Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Data-driven prediction of long-term deterioration of RC bridges

Pablo Alonso Medina *, Francisco Javier León González, Leonardo Todisco
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, E.T.S. Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos. Laboratorio de Estructuras. Av. Prof. Aranguren 3. 28040, Madrid, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: During the last decades, an increasing number of administrations have been implementing Bridge Management
Durability Systems (BMS) to control their infrastructure and detect damages that may require reparation or further analysis.
Ageing prediction The collection of these data results in inspection databases which include large amounts of information that can
Reinforced concrete deterioration
be used to understand how reinforced concrete (RC) structures deteriorate over time under different environ­
Bridge Maintenance System
mental aggressiveness conditions. Based on collected information of 298 roadway RC bridges, this paper dem­
onstrates how the statistical analysis of the data obtained from inspections can be used to predict their ageing
evolution over time in a reliable way.

possible to determine behavioural patterns of reinforced concrete (RC)

1. Introduction
The use of a Bridge Management System (BMS) enables adminis­
trators to organize hierarchically the assets according to their condition
or importance, as well as their needs of maintenance or reparation. The
adoption of BMSs provides the asset managers with a sound basis to
prioritize investments from both the technical and the economical points
of view [1].
Whereas the control of the mechanical deterioration and damage of
structures has reached a high level of development in recent years, the
durability monitoring of the structural deterioration due to physical,
chemical, or biological processes is currently in a less developed stage.
For instance, corrosion and carbonation evolution rates of existing
structures depend on different threshold values that may differ signifi­
cantly from the standard values proposed for design purposes of new
constructions. Moreover, these threshold values depend on several pa­
rameters such as temperature, type of cement or environmental condi­
tions (e.g., dry-wet cycles). Therefore, durability prediction models and
monitoring systems must also include an assessment of the evolution of
the structural performance exposed to the aggressive actions of various
agents simultaneously [2,3].
With the support of the data gathered in BMSs during the last de­
cades, it is possible to evaluate the behaviour evolution of the existing
structures over time under aggressive environments and then, to predict
their future deterioration [4].
The methodology proposed in this research is not based on the
analysis of a determined set of durability factors (e.g., concrete pH or
chloride content), but on the analysis of the BMS as a whole. Thus, it is
structures subject to certain environmental aggressiveness conditions.
For this purpose, the specific technical characteristics of the structures
(e.g., reinforcement distribution, concrete compressive strength, applied
prestress force, etc.) may be unknown [5,6,7,8,9].
The methodology presented in this manuscript is not based on a
phenomenological approach, to which classical engineering is so
accustomed. When there are, for example, several superimposed phe­
nomena (chloride ingress, concrete carbonation, concrete degradation,
salt ingress…), phenomenological approaches which define the behav­
iour of materials subject to only one of these phenomena can no longer
be employed [10]. When managing a BMS it is not possible to wait to
develop classical methods, since deterioration can progress rapidly and
involve risks for users and owners. This paper is an attempt to handle a
very complex problem.
The definition of engineering solutions to problems of complex un­
derstanding or resolution is not a new strategy in the field of civil en­
gineering. Similar approaches were adopted in the past to solve the
calculation of shear in concrete elements through the development of
strut-and-tie models [11,12], or the modelling of response spectra in the
field of seismic engineering [13].
Another example is the case of the deterioration model proposed by
K. Tuutti in 1982 [14], based on the use of a bilinear law to model the
penetration of chloride by diffusion in RC structures. Almost 40 years
after the definition of this simplified modelling approach, Tuutti’s law is
still in use and included in most international durability standards and
codes [15].
Like the methodology presented in this paper, these approaches arise
from the observation of the phenomena, and not from the knowledge of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pablo.amedina@alumnos.upm.es (P. Alonso Medina), franciscojavier.leon@upm.es (F.J. León González), leonardo.todisco@upm.es (L. Todisco).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125790
Received 21 July 2021; Received in revised form 9 November 2021; Accepted 19 November 2021
Available online 22 December 2021
0950-0618/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
P. Alonso Medina et al.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
a Miyamoto’s model regression parameter
A constant used to define the concomitancy coefficient
b Miyamoto’s model initial parameter
BMS Bridge Management System
C concomitancy coefficient
DPI Durability Performance Index (relative, values from 0 to 1)
DPI0 initial value of the Durability Performance Index (at age
zero)
G weight (importance) of a specific damage
ID inspection damage
IDmax maximum value of all inspections registered in the
Management System
K1 extent of a specific damage
K2 intensity of a specific damage
M number of different types of damages identified during an
inspection
N number of elements affected by a certain damage identified
during an inspection
each phenomenon itself (which, for example, K. Tuutti did not know at
the time he developed his model [14]). In this context, it is essential to
seek engineering solutions to current problems even if phenomenolog­
ical/scientific solutions are not yet available.
The prediction of multiple-mechanisms deterioration of RC bridges
provides BMSs administrators the information required to define spe­
cific maintenance actions and, consequently, estimate maintenance
costs in advance [1].
In this paper, Section 2 begins with a review of the different
durability-oriented deterioration models and BMSs most commonly
used worldwide. It then introduces the basis of the proposed method­
ology, and includes an explanation of how the data included in BMSs can
be used to assess the damage of a set of structures. Finally, the procedure
is applied to a real set of RC bridges with the goal of predicting their
durability ageing.
After that, in Section 3, the statistical analysis of inspection data
presented in this paper is performed. First, the correlation between
different sources of damage evolution is evaluated to obtain a correla­
tion matrix that provides information about the concomitancy risk of
each damage. Secondly, a concomitancy coefficient is introduced in the
damage valuation to improve the precision of the prediction, according
to the results of the correlation analysis. Then, the parameters that
govern durability ageing prediction curves are statistically determined
to obtain the best adjustment of the curve to existing data and, therefore,
to maximize the precision of the prediction.
Finally, Section 4 illustrates the benefits of the proposed methodol­
ogy through its application to a determined set of bridges of the Spanish
BMS ‘AURA’ of the region of Navarra. In the end, the paper concludes
with the main findings of this work and some ideas for further
developments.
2. Methodology
2.1. Durability-oriented deterioration models
A large amount of different deterioration models has been proposed
during the last decades to assess the deterioration of RC structures in
terms of durability [16].
Deterministic methods like the established in international standards
ISO 15686–1 or ISO 15686–5 can be used to estimate the remaining life
of an asset based on previously defined factors (e.g., quality of
2
Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790
P0 Miyamoto’s model initial point, corresponding to t = 0 and
DPI = DPI0
P1 intermediate point of Miyamoto’s model, independent
from β, which separates low and medium risk time frames
P2 intermediate point of Miyamoto’s model, independent
from β, which separates medium and high-risk time frames
R Pearson correlation coefficient
{R} damages correlation matrix
Rj average Pearson correlation coefficient of a damage j
Rpq element of the matrix {R}, which stands for the Pearson
correlation coefficient resulting from the correlation
analysis of the damage p and the damage q
RC reinforced concrete
sx sample standard deviation
t time (years)
x sample mean value
β Miyamoto’s model exponent
βopt Miyamoto’s model exponent optimal value (which
provides the most reliable ageing prediction)
components, design level…), predicting values for measurable quanti­
ties [17]. Those methods apply to certain components and structural
typologies, and they are less suitable for the analysis of a whole set of
structures where many of the required factors are unknown. Moreover,
most deterministic methods do not count on deterioration models; they
are easy to apply but sometimes provide an excessive simplification of
complex phenomena. These models provide limited scope to investigate
the effects of uncertainty, and deterministic models are often used to
