Life-cycle cost analysis is an approach that has gained popularity for assisting the design of civil infrastructures. The life-cycle cost analysis approach can be leveraged for structures equipped with structural health monitoring systems in order to quantify the benefits of the technology and de facto support its long-term implementation. However, for new structures, the long-term assessment of the expected value of the total investment cost, in terms of the current worth at the design time, is still the focus of ongoing research due to unknowns and uncertainties on the impact of the structural health monitoring system on long-term structural performance. This article proposes a new combined model of life-cycle cost formulation and simulation methodology for the long-term financial assessment of transportation bridges equipped with seismic structural health monitoring systems, in order to evaluate the total costs and benefits offered by such monitoring systems for post-seismic assessments. The formulation characterizes the time evolution of bridge management cost terms, highlighting the most sensitive parameters. The simulation methodology allows to quantitatively weigh each maintenance action on the total cost based on when the action is performed. The model is used to compare structures managed by the traditional approach of post-earthquake inspection versus those managed by a condition-based approach enabled by structural health monitoring systems. The originality of the model empowers the comparison by payback time, defined as the break-even point between costs and benefits of a structural health monitoring system, as well as by economic gain, defined as the difference between the total costs of an unmonitored versus a monitored structure through the end of service life. The proposed model is demonstrated through parametric analyses on a case study consisting of a continuous steel-concrete composite bridge, where the structural health monitoring system is used to monitor the elastic limit state condition of bending forces in piers during the earthquake.
BazzucchiFRestucciaLFerroG. Considerations over the Italian road bridge infrastructure safety after the Polcevera viaduct collapse: past errors and future perspectives. Fratt Integr Strutt2018; 12: 400–421.
2.
RagniLScozzeseFGaraF, et al. Dynamic identification and collapse assessment of Rubbianello Bridge. In: Proceedings of the IABSE symposium, Guimarães 2019: towards a resilient built environment risk and asset management—report, Guimarães, 27–29 March 2019, pp. 619–626. Zürich: International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE).
3.
Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici. Controllo delle condizioni di stabilità delle opere d’arte stradali. Circolare n° 6736/61/ I, 19 July 1967. Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici, Italy.
4.
NielsenDRamanDChattopadhyayG. Life cycle management for railway bridge assets. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2013; 227(5): 570–581.
5.
LimongelliMPMiragliaSFathiA. The value of visual inspections for emergency management of bridges under seismic hazard. In: FrangopolDMCaspeeleRTaerweL (eds) Life-cycle analysis and assessment in civil engineering: towards an integrated vision —proceedings of the 6th international symposium on life-cycle civil engineering (IALCCE 2018). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2018, pp. 2145–2152.
6.
DowneyALaflammeSUbertiniF. Experimental wind tunnel study of a smart sensing skin for condition evaluation of a wind turbine blade. Smart Mater Struct2017; 26(12): 125005.
7.
VagnoliMRemenyte-PrescottRAndrewsJ. Railway bridge structural health monitoring and fault detection: state-of-the-art methods and future challenges. Struct Health Monit2018; 17(4): 971–1007.
8.
KongXLiJCollinsW, et al. Sensing distortion-induced fatigue cracks in steel bridges with capacitive skin sensor arrays. Smart Mater Struct2018; 27(11): 115008.
9.
AnYChatziESimSH, et al. Recent progress and future trends on damage identification methods for bridge structures. Struct Control Hlth2019; 26(10): e2416.
10.
AbdulkaremMSamsudinKRokhaniFZ, et al. Wireless sensor network for structural health monitoring: a contemporary review of technologies, challenges, and future direction. Struct Health Monit2020; 19: 693–735.
11.
WuRTJahanshahiMR. Data fusion approaches for structural health monitoring and system identification: past, present, and future. Struct Health Monit2020; 19(2): 552–586.
12.
IerimontiLCaracogliaLVenanziI, et al. Investigation on life-cycle damage cost of wind-excited tall buildings considering directionality effects. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod2017; 171: 207–218.
13.
