hot-Humid, Mixed-Humid, Hot-Dry/Mixed-Dry, Cold/Very Cold, and Marine. There are several states that considered the effect of the environmental parameters in their deterioration models [14][43][44][48][53][54].
Foster [63] conducted a survey of the state departments of transportation (DOTs) to investigate their experience with bridge deterioration models. Twenty-nine states responded, with seventeen states that have a deterioration model in their BMS and seven states that do not use bridge deterioration models in their BMS. The most common factors in the deterioration models reported were age, superstructure’s material, condition rating, average daily traffic (ADT), and deck wearing surface.
In Canada, Marcous [45] considered highway class, region, age, ADT, and span length in the deterioration model. Morcous et al. [55] included more factors in their model such as ADTT, skew angle, structural system, wearing surface, and girder material and spacings. Another study in Ontario by Martinez et al. [59] was conducted to predict the condition rating of the province’s bridges using different types of models and a set of variables for the models. The set of variables includes rehabilitation time, number of spans, bridge length and width, region, age, and bridge material.

2.3.2. Factors Considered in Other Countries

To forecast the bridge condition rating using condition rating data, Khairullah and Roszilah [64] developed an ANN deterioration model in Malaysia. Another study by Al Hussein [61] utilized the inventory data of London bridges, where the defect type, exposure condition, and bridge component type were used as input parameters for the ANN deterioration model development.
A study in Japan was conducted by Miao [65], where an ANN deterioration model was developed using age, ADT, ADTT, and bridge geometry as factors included in the model. The study also involved climate-related factors such as snow and rain precipitation, temperature change, chloride, and carbon dioxide content. The same environmental factors were used in a study in China but without considering the rain precipitation, chloride, and carbon dioxide content [66].
Environmental factors were also considered in deterioration models in Australia. In addition to age, ADT, ADTT, and structure type were adopted by Callow [11], and the chloride and sulphate content were included in the ANN deterioration model developed by Hasan [67].
In Europe, a deterioration model was developed in Finland based on age, freeze–thaw cycles, carbonation depth, and reinforcement corrosion [25]. In Serbia, the deterioration model included structural components and inspection gap [68]. In the Netherlands, Kallen and Noortwijk [69] considered age and condition data of the bridges to develop a Markov deterioration model.
Santos et al. [70] in Brazil categorized the bridge data according to geographic location, material type, and superstructure type to develop Markovian and ANN deterioration models. For each bridge category, age, deck width, and bridge length were considered as parameters in both models. Another study in Brazil was conducted by Furtado and Ribeiro [71] in which they used age, bridge length, number of spans, bridge material, traffic volume, and different classes of environmental aggressiveness as variables for the semi-Markovian model. A stochastic model that considered age and environmental conditions was also developed in Japan [72].

2.3.3. Discussion of the Factors

Figure 1 summarizes the thirty-three factors found, and these could be classified into six groups; environmental factors, structural-related factors, dimensional factors, factors related to geographic location, traffic, and other factors. In addition, the structural-, traffic-, and dimensional-related factors are the most included in the development of deterioration models. Figure 2 shows several structural-related factors which were included in different deterioration models. The age of the bridge and the superstructure type are the main factors that were included in the development of DMs. Furthermore, snow, rain, temperature, humidity, freeze index, number of freeze–thaw cycles, number of cold days, carbon dioxide, chloride, sulphate, and salt usage are some of the environmental conditions that are included in DMs, as shown in Figure 3.
Designs 07 00126 g001
Figure 1. Categories adopted in the development of DMs.
Designs 07 00126 g002
Figure 2. Structural-related factors adopted in the development of DMs.
Designs 07 00126 g003
Figure 3. Environmental factors adopted in the development of DMs.
Traffic, dimensional factors, geographic location factors, and other categories are summarized in Table 2. In addition, the table provides the frequency of using each factor and relevant references that considered different factors. Some factors have been rarely adopted by researchers when developing deterioration models. Examples of these factors include deck and steel reinforcement protection, type of defect, inspection gap, bridge elevation, girder material and spacing, approach surface type, sulphate and carbon dioxide content, and salt usage.
Table 2. Summary of other factors included in different DMs.
