Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental verification for load rating of steel truss bridge using an improved Hamiltonian Monte Carlo-based Bayesian model updating

  • Application based
  • Published:
Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The load rating of a steel truss bridge is experimentally identified in this study using an improved Bayesian model updating algorithm. The initial element model is sequentially updated to match the static and dynamic characteristics of the bridge. For this purpose, a modified version of the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) simulation is adopted for closed-form candidate generation that helps in faster convergence compared to the Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. The updated model works as a digital twin of the original structure to predict its load-carrying capacity and performance under proof or design load. The proposed approach incorporates in-situ conditions in its formulation and helps to reduce the risk involved in bridge load testing at its full capacity. The rating factor for each member is estimated from the updated model, which also indicates the weak links and possible failure mechanism. The efficiency of the improved HMC-based algorithm is demonstrated using limited sensor data, which can be easily adopted for other existing bridges.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Subcommittee on Bridges TOS (2000) Manual for condition evaluation of bridges, 1994. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  2. Phares BM, Washer GA, Rolander DD, Graybeal BA, Moore M (2004) Routine highway bridge inspection condition documentation accuracy and reliability. J Bridge Eng 9(4):403–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Breña SF, Jeffrey AE, Civjan SA (2013) Evaluation of a noncomposite steel girder bridge through live-load field testing. J Bridge Eng 18(7):690–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moses F, Lebet JP, Bez R (1994) Applications of field testing to bridge evaluation. J Struct Eng 120(6):1745–1762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Saraf V, Nowak AS (1998) Proof load testing of deteriorated steel girder bridges. J Bridge Eng 3(2):82–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Casas JR, Gómez JD (2013) Load rating of highway bridges by proof-loading. KSCE J Civ Eng 17(3):556–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boothby TE, Craig RJ (1997) Experimental load rating study of a historic truss bridge. J Bridge Eng 2(1):18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cheung MS, Tadros G, Brown T, Dilger W et al (1997) Field monitoring and research on performance of the confederation bridge. Can J Civ Eng 24(6):951

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bakht B (1981) Testing of the manitou bridge to determine its safe load carrying capacity. Can J Civ Eng 8(2):218–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, de Boer A, Hordijk DA (2017) Proof load testing of reinforced concrete slab bridges in the Netherlands. Struct Concr 18(4):597–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stewart MG, Val DV (1999) Role of load history in reliability-based decision analysis of aging bridges. J Struct Eng 125(7):776–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Faber MH, Val DV, Stewart MG (2000) Proof load testing for bridge assessment and upgrading. Eng Struct 22(12):1677–1689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fu G, Tang J (1995) Risk-based proof-load requirements for bridge evaluation. J Struct Eng 121(3):542–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shah SP, Popovics JS, Subramaniam KV, Aldea C-M (2000) New directions in concrete health monitoring technology. J Eng Mech 126(7):754–760

    Google Scholar 

  15. Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB et al (1998) A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods. Shock Vib Dig 30(2):91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong K-Y (2004) Instrumentation and health monitoring of cable-supported bridges. Struct Control Health Monit 11(2):91–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Al-Khateeb HT, Shenton HW, Chajes MJ (2018) Computing continuous load rating factors for bridges using structural health monitoring data. J Civ Struct Health Monit 8(5):721–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bakht B, Jaeger LG (1990) Bridge testing—a surprise every time. J Struct Eng 116(5):1370–1383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bakht B, Jaeger LG (1988) Bearing restraint in slab-on-girder bridges. J Struct Eng 114(12):2724–2740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bakht B, Jaeger LG (1992) Ultimate load test of slab-on-girder bridge. J Struct Eng 118(6):1608–1624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chajes MJ, Mertz DR, Commander B (1997) Experimental load rating of a posted bridge. J Bridge Eng 2(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jáuregui DV (1999) Measurement-based evaluation of non-composite. PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, USA

  23. Wang N, O’Malley C, Ellingwood BR, Zureick A-H (2011) Bridge rating using system reliability assessment. I: Assessment and verification by load testing. J Bridge Eng 16(6):854–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Catbas FN, Gokce HB, Gul M (2012) Practical approach for estimating distribution factor for load rating: demonstration on reinforced concrete t-beam bridges. J Bridge Eng 17(4):652–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dong C, Bas S, Debees M, Alver N, Catbas FN (2020) Bridge load testing for identifying live load distribution, load rating, serviceability and dynamic response. Front Built Environ 6:46

  26. Lrfd A (2017) Aashto lrfd bridge design specifications. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yost JR, Schulz JL, Commander BC (2005) Using NDT data for finite element model calibration and load rating of bridges. In: Structures Congress 2005: Metropolis and Beyond, pp 1–9

  28. Turer A, Shahrooz BM (2011) Load rating of concrete-deck-on-steel-stringer bridges using field-calibrated 2d-grid models. Eng Struct 33(4):1267–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sanayei M, Phelps JE, Sipple JD, Bell ES, Brenner BR (2012) Instrumentation, nondestructive testing, and finite-element model updating for bridge evaluation using strain measurements. J Bridge Eng 17(1):130–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS (1998) Updating models and their uncertainties. I: Bayesian statistical framework. J Eng Mech 124(4):455–461

    Google Scholar 

  31. Katafygiotis LS, Papadimitriou C, Lam H-F (1998) A probabilistic approach to structural model updating. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 17(7–8):495–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Beck JL, Au S-K (2002) Bayesian updating of structural models and reliability using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. J Eng Mech 128(4):380–391