evaluate ‘worst case’ scenarios [1,18]. Other reference deterministic
deterioration models are proposed by van Noortwijk et al. [19], Matsuda
et al. [20], and Zhang et al. [21].
On the other hand, fully probabilistic methods consider structural
degradation as a stochastic process where the decay probability evolu­
tion over time is randomly defined and independent from its previous
evolution. This is the approach proposed by Frangopol et al. [22]. Sto­
chastic models use complex mathematical formulation tools as Markov
chains or Monte Carlo models in order to simulate, step by step, the
deterioration at every instant of time [23]. These procedures require
very large databases with a significant historical record of the behaviour
of each structural element. This aspect prevents the practical application
of these models as most BMSs does not count on so large historic data­
bases with enough detail to obtain precise and reliable results.
Furthermore, procedures based on the Markov chain show anomalous
behaviours at its lower levels, with ageing predictions ending towards
infinity due to the algorithms on which it is based [24,25]. Other limi­
tations of Markov chains are the model size when applied to large BMS
databases [26], and the fact that deterioration models based on this
method sometimes present cases which require expert judgement for an
appropriate modelling [22]. Other modelling approaches which have
been used for modelling bridge deterioration are Semi-Markov, Petri
Nets (PNs), and Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) [1].
An additional alternative is represented by the experimental
methods which are based on the analysis of actual and successive
representative samples of the condition of different structural elements
(e.g., concrete cores). The main goal consists in providing a series of data
which can be used to define an approximated theoretical model. How­
ever, the obtained formulas are mathematical approximations particu­
larized to each structural element which may not have a physical sense.
Many of these formulas are adjusted in laboratory conditions and their
applicability is therefore limited to those conditions, which may vary
with the analysed element, its location, and all its characteristics out of
P. Alonso Medina et al.
the laboratory. In summary, these procedures are also barely applicable
for the analysis of whole sets of bridges as they are based on an exces­
sively experimental approach. The most widely used experimental
methods for RC concrete condition testing are based on the measure­
ment of concrete compressive strength, ultrasonic pulse velocity, oxygen
permeability, water permeability, chloride ingress, or carbonation depth
[27,28].
Finally, analytical models are based on the combination of a set of
factors involved directly in the degradation of the assets. These methods
are based on a previous analysis of the main deterioration causes and on
an adjustment of the analytical solution, by comparison with databases
[4].
Analytical models are built on the analysis of the deterioration pro­
cess itself and differ from the empirical ones because they do not focus
on specific chemical processes. The parameters governing analytical
models are established as a result of the analysis of a certain database
[4], but they do not require large historic records such as fully proba­
bilistic methods, as no statistical simulations are required to establish
analytical model parameters [25]. However, the precision of the pa­
rameters considered in the analytical models must be analysed after­
wards, in order to check whether their values provide reliable results
when new data are added to the database. Examples of some widely sued
inspections-based analytical deterioration models are the proposals of
Miyamoto [29], Panestos et al. [30], and Bailey et al. [31].
As a main conclusion, each type of deterioration model has its
drawbacks and advantages, which define the optimal application for
each one of them. For the specific goal of this research, analytical models
can be considered as the most appropriate for the analyses of BMSs’
databases. As analytical models do not require large amounts of historic
data, they can be applied not only to the whole set of data included in the
BMS, but to specific sets and subsets of structures (e.g., specific bridge
typologies or certain elements) to obtain more accurate predictions of
their ageing process.
The most widely used analytical deterioration model for the pre­
diction of the ageing process of structures was proposed by Miyamoto
after a large inspection campaign carried out at the end of the 90 s on
reinforced concrete bridges built in the 60 s in Japan [29]. Miyamoto’s
model is empiric and has a clear physical sense, as it is based on field
data; it results easy to apply to different structural elements and
typologies.
As further confirmation of its advantages, the model of the ageing
process proposed by Miyamoto has been widely used in different
countries. For instance, the reference curve for the ageing process of the
Egnatia Motorway BMS in Greece is accurately approximated by the IRIS
project model [32,33]. In Italy, the Ministry of Transport Infrastructures
issued a Guide for the classification and management of the risk,
Table 1
Durability damages considered in the analysis, with the associated discrete range of values proposed by Ceccotti et al. [42].
Durability damage
D-01. Past damp concrete stains (no longer damp)
D-02. Damp concrete stains (still damp)
D-03. Concrete leaching / deterioration
D-04. Reinforcement cover loosening
D-05. Reinforcement corrosion
D-06. Map cracking
D-07. Horizontal cracking
D-08. Vertical cracking
D-09. Oblique cracking
D-10. Longitudinal cracking
D-11. Transverse cracking
D-12. Outer reinforcement corrosion
D-13. Badly executed previous repairs
D-14. Prestressed reinforcement cover loosening
D-15. Damp stains in prestressed reinforcement
D-16. Corroded/non-covered reinforcement in extreme faces
Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790
security, and monitoring of bridges based on this model [34]. Moreover,
there are experiences of its applicability not only to reinforced concrete
bridges but also to steel or masonry bridges [24,25].
2.2. Bridge Management systems
Based on the data included in BMSs, a numerical estimation of the
condition of the bridges included in the BMSs can be obtained. Some
examples of well-known BMSs are the AASHTOWare Bridge Manage­
ment software (United States), formerly Pontis, the KUBA (Switzerland),
the OBMS Ontario Bridge Management System (Canada), the QBMS
Quebec Bridge Management System (Canada) [35,36], the reliability-
based life-cycle Management System proposed by Frangopol et al.
[37], or the proposals of Chiaramonte and Gattulli [38], Helmerich et al.
[39] and Roelfstra et al. [40].
The methodology proposed in this paper is explained through its
application on the ‘AURA’ BMS, which includes 1704 roadway bridges
located in the region of Navarra (Spain). The region is organized in 7
different conservation areas with different particularities; one of these
areas, including 298 bridges, has been finally selected for the applica­
tion of the procedure.
The analysed conservation area is located at an average elevation of
455 m above sea level, and it is defined by the following climatological
annual parameters: 12.5 ◦ C of average temperature (avg. min. 7.5 ◦ C -
avg. max. 17.5 ◦ C), 788.2 mm of average precipitation, 126.2 raining
days and 38.4 freezing days (values calculated with all available data
until 2020 included). According to Köppen climate classification, the
representative climate of the studied conservation area is Cf2b (oceanic
climate with 2 dry months), a mild climate which means a transition
climate between the pure oceanic climate, without dry months, and the
Mediterranean climate. This conservation area is located c. 60 km away
from the coast. However, due to the low temperatures registered during
winter season, de-icing salts are applied in roads and highways [41].
The analysed BMS provides a numerical quantification of each in­
spection carried out in the bridges, and it is defined as follows. The in­
spection damage ID (Equation (1)) is calculated as the weighted sum of
all damages detected in a field inspection, where G represents the weight
(importance) of a certain damage, K1 and K2 stand for, respectively, its
extent and its intensity, for the number of elements i to n affected by
each type of damage j of a list of m:
∑
n ∑
m
ID = (G⋅K1 ⋅K2 ) (1)
i=1 j=1
The analysed BMS includes bridges made of all materials and ty­
pologies. Therefore, its database includes damages only applicable to
Weight (G) Extent (K1) Intensity (K2)
1 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–1.0
4 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–1.0
2 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–1.0
2 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–1.0
5 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0
1 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–1.0
2 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0
2 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0
5 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0
2 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0
5 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0
3 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0
1 0.0–1.0 0.0–1.0
5 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0
2 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–1.0
2 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0 0.0–0.2–0.5–1.0
3
P. Alonso Medina et al. Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790