Category Factor No of Times Mentioned References
Dimensional factors Bridge elevation 1 [65]
Span length 8 [38][44][45][46][55][73][74][75]
No of spans 15 [3][10][14][38][42][44][49][53][57][59][67][71][76][77][78]
Bridge width 13 [3][38][44][46][57][59][65][66][67][70][74][75][79][80]
Bridge length 18 [3][10][14][46][47][49][53][57][59][65][67][70][71][74][75][76][78][81]
Factors related to geographic location Services under the bridge 6 [11][14][48][53][60][78]
State or interstate 6 [8][14][44][51][53][78]
Region or location 7 [48][50][54][55][56][70][76]
Traffic ADT 31 [3][8][10][11][38][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][55][57][58][60][65][67][70][71][73][74][75][76][77][79][80][82]
ADTT 18 [3][10][11][14][42][46][51][52][53][54][55][65][67][70][71][73][77][78]
Others Wearing surface type 5 [8][44][49][52][55]
Time of rehabilitation 5 [43][59][60][76][82]
Inspection gap 3 [3][47][68]
Defect type 2 [60][83]
It can be recognized that the development of deterioration models depends on different factors, based on the available data. The majority of the BMSs within the GCC are still under development and many of them do not include well-defined deterioration models. Therefore, identifying the most important factors that can impact bridge deterioration within the GCC can help the local agencies in the planning and development of their BMSs.
The concrete bridge’s structural deterioration can be affected by several factors. Such factors include, but are not limited to, environmental conditions, structural systems, bridge configuration, geographic location, traffic data, etc. These factors differ in their level and impact on the bridges within different regions or countries. Therefore, a bridge deterioration model should be different for various geographic locations.

References

  1. James, W.; Stukhart, G.; Garcia-Diaz, A.; Sobanjo, J. Analytical Approach to the Development of a Bridge Management System. Transp. Res. Rec. 1991, 1290, 57–170.
  2. Hart, M.; Schrock, S. Highway Bridge Maintenance Planning and Scheduling; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 291–298.
  3. Lee, J. A Methodology for Developing Bridge Condition Rating Models Based on Limited Inspection Records. Ph.D. Thesis, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, 2007.
  4. Frangopol, D.M.; Gharaibeh, E.S.; Kong, J.S.; Miyake, M. Optimal Network-Level Bridge Maintenance Planning Based on Minimum Expected Cost. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2000, 1696, 26–33.
  5. Edward, R.E., Jr.; Zayed, T.; Boyd, A.; Mendoza, M. Best practice of bridge system management. J. Manag. Eng. 2006, 22, 186–195.
  6. Yehia, S.; Abdelfatah, A.; Abu Dabous, S. A conceptual framework for a bridge management system for the United Arab Emirates. Bridg. Struct. 2012, 8, 67–79.
  7. Czepiel, E. Bridge Management Systems: Literature Review and Search; Northwestern University BIRL Industrial Research Laboratory: Evanston, IL, USA, 1995.
  8. Yari, N. New Model for Bridge Management System (BMS): Bridge Repair Priority Ranking System (BRPRS), Case Based Reasoning for Bridge Deterioration, Cost Optimization, and Preservation Strategy. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA, 2018.
  9. Robert, W.; Marshall, A.; Shepard, R.; Aldayuz, J. Pontis Bridge Management System: State of the Practice in Implementation and Development. In Proceedings of the 9th International Bridge Management Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 28–30 April 2003; pp. 49–60.
  10. Alexander, J. Development of a Condition-Based Deterioration Model for Bridges in Rhode Island. Master’s Thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA, 2018.
  11. Callow, D. Optimization of the Neural Network Process for an Improved Bridge Deterioration Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, 2015.
  12. Yanev, B.; Testa, R. Life Cycle Performance of Bridge Components in New York City. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Bridge Management Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 26–28 April 1999.
  13. Austroads. Bridge Management Systems—The State of the Art; Publication No: AP-R198-02; Austroads Inc.: Sydney, Australia, 2002.
  14. Moomen, M.; Qiao, Y.; Agbelie, R.; Labi, S.; Sinha, K. Bridge Deterioration Models to Support Indiana’s Bridge Management System; Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2016.
  15. Bevc, L.; Perus, I.; Mahut, B.; Grefstad, K. Review of Existing Procedures for Optimization; Deliverable D3 for the BRIME Report Project PL97-2220; Transportation Research Laboratory: London, UK, 2001; pp. 15–17.
  16. Green, S.; Richardson, J. Development of a bridge management system in Alabama. Transp. Res. Circural 1994, 432, 72–80.
  17. Sobanjo, J.; Thompson, P. Project Planning Models for Florida’s Bridge Management System. In Florida Department of Transportation; Florida State University: Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2004; pp. 1–4.
