Frangopol (2017) Bridge Life Cycle Performance and Cost Analysis Prediction Optimisation and Decision Making (STR & Infr. Engg.)

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance
ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20
Bridge life-cycle performance and cost: analysis,

prediction, optimisation and decision-making
Dan M. Frangopol, You Dong & Samantha Sabatino
To cite this article: Dan M. Frangopol, You Dong & Samantha Sabatino (2017) Bridge life-cycle
performance and cost: analysis, prediction, optimisation and decision-making, Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 13:10, 1239-1257, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2016.1267772
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1267772
Published online: 12 Jan 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3847
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 110 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2017
VOL. 13, NO. 10, 1239–1257
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1267772
Bridge life-cycle performance and cost: analysis, prediction, optimisation and

decision-making
Dan M. Frangopol, You Dong§ and Samantha Sabatino
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Engineering Research Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems (ATLSS
Center), Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The development of a generalised framework for assessing bridge life-cycle performance and cost, Received 29 August 2016
with emphasis on analysis, prediction, optimisation and decision-making under uncertainty, is briefly Revised 4 November 2016
addressed. The central issue underlying the importance of the life-cycle approach to bridge engineering Accepted 23 November 2016
is the need for a rational basis for making informed decisions regarding design, construction, inspection, Published online
12 January 2017
monitoring, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, replacement and management of bridges under
uncertainty which is carried out by using multi-objective optimisation procedures that balance conflicting KEYWORDS
criteria such as performance and cost. A number of significant developments are summarised, including Life-cycle management; risk;
time-variant reliability, risk, resilience, and sustainability of bridges, bridge transportation networks and resilience; sustainability;
interdependent infrastructure systems. Furthermore, the effects of climate change on the probabilistic utility; decision-making;
life-cycle performance assessment of highway bridges are addressed. Moreover, integration of SHM and bridges
updating in bridge management and probabilistic life-cycle optimisation considering multi-attribute
utility and risk attitudes are presented.
1. Introduction Alternatively, there are extreme events that cause an abrupt

reduction in the functionality of structures such as blasts, fires,
The condition of civil infrastructure systems around the world is
earthquakes, hurricanes and terrorist attacks. During their
degrading due to a variety of deteriorating mechanisms, includ-
life-cycle, bridges can be subjected to multiple hazards. Thus, it is
ing ageing, environmental stressors, man-made hazards (e.g.
necessary to consider the performance of bridges under multiple
blasts and fires) and natural hazards (e.g. earthquakes and hurri-
hazards in the risk assessment and mitigation procedure, all in a
canes), among others. Consequently, improving the overall con-
life-cycle context. Life-cycle assessment of deteriorating highway
dition and safety of deteriorating infrastructure systems is a key
bridges includes aleatory and epistemic uncertainties associated
concern worldwide. For example, the American Society of Civil
with natural randomness and inaccuracies in the prediction or
Engineers reported, within the 2013 Report Card for America’s
estimation of reality, respectively (Ang & Tang, 2007). These are
Infrastructure, that the average age of the United States’ 607,380
present within modelling the structural resistance (e.g. material
bridges was 42 years (ASCE, 2013). Additionally, nearly a quarter
properties and geometrical characteristics), the occurrence and
of these highway bridges were classified as either structurally
magnitude of hazards that may impact the structure (e.g. cor-
deficient or functionally obsolete (FHWA, 2013). Therefore, it is
rosion, fatigue, earthquakes, floods and hurricanes), operating
crucial to implement rational management strategies that main-
conditions, and loading cases, among others; uncertainties are
tain performance of highway bridges within acceptable levels
also associated with the interventions performed during the ser-
through their life-cycle. Life-cycle management is widely recog-
vice life of structures (e.g. inspection, maintenance, monitoring,
nised as an effective tool for maximising the cost-effectiveness of
repair and replacement) and their costs. Due to these uncertain-
implementing intervention actions that improve condition and
ties, it is imperative for structural engineers to accurately model
safety, and extend the service life of deteriorating infrastructure
and assess the structural performance and total cost within a
systems.
probabilistic life-cycle context. Furthermore, the effects of main-
In order to predict performance of structural systems during
tenance, repair and rehabilitation on structural life-cycle perfor-
their life-cycle under uncertainty, deterioration mechanisms
mance must be well understood. The influence of maintenance
for the investigated systems (e.g. corrosion and fatigue) must
and repairs on structural performance can be incorporated in
be carefully considered. Aggressive environmental conditions
a generalised framework for multi-criteria optimisation of the
and natural ageing processes facilitate a gradual reduction in
life-cycle management of infrastructure systems (Ellingwood
the performance (e.g. system reliability) of existing structures.
CONTACT Dan M. Frangopol [email protected]

Based on the T.Y. Lin plenary lecture and the associated paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management
(IABMAS2016), Iguassu Falls, Paraná, Brazil, 26–30 June, 2016.
§
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1240 D. M. FRANGOPOL ET AL.
(a) Deterioration Time of preventive

initiation maintenance (PM), tpm
Rate of
deterioration Time of essential
PERFORMANCE
maintenance (EM), tem
Performance
Initial threshold
performance Service life
index with PM & EM
Service life without Service life

maintenance with PM
(b) tpm tem TIME

MAINTENANCE
COST
Cost of EM
Cost of PM
tpm tem TIME
Figure 1. Effects of gradual deterioration and preventive and essential maintenance on (a) structural performance and (b) maintenance cost.
& Frangopol, 2016; Frangopol, 2011; Frangopol & Liu, 2007; but they typically cost more. Strengthening and replacement
Frangopol & Soliman, 2016). Within the last two decades, of bridge components are examples of essential maintenance
several studies introduced probabilistic techniques which can actions. Furthermore, the effects of maintenance on the total
assist the bridge management process (Biondini, Camnasio, & cost of bridge management must be considered. Figure 1(b)
Palermo, 2014; Biondini & Frangopol, 2016; Biondini, Frangopol, shows the cumulative maintenance cost as a function of time
& Malerba, 2008; Enright & Frangopol, 1999a, 1999b; Estes & for preventive and essential maintenance interventions.
Frangopol, 2001; Frangopol, Kallen, & van Noortwijk, 2004; Performance of bridge systems may be represented by a vari-
Frangopol & Kim, 2011; Frangopol, Kong, & Gharaibeh, 2001; ety of indicators. Approaches for the life-cycle management of
Frangopol, Lin, & Estes, 1997; Frangopol & Liu, 2007; Frangopol bridges involving reliability performance indicators consider
& Okasha, 2009; Frangopol & Soliman, 2016; Ghosn et al., 2016a, uncertainties associated with loads, resistance and modelling, but
2016b; Kim & Frangopol, 2017; Koh & Frangopol, 2008; Kong, are not able to account for the consequences incurred from bridge
Ababneh, Frangopol, & Xi, 2002; Kong & Frangopol, 2003; failure. Risk-based indicators provide the means to combine the
Lim, Akiyama, & Frangopol, 2016; Miyamoto, Kawamura, & probability of structural failure with the consequences associated
Nakamura, 2000; Morcous & Lounis, 2005; Neves, Frangopol, with this event (Ang & De Leon, 2005; Ellingwood, 1998, 2005,
& Cruz, 2006; Okasha & Frangopol, 2010a, 2010b; Sánchez-Silva, 2006; Lounis & McAllister, 2016; Saydam & Frangopol, 2014;
Frangopol, Padgett, & Soliman, 2016; Stewart & Rosowsky, 1998; Saydam, Frangopol, & Dong, 2013; Zhu & Frangopol, 2013b).
Thanapol, Akiyama, & Frangopol, 2016, among others). Several risk approaches within a generalised life-cycle framework
The effects of maintenance on the probabilistic performance are presented in this paper. Furthermore, methodologies con-
profile (such as reliability index) and cost are depicted in sidering sustainability as a performance indicator are discussed.
Figure 1. Within this figure, the probabilistic aspect of The incorporation of sustainability in the life-cycle performance
performance prediction is illustrated by the probability density assessment and management procedures allows for the effective
functions (PDFs) of the initial performance index, deterioration integration of economic, social and environmental aspects. A
initiation, rate of deterioration, and service life (a) without sustainability performance metric may be established consid-
maintenance, (b) with preventive maintenance (PM) only and ering multi-attribute utility theory, which facilitates the com-
(c) with both preventive and essential maintenance (EM). In bination of several risks while incorporating the risk attitude of
general, preventive maintenance is applied to slightly improve the decision-maker (Jiménez, Rı́os-Insua, & Mateos, 2003). This
the performance or delay the deteriorating process of a bridge particular sustainability performance indicator has been applied
in order to keep the bridge above the required level of structural to the life-cycle management of bridges (Sabatino, Frangopol, &
performance. Preventive maintenance actions for a deteriorating Dong, 2015a, 2015b) and bridge networks (Dong, Frangopol, &
bridge includes replacing small parts, patching concrete, Sabatino, 2015). Additionally, risk and sustainability concepts
repairing cracks, changing lubricants, and cleaning and painting may be successfully integrated within optimal bridge manage-
exposed parts, among others. On the other hand, essential ment planning. A general process outlining the use of reliability,
maintenance is typically a performance-based intervention. As risk, multi-attribute utility and sustainability concepts within
depicted in Figure 1(a), essential maintenance is applied when a robust decision-making process regarding bridge manage-
the bridge performance level reaches a predefined threshold. ment is shown in Figure 2. The goals of implementing optimal
Essential maintenance actions lead to much higher levels of bridge management plans are to improve the performance and
bridge performance than preventive maintenance actions, functionality of bridges, mitigate detrimental consequences and
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1241
4. Single- 2. Performance evaluation and prediction

attribute utility 6. Multi-criteria
2. Reliability optimization:
assessment and
assignment
considering the conflicting cost Performance of bridge structures can be quantified at the
consequences
evaluation
risk attitude of and
performance
cross-section, component, whole structure (system), group of
the decision
maker objectives structures (network) and network of networks levels. In most
1. Structural 3. Calculation 5. Formulation
of the current bridge design and assessment codes, performance
parameters of relevant risk- of a multi- requirements are based on component strength. Typically, perfor-
(e.g., bridge attributes attribute utility 7. Decision
geometry, •Economy function making mance assessment activities associated with bridge components
deterioration
model)
•Society representative
of sustainability rely on visual inspections results. For bridges, visual inspection
•Environment
results are usually employed to establish a condition rating index
to indicate the bridge’s remaining load-carrying capacity. The
Figure 2. General procedure for sustainability-informed decision-making. bridges in the United States are rated using two different methods
based on visual inspection. The first method uses the National
minimise costs. These ultimate aims are satisfied with a compre- Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition rating system (FHWA, 2013).
hensive life-cycle framework, like the one shown in Figure 2. According to the NBI condition rating system, the condition
Resilience is another structural performance indicator that evaluation corresponds to the physical state of the deck, super-
accounts for structural performance, along with recovery pat- structure and substructure components of a bridge. The second
terns under hazard effects (Bruneau et al., 2003). Presidential method uses the element-level condition rating method to rep-
Policy Directive (PPD, 2013) defined resilience as ‘the ability resent the conditions of bridge components. Generally, bridge
to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand management systems characterize the performance of structural
and recover from disruptions.’ Considering the effects of uncer- elements with discrete condition states which incorporate prede-
tainties, it is crucial for the quantification of resilience at the fined degrees of damage (Hawk & Small, 1998; Thompson, Small,
holistic level to be processed through a probabilistic framework. Johnson, & Marshall, 1998). Based on the identified condition
Several deterministic and few probabilistic studies have been states, maintenance interventions may be prioritized among all
reported to analyse the resilience of individual bridges and inspected structural components.
bridge networks (Biondini, Camnasio, & Titi, 2015; Bocchini The Pontis (Thompson et al., 1998) and another bridge man-
& Frangopol, 2012; Decò, Bocchini, & Frangopol, 2013; Decò agement system BRIDGIT (Hawk & Small, 1998) consider dis-
& Frangopol, 2013; Dong & Frangopol, 2015, 2016b; Titi & crete condition states and Markovian deterioration modelling.
Biondini, 2013). Research efforts have integrated these discrete condition states
The main effects of climate change on the performance pre- within the life-cycle management and intervention optimisa-
diction of bridges are investigated and summarised herein. tion associated with deteriorating infrastructure systems. Most of
Measurements taken over the last decades indicate that the sea these approaches incorporate Markov chain models to depict the
level, global temperature and ocean temperature are all rising at structural deterioration process. The main element of a Markov
elevated rates (Allison et al., 2009; Church & White, 2006, 2011; chain model is the transition matrix that specifies the probability
Levitus et al., 2009; Peterson & Baringer, 2009). Additionally, a that the state of a component changes to another state within
significant increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in a specified period of time. Note that the condition index is a
the atmosphere has been observed (IPCC, 2007, 2014). Since subjective measure which may not realistically reflect the true
these trends will continue within the near future, it is crucial load-carrying capacity of structural members (Liu & Frangopol,
to determine the effects of climate change on the performance 2006b; Saydam et al., 2013).
and life-cycle assessment of deteriorating infrastructure systems. Although such an approach may ensure an adequate level of
This paper presents an overview of life-cycle management safety of components, it does not provide information about the
concepts for bridge systems under uncertainty and the applica- interaction between the components and overall performance of
tion of such concepts in bridge sustainability considering the risk the whole structure (Saydam & Frangopol, 2011). Accordingly,
attitude of the decision-maker. Risk- and sustainability-informed other performance indicators capable of properly modelling the
management of bridges under the effects of both gradual and structural performance, while considering various uncertainties
sudden deteriorations is investigated. Quantifying the life-cycle associated with resistance and load effects, have been developed
performance, risk, and sustainability of bridges at the component and adopted in the life-cycle management of deteriorating infra-
and network levels is also addressed. Additionally, the effect of structure systems. Structural reliability theory offers a rational
climate change on probabilistic performance is examined herein. framework for quantification of system performance by includ-
Moreover, bridge management planning and optimisation under ing both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties, and correlations
a constrictive budget and performance constraints are presented among random variables.
through a probabilistic management framework. This frame-
work can serve as a useful tool in risk mitigation and, in general,
2.1. Reliability
decision-making associated with bridges. The approach pre-
sented can provide optimal intervention strategies to the deci- Structural reliability can be defined as the probability that a compo-
sion-maker that will allow for risk- and sustainability-informed nent or a system will adequately perform its specified purpose for
decisions regarding maintenance of individual bridges, bridge a prescribed period of time under particular conditions (Leemis,
networks and interdependent infrastructure systems during their 1995; Paliou, Shinozuka, & Chen, 1990). Component, as well as sys-
lifetime. tem reliability can be computed for the investigated infrastructure
considering that failure of a single component or a combination of can be achieved by minimising the total cost while keeping struc-
individual components may initiate the failure of the system. For tural safety at a desired level. The expected total cost during the
instance, if R and S represent the resistance and the load effect, lifetime of a bridge structure can be expressed as (Frangopol
respectively, the PDFs fR and fS, characterising these respective ran- et al., 1997):
dom variables may be established. The probability that S will not
exceed R, P(R > S), represents the reliability. As a general case, the
CET = CT + CPM + CINS + CREP + CF (3)
time-variant probability of failure pF(t) can be expressed in terms where CT is the initial cost, CPM is the expected cost of routine
of joint PDF of the random variables R(t) and S(t), fR,S(t), as: maintenance cost, CINS is the expected cost of inspections, CREP
is the expected cost of repair and CF is expected failure cost.
∞
⎛s ⎞ Assuming the occurrence of the hazard (e.g. earthquake, flood)
∫ ⎜∫
pF (t) = ⎜ fR,S (t)dr ⎟ds (1) as a Poisson process, the total life-cycle failure loss of a bridge
⎟
0 ⎝0 ⎠ during the time interval [0, tint] can be computed (Dong &
Frangopol, 2016b):
Furthermore, the reliability index can be expressed as:
∑
N(tint )
𝛽(t) = Φ−1 (1 − pF (t)) (2) CF (tint ) = l(tk ) ⋅ e−𝛾tk (4)
k=1
where Φ−1(·) is the inverse of the standard normal cumulative
distribution function (CDF). In addition to evaluating the prob- where tint is investigated time interval; N(tint) is the number of
ability of structural failure at a given point in time, it is also hazard events that occur during the time interval; l(tk) is the
possible to consider various functionality aspects that affect expected annual hazard loss at time tk given the occurrence of
infrastructure systems such as serviceability limit states. the hazard; and γ is the monetary discount rate. Based on Yeo
In general, bridge performance can be evaluated by modelling and Cornell (2005), given the Poisson model with mean rate
the bridge system as a series, parallel, or series-parallel combi- equal to λf, the time tk follows a uniform distribution over the
nation of bridge components (Hendawi & Frangopol, 1994). It interval [0, tint]. Given N (tint) = λf × tint, the total expected failure
is possible to evaluate the reliability of entire bridge structural loss under hazard effects can be computed (Ross, 2000; Yeo &
system by making appropriate assumptions (e.g. series, parallel or Cornell, 2005):
series-parallel assumptions) (Ditlevsen & Bjerager, 1986; Rashedi
& Moses, 1988; Thoft-Christensen & Murotsu, 1986) regarding the 𝜆f ⋅ E(l)
interaction among individual components. Another approach for E[CF (tint )] = ⋅ (1 − e−𝛾⋅tint ) (5)
𝛾
reliability assessment of bridges makes use of finite element (FE)
analysis, if the overall non-linear system behaviour is of inter- where E(l) is the expected value of annual loss l of bridge given a
est. A proper statistical distribution for the output of FE analysis hazard event. The expected total loss under different hazard sce-
(e.g. stress, displacement, bending moment) can be obtained by narios in a life-cycle context is shown in Figure 3. As indicated,
repeating the analysis for a large number of samples of the ran- various hazard scenarios may dominate the expected total loss at
dom variables associated with the structure. However, for complex different time intervals during a structure’s life-cycle. Numerous
structures, the time required to repeat FE analysis many times may research efforts have focused on balancing cost and performance
be impractical. In such cases, response surface methods (RSMs) to determine optimum planning for life-cycle management of
can be used to approximate the relation between the desired out- civil infrastructure systems (Ang & De Leon, 2005; Chang &
put of FE analysis and random variables by performing analyses Shinozuka, 1996; Estes & Frangopol, 2005; Estes, Frangopol, &
for a significantly less number of samples. The RSM has also been Foltz, 2004; Frangopol & Furuta, 2001; Frangopol et al., 1997,
implemented in system reliability of bridge superstructures (Liu, 2001; Okasha & Frangopol, 2010a).
Ghosn, Moses, & Neuenhoffer, 2001), substructures (Ghosn &
Moses, 1998), and bridge systems (Okasha & Frangopol, 2010a;
2.3. Risk
Yang, Frangopol, & Neves, 2004). Additionally, Enright and
Frangopol (1999a, 1999b) used the failure path method to com- Risk is quantified by combining the probability of occurrence
pute the reliability function of a general (i.e. series-parallel) system and the consequences of events generated by hazards. In gen-
and developed the computer program RELTSYS for this purpose eral, the instantaneous total risk R of a structural system can be
(Enright & Frangopol, 2000). Lifetime functions (Leemis, 1995) formulated as (CIB, 2001):
are adopted for the time-dependent reliability approach, and have
R = ∬ ⋯ ∫ 𝜅 x1 , x 2 , … , x m
( )
been utilised for the life-cycle performance prediction of bridge
( ) (6)
structures (Barone & Frangopol, 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b). f𝐗 x1 , x2 , … , xm ⋅ dx1 ⋅ dx2 … dxm
Establishing the lifetime function system reliability may be car-
ried out utilising various methods such as the minimal path and where κ(x) denotes the consequences associated with events
cut sets approaches (Rausand & Hoyland, 2004; Leemis, 1995). resulting from hazards and fX(x) is the joint PDF of the random
variables involved. The m-fold integral in Equation (6) is difficult
to assess and often cannot be solved. Therefore, assumptions are
2.2. Life-cycle cost
established in order to obtain a simpler expression for total risk.
One of the most important measures in the evaluation of bridge A simplistic approach for calculating instantaneous total risk R
performance is life-cycle cost. The proper allocation of resources is (Ellingwood, 2005):
l3 2.4. Sustainability
EXPECTED TOTAL LOSS
Given earthquake Within the field of life-cycle engineering, two definitions of sus-
100-year scenario tainability are usually referred to when developing appropriate
l2 flood sustainability metrics. The first defines it as: ‘meeting the needs of
the present without comprising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs’ (Adams, 2006). The second definition
l1 complements the first one by emphasising that economic, envi-
ronmental and social objectives must be simultaneously satis-
Traffic
fied within a sustainable design or plan (Elkington, 2004). It is
important to quantify the performance of bridges and networks
l0
t0 t1 t2 t3 of structural systems whose functionality is vital for economic
and social purposes. Generally, sustainability should be quanti-
INVESTIGATED TIME INTERVAL (YEARS)
fied in terms of economic, social, and environmental metrics as
Figure 3. Expected total hazard loss under different hazard scenarios in a life-cycle
indicated in Figure 4.
context. Recent research efforts have considered a wide variety of
risks in order to effectively quantify sustainability. For instance,
∑
n
( ) Dong, Frangopol, and Saydam (2013) presented a framework
RISK(t) = Cm (t) ⋅ PF |Hi ⋅ P Hi (7) for assessing the time-variant sustainability of bridges associ-
i=1
ated with multiple hazards considering the effects of structural
where Cm represents the consequences of failure, P(Hi) describes deterioration. Their approach was illustrated on a reinforced
the probability of occurrence of a hazard, PF |Hi(t) is the condi- concrete (RC) bridge and the consequences considered within
tional failure probability given the occurrence of a hazard and the risk assessment were the expected downtime and number of
n is the total number of independent hazards considered within fatalities, expected energy waste and carbon dioxide emissions,
the analysis. and the expected loss. Overall, the inclusions of societal and envi-
Several research efforts have been conducted on the risk ronmental impacts along with economic consequences effectively
assessment of bridge structures. Cesare, Santamarina, Turkstra, encompass the concept of sustainability within the risk analysis
and Vanmarcke (1993) calculated the total risk associated with framework. Combining the economic, societal and environmen-
a bridge using the reliability and consequences of closure of the tal risk metrics allows engineers and decision-makers to make
bridge. Stein, Young, Trent, and Pearson (1999) used risk con- informed decisions based on sustainability by providing them with
cepts for prioritising scour-vulnerable bridges. Adey, Hajdin, a complete picture of system performance (Dong & Frangopol,
and Brühwiler (2003) focused on the risk assessment of bridges 2016c; Lundie, Peters, & Beavis, 2004; Shinozuka, 2008).
affected by multiple hazards. Lounis (2004) presented a mul- Generally, a structure is more sustainable if its life-cycle cost
ti-criteria approach regarding bridge structural assessment (i.e. design, construction, inspection, maintenance, repair, failure
with emphasis on risk. Similarly, Stein and Sedmera (2006) and replacement costs) is low and energy waste, carbon diox-
proposed a risk-based approach for bridges performance evalu- ide emissions and user delays arising from its maintenance and
ation in the absence of information on bridge foundations. Ang repair are low. The social metrics can include downtime and
(2011) focused on life-cycle considerations in risk-informed fatalities. The downtime due to detour associated with bridge
decision-making for the design of civil infrastructure. Decò failure can be computed as (Stein et al., 1999):
and Frangopol (2011) developed a rational framework for the D
quantitative risk assessment of highway bridges under multiple DT = d ⋅ ADT ⋅ (8)
S
hazards. Saydam et al. (2013) presented an illustrative example
for the time-variant expected losses associated with the flexural where d is the duration of the detour (days), ADT is the average
failure of girders; a risk-based robustness index was calculated daily traffic to follow detour (number of vehicles), D is the detour
for an existing bridge. length (km) and S is the detour speed (km/h). Here, the down-
Furthermore, risk analysis was utilised to assess the per- time can be referred to as the social metric of sustainability. The
formance of networks of infrastructure systems (Bocchini & environmental metric includes the energy consumption, global
Frangopol, 2012, 2013; Dong, Frangopol, & Saydam, 2014a; warming potential and air pollutant emission, among others.
Frangopol & Bocchini, 2012). For example, the time-depend- Commonly considered environmental metrics including energy
ent expected losses of deteriorated highway bridge networks waste and carbon dioxide emissions are emphasised herein. The
were investigated by Saydam et al. (2013). Additionally, Decò environmental metric associated with traffic detour is expressed
and Frangopol (2011, 2013) and Dong et al. (2014a), Dong, as (Kendall, Keoleian, & Helfand, 2008):
Frangopol, and Saydam (2014b) proposed a computational [ ( ) ]
T T
framework for the quantitative assessment of life-cycle risk of EN DT = ADT ⋅ D ⋅ d ⋅ Enpcar ⋅ 1 − + Enptruck ⋅
100 100
multiple bridges within a transportation network including the (9)
effects of seismic and abnormal traffic hazards. Overall, risk, as a
performance indicator, can offer valuable information regarding where Enpcar and Enptruck are environmental metric per unit
the performance of individual structures or spatially distributed distance for cars and trucks (e.g. carbon dioxide kg/km) and T
systems, such as buildings, bridges and bridge networks. is daily truck traffic ratio (i.e. percentage of average daily total
traffic). The environmental metric associated with the repair Utility theory provides a framework that can measure, combine,
action is computed as: and consistently compare these relative values (Ang & Tang,
( ) 1984). Multi-attribute utility theory may be used to transfer the
EN RE = Enpsteel ⋅ Vsteel + Enpconc ⋅ Vconc ⋅ RCR (10) marginal utility of each attribute involved in the performance
assessment (e.g. economic, social and environmental risks) into
where Enpsteel and Enpconc are environmental metric per unit one utility value that effectively combines the effects of all risks
volume for steel and concrete, respectively (e.g. carbon dioxide investigated as shown in Figure 6 (Dong, Frangopol, & Sabatino,
emissions kg/m3), Vsteel and Vconc are the volume of steel and 2016; Dong et al., 2015; Sabatino et al., 2015a). Next, all pos-
concrete, respectively (m3), and RCR is the repair cost ratio asso- sible solution alternatives are identified and the uncertainties
ciated with a certain damage state. The fatalities associated with associated with the investigated decision-making problem are
the failure of a highway bridge can also be computed consider- accounted for using a probabilistic approach. Since technical and
ing its damage states. The time-variant sustainability of a bridge economic uncertainties are both expected and unavoidable in the
under a given hazard in terms of economic, social and environ- life-cycle assessment of bridges, decisions regarding life-cycle
mental metrics is qualitatively shown in Figure 5 (Dong et al., management must consider all relevant uncertainties associated
2014a). As indicated in Figure 5, the horizontal axis represents with failure and its corresponding consequences. In this process,
time and vertical axis is the expected loss associated with eco- it is usually assumed that there is a single decision-maker who
nomic, social, and environmental metrics. Given no repair and/ possesses a predetermined risk attitude with respect to a specific
or retrofit actions, these values increase significantly with time. system.
In this figure, the social and environmental metrics are measured Utility theory is employed herein in order to effectively cap-
in monetary units and compared with the economic loss. ture the sustainability performance of highway bridges and
bridge networks and impact of the decision-maker’s risk atti-
tude. Once the utility function associated with each attribute
2.5. Utility
of sustainability is appropriately established, a multi-attribute
Utility theory is utilised in order to depict the relative desirabil- utility that effectively represents all aspects of sustainability can
ity of maintenance strategies to the decision-maker. In general, be obtained by combining the utility functions associated with
utility is defined as a measure of value to the decision-maker. each attribute (Sabatino et al., 2015b). Within the additive for-
mulation for the multi-attribute utility function, utility values
associated with each attribute are multiplied by weighting fac-
tors and summed over all attributes involved. The multi-attribute
utility associated with a structural system can be computed as
(Jiménez et al., 2003):
Economy
uS = kEco uEco + kSoc uSoc + kEnv uEnv (11)
where kEco, kSoc and kEnv are the weighting factors correspond-
Sustainability ing to each sustainability metric and uEco, uSoc and uEnv are the
marginal utilities for the economic, social and environmental
attributes, respectively. Overall, the proposed global strategy may
be adopted for a variety of applications, including but not limited
Society Environment to bridges, buildings, and infrastructure networks.
Figure 4. Metrics of sustainability.