certain structural materials. For example, defects in painting, welding, the sample standard deviation and x indicates the value of the suspected
or bolts can only be associated with steel bridges, while damages in outlier:
ashlars, bricks, or effects such as stone sandblasting can only be asso­
|x − x|
ciated with masonry bridges. Moreover, the BMS damage register in­ x± (2)
sx
cludes not only durability damages, but also those arising from
structural or even functional causes (such as broken handrails or After applying Chauvenet’s criterion, 350 inspections of 203 non-
streetlamps with broken bulbs). repaired RC bridges remained satisfactory to carry out the data anal­
This paper focuses only on RC bridges, and it has been explained that ysis. Those inspections are presented in Fig. 1, which shows the ages and
not all damages included in the BMS are associated with concrete ele­ typologies of the RC bridges’ inspections available for the data analysis.
ments or related to durability deterioration. In order to carry out the
assessment of RC bridges’ performance under environmental aggres­
2.3. Durability performance assessment of RC bridges
siveness for its ageing prediction, only the damages listed in Table 1
have been considered to calculate the durability inspection damage ID
The performance under environment aggressiveness associated with
values. Damages listed in Table 1 are only those included within the BMS
each one of the 350 inspections is evaluated through a Durability Per­
database which are related to durability, and which are applicable to RC
formance Index DPI. Since each BMS could have its own numerical
bridges.
damage evaluation system, it is necessary to define a relative common
The inspection damage ID is determined for each inspection included
index. This relative index could be used to evaluate the performance of
in the reference BMS according to Equation (1). CoefficientsG, K1 and K2
each structure under environment aggressiveness regardless of the
are defined in the BMS to adopt only one of the discrete values listed in
damage evaluation adopted by each BMS. Here, the Durability Perfor­
Table 1, according to the proposal of Ceccotti et al. [42].
mance Index DPI is defined by Equation (3). For a certain BMS, ID stands
As mentioned before, the starting database included 298 bridges,
for the Inspection Damage of each inspection (calculated according to
which were further filtered in order to consider only RC structures. First,
Equation (1) for the damages listed in Table 1), and IDmax stands for the
timber, steel and masonry bridges were dismissed because only RC are
maximum ID value of each of all the inspections registered in the
analysed within the scope of this research. In a second stage, it was
Management System, once the atypical values were dismissed [43].
detected that the database included RC bridges in which there were
elements made of other materials (such as masonry piers, steel decks or ID
DPI = 1 − (3)
masonry parapets). Those bridges were also dismissed from the analysis. IDmax
In addition, neither RC elements of non-RC bridges nor repaired RC
Obviously, the DPI is always in a range between 0 and 1, what makes
bridges were considered since their behaviour is prone to be different
possible the analysis of the results of all inspections as a whole. Never­
from the original one. Furthermore, only inspection records of bridges
theless, it is to be reminded that the DPI is calculated for each inspection
with an age not larger than 30 years have been analysed. Available re­
of each bridge, since results of different inspections are not comparable
sults of inspections carried out in older bridges were limited, as a
as not always the same damages are detected in all inspections.
considerable number of them correspond to RC elements located in non-
Thus, the value of the DPI is equal to 1 in the ideal situation of no
RC bridges or in repaired RC bridges.
durability damage identified in the inspection while it is equal to 0 if
Given that inspections can be affected by human errors, inspections
complete durability damage were identified in the inspection. Logically,
whose durability inspection damage ID could be considered atypical
those extreme values of 0 and 1 are not likely to be obtained in any real
were rejected in order to avoid rather aberrant results. Chauvenet’s
case. It is to be kept in mind that the DPI analysed in this paper is
criterion was applied in order to reject inspections with out-of-order
exclusively related to durability. Thus, leakage of water, rust spots,
results [43]. This criterion is based on an acceptation probability band
typical cracking pattern induced by rust or corrosion evidence, as well as
of data centred respect to the mean value of a normal distribution.
concrete degradation due to sulphate attack, scaling due to de-icing
Equation (2) describes it, where x stands for the sample mean value, sx is
agents, etc. are examples of symptoms associated with durability. As it

Fig. 1. Description of the set of non-repaired RC bridges’ inspections available for the data analysis.

4
P. Alonso Medina et al.
may be derived, degradation of durability conditions is globally
considered in this approach throughout this DPI, not making use of
rather conventional models to predict carbonation depth or chloride
contents. The DPI relative approach described in this paper allows
considering different types of damage together with the same durability
index, which is in line with Miyamoto’s model.
The evolution of the DPI over time is fitted by the Expression (4),
proposed by Miyamoto [29], in which the parameters a and b define the
deterioration curve:
DPI(t) = b − a⋅t4 (4)
In that expression, the parameter b stands for the initial DPI value, as
shown by Equation (5), which is usually taken equal to 1 assuming that
there are no construction defaults implying threats to durability (how­
ever, experience shows that this is often not true).
DPI(t) = DPI 0 − a⋅t4 (5)
The time t is referred to the time of the inspection, expressed in years
after the bridge construction.
It is to be noticed that the use of Equation (4) as a general evolution
law of the DPI is independent of the studied geographical region or its
environmental conditions. Parameters a and b may be derived after
proper fitting. Even the exponent 4 could be derived similarly.
Miyamoto’s expression allows the user to carry out the linear sta­
tistical and correlation analysis presented in this paper. This is a relevant
benefit of this model, especially useful when considering its applicability
to the analysis of BMS databases. To convert Miyamoto’s expression into
a linear equivalent expression and, therefore, to perform a linear anal­
ysis, the following change of variable is proposed (Equation (6)).
( √̅̅)
z = t4 →DPI 4 z = DPI0 − a⋅z (6)
This expression defines the equation of a straight line, with a
regression coefficient a ; the initial value DPI0 can be easily obtained
once the exponent β is established. The Pearson correlation coefficient
can be used to quantify the precision of the linear ageing prediction
using the obtained parameters.
The Pearson correlation coefficient R, calculated as shown by
Equation (7), is employed to test the existing correlation between two
variables x and y, where mx and my stand for the mean values of the data
series of each variable.
∑
(x − mx )⋅(y − my )
R = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ (7)
∑ ∑
(x − mx )2 ⋅ (y − my )2
Fig. 2. Best fit-linear regression of inspections DPI values after the change of variable.
5
Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790
The Pearson correlation coefficient is equal to 0 in the situation of no
correlation at all, and it is equal to 1 in the situation of perfect corre­
lation. As stated in the specialized statistical literature [44], values
larger than 0.40 reveal a moderate correlation, while a strong correla­
tion can be accepted from values higher than 0.60.
Based on the DPI values of the available inspections, the best-fit
durability damage deterioration line can be obtained for each RC
bridge typology.
The deterioration curve of the RC slab bridge typology has been
calculated in this paper using the defined BMS database as an example of
the application of the methodology, as this is the typology with a larger
number of bridges included within the database, as shown in Fig. 1. The
same procedure can be extended to other typologies, sets, or subsets of
bridges included within the BMS considered [43]. Fig. 2 illustrates the
best fit-linear regression of inspections’ DPI, allowing to obtain the value
of the coefficients DPI0 and a.
A Pearson correlation coefficient R of 0.67 has been obtained; it in­
dicates that the linear correlation of the existing data is strong enough to
predict the most probable durability deterioration curve for RC slab
bridges within the analysed conservation area.
Applying the reverse change of variable defined in Equation (6), the
linear expression of the deterioration of RC slab bridges is converted into
the original exponential expression, shown in Fig. 3.
Discrete points shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 correspond to the average
DPI values observed at each age during inspections for the analysed RC
bridge typology (slab bridges), according to the available database as
shown in Fig. 1.
As explained in Section 2.2, only non-repaired RC bridges are ana­
lysed in this paper, as deterioration rates of repaired bridges are prone to
differ from the results obtained for non-repaired RC bridges. In the
analysed database, no inspections were available for non-repaired
bridges older than 30 years. As time goes by, the age of bridges in­
creases, and it is unlikely that older bridges are not repaired as a matter
of priority. Thus, deterioration curves are statistically adjusted to the
existing data; for older ages and until the estimated end of their
remaining lifespan, it is assumed that deterioration will keep evolving in
the same way as it has done so far for the bridges analysed.
However, the following considerations should be pointed out.
Although the prediction of the deterioration is extended to the estimated
end of the structures’ lifespan, that point will never be reached in
practice, since it would imply the collapse of the structure. As explained
later in this paper, thresholds can be established based on deterioration
curves to determine when maintenance or repair works should be per­
formed. These works would modify deterioration curves and for this
P. Alonso Medina et al.
Fig. 3. Durability deterioration most probable curve of RC slab bridges under the analysed environment aggressiveness.
reason, in the case of repaired bridges, an independent analysis must be
performed.
Furthermore, the deterioration prediction curves shown in this paper
are those calculated from the existing databases. As time goes by, the age
of inspected bridges will increase, and deterioration curves could be
periodically updated to achieve better long-term predictions. However,
a total precision can never be achieved nearing the end of lifespan, as it
is highly unlikely to count on bridge inspections in that situation, as
bridges would be at high risk of collapse.
3. Statistical analysis
This Section presents different statistical analyses performed using
the inspection database of RC bridges included in the reference BMS.
The main goal consists in providing a highly reliable methodology to
predict the structures’ ageing evolution over time, based on the pro­
cedure detailed in Section 2.
First, the correlation between the evolution of different durability
damages over time has been quantified, and then, a coefficient that
weighs each damage according to its concomitance probability has been
introduced in the inspection evaluation system. Finally, a statistical
calculation has been performed to identify and calibrate all the ageing
model parameters which provide the best correlation for the existing
data.
3.1. Assessment of the existing correlation between different damages’
evolution
The durability damage of a set of structures at a certain age is
quantified by its inspection damage ID according to Equation (1) as the
sum of each damage valuation. The inspection damage ID grows as
durability damages considered in Table 1 increase in extent and in­
tensity over time.
However, not all durability damages evolve in the same way as its
origin and extent are subject to different deterioration chemical mech­
anisms and reactions, such as carbonation, chloride ingress, aggregate-
alkali reaction, etc. A correlation analysis has been performed to iden­
tify the probability of concurrence over time between different dura­
bility damages.
The correlation analysis is a statistical method used to evaluate the
strength of the relationship between two variables. A high correlation
means that the variables have a strong relationship with each other,
while a weak correlation indicates that the variables are hardly related.
In other words, it is the process of analysing the strength of that
6
Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790
relationship with available statistical data.
The correlation between durability damages has been evaluated with
the Pearson correlation coefficient R, which measures the linear
dependence between the evolution over time of the different durability
damages, compared two by two.
The evolution over time of the damages listed in Table 1 has been
compared two by two and the Pearson correlation coefficient R has been
obtained for each comparison. Damages D-13 to D-16 have not been
considered as not enough data were included in the reference BMS.
As an example, the correlation analysis between damages D-03
(concrete leaching and deterioration) and D-04 (reinforcement cover
loosening) is explained in more detail in this Section. The same pro­
cedure has been followed for the rest of the correlation analyses
performed.
The average evaluation of each damage, calculated as G⋅K1 ⋅K2 ac­
cording to Equation (1), has been obtained for the set of RC slab bridges
of the BMS at each age. A different value has been obtained at each age,
showing the evolution of the analysed damage over time. To perform the
correlation analysis, damage values corresponding to the same age have
been paired. Fig. 4 shows the result of the correlation analysis of dam­
ages D-03 and D-04, where each point represents the damage value (see
different axes) at the same age for the two different damages studied. In
this case, the calculated Pearson correlation coefficient is equal to 0.84,
indicating a very strong correlation in the evolution over time of the
compared damages.
The result of this correlation proves the physical sense of the anal­
ysis. In this case, as concrete deteriorates, its quality, strength and
adherence decrease, and the reinforcement embedded into this concrete
is prone to lose its cover due to mechanical or chemical processes that
may affect the reinforcement. The result of the correlation analysis of
these two damages is, as advanced, R = 0.84, which reveals a very strong
correlation between the presence of these two damages over time. In
other words, concomitancy between those two damages is very high.
The same correlation analysis has been carried out for each pair of
damages, combining the available inspection data of all durability
damages listed in Table 1, two by two. Results are presented in the
correlation matrix {R} shown in Fig. 5, where each element Rpq stands
for the Pearson correlation coefficient resulting from the correlation
analysis of the damage p and the damage q. Matrix {R} is symmetric,
being Rp=q,q=p always equal to 1. When not enough data were available
to carry out the correlation analysis of two damages, no value (-) is
indicated in the corresponding element of the matrix {R}.
There are some durability damages which exhibit a high correlation
over time with other durability damages, such as damages D-03
P. Alonso Medina et al.
Fig. 4. Correlation analysis between the damages D-03 (concrete leaching and deterioration) and D-04 (reinforcement cover loosening) for RC slab bridges.
(concrete leaching and deterioration), D-04 (reinforcement cover loos­
ening), and D-06 (map cracking). Those durability damages are highly
correlated with others because there are many possible causes for their
origin. Moreover, they are indicative of the general deterioration of
concrete, which can reduce concrete tensile strength or accelerate
chloride ingress, among others, inducing the existence of other damages.
Therefore, those durability damages show a high concomitancy proba­
bility to appear together with other damages.
Fig. 6 shows a photograph of one of the RC bridges analysed within
the ‘AURA’ database. This photograph is an example of the combined
action of chloride corrosion and concrete deterioration due to crystal­
lisation of de-icing salts.
The photograph clearly shows the concomitance of some of the
damages included in the correlation matrix {R} shown in Fig. 5. For
example, it shows the high concomitancy between the reinforcement
cover loosening (D-04) and the reinforcement corrosion (D-05), which
in this case is caused by chloride ingress. The correlation between these
damages is 89%, according to the element R45 of the matrix. Moreover,
the photograph also reveals the high concomitancy between the rein­
forcement cover loosening (D-04) and the concrete deterioration (D-03),
which in this case is caused by de-icing salts. The correlation between
these damages is 84%, according to the element R43 of the matrix.
On the other hand, there are some durability damages which, in
general terms, are poorly correlated over time with other durability
damages, such as the damages D-01 (past damp concrete stains, no
longer damp), D-02 (damp concrete stains, still damp), D-08 (vertical
cracking), and D-12 (corroded/non-covered reinforcement in extreme
faces).
In the case of past damp concrete stains which are no longer damp
(D-01), the bad correlation with other damages can be related to the fact
that these durability damages are mostly caused by functional damages
(e.g., broken drainage), but the reparation or reposition of the functional
elements of a bridge does not imply the removal of the existing stains in
the concrete surface; they remain in the bridge and are recorded in
future inspections together with other damages but are not related to
them.
Vertical cracking is not highly correlated to other damages as this
damage is mainly located in piers and vertical elements. Finally,
corroded or non-covered reinforcement in end faces (initial and final
cross sections of an RC element such as a beam or a slab) is a durability
7
Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790
damage mainly related to the execution of the element. Therefore, as
expected, these durability damages show a low concomitancy proba­
bility to appear together with other damages.
An equivalent analysis can be performed following the same meth­
odology for other typologies or sets of structures. The correlation be­
tween damages is used to define the concomitancy coefficients, as
explained in Section 3.2.
3.2. Concomitancy coefficients for better ageing prediction adjustment
A higher concomitancy probability of a certain damage appearing
together with other damages reflects the riskiness of that damage, as its
presence is an indicator of the potential existence of other damages.
When carrying out an on-site inspection, it is crucial to know what
damages are more dangerous in terms of concomitancy with other
damages. Therefore, more attention to detail must be required to in­
spectors since the presence of these damages may reveal the existence of
other damages which perhaps are not visible if they are located in hid­
den elements, or they are in a less advanced stage.
Moreover, damage concomitancy risk must be considered in the
analysis of the inspection databases. In fact, ID values of inspections with
a larger number of highly concomitant durability damages should be
more severe since the damage risk is higher.
In order to evaluate the concomitancy risk of each durability dam­
age, the average Pearson correlation coefficient Rj has been calculated
for each damage j. It is calculated as the average value of the elements of
the same row or column of the correlation matrix {R} shown in Fig. 5
(the main diagonal is not considered). The results of this analysis are
shown in Table 2.
Therefore, to consider the concomitancy risk of each durability
damage j, a concomitancy coefficient Cj is proposed in this paper,
defined as follows:
Cj = A⋅Rj (8)
The value of the constant A must be defined to calculate a con­
comitancy coefficient C, coherent with the importance coefficient G
already considered in Equation (1). In this case, as coefficient G can
adopt a value between 1 and 5 and the Pearson correlation coefficient
ranges from 0 to 1, the value of the constant A has been taken equal to 5,
obtaining the values shown in Table 2. The values marked with an
P. Alonso Medina et al. Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790

Fig. 5. Durability damages’ correlation matrix {R} for the analysed durability damages among the ones listed in Table 1.

Fig. 6. Real example of concomitant durability damages (obtained from the ‘AURA’ BMS damage catalogue).

8
P. Alonso Medina et al.
Table 2
Average Pearson correlation coefficient (R) and concomitancy coefficient (C) of each durability damage
Durability damage Average Pearson coefficient (R)
D-01. Past damp concrete stains (no longer damp) 0.56
D-02. Damp concrete stains (still damp) 0.25
D-03. Concrete leaching / deterioration 0.66
D-04. Reinforcement cover loosening 0.65
D-05. Reinforcement corrosion 0.47
D-06. Map cracking 0.77
D-07. Horizontal cracking 0.57
D-08. Vertical cracking 0.45
D-09. Oblique cracking 0.47
D-10. Longitudinal cracking 0.82
D-11. Transverse cracking 0.60
D-12. Outer reinforcement corrosion 0.41
D-13. Badly executed previous repairs 0.50*
D-14. Prestressed reinforcement cover loosening 0.50*
D-15. Damp stains in prestressed reinforcement 0.50*
D-16. Corroded/non-covered reinforcement in extreme faces 0.50*
asterisk correspond to the cases when not enough data were available in
the reference BMS to carry out correlation analyses of these damages (i.
e., no value (-) is indicated in the corresponding elements of the matrix
{R}). Therefore, an intermediate Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.50
– between 0 (no correlation) and 1 (total correlation) – has been
considered so as not to affect further results.
Consequently, the Equation (1), used to quantify the damage of a
certain inspection, is transformed into the Equation (9) when consid­
ering the concomitancy coefficient C of each damage.
∑ Therefore, it can be concluded that the whole Miyamoto’s ageing
m ∑
n
ID = (G⋅C⋅K1 ⋅K2 ) (9)
i=1 j=1
Following the methodology already explained in Section 2.3 for the
determination of the ageing prediction curve parameters, but now tak­
ing into account the concomitancy coefficient C, a Pearson correlation
coefficient of 0.77 is obtained (this coefficient was 0.67 without the
concomitancy coefficient). Therefore, as main finding, the consideration
of the concomitancy coefficient C in the damage valuation of inspections
led to an increase of 15% in the precision of the analysed typology
ageing prediction curve.
3.3. Statistical determination of ageing prediction curves
Given a BMS database, the parameters a and DPI0 of the Miyamoto’s
deterioration model can be easily obtained by performing a linear
regression analysis using the change of variable defined in Equation (6).
The parameters obtained provide the best statistical adjustment to the
existing data. Moreover, the statistical correlation analysis carried out
with the damage valuation database of the BMS resulted in the need for
the consideration of the concomitancy coefficient C to enhance the
precision of the durability deterioration prediction of RC structures.
However, there is still a source of uncertainty in the prediction of the
durability ageing performed, which is the Miyamoto’s model exponent
β.
Initially, this coefficient β was taken as 4 according to Miyamoto’s
model original proposal [29]. This exponent is of great importance as it
defines the shape of the deterioration curve, and it is highly affected by
structural material, maintenance, environmental conditions, traffic in­
tensity, and many other internal and external factors of bridges. How­
ever, no calculation method has been proposed yet to define the proper
value of Miyamoto’s exponent in each case, apart from some recom­
mended values included in scientific literature [32,45–47].
In this paper, a statistical method is proposed for the quantification
of the optimum exponent β for a determined set of structures with the
same characteristics.
Miyamoto’s ageing model can be converted into a regression line
with the change of variable (Equation (10)), which can be generalized
9
Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790
Concomitancy coefficient (C)
2.78
1.24
3.30
3.26
2.35
3.84
2.85
2.27
2.33
4.12
2.98
2.07
2.50*
2.50*
2.50*
2.50*
for any value of the Miyamoto’s exponent β.
(√̅̅)
z = tβ →DPI β z = DPI0 − a⋅z (10)
As the value of the variable z depends on the value of the exponent β,
parameters a and DPI0 obtained from the linear regression analysis of
the straight line defined by the change of variable (10) are also depen­
dent on β, as expressed by Equation (11).
DPI = DPI 0 (β) − a(β)⋅z(β)= DPI0 (β) − a(β)⋅tβ →DPI = DPI(β) (11)
model depends on the parameter β, which paradoxically has been his­
torically established without proper fitting analysis.
Since parameters a and DPI0 depend on the change of variable
(Equation (10)), different values of β would result in different values of
those parameters.
The precision of the regression line defined by a and DPI0 is
measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Therefore, different
values of β would result in higher or lower values of the Pearson cor­
relation coefficient depending on the adjustment of the regression line
(Equation (10)) to the existing data.
If a sensitivity analysis is performed for different values of the
exponent β, the optimum value of βopt which provides the best adjust­
ment of the model to the existing database, and, therefore, defines the
best ageing prediction of a defined set of structures, is obtained. This is
illustrated in Fig. 7 where the results of the sensitivity analysis per­
formed with the RC slab bridge data included in the reference BMS are
plotted.
The optimum value of the exponent βopt can be obtained for each of
the groups of structures considered in a BMS (according to their mate­
rial, typology, etc.) performing sensitivity analysis for different values in
the linear expression resulting from Equation (10), taking as a control
parameter the value of the Pearson correlation coefficient obtained in
each case. The exponent β resulting in the highest Pearson correlation
coefficient is the optimum exponent βopt = 2.60 which provides the most
reliable ageing prediction for a set of structures with the same charac­
teristics and exposed to the same external conditions.
In the case of the reference BMS, the sensitivity statistical analysis for
the determination of the exponent β, together with the consideration of
the concomitancy coefficient C in the damage valuation of inspections,
has enhanced the precision of the ageing prediction curve in 18% (now
R = 0.79).
A summary of the improvement process of the durability deteriora­
tion curve for the reference BMS is contained in Table 3.
The difference between the original ageing prediction curve (refer­
ence case) and the improved ageing prediction curve (i.e., considering
concomitancy coefficient C and optimum exponent βopt ) are graphically
P. Alonso Medina et al. Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790

Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis of the Miyamoto’s model exponent β for the determination of the optimum value βopt.

Table 3
Parameters of the durability deterioration curve of the analysed BMS RC slab bridges for the different levels considered for prediction adjustment.
Ageing prediction level of adjustment A DPI0 β Precision (%) Precision growth (%)

Reference case 2.0364 ⋅ 10-7 0.9418 4.00 67 % –

Considering C 3.3942 ⋅ 10-7 0.9463 4.00 77 % + 15 %
Considering C and β optimization 3.6125 ⋅ 10-5 0.9613 2.60 79 % + 18 %

illustrated in Fig. 8.
As a main conclusion, the improved ageing prediction modelling
methodology proposed in this paper leads to higher precision in the
determination of the most probable durability deterioration curve of a
certain set of RC bridges. As it is shown in Fig. 8, the precision of the
ageing modelling highly affects both the shape of the deterioration curve
and also the quantification of the lifespan of the analysed RC bridges.
The relevance of a proper definition of the Miyamoto’s exponent β is
shown in Fig. 9, where different curves corresponding to several values
of β are drawn. The choice of a βopt instead of a value fixed by the
technical literature has a relevant influence to enhance the precision of
the durability ageing forecast.

Fig. 8. Durability deterioration most probable curve of analysed RC slab bridges, according to the original prediction and the improved prediction methodology.

10
P. Alonso Medina et al. Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790

Fig. 9. Influence of the exponent β in the ageing modelling of the analysed BMS RC slab bridges.

Fig. 10. Risk time frames defining the most probable durability ageing curve of the analysed BMS RC slab bridges.

Once the most probable ageing curve is identified for the different
typologies, sets, or subsets of RC structures, acceptance thresholds can
be defined to establish ranges of ages for maintenance, reparation, or
refurbishment works [48].
As shown in Fig. 9, the value of the exponent β has a great influence
on the deterioration rate forecasting, especially in the last half of the
lifespan curve. However, independently from the value of the exponent
β considered to model the ageing curve, as shown by Fig. 10, there are
two points (P1 and P2 ) which are not affected by β. In fact, all possible
deterioration curves cross these points, which can be obtained per­
forming the sensitivity analysis of the exponent β previously defined.
The coordinates of points P1 and P2 depend on the data set or subset to
be analysed. However, these points will always be fixed for each ana­
lysed data set, regardless of the trajectory of the model for that data.

Table 4
Risk time frames defining the durability ageing curves
Time frame Damage evolution Average annual deterioration rate Frequency of inspections Maintenance required Investment required

1 Low 0–1% Low Preventive maintenance Low

2 Medium 1 – 10 % Medium Corrective maintenance Medium
3 High 10 – 100 % High Repair or refurbishment High

11
P. Alonso Medina et al.
The definition of these points allows to divide the ageing prediction
model into three different regions or time frames with different deteri­
oration risk. From P0 to P1 , the ageing curve is quasi-horizontal, and the
deterioration rate is rather insignificant. The annual average deterio­
ration rate during that interval is equal to 0.20% for the set of bridges
analysed in this paper; this means that in case of assuming that the curve
is linear from point P0 to point P1 , the DPI would decrease by 0.20% per
year.
On the other hand, the annual average deterioration rate from P1 to
P2 is equal to 1.30%, while from P2 it reaches, logically, 100% since the
lifespan end is achieved at the end of this period. Of course, for practical
purposes, the lifespan shall be achieved once DPI lies beneath a given
threshold value.
The deterioration rate in each period is one order of magnitude
larger than in the previous period. Therefore, three clear different time
intervals can be distinguished in terms of deterioration risk, as shown in
Table 4. To a higher deterioration risk corresponds a higher inspection
frequency and a larger investment is necessary for maintenance and
reparations.
The point P2 defines the age and DPI which, once overtaken, may
lead to a high durability risk, since the deterioration rate growth in­
creases exponentially from then on and repair projects are started to be
required. Therefore, the point P2 is proposed to be used as the damage
threshold of the durability deterioration model.
Fig. 11 shows a photograph of the same element of one RC bridge at
two different times, five years apart. In 2004, the level of damage was
still in incipient state, which corresponds to a medium risk (time frame
2) according to Table 4, since corrective maintenance would have been
necessary. It would have been too late for a preventive maintenance
strategy (appropriated for time frame 1). In the case of the structure
shown in Fig. 11, no corrective measures were taken, and five years later
the level of damage had evolved to the situation observed in 2009. In
that case, the risk was then high and repair works were required.
4. Conclusions and further research
This paper presented a sound and reliable procedure to determine
the deterioration evolution of different typologies of RC bridges under
specific environment aggressiveness conditions. An accurate definition
of the ageing curve is essential to provide reliable information about the
deterioration rate at each age. Furthermore, it is crucial to prioritize
inspections and establish acceptance criteria to identify the structures
which require reparation works with more urgency.
The main findings of this research are:
• A damage correlation analysis resulting in a correlation matrix is
essential to provide information about how a set of RC structures
deteriorate.
Fig. 11. Real example of deterioration risk time frames (obtained from the ‘AURA’ BMS damage catalogue).
12
Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790
• The consideration of the concomitancy coefficient C in the damage
evaluation of inspections led to an increase of 15% in the precision of
the analysed typology ageing prediction curve.
• If a sensitivity statistical analysis is performed to estimate the best
exponent β, the precision of the ageing prediction curve increases up
to 18%.
• There are two points (P1 and P2 ) not affected by the value of β; in
fact, all possible deterioration curves cross these points.
• The definition of these two points allows to divide the ageing pre­
diction model into three different regions or time intervals with
different deterioration risk. The deterioration rate in each period is
one order of magnitude larger than in the previous period.
• The point P2 can be used as the damage threshold of the durability
deterioration model.
• In summary, the methodology for the determination of durability
ageing behavioural patterns may constitute the basis for the imple­
mentation of durability monitoring devices and systems (e.g., pH,
potential, or cracking gauges).
The methodology proposed in this paper has been applied to a set of
298 roadway RC bridges, located in the Spanish region of Navarra. Thus,
the results presented in this paper are only applicable to the analysed set
of bridges. However, the same methodology can be extended to other
sets of bridges subject to completely different aggressive environments.
As an example, Miyamoto’s model was initially applied to sets on Jap­
anese bridges [29], and it is now applied in countries like Greece and
Italy [33,34]. The value of the proposal described in this paper does not
lie in the particular results obtained through its application to a certain
case, but in the criteria defined for its generalization and application to
any other environment, obtaining, logically, different results for each set
of bridges analysed.
The same methodology can be also applied to other sets of data, not
only considering different bridge typologies, but also different bridge
elements (decks, piers, abutments, etc.), since certain RC elements show
far more severe deterioration than other elements, and critical condi­
tions may get lost in the aggregate assessment of the deterioration of the
full bridge. However, further research is still needed to expand the
methodology to assist predictions on an element level.
On the other hand, the proposed methodology can be applied to the
inspections database of the BMS as a whole. In that case, the obtained
deterioration curves would be representative of the whole set of bridges
managed under the BMS. The larger the analysed set of bridges, the more
representative the deterioration curves and conclusions obtained will be
for a higher number of structures, what facilitates management plan­
ning. However, to a more heterogeneous set of analysed bridges corre­
spond a lower accuracy of the deterioration predictions.
In this paper, a detailed analysis of one RC bridge typology has been
carried out with the information included in the reference database to
illustrate the application of the proposed methodology. Equivalent
P. Alonso Medina et al.
deterioration curves can be obtained applying this methodology to other
RC bridge typologies, such as RC girder bridges [43]. Moreover, besides
this paper shows a refinement of Miyamoto’s model for RC bridges, the
use of the original model has been tested in masonry and steel structures.
In the case of masonry structures, the research of Tena et al. [24] in­
cludes a real example of application in masonry bridges. The approach
of the methodology proposed in this paper is, therefore, valid for its
extension to other materials and types of structures, although the pre­
cision of the model fit in these cases should be evaluated following the
criteria described in this paper.
The main consideration regarding the application of this model to
other structural materials, such as steel or masonry, lies in the definition
of the damages to be observed and quantified during inspections
(Table 1). Ceccotti et al. [42] defined a proposal for durability damages
associated with masonry, steel and timber structures, but other pro­
posals can be designed according to the specific characteristics of the
bridges included within the BMS to be assessed.
Besides, the curves shown in this paper are only applicable to non-
repaired bridges. Since the deterioration evolution of repaired bridges
may differ significantly from the behaviour of non-repaired bridges, an
equivalent analysis of repaired bridges could be performed. This
research line will become an increasing priority, since as time goes by,
more and more bridges will be repaired, especially the older ones, and
their deterioration patterns will also have to be identified.
It should be also noted that the estimation of the deterioration curves
and remaining lifespan of existing bridges is based on the evaluation of
the effects of progressive deterioration. Thus, durability-oriented dete­
rioration models do not model sudden deterioration as a result of haz­
ards such as earthquakes, floods and fires, amongst others. However, the
modelling of durability deterioration may provide an approximate idea
of how vulnerable a structure may be to sudden deterioration [1].
The deterioration curves obtained according to the explained
methodology can also be useful to choose the optimum RC typology of
new bridges built under the analysed environment aggressiveness con­
ditions. In fact, if the typology with slower durability deterioration
(which implies a higher lifespan) is chosen for new RC bridges, the
lifespan will be the highest and the associated maintenance costs the
lowest possible. In this sense, a future research line consists in linking
the DPI index with maintenance costs, so that bridge deterioration could
be measured not only on a relative scale (from 0 to 1), but on an eco­
nomic scale in monetary units (dollars, euros…).
Any durability monitoring smart system should be able to predict the
deterioration of all bridges included in the Management System, and not
only the instrumented ones. Once the most probable deterioration
pattern (curve) of each RC bridge typology has been obtained, it is
necessary to identify the bridges whose behaviour is closer to those
representative ageing curves of typology. Therefore, if representative
bridges of each typology are selected properly, results provided by a
durability monitoring system installed in these bridges will be repre­
sentative of the behaviour of the whole typology of bridges.
5. Data availability statement
The data that support the analyses and findings of this study belong
to the BMS ‘AURA’ of the Government of Navarra (Spain), and they are
not publicly available.
Declaration of Competing 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.
13
Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790
References:
[1] G. Calvert, L. Neves, J. Andrews, M. Hamer, Multi-defect modelling of bridge
deterioration using truncated inspection records, Reliability Engineering and
Stability Safety (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.106962.
[2] C. Li, M. Wu, Q. Chen, Z. Jiang, Chemical and mineralogical alterations of concrete
subjected to chemical attacks in complex underground tunnel environments during
20–36 years, Cement and Concrete Composites 86 (2018) 139–159, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.11.007.