  18. Johnson, M.; Kerr, R.; Thompson, T.; Ailaney, R. Bridge Management Experiences of California, Florida, and South Dakota; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. Available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/bmcs7.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  19. Sobanjo, J. Enhancement of the FDOT’s Project Level and Network Level Bridge Management Analysis Tools; Florida State University: Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2011.
  20. Rens, K.L.; Nogueira, C.L.; Neiman, Y.M.; Gruber, T.; Johnson, L.E. Bridge Management System for the City and County of Denver. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 1999, 4, 131–136.
  21. Thompson, P.; Kerr, B.; Cheetham, A.; Ellis, R. The New Ontario Bridge Management System. TRB Transp. Res. Circ. 1999, 498, F-6/1–F-6/15.
  22. Thompson, R.; Ellis, R.; Hong, K.; Merlo, T. Implementation of the Ontario bridge management system. In Proceedings of the 9th International Bridge Management Conference, National Orlando, FL, USA, 28–30 April 2003.
  23. Anderson, N. DANBRO-A bridge management system for many levels. In Advanced Research Workshop on Bridge Evaluation, Repair and Rehabilitation; Nowak, A., Ed.; Klumer Academic Publishers: Baltimore, ML, USA, 1990.
  24. Lauridsen, J.; Lassen, B. The Danish Bridge Management System DANBRO; Management of Highway Structures: London, UK, 1999; pp. 61–70.
  25. Soderqvist, M. The Finnish Practice and Experience Regarding Bridge Inspection and Management; Management Highway Structures, Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1999; pp. 71–80.
  26. Mirzaei, Z.; Adey, B.; The IABMAS Bridge Management Committee. Overview of Existing Bridge Management Systems. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management (IABMAS 2012), International Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety (IABMAS), Stresa, Italy, 8–12 July 2012.
  27. Hayter, G.; Allison, B. Structure Management Information Systems (SMIS); Management of Highway Structures, Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1999; pp. 153–162.
  28. Godart, B.; Vassie, P. Bridge Management Systems: Extended Review of Existing Systems and Outline Framework for a European System; Deliverable D13 for BRIME Project; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2001; pp. 97–220.
  29. Everett, T.; Weykamp, P.; Capers, H. Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe; FHWA-PL-08-016; Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington DC, USA, 2008; pp. 7–22.
  30. Agardy, G.; Bako, A.; Gaspar, L.; Kolozsi, G.; Lubloy, A.; Molnar, I. Adaption of PONTIS BMS to Hungarian conditions. In Proceedings of the 4th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, Australia, 29 November–1 December 2000; Austroads: Sydney, Australia, 2000; pp. 61–70.
  31. Marinković, M.; Matić, B.; Stevanović, R. Bridge Management System in Europe. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference Civil Engineering—Science and Practice, Žabljak, Montenegro, 7–11 March 2016; Volume 6.
  32. Gusella, V.; Materazzi, A.; Moriconi, C. Information System for Management of Bridges Owned by the Province of Perugia, Italy. In Bridge Management 3: Inspection, Maintenance, Assessment and Repair; Harding, J.E., Parke, G.A.R., Ryall, M.J., Eds.; Spon: London, UK, 1996; pp. 595–602.
  33. Romack, G.; Christian, G.; Shepard, R.; Thompson, T.; Young, R. Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in Europe and South Africa; FHWA-PL-05-002; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 3–68.
  34. Miyamoto, A.; Nakamura, K.; Nakamura, H. Development of a Bridge Management System for Existing Bridges. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2001, 32, 821–833.
  35. Steele, K.; Cole, G.; Parke, G.; Clarke, B.; Harding, J. Bridge Maintenance Strategy and Sustainability. In Bridge Management 4: Inspection, Maintenance, Assessment and Repair; Ryall, M.J., Parke, G.A.R., Harding, J.E., Eds.; E&FN Spon, Thomas Telford: London, UK, 2000; pp. 361–369.
  36. Thompson, L.; Shirole, A.; Sinha, S. Equations for quantitative assessments of the long-term effectiveness of bridge actions. In Proceedings of the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 23–27 January 2011.
  37. de Dieu, G.J.; Chingui, J.A.; Botir, E. A Review of Bridge Management System: Deterioration Models. Asian J. Eng. Technol. 2020, 8, 55–62.
  38. Srikanth, I.; Arockiasamy, M. Deterioration models for prediction of remaining useful life of timber and concrete bridges: A review. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2020, 7, 152–173.