Identify and estimate values of
risk-attributes
L4
Expected
environment loss Compute single attribute utility
values considering the risk attitude
EXPECTED LOSS
of the decision maker

L3 Expected Expected social
economic loss loss
Environmental
Societal impacts
impacts
Expected total (u2 and k2)
Economic impacts (u3 and k3)
L2 loss (u1 and k1) • Extra travel time,
• Carbon dioxide
extra travel
• Rebuilding cost emissions and
distance, and
energy
fatalities
consumption
L1
t1 t2 t3 t4 Formulate multi-attribute utility
function representative of
TIME (YEARS) sustainability
Figure 5. Time-variant annual sustainability metrics of a highway bridge in terms

of monetary loss. Figure 6. Multi-attribute utility assessment and optimization.
3. Consideration of hazards within a life-cycle S-N curve, where the total cyclic stress (S) is plotted against the
context number of cycles to failure (N) in a logarithmic scale as shown
in codes and standards. To carry out fatigue life predictions, a
3.1. Live load and corrosion
linear fatigue damage model is used in conjunction with relevant
The structural performance associated with a specific bridge limit S-N curves.
state varies with respect to time due to the increasing live load Kwon and Frangopol (2010) investigated the bridge fatigue
effects (e.g. by the growing demand of increasing traffic volume) reliability assessment using PDFs of equivalent stress range
and the progressive deterioration of the mechanical properties based on field monitoring data. Newhook and Edalatmanesh
(e.g. due to corrosion). The investigated flexural and shear failure (2013) integrated reliability and structural health monitoring in
modes are those related to the bridge superstructure members the fatigue assessment of concrete bridge decks. Stamatopoulos
(e.g. deck and girders). The deterioration of the flexural and shear (2013) proposed a general approach to consider the fatigue
capacities over time is induced by corrosion. Several researchers assessment and strengthening measures of a steel railway
have studied probabilistic models for predicting the time- bridge. Maekawa and Fujiyama (2013) investigated crack –
dependent deterioration of structural members due to corrosion water interaction and fatigue life assessment of RC bridge
(Akiyama, Frangopol, & Suzuki, 2012; Budelmann & Hariri, decks. Nagy, De Backer, and Van Bogaert (2013) presented an
2006; Budelmann, Holst, & Wichmann, 2014; Cavaco, Casas, approach to improve the fatigue life of orthotropic bridge decks
Neves, & Huespe, 2013; Marsh & Frangopol, 2008; Stewart, based on fracture mechanics. Pipinato (2014) investigated the
2012; Val & Chernin, 2012; Val, Stewart, & Melchers, 1998; Vu high-cycle fatigue behaviour of riveted connections for railway
& Stewart, 2000). AASHTO (2015) specifications are adopted for metal bridges. Furthermore, the fatigue damage deterioration
the estimation of the load effects and capacities at each critical has been investigated by Garbatov and Guedes Soares (2001),
section. Additionally, the increase in over time of the live load Bastidas-Arteaga, Bressolette, Chateauneuf, and Sánchez-Silva
moments is predicted considering traffic data, such as the average (2009), Kim and Frangopol (2011a), and Kwon and Frangopol
daily truck traffic, and by applying the statistics of extremes (2011).
(Akgül & Frangopol, 2004a, 2004b; Cohen, Fu, Dekelbab, &
Moses, 2003; O’Connor & O’Brien, 2005).
3.3. Extreme events
System reliability and redundancy have been extensively
studied. Such studies include time-invariant measures (Bertero The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)
& Bertero, 1999; Biondini et al., 2008; Frangopol, 1985, 1997; reported in 2011 that natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, floods
Frangopol & Curley, 1987; Frangopol & Estes, 1997; Frangopol and tsunamis) resulted in $366 billion direct economic losses
& Nakib, 1991; Frangopol et al., 2001; Ghosn & Frangopol, 2007; and 29,782 fatalities worldwide (Ferris & Petz, 2011). These stag-
Ghosn & Moses, 1998; Ghosn, Moses, & Wang, 2003; Imai & gering statistics highlight the need for effective hazard recovery
Frangopol, 2002; Liu et al., 2001; Mori & Ellingwood, 1993; strategies associated with urban structural systems. Within the
Moses, 1982; Paliou et al., 1990) and time-variant measures last few decades, the occurrence of disruptive, low-probability,
(Akgül & Frangopol, 2003, 2004a, 2004b; Ellingwood & Mori, high-consequences extreme events across the globe has shifted
1993; Enright & Frangopol, 1999a, 1999b; Estes & Frangopol, the focus of scientific communities and decision-makers to
1999, 2001, 2005; Okasha & Frangopol, 2010a; Yang, Frangopol, develop approaches which can improve the resilience of infra-
Kawakami, & Neves, 2006b; Yang, Frangopol, & Neves, 2004, structure to disasters. In general, earthquake resilience in civil
2006a). engineering can be defined as (Bruneau et al., 2003) ‘the ability
of social units (e.g. organizations and communities) to mitigate
hazards, contain the effects of disasters when they occur, and
3.2. Fatigue and fracture
carry out recovery activities in ways that minimise social dis-
Application of loads on structural components may produce ruption and mitigate the effects of future earthquakes.’ The most
fracture and cause failure if the load is cyclically applied a large widely adopted approach to quantify the resilience of an individ-
number of times. Fatigue failure is due to the progressive prop- ual structure, a group of structures, or a network of interrelated
agation of flaws in structural materials under cyclic loading. structures is to compute the resilience as (Bocchini, Frangopol,
Fatigue failure is particularly common at the tip of cracks where Ummenhofer, & Zinke, 2014; Cimellaro, Reinhorn, & Bruneau,
the stress concentrations are high. These stress concentrations 2010; Frangopol & Bocchini, 2011):
may occur in the component due to discontinuities in the mate-
t0 +tr
rial itself and are not serious when a ductile material like steel is
tr ∫
1
subjected to a static load, as the stresses redistribute themselves RE = Q(t)dt (12)
to other adjacent elements within the structure. t0
Fatigue failure involves four stages (Sumi, 1998): (1) crack
initiation at points of stress concentration, (2) crack growth, (3) in which Q(t) is the functionality, t0 is the occurrence time of
crack propagation and (4) rupture. Generally, fatigue failures are the extreme event and tr is the investigated time horizon. The
classified into two categories: low-cycle and high-cycle failures, resilience, as computed by Equation (12), is illustrated graph-
depending upon the number of cycles. Low-cycle fatigue fail- ically as shown in Figure 7 for multiple extreme events dur-
ure occurs under high stress/strain ranges. On the other hand, ing the life-cycle of a system (Dong, Frangopol, & Sabatino,
high-cycle fatigue failure requires very large number of cycles. 2014c). Regarding the seismic performance analysis, the first
The most common form of fatigue damage is evaluated using the step in seismic vulnerability assessment is to identify the
Occurrence of Occurrence of A transportation network is defined in terms of nodes and

FUNCTIONALITY LEVEL, Q(t) extreme event n
extreme event 1 links. A link is considered to be a single element connecting the
nodes of a network. Bridges are typically the most vulnerable
100% structures in a network and should be specially considered (Liu
& Frangopol, 2005a). Following an earthquake, the damaged
bridges can be open, closed or partially open within a bridge
network. Consequently, traffic flow in the links can be different
and speed limits might be reduced for various damage conditions
of the link. As there may be several bridges located on the link,
the damage state of each bridge can affect the functionality of the
investigated link. The performance of a link after an earthquake
can be expressed in terms of link damage index (LDI) which
0%
to1 to1+tr1 ton ton+trn depends on the BDIs of the bridges on the link. Due to the fact
that the seismic vulnerability of a bridge deteriorates with time,
TIME, t
LDI should also be updated during the investigated time hori-
Figure 7. Life-cycle resilience.
zon of the transportation networks. The time-variant LDI can be
expressed as (Chang, Shinozuka, & Moore, 2000):
√
√ n
seismic intensity associated with the location of the struc- √∑
LDI(t) = √ (BDIj (t))2 (15)
tural system under investigation (Dong & Frangopol, 2015). j=1
A number of seismic scenarios should be generated within
the region of interest. The generated scenarios should be able where n is the number of the bridges located in the link, and
to approximate the actual seismic activity of the geographical BDIj is the expected damage index for bridge j. The level of link
area. Subsequently, an attenuation equation is used to predict traffic flow capacity and flow speed for a damaged link depends
the ground-motion intensity at a certain location (Campbell on LDI. The intact, slight, moderate and major damage states
& Bozorgnia, 2008). are associated with LDI ≤ 0.5, 0.5 < LDI ≤ 1.0, 1.0 < LDI ≤ 1.5,
Fragility curves are commonly used to predict structural per- and LDI > 1.5, respectively (Chang et al., 2000). The increase in
formance under seismic hazard. Due to time effects, the fragility the damage state of the link will reduce the link traffic capacity
curves should be evaluated throughout the lifetime of a structure. and speed limit.
The time-variant fragility curves can be computed as: Strong earthquakes can destroy infrastructure systems and
( ) cause injuries and/or fatalities. Therefore, it is important to
ln(IM) − ln(mi (t)) investigate the seismic performance of interdependent health-
PS≥DSi |IM (t) = Φ (13) care – bridge network systems to guarantee immediate medical
𝛽i (t)
treatment after earthquakes. The assessment of healthcare –
where Φ(.) is the standard normal cumulative distribution func- bridge network system performance depends on the seismic
tion, IM is the seismic intensity measure (e.g. peak ground accel- vulnerability of a hospital and bridges located in a surrounding
eration), βi(t) is the standard deviation in the damage state i of the bridge network, in addition to the ground motion intensity. After
structural fragility at time t and mi is the median value of ground a destructive earthquake, the functionality of a highway network
motion intensity associated with damage state i. can be affected significantly; this, in turn, may hinder emergency
For a given ground motion intensity, the probability of a management. Additional travel time would result due to the
bridge being in a damage state i is given by the difference between damaged bridges and links; consequently, injured persons may
the probabilities of exceedance of damage states i and i + 1, where not receive treatment in time. Thus, it is important to account for
damage state i + 1 is more severe than damage state i. These the effects of damage condition associated with highway bridge
conditional probabilities can be mapped to the bridge damage networks on the healthcare system performance. Myrtle, Masri,
index (BDI) value (Shiraki et al., 2007). BDI can be evaluated by Nigbor, and Caffrey (2005) carried out a series of surveys on
mapping the bridge damage states given the ground acceleration performance of hospitals during several earthquakes to identify
based on realisation of a value between 0 and 1. A BDI of 1.0 the important components; Yavari, Chang, and Elwood (2010)
indicates collapse and 0 corresponds to no damage following an investigated performance levels for interacting components (i.e.
earthquake. The expected BDI can be obtained by multiplying the structural, nonstructural, lifeline and personnel) using data from
probability of being in each damage state with the corresponding past earthquakes; Achour, Miyajima, Kitaura, and Price (2011)
damage factor. Accordingly, the time-variant expected BDI of a investigated the physical damage of structural and non-structural
bridge with four damage states DSi for a certain ground motion components of a hospital under seismic hazard; and Cimellaro,
intensity IM is: Reinhorn, and Bruneau (2011) introduced a model to describe
the hospital performance under earthquake considering waiting
BDI(t) = BDI1 ⋅ PDS1 |IM (t) + BDI2 ⋅ PDS2 |IM (t) time. Dong and Frangopol (2017) investigated the functionality
+BDI3 ⋅ PDS3 |IM (t) + BDI4 ⋅ PDS4 |IM (t) (14) of healthcare system considering the damage conditions asso-
ciated with bridge networks and the correlation effects. The
where BDIi is the bridge damage index for the respective damage process used to compute the performance of interdependent
state i. healthcare-bridge network is shown in Figure 8.
Generate seismic damage indices

Compute the
p4
PROBABILITY DENSITY
associated with hospital components Obtain damage
system level Probability density
indices
associated with
performance function of repair loss
Generate damage indices associated indicators (i.e.,
with different damage states of bridges, links,
p3
FUNCTION
travel and Without considering
bridges and hospital
waiting time)
under given correlation effects
under given
Generate the ground motion hazard scenario
hazard scenario
intensities using attenuation equation p2
With considering
correlation effects
Figure 8. Computational procedure for system level performance indicators of p1
interdependent healthcare-bridge networks.
p0
The damage to electric power, telecommunications, trans- L0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7
portation, and water systems due to hazard effects can cause REPAIR LOSS
enormous social disruption. Therefore, it is of vital importance
to investigate the performance of these interdependent networks Figure 9. Probabilistic repair loss with and without considering the correlation
effects.
subjected to hazard effects considering interdependencies in a
large scale. Modeling the interaction between component and
system is also important for assessing the risk and resilience of floods (Dong & Frangopol, 2016b). Scour is one of the main
infrastructure systems. In order to understand the behaviour of bridge failure causes in the United States accounting for about
these essential networks (e.g. power, communication, transporta- 58% of all failures (Briaud, Chen, Li, Nurtjahyo, & Wang, 2004).
tion, and water systems), their properties in terms of global con- It is of vital importance to evaluate the performance of bridges
nectivity, local clustering and overall shape should be evaluated under flood. Generally, there are three types of scour: long-term
considering the failure modes associated with both individual aggradation and degradation, contraction scour and local scour
components and the interdependent systems. Then, methods and (Lagasse et al., 2009).
metrics to assess the performance of infrastructure networks, the As bridges are exposed to flood-induced scour, bearing capac-
evolution of their performance over time, and the interdepend- ities of their foundations can be reduced significantly causing
encies among different networks should be developed. This will bridge damage or even collapse. Extensive research has been
contribute to the improvement in the performance-based design conducted on the prediction of local scour depth and a number
and management methods of interdependent infrastructure sys- of predictive methods have been proposed (Briaud et al., 1999,
tems at the community level considering the interdependency 2004; Melville, 1997; Richardson & Davis, 2001). Given the flood
among these infrastructure systems (Dueñas-Osorio, Craig, intensity and occurrence probability, the bridge vulnerability
Goodno, & Goodno, 2007; Franchin, 2014; Ghosn et al., 2016a). under flood can be analysed considering both vertical and lat-
The consequences associated with the structural damage/ eral failure modes (Dong & Frangopol, 2016b). The load capacity
failure under natural hazards (e.g. seismic events) include both of a bridge pile is directly related to the interaction between the
direct and indirect consequences (Ellingwood, 2006), and can piles and the surrounding soil. A lack of lateral confinement
be expressed in terms of economic, social and environmental could result in lateral failure of the pile under flow-induced load
metrics. Earthquakes can disrupt traffic flow and affect emer- and the axial load arising from the weight of the superstructure
gency responses and recovery operations which may yield much (Zhang, Silva, & Grismala, 2005). Vertical failure refers to the
higher consequences than the repair or rebuilding costs of a bridge failure in the vertical direction, which can be caused by
damaged infrastructure system. For the proper sustainability inadequate soil support or pile instability.
and risk analyses, the consequences associated with structural During their life-cycle, bridges can be subjected to multiple
failures should include the economic, social and environmental hazards. Thus, it is necessary to consider the performance of
metrics, including rebuilding, running, time loss and environ- bridges under multiple hazards in the risk assessment and mit-
mental costs, among others. The uncertainty in the parameters igation procedure, all in a life-cycle context. For example, the
associated with the consequence evaluation should be incorpo- flood-induced scour can reduce lateral support of a bridge at
rated within the assessment process. Accordingly, uncertainties foundation and has a major effect on the seismic bridge vul-
associated with hazard scenarios and consequence evaluation nerability as indicated in Figure 10. The local scour induces the
are considered within the seismic loss assessment process. erosion of the soil around the pier and reduces the capacity of
Additionally, the correlation among these random variables the foundation. Although the joint probability of occurrence of
(e.g. ground motion intensities at different locations of bridges multiple hazards is small, past experience shows that simultane-
subjected to the same earthquake) is also accounted for within ous occurrences of extreme events happen. Due to the effects of
the evaluation process. Monte Carlo simulation is adopted to global warming and climate change, the frequency, intensity and
generate these correlated random variables. Subsequently, the magnitude of the hazards are increasing. Hence, it is required to
probability density functions of the repair loss with and with- consider the effects of flood-induced scour in the seismic loss
out considering the correlation effects are qualitatively shown assessment, especially for bridges located in seismically flood-
in Figure 9 (Dong et al., 2014a). As indicated, correlation has a prone zones.
large effect on the dispersion of the repair loss. Additionally, for bridges that span rivers, traffic loading and
Bridges also suffer exposure of their pier foundations under scour are the two primary causes of failure and lane closure
scour, which significantly reduces the foundation bearing capac- (Zhu & Frangopol, 2016a, 2016b). Therefore, these two haz-
ity and can cause structural damage or even collapse during ards need to be considered in the risk assessment process. An
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING c3
p5
UNDER A HAZARD EVENT

EXPECTED TOTAL LOSS
A GIVEN DAMAGE STATE Considering
p4 climate change
Without flood-
c2
induced scour
p3
With flood-
p2 induced scour
c1 Without
With flood- depth, h1 considering
p1 induced scour h2 > h1 climate change
depth, h2
p0 g c0
0 g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 t0 t1 t2 t3
GROUND MOTION INTENSITY
INVESTIGATED TIME INTERVAL (YEARS)
Figure 10. Qualitative fragility curves with and without considering flood-induced
scour. Figure 11. Expected total loss in a life-cycle context under given hazard scenarios
with and without considering climate change.
efficient approach for assessing time-variant risks associated of highway bridges considering climate change, it is crucial to uti-
with the closure of bridge lanes due to traffic loading and scour lise risk methodologies to incorporate detrimental consequences
is needed. The effects of hazards on bridges have been investi- of structural failure and identify the critical infrastructure that is
gated including scour (Stein et al., 1999; Zhu & Frangopol, 2016a, most threatened by change climate in a given region (Committee
2016b), airborne chlorides (Akiyama et al., 2012; Titi, Biondini, on Adaptation to a Changing Climate, 2015).
& Frangopol, 2014, 2015), tsunami (Akiyama, Frangopol, Arai, One of the greatest concerns regarding climate change of
& Koshimura, 2013) and a combination of hazards (Akiyama, highway bridges is the rising global temperature. If bridges are
Frangopol, & Matsuzaki, 2011; Decò & Frangopol, 2011; Dong subjected to more days with sustained air temperature above
et al., 2013; and Zhu & Frangopol, 2013b, 2016a, 2016b). 32 °C, the integrity of the pavement may suffer and deterioration
in roadway and bridge expansion joints may occur (Schwartz
3.4. Climate change et al., 2014). Furthermore, the construction productivity and
costs of management activities, such as repair and rehabilita-
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, tion interventions, maybe adversely affected by forcing shortened
the ‘scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is workdays or overnight work periods (TRB, 2014). In conjunction
unequivocal (NASA, 2015)’. Measurements taken over the last to rising temperature, the effect of increased levels of atmos-
decades indicate that the sea level, global temperature and ocean pheric CO2 on highway bridges is significant. Stewart, Wang, and
temperature are all rising at elevated rates (Allison et al., 2009; Nguyen (2011) illustrated that the increase in air temperature
Church & White, 2006, 2011; Levitus et al., 2009; Peterson & and CO2 levels associated with climate change will increase the
Baringer, 2009). Additionally, the sea ice in the arctic region is likelihood and rate of carbonation-induced corrosion. They also
rapidly melting and glaciers are retreating almost everywhere presented an approach that predicts the probability of corrosion
around the world (Kwok & Rothrock, 2009; Polyak et al., 2010). initiation and damage for concrete infrastructure subjected to
Moreover, a significant increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) con- carbonation and chloride-induced corrosion resulting from ele-
centration in the atmosphere has been observed (IPCC, 2007). vated CO2 levels and temperatures. The effects of increases in
Since these trends are projected to continue within the near the rate and occurrence of carbonation-induced corrosion on
future, it is crucial to determine the effects of climate change the performance of concrete bridges are significant and cannot
on the performance and life-cycle assessment of deteriorat- be ignored. Carbonation-induced damage risks may increase by
ing infrastructure systems. The United States Global Change more than 16%, which indicates that one in six structures may
Research Program (USGCRP, 2008) reported that the average be subjected to additional corrosion damage by 2100 (Stewart,
precipitation has increased 5% during a 50-year interval; con- Wang, & Nguyen, 2012).
sequently, the frequency of hazards (e.g. flood) has increased In addition to rising temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere,
as well as they have become more intense. In general, climate climate predictions indicate that the frequency of heavy precip-
change and increase in hazard intensity contribute to an increase itation events may increase over time. For highway bridges, an
in the probability of bridge failure due to hazard effects. The increased amount of precipitation may cause increases in soil
effects of climate change on the loss of bridges under hazard erosion rates and soil moisture levels, causing road washouts and
effects in a life-cycle context are qualitatively shown in Figure 11. damage to foundations of roads, bridges and other transporta-
Understanding how climate change affects the life-cycle per- tion infrastructure systems (TRB, 2008). Overall, bridge failure
formance of bridges can lead to improved preparedness prior due to scour during a heavy precipitation event is an extremely
to extreme disasters. significant concern.
Although scientists agree that the climate is, in general, chang- Moreover, bridges located in coastal regions are the most
ing, there is a significant uncertainty associated with identifying vulnerable to adverse climate change effects. Rising sea lev-
the location, timing, and magnitude of changes over the lifetime els, combined with potentially more intense storm events and
of bridges and other infrastructure systems. In order to account regional subsidence pose great threats to coastal deteriorating
for the uncertainties associated with the performance assessment infrastructure systems (Schwartz et al., 2014; TRB, 2014). Storm
surge paired with increased wave action can lead to bridge scour are correlated due to common parameters associated with mate-
and increased erosion of roads, supporting structures and foun- rials, design, fabrication, loading and operational conditions.
dations (TRB, 2008). The rising sea levels can facilitate saltwa- Based on these correlations, the inspection information of one
ter intrusion that accelerates corrosion and ultimately causes a particular component can be used to update deterioration perfor-
reduction in predicted service-life, an increase in maintenance mance of others uninspected components. Probabilistic models
costs and an increase in probability of structural failure during have been used to evaluate and update the fatigue reliability using
extreme events (TRB, 2014). Due to its significant effects on the inspection information and are emphasised herein. In order to
global temperature, atmospheric CO2 measurements and sea make the inspection plans more efficient and economic, optimi-
levels, climate change must be considered within the life-cycle sation can be adopted to determine the optimal number of the
assessment and management of deteriorating civil infrastructure, details that need to be inspected within a probabilistic manner.
within a probabilistic context. Moan and Song (2000) investigated reliability-based fatigue dam-
age assessment and updating details in parallel/series systems.
Chen, Sun, and Guedes Soares (2003) proposed a methodology
4. Integration of SHM and updating in bridge
for inspection planning on the basis on Palmgren–Miner’s rule.
management
Huang and Garbatov (2013) computed the reliability index of a
Structural health monitoring (SHM), inspection and updating complex welded structure as a series model under multiple cracks.
provide a powerful method to reduce uncertainty, calibrate and Maljaars and Vrouwenvelder (2014) presented a reliability-based
improve structural assessment and performance prediction mod- updating considering multiple critical locations of a bridge.
els (Bucher & Frangopol, 2006; Catbas, Susoy, & Frangopol, 2008; Based on the bridge component/system reliability and risk,
Frangopol & Kim, 2014b; Frangopol & Messervey, 2007, 2008; the inspection planning and repair priority among the investi-
Frangopol, Strauss, & Kim, 2008; Gul & Catbas, 2011; Klinzmann, gated sensitive systems can be identified. In turn, the inspection
Schnetgöke, & Hosser, 2006; Onoufriou & Frangopol, 2002). results can be used to update risk and the timing for the following
Life-cycle management approaches offer bridge managers a prac- inspection and management plans based on risk. In this paper,
tical predictive view of cost, safety and condition, but in many the updating associated with fatigue sensitive details is illustrated.
regards lack knowledge of actual structural performance. In con- Generally, if no fatigue crack is detected, the updating can be
trast, SHM techniques effectively capture structural behavior and performed within the original fatigue limit state. If repair actions
the demands on a structure, but are not as effective in translat- are conducted, the physical changes need to be considered in the
ing this information into actionable data for bridge managers. estimation of limit state function. The updated probability of
Consequently, it is of vital importance to incorporate SHM and failure of the ith component under fatigue damage given inspec-
updating in the life-cycle management framework. tion event j can be formulated as follows (Moan & Song, 2000):
Pi, up = P[Mi (t) ≤ 0|IEj (tIE ) ]

Monitoring can provide data to confirm or improve exist- |
ing load factors, resistance factors and load combinations for |
extreme events. In the past, many studies have been under- P[(Mi (t) ≤ 0) ∩ IEj (tIE )] (16)
taken to model the performance of in-service bridges over time =
P[IEj (tIE )]
(Enright & Frangopol, 1999a, 1999b; Frangopol et al., 2008;
Ghosn, 2000; Ghosn & Moses, 1998; Ghosn et al., 2003; Glaser, where Mi is limit state function associated with detail i, IEj is the
Li, Wang, Ou, & Lynch, 2007; Liu, Hammad, & Itoh, 1997). Bush, inspection event j, and tIE is the inspection time.
Omenzetter, Henning, and McCarten (2013) presented an inno- The results of inspection are utilised for reliability and risk
vative approach to bridge management that provides guidance on ranking updating associated with inspected and uninspected
the type of data to collect, the accuracy and precision required fatigue sensitive details. It is assumed that once a fatigue crack
in the data collection process, the frequency of inspections and is detected, the repair action is applied to the cracked detail. The
the recommended SHM techniques to be used. Similarly, Sousa, repair action considered herein is replacing the detected cracked
Sousa, Neves, Bento, and Figueiras (2013) discussed the applica- detail with a new one. At t = tins years, if a crack is detected using
tion of a SHM system to an RC bridge. The extraction of useful magnetic particle inspection (MPI), the updated reliability index
information from SHM data from highway bridges was reviewed of the inspected detail is qualitatively shown in Figure 12(a).
by Westgate, Koo, Brownjohn, and List (2013). A novel SHM As indicated, given that a crack is detected, the reliability of
data processing technique, denoted as singular spectrum analy- the inspected detail decreases significantly without repair and,
sis, was utilised by Chao and Loh (2013) and applied to a bridge in turn, the risk associated with the detected cracked detail
foundation to determine scour and pier settlement. Additionally, would increase considerably, as shown in Figure 12(b) (Dong
Huston, Cui, Burns, and Hurley (2011) studied the non-destruc- & Frangopol, 2016a).
tive evaluation of a bridge by comparing five different methods:
(a) visual inspection and photographic recording, (b) half-cell
5. Probabilistic life-cycle optimisation
electrochemical potential, (c) impulse type multipoint scanning
ground penetrating radar, (d) chain drag and (e) impact echo. Ko, Life-cycle optimisation is an essential task within the life-cycle
Pan, and Chiou (2013) aimed to enhance facility management management (LCM) framework (Ang & De Leon, 2005; Chang
efficiency using radio frequency identification technology. & Shinozuka, 1996; Estes & Frangopol, 1999; Frangopol, 1998,
Information associated with inspection events can be used 1999; Frangopol & Soliman, 2016; Kong & Frangopol, 2005;
to update deterioration models of a structural system to reduce Okasha & Frangopol, 2009; Sabatino, Frangopol, & Dong, 2015a;
uncertainty. The structural details associated with a given system Soliman & Frangopol, 2014; Soliman, Frangopol, & Kim, 2013;
(a) β3
Reliability index
Without updating
RELIABILITY
β2 Reliability
INDEX
Inspected and repair
Decision Maintenance
making and repair
β1 t = tins years
Inspected and no
repair
β0
t0 tins t1 t2 t3 Inspection
SHM and
updating
TIME (YEARS) Optimization
(b) R3
t = tins years
EXPECTED RISK
Redundancy
Risk and
and
RANKING
R2 sustainability
robustness
Inspected and
repair
Inspected and no
Condition and
R1 repair Consequences
safety
Risk ranking
Without updating
R0
t0 tins t1 t2 t3
TIME (YEARS) Figure 13. Integrated life-cycle management framework.
Figure 12. (a) Updated reliability and (b) risk ranking of an inspected detail under
fatigue damage with crack detected at year tins.
Pre-analysis
• Single decision maker
Wen & Kang, 2001; Yang et al., 2006b). This process is performed
using a probabilistic platform considering various uncertainties Problem setup
associated with LCM as shown in Figure 13. A maintenance • All possible solution alternative are
identified
optimisation formulation requires one or more life-cycle per-
formance indicators (Frangopol & Saydam, 2014), such as system Uncertainty quantification
reliability, redundancy and cost indicators (Augusti, Ciampoli, • Account for epistemic and aleatory
& Frangopol, 1998; Estes & Frangopol, 1999; Frangopol & Kim, uncertainties
2014a; Marsh & Frangopol, 2007; Morcous, Lounis, & Cho, 2010; Utility assignment
Okasha & Frangopol, 2009, 2010a; Yang et al., 2006b), condi- • Systemic comparison between
tion indicators (Frangopol & Liu, 2007; Liu & Frangopol, 2005b, consequences
2006a, 2006b; Neves & Frangopol, 2005; Neves, Frangopol, &
Cruz, 2004), probabilistic damage detection delay indicators Optimization
(Kim & Frangopol, 2011a, 2011b; Soliman et al., 2013), and risk • Maximize utility
and sustainability-informed performance indicators (Dong et al.,
2014b; Sabatino et al., 2015a, 2015b; Zhu & Frangopol, 2013a).
Figure 14. Utility-based decision-making procedure.
Powerful optimisation algorithms are also needed (e.g. Deb,
2001; Deb, Pratap, Agarwal, & Meyarivan, 2002; Frangopol &
Soliman, 2013, 2015; Goldberg, 1989). intervention on bridges is a topic of paramount importance and
Planning retrofit actions on bridge networks under tight is experiencing growing interest within the field of life-cycle
budget constraints were investigated by Dong et al. (2014b). infrastructure engineering. This methodology can be used in
They presented a probabilistic methodology to establish opti- assisting decision-making regarding the maintenance/retrofit
mum pre-earthquake retrofit plans for bridge networks based on activities to improve the performance of highway bridge network.
sustainability. A multi-criteria optimisation problem was formu- Sabatino et al. (2015a) presented a framework for life-cycle
lated to find the optimum timing of retrofit actions for bridges maintenance optimisation of highway bridges that utilises mul-
within a network. The role of optimisation is to identify the most ti-attribute utility theory to quantify the sustainability perfor-
effective retrofit strategy in terms of which bridges to be retrofit- mance metrics. The ultimate aim of implementing maintenance
ted and the optimal times for retrofit actions. Utility-informed throughout the lifetime of a bridge is to mitigate the detrimental
decision-making is necessary for optimum allocation of limited impacts of structural failure to the economy, society and the
resources. In general, as shown in Figure 14, utility-informed environment. Optimum maintenance plans were obtained by
decision-making may be divided into five separate stages (Keeney carrying out a multi-criteria optimisation procedure where the
& Raiffa, 1993): the pre-analysis, problem set-up, uncertainty utility associated with total maintenance cost and utility corre-
quantification, utility assignment and optimisation. The applica- sponding to sustainability performance were considered as con-
tion of utility-informed decision-making in the optimal lifetime flicting objectives. An existing highway bridge was utilised to
(a) on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management (IABMAS2016),

1 Iguassu Falls, Paraná, Brazil, June 26–30, 2016, presents a brief
MINIMUM ANNUAL UTILITY Pareto optimal
overview of the integration of risk, sustainability and resilience
SUSTAINABILITY us,min
solutions
0.8 measures into the LCM of deteriorating infrastructure systems
ASSOCIATED WITH
Risk averse
with emphasis on bridges, bridge networks and interdependent
0.6 A infrastructure systems considering climate change effects. The
Risk accepting
framework covers predicting the time-variant structural perfor-
B
0.4 mance and the future interventions scheduling, including inspec-
tions, monitoring, maintenance and/or repairs actions, such that
0.2 Weighting factors: an optimal management solution which satisfies the goals and
kecon = 1/3; ksoc = 1/3; kenv = 1/3 constraints is achieved. Moreover, this generalised approach
0 integrates risk and life-cycle loss assessment with multi-objec-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
UTILITY ASSOCIATED WITH TOTAL tive optimisation techniques to determine optimum bridge and
MAINTENANCE COST uc bridge network management plans to assist the decision-maker.
Various aspects of the LCM framework are briefly explained with
(b) special attention given to the performance assessment and the
1 life-cycle optimiSation processes. The performance assessment
ANNUAL UTILITY ASSOCIATED
of interdependent infrastructure systems under hazard effects is