IerimontiLVenanziICaracogliaL. Life-cycle damage-based cost analysis of tall buildings equipped with tuned mass dampers. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod2018; 176: 54–64.
14.
VenanziILavanOIerimontiL, et al. Multi-hazard loss analysis of tall buildings under wind and seismic loads. Struct Infrastruct E2018; 14(10): 1295–1311.
15.
VenanziI.IerimontiL.CaracogliaL., Life-cycle-cost optimization for the wind load design of tall buildings equipped with TMDs. Wind and Structures, An International Journal2020; 30(4): 379–392.
ShinYParkJHaDH. Optimal design of a steel box girder bridge considering life cycle cost. KSCE J Civ Eng2009; 13: 433–440.
18.
HanSHLeeWSBangMS. Probabilistic optimal safety with minimum life-cycle cost based on stochastic finite element analysis of steel cable-stayed bridges. Int J Steel Struct2011; 11: 335–349.
19.
BangMS. Optimal design of suspension bridge based on minimization of life cycle cost. Adv Mat Res2014; 919–921: 577–582.
20.
VeganzonesJJPetterssonLSundquistH, et al. Life-cycle cost analysis as a tool in the developing process for new bridge edge beam solutions. Struct Infrastruct E2016; 12: 1185–1201.
21.
SaadLAissaniAChateauneufA, et al. Reliability-based optimization of direct and indirect LCC of RC bridge elements under coupled fatigue-corrosion deterioration processes. Eng Fail Anal2016; 59: 570–587.
22.
VenanziICastellaniRIerimontiL, et al. An automated procedure for assessing local reliability index and life-cycle cost of alternative girder bridge design solutions. Adv Civ Eng2019; 2019: 5152031-1–5152031-17.
EbrahimianHJalayerFManfrediG. Seismic retrofit decision-making of bridges based on life-cycle cost criteria. In: Proceedings of the COMPDYN 2015—5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (ed PapadrakakisMPapadopoulosVPlevrisV), Crete, 25–27 May 2015, pp. 1591–1627.
25.
HahmDOkSYParkW, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of an MR damper system based on a life-cycle cost concept. KSCE J Civ Eng2013; 17(1): 145–154.
26.
MicheliLHongJLaflammeS, et al. Surrogate models for high performance control systems in wind-excited tall buildings. Appl Soft Comput2020; 90: 106133.
HatamiAMorcousG. Deterioration models for life-cycle cost analysis of bridge decks in Nebraska. Transport Res Rec2012; 2313: 3–11.
29.
BaroneGFrangopolDMSolimanM. Optimization of life-cycle maintenance of deteriorating bridges with respect to expected annual system failure rate and expected cumulative cost. J Struct Eng: ASCE2014; 140: 04013043.
30.
LiuMFrangopolDM. Optimizing bridge network maintenance management under uncertainty with conflicting criteria: life-cycle maintenance, failure, and user costs. J Struct Eng: ASCE2006; 132(11): 1835–1845.
31.
SabatinoSFrangopolDMDongY. Sustainability-informed maintenance optimization of highway bridges considering multi-attribute utility and risk attitude. Eng Struct2015; 102: 310–321.
32.
AlmeidaJTeixeiraPDelgadoR. Life cycle cost optimisation in highway concrete bridges management. Struct Infrastruct E2015; 11: 1263–1276.
33.
OrcesiADFrangopolDM. Optimization of bridge maintenance strategies based on structural health monitoring information. Struct Saf2011; 33: 26–41.
34.
ThomsonDJ. The economic case for service life extension of structures using structural health monitoring based on the delayed cost of borrowing. J Civ Struct Health Monit2013; 3: 335–340.
35.
KimSFrangopolDM. Computational platform for probabilistic optimum monitoring planning for effective and efficient service life management. J Civ Struct Health Monit2020; 10: 1–15.
36.
BolognaniDVerzobioATonelliD, et al. IWSHM 2017: quantifying the benefit of structural health monitoring: what if the manager is not the owner?Struct Health Monit2018; 17(6): 1393–1409.
37.
LongLDöhlerMThönsS. Determination of structural and damage detection system influencing parameters on the value of information. Struct Health Monit. Epub ahead of print 24January2020. DOI: 10.1177/1475921719900918.
38.
VegaMAToddMD. A variational Bayesian neural network for structural health monitoring and cost-informed decision-making in miter gates. Struct Health Monit. Epub ahead of print14February2020. DOI: 10.1177/1475921720904543.
39.
MicheliLCaoLLaflammeS, et al. Life-cycle cost evaluation strategy for high-performance control systems under uncertainties. J Eng Mech: ASCE2020; 146: 04019134.
40.
NevesALeanderJGonzalezI, et al. An approach to decision-making analysis for implementation of SHM in bridges. Struct Control Hlth2019; 26: e2352.
41.
OkashaNMFrangopolDM. Computational platform for the integrated life-cycle management of highway bridges. Eng Struct2011; 33: 2145–2153.
42.
ShimHLeeS. Developing a probable cost analysis model for comparing bridge deck rehabilitation methods. KSCE J Civ Eng2015; 20: 68–76.
43.
KilanitisISextosA. Integrated seismic risk and resilience assessment of roadway networks in earthquake prone areas. B Earthq Eng2019; 17(1): 181–210.
44.
KilanitisISextosA. Impact of earthquake-induced bridge damage and time evolving traffic demand on the road network resilience. J Traffic Transport Eng2019; 6(1): 35–48.
OrcesiADFerailleAChataignerS. Fatigue strengthening of steel structures using high modulus CFRP plates: development of a life-cycle analysis approach. Constr Build Mater2019; 227: 116628.
47.
EttouneyMMAlampalliS. Infrastructure health in civil engineering: applications and management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2011.
48.
CiampoliMPetriniFAugustiG. Performance-based wind engineering: towards a general procedure. Struct Saf2011; 33(6): 367–378.
CassesePRicciPVerderameGM. Experimental study on the seismic performance of existing reinforced concrete bridge piers with hollow rectangular section. Eng Struct2017; 144: 88–106.
52.
WasherG. Reliability of visual inspection for highway bridges. Report no. FHWA-RD-01-020, June 2001. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation.
53.
PadgettJENielsonBGDesRochesR. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthq Eng Struct D2008; 37(5): 711–725.
54.
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV). Mappe interattive di pericolosità sismica, http://esse1-gis.mi.ingv.it/
55.
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti. Norme tecniche per le costruzioni (D.M. 14 Settembre). Rome: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, 2005.
RamanathanKPadgettJEDesRochesR. Temporal evolution of seismic fragility curves for concrete box-girder bridges in California. Eng Struct2015; 97: 29–46.
59.
BiondiniFZaniG. Life-cycle multi-objective optimization of deteriorating structures. In: BiondiniFFrangopolDM (eds) Life-cycle civil engineering. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2008, pp. 285–292.
60.
Regione Umbria: Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale 19 Settembre 2018, n. 1027, Elenco regionale dei prezzi e dei costi minimi della manodopera per lavori edili, impianti tecnologici, infrastrutture a rete, lavori stradali e impianti sportivi per l’esecuzione di opere pubbliche—edizione 2018. Elenco regionale dei costi per la sicurezza dei lavoratori—edizione 2018. Approvazione, 2018, https://olympus.uniurb.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19261:umbria2018-1027&catid=27&Itemid=137
Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici. Ispettorato generale per la circolazione e la sicurezza stradale: definizione dei principali temi di ricerca per il miglioramento della sicurezza delle infrastrutture nel breve, medio e lungo periodo – scheda 8: misure per il miglioramento della sicurezza della circolazione in presenza di cantieri. Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici 2000, Italy.
TortiMVenanziIUbertiniF. Seismic structural health monitoring for reducing life cycle cost of road bridges. In: Proceedings of the EURODYN 2020—XI international conference on structural dynamics, Athens, 23–26 November 2020, pp. 1063–1074.
66.
FrangopolDMKimS. Prognosis and life-cycle assessment based on SHM information. In: WangMLLynchJPSohnH (eds) Sensor technologies for civil infrastructures. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2014, no. 56, pp. 145–171.