  39. Kotze, R.; Ngo, H.; Seskis, J. Improved Bridge Deterioration Models, Predictive Tools and Cost; Austroads: Sydney, Australia, 2015.
  40. Mauc, M.; Madanat, S. Semiparametric hazard rate models of reinforced concrete bridge deck deterioration. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2001, 7, 49–57.
  41. Alozn, M.; Ahmed, S.; Yehia, S.; Abdelfatah, A. Deterioration Models for Concrete Structures; Infrastructure Management, Assessment and Rehabilitation; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle, UK, 2021; pp. 180–191. ISBN 9781527569478.
  42. Winn, E. Artificial Neural Network Models for the Prediction of Bridge Deck Condition Ratings. Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, 2011.
  43. Sanders, D.; Zhang, J. Bridge Deterioration Models for States with Small Bridge Inventories. Transp. Res. Rec. 1442, 1994, 101–109.
  44. Madanat, S.; Mishalani, R.; Ibrahim, W.H.W. Estimation of Infrastructure Transition Probabilities from Condition Rating Data. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 1995, 1, 120–125.
  45. Morcous, G. Comparing the Use of Artificial Neural Networks and Case-based Reasoning in Modeling Bridge Deterioration. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montréal, QC, Canada, 5–8 June 2002; pp. 1–9.
  46. Ali, G.; Assaad, R.; Elsayegh, A.; El-Adaway, I. Artificial Neural Network Model for Bridge Deterioration and Assessment. In Proceedings of the CSCE Annual Conference, Laval, QC, Canada, 12–15 June 2019; pp. 1–10.
  47. Naderimoghaddam, T. A Comparison of Bridge Deterioration Models. Master’s Thesis, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA, 2018.
  48. Moomen, M.; Siddiqui, C. Probabilistic deterioration modeling of bridge component condition with random effects. J. Struct. Integr. Maint. 2022, 7, 151–160.
  49. Huang, Y.-H. Artificial Neural Network Model of Bridge Deterioration. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010, 24, 597–602.
  50. Aboura, K.; Samali, B.; Crews, K.; Li, J. Stochastic Deterioration Processes for Bridge Lifetime Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2008 Third International Conference on Broadband Communications, Information Technology & Biomedical Applications, Pretoria, South Africa, 23–26 November 2008; pp. 437–442.
  51. Bolukbasi, M.; Mohammadi, J.; Arditi, D. Estimating the Future Condition of Highway Bridge Components Using National Bridge Inventory Data. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2004, 9, 16–25.
  52. Hatami, A.; Morcous, G. Developing Deterioration Models for Nebraska Bridges; SPR-P1(11) M302; University of Nebraska: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2011; pp. 23–35.
  53. Saeed, T.U.; Moomen, M.; Ahmed, A.; Murillo-Hoyos, J.; Volovski, M.; Labi, S. Performance Evaluation and Life Prediction of Highway Concrete Bridge Superstructure across Design Types. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017052.
  54. Agrawal, A.K.; Kawaguchi, A.; Chen, Z. Bridge Element Deterioration Rates; Report # C-01-51; The City College of New York Department of Civil Engineering: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
  55. Morcous, G.; Rivard, H.; Hanna, A.M. Modeling Bridge Deterioration Using Case-based Reasoning. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2002, 8, 86–95.
  56. Ramani, S. A Markov-based Analysis of the State of Ohio’s Bridge Inventory and Novel Approaches to the Estimation of Bridge Degradation Rates. Master’s Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2010.
  57. Althaqafi, E.; Chou, E. Developing Bridge Deterioration Models Using an Artificial Neural Network. Infrastructures 2022, 7, 101.
  58. Chyad, A. Deterioration Prediction Modeling for the Condition Assessment of Concrete Bridge Decks. Master’s Thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA, 2018.
  59. Martinez, P.; Mohamed, E.; Mohsen, O.; Mohamed, Y. Comparative Study of Data Mining Models for Prediction of Bridge Future Conditions. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2020, 34, 04019108.
  60. Weissmann, J.; Weissmann, A.J.; Montoya, A. Deterioration Models for Texas Bridges and Culverts. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2023, 2677, 307–316.
  61. Hussein, A.; Abu Tair, A. Estimating Bridge Deterioration Age Using Artificial Neural Networks. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2019, 11, 29–32.
  62. Shengzhi, S.; Weinbergera, K.; Spanglera, K.; Eliota, M.; Brauna, J.; Welleniusa, G. Ambient temperature and preterm birth: A retrospective study of 32 million US singleton births. Environ. Int. 2019, 126, 7–13.
  63. Foster, D. Bridge Deterioration Models and Rates; Caltrans Division of Research, Innovation and System Information, Office of Asset Management: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2020.
  64. Khairullah, Y.; Roszilah, H. Developing a Bridge Condition Rating Model Based on a Limited Number of Data Sets; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018.
  65. Miao, P. Prediction-Based Maintenance of Existing Bridges Using Neural Network and Sensitivity Analysis. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1–17.
  66. He, X.; Wang, W.; Hu, W.; Zhang, H. Bridge Deterioration Analysis Based on Censored Data: A Case Study in Yunnan Province. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 787, 012035.
  67. Hasan, S. Deterioration Prediction of Concrete Bridge Components Using Artificial Intelligence and Stochastic Methods. Master’s Thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, 2015.
  68. Mašović, S.; Hajdin, R. Modelling of bridge elements deterioration for Serbian bridge inventory. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2013, 10, 976–987.
  69. Kallen, M.; Noortwijk, J. Statistical inference for Markov deterioration models of bridge conditions in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management, Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Life-Cycle Performance and Cost, Porto, Portugal, 16–19 July 2006; pp. 535–536.
  70. Santos, A.F.; Bonatte, M.S.; Sousa, H.S.; Bittencourt, T.N.; Matos, J.C. Improvement of the Inspection Interval of Highway Bridges through Predictive Models of Deterioration. Buildings 2022, 12, 124.
  71. Furtado, F.; Ribeiro, D. Railway Bridge Management System Based on Visual Inspections with Semi-Markov Continuous Time Process. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2022, 27, 233–250.
  72. Li, M.; Jia, G. Age, state, and environment dependent non-homogeneous stochastic model for improved bridge deterioration prediction. In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Life-Cycle Sustainability and Innovations; CRC Press: Sapporo, Japan, 2021.
  73. Cavalline, T.; Whelan, M.; Tempest, B.; Goyal, R.; Ramsey, J. Determination of Bridge Deterioration Models and Bridge User Costs for the NCDOT Bridge Management System; North Carolina Department of Transportation: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2015.
  74. Assaad, R.; El-Adaway, I.H. Bridge Infrastructure Asset Management System: Comparative Computational Machine Learning Approach for Evaluating and Predicting Deck Deterioration Conditions. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2020, 26, 04020032.
  75. Rajkumar, M.; Nagarajan, S.; Arockiasamy, M. Bridge Infrastructure Management System: Autoencoder Approach for Predicting Bridge Condition Ratings. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2023, 29, 04022042.
  76. Ahmed, M.; Moselhi, O.; Bhwomick, A. Integration of NDE Measurements and Current Practice in Bridge Deterioration Modeling. In Proceedings of the 33th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Auburn, Alabama, 18–21 July 2016; pp. 341–349.
  77. Nguyen, T.T.; Dinh, K. Prediction of bridge deck condition rating based on artificial neural networks. J. Sci. Technol. Civ. Eng. (STCE)-NUCE 2019, 13, 15–25.
  78. Ruck, G.; Francis, K. Bridge Model Validation at Indiana Department of Transportation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Bridge and Structures Management Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 26–27 April 2017; pp. 1–29.
  79. Abdelhady, O.; Moselhi, O. Condition Monitoring of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks: Current Practices and Future Perspectives. Curr. Trends Civ. Struct. Eng. 2022, 8, 1–4.
  80. Abdelhady, O.; Moselhi, O. Hybrid feature selection framework for predicting bridge deck conditions. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2022, 27, 1028–1041.
  81. Hu, X.; Liu, K. Structural Deterioration Knowledge Ontology towards Physics-Informed Machine Learning for Enhanced Bridge Deterioration Prediction. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2023, 37, 04022051.
  82. Wang, R.; Ma, L.; Yan, C.; Mathew, J. Condition deterioration prediction of bridge elements using Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs). In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering (QR2MSE), Chengdu, China, 15–18 June 2012; pp. 566–571.
  83. Abdelkader, E.; Marzouk, M.; Zayed, T. Modeling of concrete bridge decks deterioration using a Hybrid stochastic model. In Proceedings of the CSCE the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering: Building Tomorrow’s Society, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, 13–16 June 2018; pp. 1–8.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Engineering, Civil
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Rawan Al-Rashed
,
Akmal Abdelfatah
,
Sherif Yehia
View Times: 144
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 19 Dec 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback