Skip to main content
Log in

Technology for condition and performance evaluation of highway bridges

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, bridge owners must consider increasing traffic demands (in both volume and weight) and also face concerns related to sustainability, resilience and liveability which were virtually unknown in the 1950s. Furthermore, legislators demand data-driven asset management decisions based on objective, quantitative and reliable bridge condition and performance evaluation. To explore the current state-of-the-art in objective performance and condition evaluation of constructed systems by leveraging technology, a 30-year old freeway bridge in New Jersey, exhibiting multiple complex performance deficiencies, was transformed into a field laboratory. To identify the root causes of performance concerns, Visual Inspection, Operational Monitoring, Forced Excitation Testing, Controlled Load Testing, Non-destructive Probes, Long-term Monitoring, Finite Element Modelling and Parameter Identification were conducted within a Structural Identification framework. The results showed that root causes of some performance deficiencies of the test bridge were identified definitively only through the application of field measurements and analyses integrated by following a scientific approach—i.e. Structural Identification. Controlled Proof-Load Testing was especially useful in demonstrating the location and impacts of damage and the remaining capacity although such an approach can only be considered for the most critical cases due to its high cost and disruption to operations. Operational monitoring was shown as a sufficient and much cheaper alternative for structural identification permitting the development of a 3D digital twin of the bridge, which proved critical in identifying the root causes of its deficiencies and formulating meaningful interventions. Without an a-priori model used for designing the experiments as well as a model (i.e. a digital twin) calibrated by parameter identification and used for simulations, it was not possible to offer options for corrective measures confidently. The study demonstrated the challenges in relying only on visual inspection when a multitude of interdependent mechanisms lead to damage and deterioration, and the information value of different experimental methods such as vibration testing, proof load testing, wide-area NDE scans and multi-year SHM in being able to understand the root causes of various damages.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ARTRB (2019) 2019 Bridge Report. [Online]. https://artbabridgereport.org/reports/2019-ARTBA-Bridge-Report.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2019.

  2. Aktan AE, Brownjohn JMW (2013) Structural identification: opportunities and challenges. ASCE J Struct Eng 139:1639–1647. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000723(A special issue on Structural identification)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. ASCE Technical Committee on Structural Identification (2013) Structural identification of constructed systems: approaches, methods, and technologies for effective practice of St-Id. In: Çatbas FN, Kijewski-Correa T, Aktan AE (eds). ASCE. pp 1–248. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784411971

  4. Bertero V, Aktan A, Charney F, Sause R (1985) Earthquake simulator tests and associated experimental, analytical, and correlation studies of one-fifth scale model, Earthquake effects on reinforced concrete structures, U.S.–Japan Research, ACI Special Publication SP-84, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, pp 375–424

  5. Aktan EA, Farhey DN (1996) Condition and reliability assessment of constructed facilities. Spec. Publ. No. 162, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, pp 73–92

  6. Aktan AE, Farhey DN, Helmicki AJ, Brown DL, Hunt VJ, Lee KL, Levi A (1997) Structural identification for condition assessment: experimental arts. J Struct Eng ASCE. 123(12):1674–1684. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:12(1674)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aktan AE, Catbas N, Turer A, Zhang Z (1998) Structural identification: analytical aspects. J Struct Eng ASCE 124(7). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:7(817)

  8. Farrar C, Cornwell P, Doebling S, Prime M (2000) Structural health monitoring studies of the alamosa canyon and I-40 bridges. United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/766805. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/766805

  9. Peeters B, De Roeck G (2001) One-year monitoring of the Z24-Bridge: environmental effects versus damage events. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30(2):149–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9845(200102)30:2<149::AID-EQE1>3.0.CO;2-Z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Catbas N, Lenett M, Aktan A, Brown D, Helmicki A, Hunt V (1998) Damage detection and condition assessment of seymour bridge. In: Proceedings of the 16th international modal analysis conference, Society of Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, Conn., pp 1694–1702

  11. Ciloglu K, Zhou Y, Moon FL, Aktan AE (2012) Impacts of epistemic uncertainty in operational modal analysis. J Eng Mech 138(9):1059–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grimmelsman KA (2006) Experimental characterization of towers in cable-supported bridges by ambient vibration testing. Doctoral Thesis, Drexel University. http://hdl.handle.net/1860/1222