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ching J, Chen Y-C (2007) Transitional Markov Chain Monte Carlo method for bayesian model updating, model class selection, and model averaging. J Eng Mech 133(7):816–832

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cheung SH, Beck JL (2009) Bayesian model updating using hybrid Monte Carlo simulation with application to structural dynamic models with many uncertain parameters. J Eng Mech 135(4):243–255

    Google Scholar 

  35. Duane S, Kennedy AD, Pendleton BJ, Roweth D (1987) Hybrid Monte Carlo. Phys Lett B 195(2):216–222

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang Z, Broccardo M, Song J (2019) Hamiltonian Monte Carlo methods for subset simulation in reliability analysis. Struct Saf 76:51–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Baisthakur S, Chakraborty A (2020) Modified Hamiltonian Monte Carlo-based Bayesian finite element model updating of steel truss bridge. Struct Control Health Monit 27(8):e2556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hasançebi O, Dumlupınar T (2013) Detailed load rating analyses of bridge populations using nonlinear finite element models and artificial neural networks. Comput Struct 128:48–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Alipour M, Harris DK, Barnes LE, Ozbulut OE, Carroll J (2017) Load-capacity rating of bridge populations through machine learning: application of decision trees and random forests. J Bridge Eng 22(10):04017076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Seo J, Czaplewski TM, Kimn J-H, Hatfield G (2015) Integrated structural health monitoring system and multi-regression models for determining load ratings for complex steel bridges. Measurement 75:308–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim YJ, Queiroz LB (2017) Big data for condition evaluation of constructed bridges. Eng Struct 141:217–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Seo J, Phares B, Lu P, Wipf T, Dahlberg J (2013) Bridge rating protocol using ambient trucks through structural health monitoring system. Eng Struct 46:569–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Akgül F, Frangopol DM (2004) Time-dependent interaction between load rating and reliability of deteriorating bridges. Eng Struct 26(12):1751–1765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Akgül F, Frangopol DM (2004) Bridge rating and reliability correlation: comprehensive study for different bridge types. J Struct Eng 130(7):1063–1074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang N, Ellingwood BR, Zureick A-H (2011) Bridge rating using system reliability assessment. II: improvements to bridge rating practices. J Bridge Eng 16(6):863–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Alampalli S, Frangopol DM, Grimson J, Halling MW, Kosnik DE, Lantsoght EO, Yang D, Zhou YE (2021) Bridge load testing: state-of-the-practice. J Bridge Eng 26(3):03120002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Alampalli S, Frangopol DM, Grimson J, Kosnik D, Halling M, Lantsoght EO, Weidner JS, Yang DY, Zhou YE (2019) Primer on bridge load testing. Transportation Research Circular, Technical Report No. E-C257, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA

  48. IRC:SP:37-2010 (2010) Guidelines for evaluation of load carrying capacity of bridges. The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  49. IRC:6-2017 (2017) Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, section-II loads and load combinations (seventh revision). The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  50. IRC:24-2010 (2010) Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, section-V steel road bridges. The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  51. IRC:78-2014 (2014) Standard Specifications and code of practice for road bridges, section VII–foundations and substructure, revised. The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  52. IS:456-2000 (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  53. IRC:SP:51-1999 (1999) Guidelines for load testing of bridges. The Indian Road Congress, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mahato S, Chakraborty A (2019) Sequential clustering of synchrosqueezed wavelet transform coefficients for efficient modal identification. J Civ Struct Health Monit 9(2):271–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Biggs JM, Suer HS (1956) Vibration measurements on simple-span bridges. Highway Research Board Bulletin, Technical Report No. 124, Massachusetts Institute  of Technology, Cambridge, USA

  56. Wright DT, Green R (1964) Highway bridge vibrations: part II, Ontario Test Programme. Queen’s University, Belfast

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cantieni R (1983) Dynamic load tests on highway bridges in Switzerland, 60 years of experience of empa, report n. 211. EMPA

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sanayei M, Reiff AJ, Brenner BR, Imbaro GR (2016) Load rating of a fully instrumented bridge: comparison of lrfr approaches. J Perform Constr Facil 30(2):04015019

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication resulted from the research supported by the DST, Govt. of India, Science and Engineering Research Board Grant No. CRG/2020/005090.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Larson & Toubro ECC, Chennai, 600089, India

    Shubham Baisthakur

  2. Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam, India

    Arunasis Chakraborty

Authors
  1. Shubham Baisthakur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arunasis Chakraborty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arunasis Chakraborty.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

The geometric details and member names are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. The structural steel sections are given in Table 6 while the member properties used to model this bridge are provided in Table 7.

Fig. 14
figure 14

Dimensions of Pasakha bridge; a elevation @ Y = 0/12.45 m b plan view @ Z = 0 m c plan view @ Z = 6.4 m i All the short vertical and inclined members in subfig (a) are S17 and S18, respectively ii All the transverse girders in subfig (b) are Cross-beam (DB) iii All the transverse bracing in subfig (c) are B1 and cross beams are BXB1

Full size image
Fig. 15
figure 15

Elevation of Pasakha Bridge; a left truss and b right truss

Full size image
Table 6 Frame section details of Pasakha Bridge
Full size table
Table 7 Member details i.e. cross-section of Pasakha bridge
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baisthakur, S., Chakraborty, A. Experimental verification for load rating of steel truss bridge using an improved Hamiltonian Monte Carlo-based Bayesian model updating. J Civil Struct Health Monit 11, 1093–1112 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-021-00495-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-021-00495-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation