Framework to Approximate the Value of Information of Bridge Load Testing for Reserve Capacity Assessment

In developed countries, structural assessment of existing bridges should not be performed using the same conservative models that are used at the design stage. Field measurements of real behavior provide additional information for the inference of previously unknown reserve capacity. Structural identification helps identify suitable models as well as values for parameters that influence behavior. Since the information gained by the measurement system has a direct impact on structural identification, studies on optimal sensor placement have been extensively carried out. However, information collected during monitoring comes at a cost that may not be justified by its influence on asset manager actions. A metric called value of information measures if the price of collecting information is justified when compared with the potential influence on asset manager decision-making. This paper presents a framework to approximate the value of information of bridge load testing for reserve capacity assessment. Additionally, an approach based on levels of approximation is used to provide a practical strategy for the assessment of the value of information. The framework provides guidance to asset managers to evaluate whether the information from controlled condition monitoring, collected at a cost, may influence their assessment of reserve capacity. Several scenarios of monitoring systems are compared using their respective potential influence on asset-manager decisions and cost of monitoring, using a full-scale case study: the Exeter Bascule Bridge.

[1]  Lucas Monteiro Chaves,et al.  ON THE PREDICTION ERROR , 2019 .

[2]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Evaluating predictive performance of sensor configurations in wind studies around buildings , 2016, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[3]  Aurelio Muttoni,et al.  Levels-of-Approximation Approach in Codes of Practice , 2012 .

[4]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Model Identification of Bridges Using Measurement Data , 2005 .

[5]  Matteo Pozzi,et al.  Conditional entropy and value of information metrics for optimal sensing in infrastructure systems , 2016 .

[6]  J. Beck,et al.  Updating Models and Their Uncertainties. I: Bayesian Statistical Framework , 1998 .

[7]  E. Fereshtehnejad,et al.  A randomized point-based value iteration POMDP enhanced with a counting process technique for optimal management of multi-state multi-element systems , 2017 .

[8]  C. Papadimitriou,et al.  The effect of prediction error correlation on optimal sensor placement in structural dynamics , 2012 .

[9]  Shuo Li,et al.  What makes long‐term monitoring convenient? A parametric analysis of value of information in infrastructure maintenance , 2019 .

[10]  Armen Der Kiureghian,et al.  Pre-posterior optimization of sequence of measurement and intervention actions under structural reliability constraint , 2015 .

[11]  M. Shinozuka,et al.  Planning structural inspection and maintenance policies via dynamic programming and Markov processes. Part I: Theory , 2014, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[12]  Su Taylor,et al.  Finite element investigation of the structural behaviour of deck slabs in composite bridges , 2009 .

[13]  Daniel Straub,et al.  Reliability analysis and updating of deteriorating systems with dynamic Bayesian networks , 2016 .

[14]  Bahram M. Shahrooz,et al.  Destructive Testing of Decommissioned Concrete Slab Bridge , 1994 .

[15]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Predicting the usefulness of monitoring for identifying the behavior of structures , 2013 .

[16]  Dan M. Frangopol,et al.  Maintenance, Monitoring, Safety, Risk and Resilience of Bridges and Bridge Networks , 2016 .

[17]  Kent Gylltoft,et al.  Safety formats for non-linear analysis of concrete structures , 2012 .

[18]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Applied Statistical Decision Theory. , 1961 .

[19]  Alain Nussbaumer,et al.  Comparing Structural Identification Methodologies for Fatigue Life Prediction of a Highway Bridge , 2018, Front. Built Environ..

[20]  Matteo Pozzi,et al.  Submodularity issues in value-of-information-based sensor placement , 2019, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[21]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[22]  Ross B. Corotis,et al.  INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR WITH PARTIAL OBSERVABILITY , 1995 .

[23]  Jan Cervenka,et al.  Model uncertainties in numerical simulations of reinforced concrete structures , 2018, Structural Concrete.

[24]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  On prediction error correlation in Bayesian model updating , 2013 .

[25]  Z. Šidák.  Rectangular Confidence Regions for the Means of Multivariate Normal Distributions , 1967 .

[26]  J. Beck,et al.  UPDATING MODELS AND THEIR UNCERTAINTIES. II: MODEL IDENTIFIABILITY. TECHNICAL NOTE , 1998 .

[27]  Eleni Chatzi,et al.  Maintenance planning using continuous-state partially observable Markov decision processes and non-linear action models , 2016 .

[28]  Matteo Pozzi,et al.  Value of information for spatially distributed systems: Application to sensor placement , 2016, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[29]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  A methodology for measurement-system design combining information from static and dynamic excitations for bridge load testing , 2019 .

[30]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Robust system identification and model predictions in the presence of systematic uncertainty , 2015, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[31]  Ernesto Heredia-Zavoni,et al.  Optimal instrumentation of uncertain structural systems subject to earthquake ground motions , 1998 .

[32]  Jenný Brynjarsdóttir,et al.  Learning about physical parameters: the importance of model discrepancy , 2014 .

[33]  Biao Huang,et al.  System Identification , 2000, Control Theory for Physicists.

[34]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Iterative structural identification framework for evaluation of existing structures , 2016 .

[35]  Wei Li,et al.  Integrating Bayesian Calibration, Bias Correction, and Machine Learning for the 2014 Sandia Verification and Validation Challenge Problem , 2016 .

[36]  José Rui Figueira,et al.  The SMAA-PROMETHEE method , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[37]  Benoît Iung,et al.  Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas , 2012, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[38]  Vladimir Cervenka,et al.  Reliability‐based non‐linear analysis according to fib Model Code 2010 , 2013 .

[39]  J. Beck,et al.  Entropy-Based Optimal Sensor Location for Structural Model Updating , 2000 .

[40]  Daniel Straub,et al.  Value of information analysis with structural reliability methods , 2014 .

[41]  Joaquim Figueiras,et al.  Extended cracked membrane model for the analysis of RC panels , 2010 .

[42]  Benjamin Richard,et al.  Nonlinear finite element analysis of a 50 years old reinforced concrete trough bridge , 2010 .

[43]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Outlier-Detection Methodology for Structural Identification Using Sparse Static Measurements , 2018, Sensors.

[44]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  System Identification through Model Composition and Stochastic Search , 2005 .

[45]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Configuration of measurement systems using Shannon's entropy function , 2005 .

[46]  Edwin Reynders,et al.  Output-only structural health monitoring in changing environmental conditions by means of nonlinear system identification , 2014 .

[47]  F. Udwadia.  Methodology for Optimum Sensor Locations for Parameter Identification in Dynamic Systems , 1994 .

[48]  Branko Glisic,et al.  Value of information: impact of monitoring on decision‐making , 2014 .

[49]  Daniel Straub,et al.  Value of information: A roadmap to quantifying the benefit of structural health monitoring , 2017 .

[50]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Model-Based Data Interpretation and Diagnosis Robustness , 2013 .

[51]  Karl Pearson F.R.S..  X. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling , 2009 .

[52]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Optimal Multi-Type Sensor Placement for Structural Identification by Static-Load Testing , 2017, Sensors.

[53]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  Optimal sensor placement methodology for parametric identification of structural systems , 2004 .

[54]  S. Au,et al.  Bayesian model updating of a coupled-slab system using field test data utilizing an enhanced Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation algorithm , 2015 .

[55]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Studies of Sensor Data Interpretation for Asset Management of the Built Environment , 2016, Front. Built Environ..

[56]  Sebastian Thöns,et al.  On the Value of Monitoring Information for the Structural Integrity and Risk Management , 2018, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..

[57]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian model updating for structural identification , 2015 .

[58]  I. Smith,et al.  Structural identification with systematic errors and unknown uncertainty dependencies , 2013 .

[59]  C. Papadimitriou,et al.  Bayesian Optimal Sensor Placement for Modal Identification of Civil Infrastructures , 2017 .

[60]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Population-based structural identification for reserve-capacity assessment of existing bridges , 2018 .

[61]  Romain Pasquier,et al.  Measurement system design for civil infrastructure using expected utility , 2017, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[62]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Multimodel Structural Performance Monitoring , 2010 .

[63]  Alessandro De Stefano,et al.  Vibration-based monitoring of civil infrastructure: challenges and successes , 2011 .

[64]  A. Emin Aktan,et al.  Structural identification of constructed systems : approaches, methods, and technologies for effective practice of St-Id , 2013 .

[65]  Daniel C. Kammer.  Sensor set expansion for modal vibration testing , 2005 .

[66]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Sensor Data Interpretation with Clustering for Interactive Asset-Management of Urban Systems , 2018, J. Comput. Civ. Eng..

[67]  Nathaniel C. Dubbs,et al.  Comparison and Implementation of Multiple Model Structural Identification Methods , 2015 .

[68]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Hierarchical Sensor Placement Using Joint Entropy and the Effect of Modeling Error , 2014, Entropy.

[69]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  A multi-criteria decision framework to support measurement-system design for bridge load testing , 2019, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[70]  Romain Pasquier,et al.  Improving Fatigue Evaluations of Structures Using In-Service Behavior Measurement Data , 2014 .

[71]  K. Pearson.  On the Criterion that a Given System of Deviations from the Probable in the Case of a Correlated System of Variables is Such that it Can be Reasonably Supposed to have Arisen from Random Sampling , 1900 .

[72]  Wenjian Wang,et al.  A framework for evaluating the impact of structural health monitoring on bridge management , 2010 .

[73]  Franklin Moon,et al.  Structural identification of constructed systems , 2013 .