  13. Pan Q (2007) System identification of constructed civil engineering structures and uncertainty. Doctoral Thesis, Drexel University. http://hdl.handle.net/1860/2531

  14. Grimmelsman KA, Pan Q, Aktan AE (2007) Analysis of data quality for ambient vibration testing of the henry hudson bridge. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 18(8):765–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X06074774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Friswell M, Mottershead J (1995) Finite element model updating in structural dynamics (Solid Mechanics and Its Applications). Kluwer Academic Publishers, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Mottershead JE, Friswell MI (1993) Model updating in structural dynamics: a survey. J Sound Vib 167(2):347–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Friswell MI, Inman DJ, Pilkey DF (1998) Direct updating of damping and stiffness matrices. AIAA J 36(3):491–493. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Levin RI, Lieven NAJ (1998) Dynamic finite element model updating using simulated annealing and genetic algorithms. Mech Syst Signal Process 12(1):91–120. https://doi.org/10.1006/mssp.1996.0136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Minshui H, Hongping Z (2008) Finite element model updating of bridge structures based on sensitivity analysis and optimization algorithm. Wuhan Univ J Nat Sci 13(1):87–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11859-008-0117-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bakir PG, Reynders E, De Roeck G (2007) Sensitivity-based finite element model updating using constrained optimization with a trust region algorithm. J Sound Vib 305(1–2):211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSV.2007.03.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Law K (1997) A Bayesian probabilistic approach for structure damage detection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:1259–1281. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199712)26:12%3c1259:AID-EQE709%3e3.0.CO;2-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Prajapat K, Ray chaudhuri S (2016) Prediction error variances in bayesian model updating employing data sensitivity. J Eng Mech 142:4016096. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Prajapat K, Raychaudhuri S (2016) Posterior resolution and structural modification for parameter determination in bayesian model updating. Int J Cybern Informatics 5:193–202. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijci.2016.5118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yallee RB, Young RJ, Katafygiotis L, Papadimitriou C, Lam HF (1998) A probabilistic approach to structural model updating. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 17(7–8):495–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(98)00008-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marwala T, Mdlazi L, Sibisi S (2007) Finite element model updating using bayesian approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:0705.2515

  26. Behmanesh I, Moaveni B, Lombaert G, Papadimitriou C (2015) Hierarchical Bayesian model updating for structural identification. Mech Syst Signal Process 64–65:360–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.YMSSP.2015.03.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vanik MW, Beck JL, Au SK (2000) Bayesian probabilistic approach to structural health monitoring. J Eng Mech 126(7):738–745. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:7(738)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS, B. J. L., K. L. S. (1998) Updating models and their uncertainties. I: bayesian statistical framework. J Eng Mech 124(4):455–461. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9399(1998)124:4(455).

  29. Zhang J, Guo SL, Wu ZS, Zhang QQ (2015) Structural identification and damage detection through long-gauge strain measurements. Eng Struct 99:173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2015.04.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Noël JP, Kerschen G (2017) Nonlinear system identification in structural dynamics: 10 more years of progress. Mech Syst Signal Process 83:2–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.YMSSP.2016.07.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hearn G, Testa RB (1991) Modal analysis for damage detection in structures. J Struct Eng 117(10):3042–3063. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:10(3042)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Salawu OS (1997) Detection of structural damage through changes in frequency: a review. Eng Struct 19(9):718–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(96)00149-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ren W-X, Zhao T, Harik IE (2004) Experimental and analytical modal analysis of steel arch bridge. J Struct Eng 130(7):1022–1031. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:7(1022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gentile C, Saisi A (2007) Ambient vibration testing of historic masonry towers for structural identification and damage assessment. Constr Build Mater 21(6):1311–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2006.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Doebling SWS, Farrar CCR, Prime MMB, Doebling SWS, Farrar CCR, Prime MMB (1998) A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods. Shock Vib Dig 30:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB, Shevitz DW (1996) Damage identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: a literature review, Los Alamos, NM

  37. Farrar CR, Doebling SW, Nix DA (2001) Vibration-based structural damage identification. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 359(1778):131–149. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2000.0717

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Sohn H et al (2004) A review of structural health monitoring literature : 1996–2001, technical report. Report number LA-13976-MS.

  39. Bartoli G, Betti M, Facchini L, Marra A, Monchetti S (2017) Bayesian model updating of historic masonry towers through dynamic experimental data. Procedia Eng 199:1258–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pepi C, Gioffre M, Grigoriu MD (2019) Parameters identification of cable stayed footbridges using Bayesian inference. Meccanica 54(9):1403–1419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-019-01019-x

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Chase SB, Adu-Gyamfi Y, Aktan AE, Minaie E (2016) Synthesis of national and international methodologies used for bridge health indices. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-15-081. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1558.1683

  42. Aktan AE, Bartoli I, Karaman SG (2019) Technology leveraging for infrastructure asset management: challenges and opportunities. Front Built Environ 5:61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. DASSAULT SYSTÈMES, ABAQUS UNIFIED FEA, SIMULIA web site. [Online] https://www.3ds.com/products-services/simulia/products/abaqus/. Accessed 1 Oct 2019

  44. MathWorks, “fminsearch,” The MathWorks, Inc. [Online]. https://www.mathworks.com/help/optim/ug/fminsearch-algorithm.html. Accessed 1 Oct 2019

  45. AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. Fourth edition with 2008 interim revisions. Washington, D.C. : American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, [2008] ©2007, 2010.

  46. Law SS, Zhu XQ (2004) Dynamic behavior of damaged concrete bridge structures under moving vehicular loads. Eng Struct 26(9):1279–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim C (2005) Three-dimensional dynamic analysis for bridge–vehicle interaction with roadway roughness. Comput Struct 83(19):1627–1645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.12.004Pergamon Press, [Oxford] 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kalyankar R, Uddin N (2016) Simulating the effects of surface roughness on reinforced concrete t beam bridge under single and multiple vehicles. Adv Acoust Vib 2016:3594148. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3594148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Frýba Ladislav (1973) Vibration of solids and structures under moving loads. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9685-7

  50. Paultre P, Chaallal O, Proulx J (1992) Bridge dynamics and dynamic amplification factors—a review of analytical and experimental findings. Can J Civ Eng 19(2):260–278. https://doi.org/10.1139/l92-032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Brady S, Obrien E, Znidaric A (2006) Effect of vehicle velocity on the dynamic amplification of a vehicle crossing a simply supported bridge. J Bridg Eng 11(2):241–249. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006)11:2(241)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kou J-W, DeWolf J (1997) Vibrational behavior of continuous span highway bridge—influencing variables. J Struct Eng 123:333–344. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:3(333)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Meng JY, Lui E, Liu Y (2001) Dynamic response of skew highway bridges. J Earthq Eng 5:205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460109350392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Deng L, Yu Y, Zou Q, Cai C (2014) State-of-the-art review of dynamic impact factors of highway bridges. J Bridg Eng 20:4014080. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Braley J (2019) Understanding vehicle-bridge interaction through field measurements and model-based simulations. Doctoral Thesis. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

  56. Weidner J (2012) Structural identification of a complex structure using both conventional and multiple model approaches. Doctoral Thesis. Drexel University. http://hdl.handle.net/1860/3818

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the USDOT-FHWA and NJDOT as part of the Pilot Phase of FHWA’s Long-Term Bridge Performance Program. The authors are deeply grateful to the contributions of their US-based academic collaborators Professors Franklin Moon, Jeff Weidner [56], Nenad Gucunski, Branko Glisic, Haluk Aktan, Marvin Halling as well as Yun Zhou, Jian Zhang and John Prader. FHWA researchers and officials Dr. Steven Chase and Dr. Hamid Ghasemi initiated the Long-Term Bridge Performance Program. Authors are especially grateful to International participants from Japan, Korea and Europe (Yozo Fujino, Tomonori Nagayama, Hyun-Moo Koh, Helmut Wenzel, James Brownjohn and Ian Smith as well as their teams) who generously supported and played very critical roles in this study. Finally, the senior authors deeply appreciate the current support and guidance by their FHWA colleagues Drs. Hoda Azari and David Kuehn. Additional information about this and other studies can be found on the “NDE Virtual Laboratory website” at: http://vlab.asklab.net/VirtualLab/index.html.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shi Ye.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ye, S., Lai, X., Bartoli, I. et al. Technology for condition and performance evaluation of highway bridges. J Civil Struct Health Monit 10, 573–594 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00403-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00403-6

Keywords

Navigation