[3] C. Li, Q. Chen, R. Wang, M. Wu, Z. Jiang, Corrosion assessment of reinforced
concrete structures exposed to chloride environments in underground tunnels:
Theoretical insights and practical data interpretations, Cement and Concrete
Composites 112 (2020), 103652, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2020.103652.
[4] D.M. Frangopol, Y. Dong, S. Sabatino, Bridge life-cycle performance and cost:
analysis, prediction, optimisation and decision-making, Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering 13 (10) (2017) 1239–1257, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15732479.2016.1267772.
[5] P.D. DeStefano, D.A. Grivas, Method for estimating transition probability in bridge
deterioration models, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 4 (2) (1998) 56–62,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1076-0342(1998)4:2(56).
[6] J.M. van Noortwijk, H.E. Klatter, The use of lifetime distributions in bridge
maintenance and replacement modelling, Computers and Structures 82 (13–14)
(2004) 1091–1099, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.03.013.
[7] J. Sobanjo, P. Mtenga, M. Rambo-Roddenberry, Reliability-Based Modeling of
Bridge Deterioration Hazards, Journal of Bridge Engineering 15 (6) (2010)
671–683, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000074.
[8] A.K. Agrawal, A. Kawaguchi, Z. Chen, Deterioration Rates of Typical Bridge
Elements in New York, Journal of Bridge Engineering 15 (4) (2010) 419–429,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000123.
[9] N. K. W. Wellalage, T. Zhang and R. Dwight, “Modified Weibull Approach to
Deterioration Modelling: An Application to Bridge Elements,” in Second
International Conference on Advances In Civil, Structural and Mechanical Egineering -
CSM 2014, 2014.
[10] N.R. Buenfeld, R.D. Davies, A. Karimi, A.L. Gilbertson, Intelligent monitoring of
concrete structures, CIRIA, London, 2008.
[11] J. Schlaich and D. Weischede, “Ein praktisches Verfahren zum methodischen
Bemessen and Konstruicren im Stahlbetonhau (A Practical Method for the Design
and Detailing of Structural Concrete),” in Bulletin d’Information No. 150 (Comité
Euro-International du Béton), Paris, 1982.
[12] J. Schlaich, K. Schafer, M. Jennewein, Toward a consistent design of structural
concrete, PCI Journal 32 (3) (1987) 74–150. https://doi.org/10.15554/p
cij.05011987.74.150.
[13] M. Trifunac M. Todorovska Origin of the response spectrum method 2008 Beijing.
[14] K. Tuutti, Corrosion of steel in concrete, Swedish Cement and Concrete Research
Institute, Stockholm, 1982.
[15] P. Faustino, A. Costa, F. Lanata, Service life of RC structures: Chloride induced
corrosion: Prescriptive versus performance-based methodologies, Materials and
Structures 45 (1–2) (2012) 277–296.
[16] I. Srikanth and M. Arockiasamy, “Deterioration models for prediction of remaining
usefullife of timber and concrete bridges: A review,” Journal of Traffic
Transportation Engineering (Englidh Edition), pp. 7 (2): 152-173, 2020. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jtte.2019.09.005.
[17] R.P. Nicolai, R. Dekker, J.M. van Noortwijk, A comparison of models for
measurable deterioration: An application to coatings on steel structures, Reliability
Engineering and System Safety 92 (12) (2007) 1635–1650, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ress.2006.09.021.
[18] M.G. Stewart, Reliability-based assessment of ageing bridges using risk ranking and
life cycle cost decision analyses, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (3)
(2001) 263–273, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00079-5.
[19] J.M. van Noortwijk, D.M. Frangopol, “Deterioration and Maintenance Models for
Insuring Safety of Civil Infrastructures at Lowest Life-Cycle Cost”, in Third IABMAS
Workshop on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Design of Civil Infrastructures Systems,
Lausanne (2003), https://doi.org/10.1061/40707(240)39.
[20] Y. Matsuda, K. Sato, Quality Development on Repairing Work of Concrete
Structures, Concrete Journal 39 (12) (2001) 16–24, https://doi.org/10.3151/
coj1975.39.12_16.
[21] S. Zhang, X. Dong, H. Zhang, M. Deng, Research on Deterioration Mechanism of
Concrete Materials in an Actual Structure, Advances in Materials Science and
Engineering 1 (2014) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/306459.
[22] D.M. Frangopol, M.-J. Kallen, J.M.V. Noortwijk, Probabilistic models for life-cycle
performance of deteriorating structures: review and future directions, Progress in
Structural Engineering and Materials 6 (4) (2004) 197–212, https://doi.org/
10.1002/pse.v6:410.1002/pse.180.
[23] M. Cesare, J. Santamarina, C. Turkstra and E. Vanmarcke, “Modeling Bridge
Deterioration with Markov Chains,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, pp. 118
(6): 820-833, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-947x(1992)118:6(820).
[24] M. Tena, L. Todisco and J. León, “Calibration of the Ageing Process of Masonry
Bridges Based on Field Inspections and Construction Quality,” Structural Engineering
International, pp. 28:3, 325-337, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10168664.2018.1478767.
[25] M. Tena J. León Base management heritage system: methods of structural
qualification and maintenance costs estimated over time 2016 Leuven
(Netherlands).
[26] J.R. Norris, Markov Chains, 1st ed., Cambridge University Press, 1997.
P. Alonso Medina et al.
[27] F. Pacheco-Torgal J.P. Castro-Gomes S.M.R. Lopes “Experimental Study of
Concrete Durability Parameters produced with Different Types of Aggregates”, in
XXX IAHS World Congress on Housing Construction – An Interdisciplinary Task
2003 Coimbra.
[28] M. Lion, Y. Le Pape, F. Toutlemonde, Examples of feedback, experimental and
theoretical approaches for concrete durability assessment, The European Physical
Journal Conferences 12 (2011) 03003, https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/
20111203003.
[29] A. Miyamoto, K. Kawamura, H. Nakamura, Development of a Bridge Management
System for Existing Bridges in Japan, Department of Computer and Systems
Engineering, Yamaguchi University, Japan, 1990, pp. 755–8611.
[30] P. Panetsos S. Lambropoulos “Life-cycle maintenance cost prediction for concrete
bridges based on inspection data”, in Transport Research Arena (TRA) 2014 Paris.
[31] D.M. Bailey, D.E. Brotherson, W. Tobiasson, S.D. Foltz, A. Knehans, ROOFER:
Membrane and Flashing Condition Indexes for Single-Ply Membrane Roofs, US
Army Corps of Engineers. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory,
Inspection and Distress Manual, 1993.
[32] H. Wenzel, “Introduction to Industrial Safety and Life Cycle Engineering”, in
Industrial Safety and Life Cycle Engineering: Technologies/Standards/Applications, VCE
Vienna Consulting Engineers ZT GmbH (2013) 7–22.
[33] E. Sakoumpenta, P. Panetsos, M. Haralabakis, “Bridge Maintenance Management
System for Egnatia Motorway”, in Industrial Safety and Life Cycle Engineering:
Technologies/Standards/Applications, VCE Vienna Consulting Engineers ZT GmbH
(2013) 491–514.
[34] Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Transporti. Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori
Publici, Linee guida per la classificazione e gestione del rischio, la valutazione della
sicurenzza ed il monitoraggio dei ponti esistenti, Italy, 2020.
[35] P.D. Thompson, E.P. Small, M. Johnson, A.R. Marshall, The Pontis Bridge
Management System, Structural Engineering International 8 (4) (1998) 303–308,
https://doi.org/10.2749/101686698780488758.
[36] Z. Mirzaei, B.T. Adey, L. Klatter, P.D. Thompson, The IABMAS Bridge Management
Committee - Overview of Existing Bridge Management System, Technical Report
IABMAS (2014).
[37] D. M. Frangopol and F. Akgul, “Bridge rating and reliability correlation:
Comprehensive study for different bridge types,” Journal of Structural Engineering -
14
Construction and Building Materials 317 (2022) 125790
ASCE, pp. 130 (7): 1063-1074, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
(2004)130:7(1063).
[38] L. Chiaramonte and V. Gatulli, “Condition Assessment by Visual Inspection for a
Bridge Management System,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
pp. 20 (2): 95-107, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2005.00379.x.
[39] R. Helmerich, E. Niederleithinger, D. Algernon, D. Streicher and H. Wiggenhauser,
“Bridge Inspection and Condition Assessment in Europe,” Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, pp. 2044 (1): 31-38, 2008.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2044-04.
[40] G. Roelfstra, R. Hajdin, B. Adey and E. Brüwiler, “Condition Evolution in Bridge
Management Systems and Corrosion-Induced Deterioration,” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, pp. 9 (3): 268-277, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702
(2004)9:3(268).
[41] Government of Navarra, “Meteorology and climatology of Navarra,” Government
of Navarra, [Online]. Available: http://meteo.navarra.es/. [Accessed 30 10 2021].
[42] A. Ceccotti, E. Giangrenco, L. Jurina, S. Martinello, E. Siviero, S. Tattoni, R. Bruson,
M. Bruson, G. Caramel, L. Malisardi, A. Papaleo and Perrone, L., Manualle:
Valutazione dello Stato dei Ponti, Bolzano, Italy: Centro Internazionale di
Aggioramiento Sperimentale-Scientifico, 2011.
[43] P. Alonso F. Rodríguez J. León Assessment of reinforced concrete structures’
performance under environment aggressiveness for durability monitoring 2019
Potsdam (Germany).
[44] T. Swinscow, M.J. Campbell, Statistics at square one, BMJ, London, 2002.
[45] A. Miyamoto and M. Motoshita, “Development and Practical Application of a
Bridge Management System (J-BMS) in Japan,” Civil Engineering Infrastructures
Journal, pp. 48(1): 189-216, 2015. https://doi.org/10.7508/CEIJ.2015.01.013.
[46] A. Miyamoto and H. Asano, “Application of J-BMS to Performance Evaluation and
Remaining Life Prediction of an Existing RC Bridge,” Civil Engineering Infrastructures
Journal, pp. 51(2): 311-337, 2018. https://doi.org/10.7508/ceij.2018.02.005.
[47] A. Miyamoto K. Kawamura H. Nakamura “Development of a Bridge Management
System for Existing Bridges in Japan. J-BMS (Japanese Bridge Management
System)”, Department of Computer and Systems Engineering 2001 Yamaguchi
University, Japan 10.1016/S0965-9978(01)00034-5.
[48] F. Zimmert, T. Braml, M. Keuser, Decision-making for the efficient life cycle
management of structures, Structural Concrete 21 (4) (2020) 1217–1226, https://
doi.org/10.1002/suco.v21.410.1002/suco.201900408.