Quantifying the Benefit of SHM: What if the Manager is not the Owner?

Only very recently our community has acknowledged that the benefit of Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) can be properly quantified using the concept of Value of Information (VoI). The VoI is the difference between the utilities of operating the structure with and without the monitoring system. Typically, it is assumed that there is one decision maker for all decisions, i.e. deciding on both the investment on the monitoring system as well as the operation of the structure. The aim of this work is to formalize a rational method for quantifying the Value of Information when two different actors are involved in the decision chain: the manager, who makes decisions regarding the structure, based on monitoring data; and the owner, who chooses whether to install the monitoring system or not, before having access to these data. The two decision makers, even if both rational and exposed to the same background information, may still act differently because of their different appetites for risk. To illustrate how this framework works, we evaluate a hypothetical VoI for the Streicker Bridge, a pedestrian bridge in Princeton University campus equipped with a fiber optic sensing system, assuming that two fictional characters, Malcolm and Ophelia, are involved: Malcolm is the manager who decides whether to keep the bridge open or close it following to an incident; Ophelia is the owner who decides whether to invest on a monitoring system to help Malcolm making the right decision. We demonstrate that when manager and owner are two different individual, the benefit of monitoring could be greater or smaller than when all the decisions are made by the same individual. Under appropriate conditions, the monitoring VoI could even be negative, meaning that the owner is willing to pay to prevent the manager to use the monitoring system.

[1]  Carlo Cappello,et al.  Impact of prior perception on bridge health diagnosis , 2015 .

[2]  Carlo Cappello,et al.  Expected Utility Theory for Monitoring-Based Decision-Making , 2016, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[3]  Sebastian Thöns,et al.  Assessing the value of structural health monitoring , 2013 .

[4]  K. Arrow,et al.  Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing , 1966 .

[5]  P. Wakker Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity , 2010 .

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[7]  John Quigley,et al.  Supplier quality improvement: The value of information under uncertainty , 2018, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Andrea Verzobio,et al.  Expected Utility Theory For Monitoring-Based Decision Support System , 2017 .

[9]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[10]  Michael E. Ketzenberg,et al.  A framework for the value of information in inventory replenishment , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[11]  Daniele Inaudi,et al.  Development of method for in-service crack detection based on distributed fiber optic sensors , 2012 .

[12]  L. Thévenaz,et al.  Simple distributed fiber sensor based on Brillouin gain spectrum analysis. , 1996, Optics letters.

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

[14]  Eric B. Flynn,et al.  Optimal Placement of Piezoelectric Actuators and Sensors for Detecting Damage in Plate Structures , 2010 .

[15]  Matteo Pozzi,et al.  Negative value of information in systems ’ maintenance , .

[16]  Giovanni Parmigiani,et al.  Changes in Utility as Information , 2010 .

[17]  Doreen Eichel,et al.  Data Analysis A Bayesian Tutorial , 2016 .

[18]  Eric B. Flynn,et al.  A Bayesian approach to optimal sensor placement for structural health monitoring with application to active sensing , 2010 .

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

[20]  Chun-Gon Kim,et al.  Mechanical Strength Characteristics of Fiber Bragg Gratings Considering Fabrication Process and Reflectivity , 2007 .

[21]  Daniele Zonta,et al.  An examination of the ARX as a residual generator for damage detection , 2009, Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring.

[22]  J. Pratt RISK AVERSION IN THE SMALL AND IN THE LARGE11This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant NSF-G24035). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. , 1964 .

[23]  Branko Glisic,et al.  Streicker Bridge: a comparison between Bragg-grating long-gauge strain and temperature sensors and Brillouin scattering-based distributed strain and temperature sensors , 2011, Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring.

[24]  Sigrid Adriaenssens,et al.  Streicker Bridge: Initial evaluation of life-cycle cost benefits of various structural health monitoring approaches , 2010 .

[25]  Matteo Pozzi,et al.  Assessing the value of information for long-term structural health monitoring , 2011, Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring.

[26]  D. Lindley On a Measure of the Information Provided by an Experiment , 1956 .

[27]  D. Bernoulli Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , 1954 .

[28]  Powell E. Robinson,et al.  Flow Coordination and Information Sharing in Supply Chains: Review, Implications, and Directions for Future Research , 2002, Decis. Sci..

[29]  Sebastian Thöns,et al.  Progress of the COST Action TU1402 on the Quantification of the Value of Structural Health Monitoring , 2017 .

[30]  Paul D. Wilcox,et al.  Enhanced detection through low-order stochastic modeling for guided-wave structural health monitoring , 2012 .

[31]  E. Rowland Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[32]  Lurdes Y. T. Inoue,et al.  Decision Theory: Principles and Approaches , 2009 .

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