WITH SUSTAINABILITY us
Solution A
0.8 also incorporated within the LCM framework. By considering
the probability of occurrence of hazard and structural deteriora-
0.6 tions, the performance of interdependent systems in a life-cycle
Solution B
context could be investigated. Overall, the performance assess-
0.4 ment of an interdependent healthcare – bridge network system
No maintenance under hazard effects provides system-level probabilistic measures
0.2 (risk accepting) that can aid the emergency management process.
No maintenance Additionally, the effects of natural hazards and climate change
(risk averse) on infrastructure assessment and management were discussed
0
0 TL in this paper. Structural deterioration has a significant effect on
TIME (YEARS) system performance under hazards. The difference between the
life-cycle hazard loss with and without considering ageing effects
Figure 15. (a) Effect of risk attitude on the Pareto optimal fronts for lifetime increases with the investigated time interval. Moreover, because
maintenance and (b) time-variant utility associated with sustainability for
representative solutions A and B.
of ageing effects, the resilience of damaged bridges under hazards
decreases significantly with time. Given various hazard occurrence
illustrate the capabilities of the proposed decision support system models and monetary discount rates, the total hazard loss asso-
for maintenance planning. The optimisation was performed by ciated with these hazards during the investigated time interval
simultaneously maximising the utility associated with total main- differs, and the contribution of the hazards changes. Therefore,
tenance cost and the annual minimum utility corresponding to different hazards could dominate the total life-cycle loss.
the sustainability over the lifetime of the bridge. Consequently, specific risk mitigation strategies associated with
The main results of the optimisation procedure are the types specific hazards could be determined. Given more information
maintenance actions performed on the bridge components and regarding climate change, this approach could be easily updated
their respective times of application. The Pareto optimal solu- by incorporating additional data. It is also noted that irrespective
tions obtained considering three maintenance actions with a risk of the amount of data associated with climate change, improved
accepting and risk-averse decision-maker are shown in Figure 15. judgmental assessments are necessary to reduce the epistemic
A solution is Pareto-optimal if there does not exist another uncertainties associated with imperfect models of this change.
solution that improves at least one objective without worsening Furthermore, this paper presents available methodologies for
another one. The weighting factors kecon, ksoc, and kenv are all quantifying the economic, social and environmental metrics to
assumed to be the same (i.e. 1/3), representing equal contribution evaluate the sustainability of bridges, bridge networks, and inter-
of detrimental economic, societal and environmental impacts. dependent infrastructure systems. In general, a utility-based
The Pareto-optimal representative solutions A and B, denoting performance metric can provide an in-depth understanding of
typical optimum maintenance plans resulting from a risk-averse the current and future sustainability associated with infrastruc-
and risk accepting decision-maker, respectively, are shown in ture systems. The presented framework supports the sustainable
Figure 15(a). The time-variant multi-attribute utilities associated development of infrastructure systems and provides the optimal
with sustainability corresponding to representative solutions A intervention strategies to the decision-maker that will ultimately
and B are shown in Figure 15(b). allow for risk-informed decision-making regarding life-cycle man-
agement of highway bridges, bridge networks, and interdependent
infrastructure systems. Overall, the key objectives of a probabilistic
6. Conclusions framework are to determine the likelihood of successful perfor-
This paper, which is based on the T. Y. Lin plenary lecture pre- mance, find the total expected cost accrued over the entire life-cycle,
sented by the first author at the Eighth International Conference and make optimal risk-, resilience-, and sustainability-informed
decisions related to design, construction, inspection, maintenance, Ang, A.H.-S. (2011). Life-cycle considerations in risk informed decisions
monitoring, repair and replacement of civil infrastructure systems for design of civil infrastructures. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 7, 3–9.
under multiple objectives and constraints. Ang, A.H.-S., & De Leon, D. (2005). Modeling and analysis of uncertainties
for risk-informed decisions in infrastructures engineering. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, 1, 19–31.
Acknowledgements Ang, A.H.-S., & Tang, W.H. (1984). Probability concepts in engineering
National Science Foundation, Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology planning and design – Volume II – Decision, risk, and reliability. New
Alliance, U.S. Federal Highway Administration, and U.S. Office of Naval York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Research are gratefully acknowledged. The opinions and conclusions pre- Ang, A.H.-S., & Tang, W.H. (2007). Probability concepts in engineering.
sented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
the views of the sponsoring organizations. ASCE. (2013). Report card for America’s infrastructure. Reston, VA:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Augusti, G., Ciampoli, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (1998). Optimal planning of
Disclosure statement retrofitting interventions on bridges in a highway network. Engineering
Structures, 20, 933–939.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Barone, G., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013a). Hazard-based optimum lifetime
inspection and repair planning for deteriorating structures. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 139, 04013017.
Funding Barone, G., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013b). Reliability, risk and lifetime
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [grant number distributions as performance indicators for life-cycle maintenance of
CMS-0639428] and [grant number CMMI-1537926]; the Commonwealth deteriorating structures. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 123,
of Pennsylvania, Department of Community and Economic Development, 21–37.
through the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology Alliance (PITA); the Barone, G., & Frangopol, D.M. (2014a). Life-cycle maintenance of
U.S. Federal Highway Administration Cooperative Agreement [grant num- deteriorating structures by multi-objective optimization involving
ber DTFH61–07-H-00040] and [grant number DTFH61–11-H-00027]; reliability, risk, availability, hazard and cost. Structural Safety, 48, 40–50.
the U.S. Office of Naval Research [grant number N00014–08-1–0188], Barone, G., & Frangopol, D.M. (2014b). Reliability, risk and lifetime
[grant number N00014–12-1–0023], and [grant number N00014–16-1– distributions as performance indicators for life-cycle maintenance of
2299] (Structural Reliability Program). deteriorating structures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 123,
21–37.
Bastidas-Arteaga, E., Bressolette, P.H., Chateauneuf, A., & Sánchez-Silva, M.
References (2009). Probabilistic lifetime assessment of RC structures under coupled
corrosion-fatigue deterioration processes. Structural Safety, 31, 84–96.
AASHTO. (2015). LRFD bridge design specifications. (7th ed.). Washington, Bertero, R., & Bertero, V. (1999). Redundancy in earthquake-resistant
DC: American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials. design. Journal of Structural Engineering, 125, 81–88.
Achour, N., Miyajima, M., Kitaura, M., & Price, A. (2011). Earthquake- Biondini, F., Camnasio, E., & Palermo, A. (2014). Lifetime seismic
induced structural and nonstructural damage in hospital. Earthquake performance of concrete bridges exposed to corrosion. Structure and
Spectra, 37, 617–634. Infrastructure Engineering, 10, 880–900.
Adams, W.M. (2006). The future of sustainability: Re-thinking environment Biondini, F., Camnasio, E., & Titi, A. (2015). Seismic resilience of concrete
and development in the twenty-first century. Report of the IUCN structures under corrosion. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29–31 January 2006. Dynamics, 44, 2445–2466.
Adey, B., Hajdin, R., & Brühwiler, E. (2003). Supply and Demand system Biondini, F., Frangopol, D.M., & Malerba, P.G. (2008). Uncertainty effects
approach to development of bridge management strategies. Journal of on lifetime structural performance of cable stayed bridges. Probabilistic
Infrastructure Systems, 9(3), 117–131. Engineering Mechanics, 23, 509–522.
Akgül, F., & Frangopol, D.M. (2003). Rating and reliability of existing Biondini, F., & Frangopol, D. (2016). Life-cycle performance of
bridges in a network. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 8, 383–393. deteriorating structural systems under uncertainty: Review. Journal of
Akgül, F., & Frangopol, D.M. (2004a). Computational platform for Structural Engineering, 142(9), F4016001, 1–17.
predicting lifetime system reliability profiles for different structure types Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D.M. (2012). Optimal resilience- and cost-based
in a network. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 18, 92–104. postdisaster intervention prioritization for bridges along a highway
Akgül, F., & Frangopol, D.M. (2004b). Bridge rating and reliability segment. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 17, 117–129.
correlation: Comprehensive study for different bridge types. Journal of Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013). Connectivity-based optimal
Structural Engineering, 130, 1063–1074. scheduling for maintenance of bridge networks. Journal of Engineering
Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D.M., Arai, M., & Koshimura, S. (2013). Mechanics, 139, 170–769.
Reliability of bridges under tsunami hazards: Emphasis on the 2011 Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D.M., Ummenhofer, T., & Zinke, T. (2014).
Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 29, S295–S314. Resilience and sustainability of the civil infrastructure: Towards a
Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D.M., & Matsuzaki, H. (2011). Life-cycle unified approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20, 0414004.
reliability of RC bridge piers under seismic and airborne chloride Briaud, J.L., Ting, F.C.K., Chen, H.C., Gudavalli, R., Perugu, S., & Wei, G.
hazards. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40, 1671–1687. (1999). SRICOS: Prediction of scour rate in cohesive soils at bridge piers.
Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D.M., & Suzuki, M. (2012). Integration of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125, 237–246.
effects of airborne chlorides into reliability-based durability design of Briaud, J.L., Chen, H.C., Li, Y., Nurtjahyo, P., & Wang, J. (2004). Pier and
reinforced concrete structures in a marine environment. Structure and contraction scour in cohesive soils (NCHRP Report 516). Washington,
Infrastructure Engineering, 8, 125–134. DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
Allison, I., Bindoff, N.L., Bindschadler, R.A., Cox, P.M., de Noblet, N., Bruneau, M., Chang, S.E., Eguchi, R.T., Lee, G.C., O’Rourke, T.D., Reinhorn,
England, M.H., Francis, J.E., Gruber, N., Haywood, A.M., Karoly, A.M., Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W.A., & Winterfeldt, D.V.
D.J., Kaser, G., Le Quéré, C., Lenton, T.M., Mann, M.E., McNeil, B.I., (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic
Pitman, A.J., Rahmstorf, S., Rignot, E., Schellnhuber, H.J., Schneider, resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19, 733–752.
S.H., Sherwood, S.C., Somerville, R.C.J., Steffen, K., Steig, E.J., Visbeck, Bucher, C., & Frangopol, D.M. (2006). Optimization of lifetime maintenance
M., & Weaver, A.J. (2009). The copenhagen diagnosis: Updating the world strategies for deteriorating structures considering probabilities of
on the latest climate science. Sydney: UNSW Climate Change Research violating safety, condition, and cost thresholds. Probabilistic Engineering
Center. Mechanics, 21(1), 1–8.
Budelmann, H., & Hariri, K. (2006). A structural monitoring system Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D.M. (2015). Risk and resilience assessment of
for RC/PC structures. In H.-N. Cho, D.M. Frangopol, & A.H.-S. Ang bridges under mainshock and aftershocks incorporating uncertainties.
(Eds.), Life-cycle cost and performance of civil infrastructure systems (pp. Engineering Structures, 83, 198–208.
3–17). London: Taylor & Francis. Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D.M. (2016a). Incorporation of risk and updating
Budelmann, H., Holst, A., & Wichmann, H. (2014). Non-destructive in inspection of fatigue-sensitive details of ship structures. International
measurement toolkit for corrosion monitoring and fracture detection of Journal of Fatigue, 82, 676–688.
bridge tendons. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10, 492–507. Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D.M. (2016b). Probabilistic time-dependent
Bush, S., Omenzetter, P., Henning, T., & McCarten, P. (2013). A risk and multihazard life-cycle assessment and resilience of bridges considering
criticality-based approach to bridge performance data collection and climate change. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30,
monitoring. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9, 329–339. 04016034, 1–12.
Campbell, K.W., & Bozorgnia, Y. (2008). NGA ground motion model for Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D.M. (2016c). Performance-based seismic
the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% assessment of conventional and base-isolated steel buildings including
damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to environmental impact and resilience. Earthquake Engineering and
10 s. Earthquake Spectra, 24, 139–171. Structural Dynamics, 45, 739–756.
Catbas, F.N., Susoy, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2008). Structural health Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D.M. (2017). Probabilistic assessment of an
monitoring and reliability estimation: Long span truss bridge application interdependent healthcare–bridge network system under seismic
with environmental monitoring data. Engineering Structures, 30, 2347– hazard. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 13, 160–170.
2359. Dong, Y., Frangopol, D.M., & Sabatino, S. (2015). Optimizing bridge
Cavaco, E.S., Casas, J.R., Neves, L.A.C., & Huespe, A.E. (2013). Robustness network retrofit planning based on cost-benefit evaluation and multi-
of corroded reinforced concrete structures – A structural performance attribute utility associated with sustainability. Earthquake Spectra, 31,
approach. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9, 42–58. 2255–2280.
Cesare, M., Santamarina, J.C., Turkstra, C.J., & Vanmarcke, E. (1993). Risk‐ Dong, Y., Frangopol, D.M., & Saydam, D. (2013). Time-variant
based Bridge management. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 119, sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subjected to
742–750. multiple hazards. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 42,
Chang, S.E., & Shinozuka, M. (1996). Life-cycle cost analysis with natural 1451–1467.
hazard risk. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2, 118–126. Dong, Y., Frangopol, D.M., & Saydam, D. (2014a). Sustainability of
Chang, S.E., Shinozuka, M., & Moore, J.E. (2000). Probabilistic earthquake highway bridge networks under seismic hazard. Journal of Earthquake
scenarios: extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed Engineering, 18, 41–66.
systems. Earthquake Spectra, 16, 557–572. Dong, Y., Frangopol, D.M., & Saydam, D. (2014b). Pre-earthquake multi-
Chao, S., & Loh, C. (2013). Application of singular spectrum analysis to objective probabilistic retrofit optimization of bridge networks based on
structural monitoring and damage diagnosis of bridges. Structure and sustainability. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 19, 04014004.
Infrastructure Engineering, 10, 708–727. Dong, Y., Frangopol, D.M., & Sabatino, S. (2014c). Risk-informed decision
Chen, N.-Z., Sun, H.-H., & Guedes Soares, C. (2003). Reliability analysis making for disaster recovery incorporating sustainability and resilience.
of a ship hull in composite material. Composite Structures, 62, 59–66. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Urban Disaster
Church, J.A., & White, N.J. (2006). A 20th century acceleration in global Reduction (3ICUDR). Boulder, Colorado: EERI. September 28–October
sea-level rise. Geophysics Research Letters, 33, L01602. 1, 2014, 4 pages.
Church, J.A., & White, N.J. (2011). Sea-level rise from the late 19th to the Dong, Y., Frangopol, D.M., & Sabatino, S. (2016). A decision support system
early 21st century. Surveys in Geophysics, 32, 585–602. for mission-based ship routing considering multiple performance
CIB. (2001). Risk assessment and risk communication in civil engineering. criteria. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 150, 190–201.
TG 32 (Report 259). Rotterdam: Council for Research and Innovation Dueñas-Osorio, L., Craig, James I., Goodno, Barry J., & Goodno, B. (2007).
in Building and Construction. Seismic response of critical interdependent networks. Earthquake
Cimellaro, G.P., Reinhorn, A.M., & Bruneau, M. (2010). Framework for Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36, 285–306.
analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Engineering Structures, Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J.
32, 3639–3649. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: does it all add up (pp. 1–16)
Cimellaro, G.P., Reinhorn, A.M., & Bruneau, M. (2011). Performance- Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
based metamodel for healthcare facilities. Earthquake Engineering and Ellingwood, B.R. (1998). Issues related to structural aging in probabilistic
Structural Dynamics, 40, 1197–1217. risk assessment of nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and
Cohen, H., Fu, G., Dekelbab, W., & Moses, F. (2003). Predicting truck load System Safety, 62, 171–183.
spectra under weight limit changes and its application to steel bridge Ellingwood, B.R. (2005). Risk-informed condition assessment of civil
fatigue assessment. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 8, 312–322. infrastructure: State of practice and research issues. Structure and
Committee on Adaptation to a Changing Climate. (2015). In J.R. Olsen Infrastructure Engineering, 1, 7–18.
(Ed.). Adapting infrastructure and civil engineering practice to a Ellingwood, B.R. (2006). Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and
changing climate. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. doi: progressive collapse. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
10.1061/9780784479193 20, 315–323.
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Ellingwood, B.R., & Frangopol, D.M. (2016). Introduction to the state
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. of the art collection: Risk-based lifecycle performance of structural
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(9), F2016001, 1.
multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Ellingwood, B.R., & Mori, Y. (1993). Probabilistic methods for condition
Evolutionary Computation, 6, 182–197. assessment and life prediction of concrete structures in nuclear power
Decò, A., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011). Risk assessment of highway bridges plants. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 142, 155–166.
under multiple hazards. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 1057–1089. Enright, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2000). RELTSYS: A computer program
Decò, A., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013). Life-cycle risk assessment of spatially for life prediction of deteriorating systems. Structural Engineering and
distributed aging bridges under seismic and traffic hazards. Earthquake Mechanics, 9, 557–568.
Spectra, 29, 127–153. Enright, M.P., & Frangopol, D.M. (1999a). Reliability-based condition
Decò, A., Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013). A probabilistic assessment of deteriorating concrete bridges considering load
approach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges. Earthquake redistribution. Structural Safety, 21, 159–195.
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 42, 1469–1487. Enright, M.P., & Frangopol, D.M. (1999b). Condition prediction of
Ditlevsen, O., & Bjerager, P. (1986). Methods of structural systems deteriorating concrete bridges using bayesian updating. Journal of
reliability. Structural Safety, 3, 195–229. Structural Engineering, 125, 1118–1125.
Estes, A.C., & Frangopol, D.M. (1999). Repair optimization of highway Frangopol, D.M., & Liu, M. (2007). Maintenance and management of civil
bridges using system reliability approach. Journal of Structural infrastructure based on condition, safety, optimization, and life-cycle
Engineering, 125, 766–775. cost. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 3, 29–41.
Estes, A.C., & Frangopol, D.M. (2001). Bridge lifetime system reliability Frangopol, D.M., & Messervey, T.B. (2007). Lifetime oriented assessment
under multiple limit states. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 6, 523–528. and design optimization concepts under uncertainty: Role of structural
Estes, A.C., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005). Life-cycle evaluation and condition health monitoring. In F. Stangenberg, O.T. Bruhns, D. Hartmann, &
assessment of structures. In W-F. Chen and E. M. Lui (Eds.), Chapter 36 G. Meschke (Eds.), Lifetime oriented design concepts (pp. 133–145).
Structural Engineering Handbook (2nd ed., pp. pp. 36–51). CRC Press. Freiburg: Aedificatio Publishers.
Estes, A.C., Frangopol, D.M., & Foltz, S.D. (2004). Updating reliability Frangopol, D.M., & Messervey, T.B. (2008, October 24–25). Life-cycle
of steel miter gates on locks and dams using visual inspection results. cost and performance prediction: Role of structural health monitoring.
Engineering Structures, 26, 319–333. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Frontier Technologies for
Ferris, E., & Petz, D. (2011). The year that shook the rich: A review of natural Infrastructures Engineering. In S-S. Chen & A.H-S. Ang (Eds.) Taipei:
disaster in 2011. Project on Internal Displacement: The Brookings Taiwan Building Technology Center, National TaiwanUniversity of
Institution-London School of Economics. Science and Technology, pp. 323–342.
FHWA. (2013). Deficient bridges by state and highway system 2013. Frangopol, D.M., & Nakib, R. (1991). Redundancy in highway bridges.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from Engineering Journal, 28, 45–50.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/defbr13.cfm Frangopol, D.M., & Okasha, N.M. (2009). Lifetime-oriented multi-
Franchin, P. (2014). A computational framework for systemic seismic risk objective optimization of structural maintenance considering system
analysis of civil infrastructural systems. Geotechnical, Geological and reliability, redundancy and life-cycle cost using GA. Structural Safety,
Earthquake Engineering, 31, 23–56. 31, 460–474.
Frangopol, D.M. (1985). Sensitivity of reliability‐based optimum design. Frangopol, D.M., & Saydam, D. (2014). Structural performance indicators
Journal of Structural Engineering, 111, 1703–1721. for bridges. In W.-F. Chen & L. Duan (eds.), Chapter 9 Bridge engineering
Frangopol, D.M. (1997). Application of life-cycle reliability based criteria handbook – Second edition, Vol. 1 Fundamentals (pp. 185-205). Boca
to bridge assessment and design. In P.C. Das (Ed.), Safety of bridges (pp. Raton: CRC Press.
151–157). London: Thomas Telford. Frangopol, D.M., & Soliman, M. (2013). Application of genetic algorithms
Frangopol, D.M. (1998). A probabilistic model based on eight random to the life-cycle management optimization of civil and marine
variables for preventive maintenance of bridges. Presented at the progress infrastructure systems. In Y. Tsompanakis, P. Iványi, & B.H.V. Topping
meeting on optimum maintenance strategies for different bridge types. (Eds.), Chapter 6 Civil and structural engineering computational methods
London: Highways Agency. (pp. 117–128). Stirlingshire: Saxe-Coburg Publications.
Frangopol, D.M. (1999). Life-cycle cost analysis for bridges. In D.M. Frangopol, D.M., & Soliman, M. (2015). Application of soft computing
Frangopol (Ed.), Chapter 9 Bridge Safety and Reliability (pp. 210–236). techniques in life-cycle optimization of civil and marine structures.
Reston: ASCE. In J. Kruis, Y. Tsompanakis, & B.H.V. Topping (Eds.), Chapter 2
Frangopol, D.M. (2011). Life-cycle performance, management, and Computational techniques for civil and structural engineering (pp. 43–
optimization of structural systems under uncertainty: accomplishments 58). Stirlingshire: Saxe-Coburg Publications.
and challenges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7, 389–413. Frangopol, D.M., & Soliman, M. (2016). Life-cycle of structural systems:
Frangopol, D.M., & Bocchini, P. (2011, April 14–16). Resilience as Recent achievements and future directions. Structure and Infrastructure
optimization criterion for the rehabilitation of bridges belonging to a Engineering, 12(1), 1–20.
transportation network subject to earthquake. Proceedings of SEI-ASCE Frangopol, D.M., Strauss, A., & Kim, S. (2008). Bridge reliability assessment
2011 Structures Congress, Las Vegas, NV. based on monitoring. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 13, 258–270.
Frangopol, D.M., & Bocchini, P. (2012). Bridge network performance, Garbatov, Y., & Guedes Soares, C.G. (2001). Cost and reliability based
maintenance and optimisation under uncertainty: accomplishments strategies for fatigue maintenance planning of floating structures.
and challenges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 8, 341–356. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 73, 293–301.
Frangopol, D.M., & Curley, J.P. (1987). Effects of damage and redundancy Ghosn, M. (2000). Development of truck weight regulations using bridge
on structural reliability. Journal of Structural Engineering, 113, 1533– reliability model. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 5, 293–303.
1549. Ghosn, M., Dueñas-Osorio, L., Frangopol, D. M., McAllister, T., Bocchini,
Frangopol, D.M., & Estes, A.C. (1997). Lifetime bridge maintenance P., Manuel, L., Biondini, F., Hernandez, S., and Tsiatas, G. (2016a).
strategies based on system reliability. Structural Engineering Performance indicators for structural systems and infrastructure
International, 7, 193–198. networks. Journal of Structural Engineering, F4016003, 142, 1–18.
Frangopol, D.M., & Furuta, H. (Eds.). (2001). Life-cycle cost analysis and Ghosn, M., Frangopol, D. M., McAllister, T., Shah, M., Diniz, S.,
design of civil infrastructure systems. Reston: ASCE. Ellingwood, B., Manuel, L., Biondini, F., Catbas, N., Strauss, A., & Zhao,
Frangopol, D.M., Kallen, M.-J., & van Noortwijk, J. (2004). Probabilistic X. (2016b). Reliability-based performance indicators for structural
models for life-cycle performance of deteriorating structures: Review members. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(9), f4016002, 1–13.
and future directions. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, Ghosn, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2007). Redundancy of structures: A
6, 197–212. retrospective. In D.M. Frangopol, M. Kawatani, & C.-W. Kim (Eds.),
Frangopol, D.M., Kim, S. (2011). Service life, reliability and maintenance Reliability and optimization of structural systems: Assessment, design,
of civil structures. In L.S. Lee & V. Karbari (Eds.), Chapter 5 Service Life and life-cycle performance (pp. 91–100). London: Taylor & Francis
Estimation and Extension of Civil Engineering Structures (pp. 145–178). Group. ISBN: 978-0-415-40655-0.
Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd. Ghosn, M., & Moses, F. (1998). Redundancy in highway bridge superstructures
Frangopol, D.M., Kim, S. (2014a). Life-cycle analysis and optimization. In (National Academy Press, National Cooperative Highway Research
W-F. Chen & L. Duan, (Eds.), Chapter 18 Bridge engineering handbook Program, NCHRP Report 406), Transportation Research Board.
– Second edition, Vol. 5 Construction and Maintenance (pp. 537–566). Ghosn, M., Moses, F., & Wang, J. (2003). Design of highway bridges for
Boca Raton: CRC Press. extreme events (nchrp trb report 489), Washington, DC.
Frangopol, D.M., Kim, S. (2014b). Bridge health monitoring. In W-F. Chen Glaser, S.D., Li, H., Wang, M.L., Ou, J., & Lynch, J. (2007). Sensor technology
& L. Duan, (Eds.), Chapter 10 in Bridge engineering handbook – Second innovation for the advancement of structural health monitoring: A
edition, Vol. 5 Construction and maintenance (pp. 247–268). Boca strategic program of US-China research for the next decade. Smart
Raton: CRC Press. Structures and Systems, 3, 221–244.
Frangopol, D.M., Kong, J.S., & Gharaibeh, E.S. (2001). Reliability-based Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and
life-cycle management of highway bridges. Journal of Computing in machine learning. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Civil Engineering, 15, 27–34. Gul, M., & Catbas, F.N. (2011). Structural health monitoring and damage
Frangopol, D.M., Lin, K.-Y., & Estes, A.C. (1997). Life-cycle cost design of assessment using a novel time series analysis methodology with sensor
deteriorating structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123, 1390–1401. clustering. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 330, 1196–1210.
Hawk, H., & Small, E.P. (1998). The BRIDGIT bridge management system. Leemis, L.M. (1995). Reliability, probabilistic models and statistical methods.
Structural Engineering International, 8, 309–314. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hendawi, S., & Frangopol, D.M. (1994). System reliability and redundancy Levitus, S., Antonov, J.I., Boyer, T.P., Locarnini, R.A., Garcia, H.E., &
in structural design and evaluation. Structural Safety, 16, 47–71. Mishonov, A.V. (2009). Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light
Huang, W., & Garbatov, Y. (2013). Fatigue reliability assessment of a of recently revealed instrumentation problems. Geophysics Research
complex welded structure subjected to multiple cracks. Engineering Letters, 36, L07608.
Structures, 56, 868–879. Lim, S., Akiyama, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2016). Assessment of the
Huston, D., Cui, J., Burns, D., & Hurley, D. (2011). Concrete bridge deck structural performance of corrosion-affected RC members based on
condition assessment with automated multisensor techniques. Structure experimental study and probabilistic modeling. Engineering Structures,
and Infrastructure Engineering, 7, 613–623. 127, 189–205.
Imai, K., & Frangopol, D.M. (2002). System reliability of suspension Liu, C., Hammad, A., & Itoh, Y. (1997). Multiobjective optimization of
bridges. Structural Safety, 24, 219–259, Elsevier. bridge deck rehabilitation using a genetic algorithm. Computer-Aided
IPCC. (2007). Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 12, 431–443.
in climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UK: Liu, D., Ghosn, M., Moses, F., & Neuenhoffer, A. (2001). Redundancy in
Cambridge University Press. highway bridge substructures (National Cooperative Highway Research
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014, Synthesis Report, Contribution of Program, NCHRP Report 458), Washington, DC: Transportation
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Research Board, National Academy Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005a). Time-dependent bridge network
Jiménez, A., Rı́os-Insua, S., & Mateos, A. (2003). A decision support system reliability: Novel approach. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131, 329–
for multiattribute utility evaluation based on imprecise assignments. 337.
Decision Support Systems, 36, 65–79. Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005b). Bridge annual maintenance
Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives. prioritization under uncertainty by multiobjective combinatorial
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. optimization. Computer Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 20,
Kendall, A., Keoleian, G.A., & Helfand, G.E. (2008). Integrated life-cycle 343–353.
assessment and life-cycle cost analysis model for concrete bridge deck Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2006a). Optimizing bridge network
applications. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 14, 214–222. maintenance management under uncertainty with conflicting criteria:
Kim, S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011a). Cost-based optimum scheduling Life-cycle maintenance, failure, and user costs. Journal of Structural
of inspection and monitoring for fatigue-sensitive structures under Engineering, 132, 1835–1845.
uncertainty. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137, 1319–1331. Liu, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2006b). Probability-based bridge network
Kim, S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011b). Inspection and monitoring planning performance evaluation. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 11, 633–641.
for RC structures based on minimization of expected damage detection Lounis, Z. (2004). Risk-based maintenance optimization of bridge
delay. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 26, 308–320. structures. Retrieved from http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc47063/
Kim, S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2017). Efficient multi-objective optimisation nrcc47063.pdf
of probabilistic service life management. Structure and Infrastructure Lounis, Z., & McAllister, T. (2016). Risk-based decision making for
Engineering, 13, 147–159. sustainable and resilient infrastructure systems. Journal of Structural
Klinzmann, C., Schnetgöke, R., & Hosser, D. (2006). A framework for Engineering, 142(9), F4016005, 1–14.
reliability-based system assessment based on structural health monitoring. Lundie, S., Peters, G.M., & Beavis, P.C. (2004). Life cycle assessment for
Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Structural Health sustainable metropolitan water systems planning. Environmental
Monitoring, Granada, Spain. Science and Technology, 38, 3465–3473.
Ko, C., Pan, N., & Chiou, C. (2013). Web-based radio frequency Maekawa, K., & Fujiyama, C. (2013). Crack water interaction and fatigue
identification facility management systems. Structure and Infrastructure life assessment of rc bridge decks. Poromechanics V. Proceedings of the
Engineering, 9, 465–480. Fifth Biot Conference on Poromechanics, pp. 2280–2289.
Koh, H.-M., & Frangopol, D.M. (Eds.) (2008). Bridge maintenance, safety, Maljaars, J., & Vrouwenvelder, A.C.W.M. (2014). Probabilistic fatigue
management, health monitoring and informatics, Set of Book and CD- life updating accounting for inspections of multiple critical locations.
ROM. Boca Raton, London, New York, Leiden: A Balkema Book and International Journal of Fatigue, 68, 24–37.
CD-ROM, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Marsh, P.S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2007). Lifetime multiobjective
Kong, J.S., Ababneh, A.N., Frangopol, D.M., & Xi, Y. (2002). Reliability optimization of cost and spacing of corrosion rate sensors embedded
analysis of chloride penetration in saturated concrete. Probabilistic in a deteriorating reinforced concrete bridge deck. Journal of Structural
Engineering Mechanics, 17, 305–315. Engineering, 133, 777–787.
Kong, J.S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2003). Life-cycle reliability-based Marsh, P.S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2008). Reinforced concrete bridge deck
maintenance cost optimization of deteriorating structures with reliability model incorporating temporal and spatial variations of
emphasis on bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, 129, 818–828. probabilistic corrosion rate sensor data. Reliability Engineering and
Kong, J.S., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005). Sensitivity analysis in reliability- System Safety, 93, 394–409.
based lifetime performance prediction using simulation. Journal of Melville, B.W. (1997). Pier and abutment scour: Integrated approach.
Materials in Civil Engineering, 17, 296–306. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 123, 125–136.
Kwok, R., & Rothrock, D.A. (2009). Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness Miyamoto, A., Kawamura, K., & Nakamura, H. (2000). Bridge management
from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008. Geophysical Research system and maintenance optimization for existing bridges. Computer-
Letters, 36, L15501. Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 15, 45–55.
Kwon, K., & Frangopol, D.M. (2010). Bridge fatigue reliability Moan, T., & Song, R. (2000). Implications of inspection updating on system
assessment using probability density functions of equivalent stress fatigue reliability of offshore structures. Journal of Offshore Mechanics
range based on field monitoring data. International Journal of and Arctic Engineering, 122, 173–180.
Fatigue, 32, 1221–1232. Morcous, G., & Lounis, Z. (2005). Maintenance optimization of
Kwon, K., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011). Bridge fatigue assessment and infrastructure networks using genetic algorithms. Automation in
management using reliability-based crack growth and probability of Construction, 14, 129–142.
detection models. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 26, 471–480. Morcous, G., Lounis, Z., & Cho, Y. (2010). An integrated system for bridge
Lagasse, P.F., Clopper, P.E., Pagán-Ortiz, J.E., Zevenbergen, L.W., Arneson, management using probabilistic and mechanistic deterioration models:
L.A., Schall, J.D., & Girar, L.G. (2009). Bridge scour and stream Application to bridge decks. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 14,
instability countermeasures: Experience, selection, and design guidance 527–537.
– third edition. Hydraul. Des. Ser. No. 23, FHWA Pub. No. FHWA- Mori, Y., & Ellingwood, B.R. (1993). Reliability‐based service‐life
NHI-09-111, FHWANHI-09-112, Federal Highway Administration, assessment of aging concrete structures. Journal of Structural
Washington, DC. Engineering, 119, 1600–1621.
Moses, F. (1982). System reliability developments in structural engineering. Sabatino, S., Frangopol, D.M., & Dong, Y. (2015a). Sustainability-informed
Structural Safety, 1, 3–13. maintenance optimization of highway bridges considering multi-
Myrtle, R.C., Masri, S.E., Nigbor, R.L., & Caffrey, J.P. (2005). Classification attribute utility and risk attitude. Engineering Structures, 102, 310–321.
and prioritization of essential systems in hospitals under extreme Sabatino, S., Frangopol, D.M., & Dong, Y. (2015b). Life-cycle utility-
events. Earthquake Spectra, 21, 779–802. informed maintenance planning based on lifetime functions: Optimum
Nagy, W., De Backer, H., & Van Bogaert, P. (2013). Fracture mechanics balancing of cost, failure consequences, and performance benefit.
as an improvement of fatigue life assessment orthotropic bridge decks. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 12, 830–847.
Research and application: Structural engineering, mechanics and Sánchez-Silva, M., Frangopol, D., Padgett, J., & Soliman, M. (2016).
computation. Proceeding of 5th International Conference on Structure Maintenance and operation of infrastructure systems: review. Journal of
Engineering, Mechanics and Computation, SEMC 2013, pp. 579–584. Structural Engineering, 142(9), F4016004, 1–16.
NASA. (2015). Climate change: How do we know? National Aeronautics Saydam, D., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011). Time-dependent performance
and Space Administration. Retrieved October 9, 2015, from http:// indicators of damaged bridge superstructures. Engineering Structures,
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 33, 2458–2471.
Neves, L.C., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005). Condition, safety and cost profiles Saydam, D., & Frangopol, D.M. (2014). Risk-based maintenance
for deteriorating structures with emphasis on bridges. Reliability optimization of deteriorating bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering,
Engineering & System Safety, 89, 185–198. 141(4), 04014120, 1–10.
Neves, L.C., Frangopol, D.M., & Cruz, P.J.S. (2004). Cost of life extension Saydam, D., Frangopol, D.M., & Dong, Y. (2013). Assessment of risk using
of deteriorating structures under reliability-based maintenance. bridge element condition ratings. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 19,
Computers & Structures, 82, 1077–1089. 252–265.
Neves, L.C., Frangopol, D.M., & Cruz, P.J. (2006). Probabilistic lifetime- Schwartz, H.G., Meyer, M., Burbank, C.J., Kuby, M., Oster, Posey, C.J.,
oriented multiobjective optimization of bridge maintenance: Single Russo, E.J. & Rypinski, A. (2014). Ch. 5: Transportation. Climate Change
maintenance type. Journal of Structural Engineering, 132, 991–1005. Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment.
Newhook, J.P., & Edalatmanesh, R. (2013). Integrating reliability and Global Change Research Program, 130–149.
structural health monitoring in the fatigue assessment of concrete Shinozuka, M. (2008, October 24–25). Resilience and sustainability of
bridge decks. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9, 619–633. infrastructure systems. In S-S. Chen & A.H-S. Ang (Eds.), Proceedings of
O’Connor, A., & O’Brien, E.J. (2005). Traffic load modelling and factors the International Workshop on Frontier Technologies for Infrastructures
influencing the accuracy of predicted extremes. Canadian Journal of Engineering, Taipei: Taiwan Building Technology Center, National
Civil Engineering, 32, 270–278, NRC Research Press. Taiwan University of Science and Technology, pp. 225–244.
Okasha, N.M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2009). Lifetime-oriented multi- Shiraki, N., Shinozuka, M., Moore, J.E., Chang, S.E., Kameda, H., &
objective optimization of structural maintenance considering system Tanaka, S. (2007). System risk curves: Probabilistic performance
reliability, redundancy and life-cycle cost using GA. Structural Safety, scenarios for highway networks subject to earthquake damage. Journal
31, 460–474. of Infrastructure Systems, 13, 43–54.
Okasha, N.M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2010a). Time-variant redundancy of Soliman, S.M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2014). Life-cycle management of
structural systems. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 6, 279–301. fatigue-sensitive structures integrating inspection information. Journal
Okasha, N.M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2010b). Novel Approach for multicriteria of Infrastructure Systems, 20, 04014001.
optimization of life-cycle preventive and essential maintenance of Soliman, M., Frangopol, D.M., & Kim, S. (2013). Probabilistic optimum
deteriorating structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 136, 1009–1022. inspection planning of steel bridges with multiple fatigue sensitive
Onoufriou, T., & Frangopol, D.M. (2002). Reliability-based inspection details. Engineering Structures, 49, 996–1006.
optimization of complex structures: a brief retrospective. Computers & Sousa, H., Sousa, C., Neves, A.S., Bento, J., & Figueiras, J. (2013). Long-
Structures, 80, 1133–1144. term monitoring and assessment of a precast continuous viaduct.
Paliou, C., Shinozuka, M., & Chen, Y.-N. (1990). Reliability and redundancy Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9, 777–793.
of offshore structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 116, 359–378. Stamatopoulos, G.N. (2013). Fatigue assessment and strengthening
Peterson, T.C., & Baringer, M.O. (Eds). (2009). State of the climate in measures to upgrade a steel railway bridge. Journal of Constructional
2008. Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Steel Research, 80, 346–354.
Society, 90, S17–S18. Stein, S., & Sedmera, K. (2006). Risk-based management guidelines for
Pipinato, A. (2014, July 7–11). Orthotropic steel deck design to extend the scour at bridges with unknown foundations. Final Report for NCHRP
lifetime of plate and box girder bridge and viaducts. IABMAS 2014 – Project, 24–25.
Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Resilience and Sustainability Stein, S.M., Young, G.K., Trent, R.E., & Pearson, D.R. (1999). Prioritizing
– Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Bridge scour vulnerable bridges using risk. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,
Maintenance, Safety and Management. Shangai, China. 5, 95–101.
Polyak, L., Alley, R.B., Andrews, J.T., Brigham-Grette, J., Cronin, T.M., Stewart, M.G. (2012). Spatial and time-dependent reliability modelling
Darby, D.A., Dyke, A.S., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Funder, S., Holland, M., of corrosion damage, safety and maintenance for reinforced concrete
Jennings, A.E., Miller, G.H., O’Regan, M., Savelle, J., Serreze, M., St. structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 8, 607–619.
John, K., White, J.W.C., & Wolff, E. (2010). History of sea ice in the Stewart, M.G., & Rosowsky, D.V. (1998). Time-dependent reliability of
arctic. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29, 1757–1778. deteriorating reinforced concrete bridge decks. Structural Safety, 20,
PPD. (2013). Critical infrastructure security and resilience. Presidential 91–109.
Policy Directive PPD 21. Retrieved February 12, from http://www. Stewart, M.G., Wang, X., & Nguyen, M.N. (2011). Climate change
whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/02/12/presidential-policy- impact and risks of concrete infrastructure deterioration. Engineering
directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil Structures, 33, 1326–1337.
Rashedi, R., & Moses, F. (1988). Identification of failure modes in system Stewart, M.G., Wang, X., & Nguyen, M.N. (2012). Climate change
reliability. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114, 292–313. adaptation for corrosion control of concrete infrastructure. Structural
Rausand, M., & Hoyland, A. (2004). System reliability theory: Models and Safety, 35, 29–39.
statistical methods. (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Series in Probability Sumi, Y. (1998). Fatigue crack propagation and computational remaining
and Statistics. life assessment of ship structures. Journal of Marine Science and
Richardson, E.V., & Davis, S.R. (2001). Evaluating scour at bridges, 4th Technology, 3, 102–112.
ed. FHWA NHI 01- 001 (HEC 18), Washington, DC: Federal Highway Thanapol, Y., Akiyama, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2016). Updating the
Administration. seismic reliability of existing RC structures in a marine environment
Ross, S.M. (2000). Introduction to probability models. (7th ed.). Academic by incorporating the spatial steel corrosion distribution: Application to
Press. bridge piers. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 21(7), 04016031, 1–17.
Thoft-Christensen, P., & Murotsu, Y. (1986). Application of structural Vu, K., & Stewart, M.G. (2000). Structural reliability of concrete bridges
systems reliability theory. Berlin: Springer. including improved chloride-induced corrosion models. Structural
Thompson, P.D., Small, E.P., Johnson, M., & Marshall, A.R. (1998). The Safety, 22, 313–333.
Pontis bridge management system. Structural Engineering International, Wen, Y.K., & Kang, Y.J. (2001). Minimum building life-cycle cost design
8, 303–308. criteria. I: Methodology. Journal of Structural Engineering, 127, 330–337.
Titi, A., & Biondini, F. (2013, June 16–20). Resilience of concrete frame Westgate, R., Koo, K., Brownjohn, J., & List, D. (2013). Suspension bridge
structures under corrosion. In G. Deodatis, B.R. Ellingwood, & D.M. response due to extreme vehicle loads. Structure and Infrastructure
Frangopol (Eds.), 11th International Conference on Structural, Safety Engineering, 10, 821–838.
& Reliability (ICOSSAR 2013), New York, NY, Safety, Reliability, Risk Yang, S.-I., Frangopol, D.M., & Neves, L.C. (2004). Service life prediction
and Life-Cycle Performance of Structures and Infrastructures, Balkema, of structural systems using lifetime functions with emphasis on bridges.
London: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 86, 39–51.
Titi, A., Biondini, F., & Frangopol, D.M. (2014, July 7–11). Lifetime resilience Yang, S.-I., Frangopol, D.M., & Neves, L.C. (2006a). Optimum maintenance
of aging concrete bridges under corrosion. In A. Chen, D.M. Frangopol, strategy for deteriorating bridge structures based on lifetime functions.
& X. Ruan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Engineering Structures, 28, 196–206.
Bridge Maintenance, Safety, and Management, IABMAS2014, Shanghai, Yang, S.-I., Frangopol, D.M., Kawakami, Y., & Neves, L.C. (2006b). The
China, in Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management and Life Extension use of lifetime functions in the optimization of interventions on
(pp. 1691–1698). Balkema, London: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group existing bridges considering maintenance and failure costs. Reliability
plc, and full paper on DVD, 426. Engineering & System Safety, 91, 698–705.
Titi, A., Biondini, F., & Frangopol, D.M. (2015, April 23–25). Seismic Yavari, S., Chang, S., & Elwood, K.J. (2010). Modeling post-earthquake
resilience of deteriorating concrete structures. In N. Ingraffea & N. functionality of regional health care facilities. Earthquake Spectra, 26,
Libby (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 Structures Congress (pp. 1649– 869–892.
1660), Portland, OR. Yeo, G.L., & Cornell, C.A. (2005). Stochastic characterization and decision bases
TRB. (2008). Potential impacts of climate change on U.S. transportation, under time-dependent aftershock risk in performance-based earthquake
Transportation Research Board Special Report 290, Transportation engineering. PEER Report, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Research Board, Washington, DC. Zhang, L., Silva, F., & Grismala, R. (2005). Ultimate lateral resistance to
TRB. (2014). Strategic issues facing transportation, Volume 2: Climate piles in cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
change, extreme weather events and the highway system: Practitioner’s Engineering, 131, 78–83.
guide and research report, National Cooperative Highway Research Zhu, B., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013a). Reliability, redundancy and risk as
Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. performance indicators of structural systems during their life-cycle.
USGCRP. (2008). Global climate change impacts in the 634 United States. Engineering Structures, 41, 34–49.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. Retrieved from http://www. Zhu, B., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013b). Risk-based approach for optimum
globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-635 maintenance of bridges under traffic and earthquake loads. Journal of
impacts/full-report/national-climate-change Structural Engineering, 139, 422–434.
Val, D.V., & Chernin, L. (2012). Cover cracking in reinforced concrete Zhu, B., & Frangopol, D.M. (2016a). Time-variant risk assessment of
elements due to corrosion. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 8, bridges with partially and full closed lanes due to traffic loading and
569–581. scour. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 21(6), 04016021, 1–15.
Val, D.V., Stewart, M.G., & Melchers, R.E. (1998). Effect of reinforcement Zhu, B., & Frangopol, D.M. (2016b). Time-dependent risk assessment of
corrosion on reliability of highway bridges. Engineering Structures, 20, bridges based on cumulative-time failure probability. Journal of Bridge
1010–1019. Engineering, 06016009, 1–7. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000977

Frangopol (2017) Bridge Life Cycle Performance and Cost Analysis Prediction Optimisation and Decision Making (STR & Infr. Engg.)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frangopol (2017) Bridge Life Cycle Performance and Cost Analysis Prediction Optimisation and Decision Making (STR & Infr. Engg.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Bridge life-cycle performance and cost: analysis,

Dan M. Frangopol, You Dong & Samantha Sabatino

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1267772

Published online: 12 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3847

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 110 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Bridge life-cycle performance and cost: analysis, prediction, optimisation and

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

1. Introduction Alternatively, there are extreme events that cause an abrupt

CONTACT Dan M. Frangopol [email protected]

(a) Deterioration Time of preventive

Service life without Service life

(b) tpm tem TIME

4. Single- 2. Performance evaluation and prediction

Figure 4. Metrics of sustainability.

of the decision maker

Figure 5. Time-variant annual sustainability metrics of a highway bridge in terms

Occurrence of Occurrence of A transportation network is defined in terms of nodes and

Generate seismic damage indices

UNDER A HAZARD EVENT

Pi, up = P[Mi (t) ≤ 0|IEj (tIE ) ]

(a) on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management (IABMAS2016),

of interdependent infrastructure systems under hazard effects is

You might also like