sustainability
Article
A Big Data Approach for Investigating Bridge Deterioration
and Maintenance Strategies in Taiwan
Yu-Han Chuang *, Nie-Jia Yau and John Mark M. Tabor
Citation: Chuang, Y.-H.; Yau, N.-J.;
Tabor, J.M.M. A Big Data Approach
for Investigating Bridge Deterioration
and Maintenance Strategies in
Taiwan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021697
Academic Editor: Dalei Wang
Received: 1 December 2022
Revised: 5 January 2023
Accepted: 8 January 2023
Published: 16 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021697
Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, No. 300, Chung-da Rd., Taoyuan 32011, Taiwan
* Correspondence: chuangyuhan@gmail.com
Abstract: Due to the dwindling maintenance budget and lack of qualified bridge inspectors, bridge-
management agencies in Taiwan need to develop cost-effective maintenance and inspection strategies
to preserve the safety and functionality of their aging, natural disaster-prone bridges. To inform
the development of such a strategy, this study examined the big data stored in the Taiwan Bridge
Management System (TBMS) using the knowledge discovery in databases (KDD) process. Cluster and
association algorithms were applied to the inventory and five-year inspection data of 2849 bridges
to determine the bridge structural configurations and components that are prone to deterioration.
Bridge maintenance agencies can use the results presented to reevaluate their current maintenance
and inspection strategies and concentrate their limited resources on bridges and components most
prone to deterioration.
Keywords: bridge management system; bridge maintenance; bridge inspection; big data; knowledge
discovery in databases; data mining; cluster analysis; association analysis
1. Introduction
Several bridge management databases have been recently transformed into rich repos-
itories of big data as a result of advances in bridge structural health monitoring (SHM)
systems, non-destructive testing (NDT) procedures, information technologies, and the mas-
sive volume of periodic bridge inspection reports amassed over the preceding decades [1,2].
One such database is the Taiwan Bridge Management System (TBMS), which to date con-
tains over 3 million data records. Developed in 2000 by the National Central University
(NCU) through the support of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC),
the TBMS is a web-based, centralized database used by bridge maintenance agencies in
Taiwan to store all maintenance management data from its highway- and railway bridge
infrastructure. It has nine modules, including kernel modules for inventory, inspection,
and maintenance data of over 28,000 bridges. Its inventory module has over 80,000 records
of the general definition of each bridge, including, among others, the design and geometry
of its superstructure and substructure, and its location and ownership.
The TBMS inspection module is periodically updated to include the results of the
most recent bridge inspections. Every two years, bridges are visually evaluated at the
component level to determine their overall condition. Existing and emerging deteriorations
discovered during these inspections are defined based on four criteria and rated on a scale
from 0 to 4 (Figure 1). These criteria include the degree of deterioration (D), the extent
of deterioration (E), the relevance to safety of deterioration (R), and the urgency (U) of
deterioration repair, hence the term DER&U (Table 1). Inspectors document their findings
by completing inspection forms with 141 fields for each bridge. Due to the detailed nature
of the DER&U inspection process, the TBMS inspection module has accumulated more
than 2.7 million entries over the years, and it is anticipated that this figure will continue to
grow by around 14,000 entries annually.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697 2 of 10

Table 1. DER&U evaluation criteria.

0 1 2 3 4
D Not existing Good Fair Bad Serious
E * U/I <10% 10–30% 30–60% Over 60%
R Uncertain Minor Limited Major Large
† In 3 years or under
U N/A Routine In 1 year Immediate
observation
* U/I—unable to inspect, † N/A—not applicable.

Databases of such scale and complexity are thought to be untapped sources of knowl-
edge that have the potential to advance current bridge design, construction, and mainte-
nance practices [1,3]. Discovering such knowledge, however, requires an abstract level of
inquiry (e.g., understanding the underlying relationship between different factors such as
bridge performance, age, design, environment, usage, and deterioration patterns) that
is beyond the capabilities of conventional statistical tools and database management
programming languages such as SQL [3,4]. To do this, researchers instead employ a
computer-driven, interdisciplinary, and more advanced process called knowledge discov-
ery in databases (KDD) [5–7]. Fayyad and Stolorz (1997) defined the KDD process as “the
overall nontrivial process of discovering valid, novel, potentially useful, and ultimately
understandable patterns in data [4].” Data mining is an integral component of this process
and requires the application of one or more machine learning algorithms to extract or mine
patterns hidden behind massive data (Figure 1) [3–5,7–9].

Figure 1. Knowledge discovery in databases (KDD) process [5].

The KDD process has been used in several bridge engineering and management stud-
ies to extract knowledge from the now available big data. Most of these data have been
generated and collected during the bridge’s operation and maintenance (O&M) phase of its
life cycle [2]. Bridge maintenance agencies receive raw data from NDT techniques and sen-
sors from SHM systems, which can then be converted into useful bridge and network-level
data [1]. With this data and different machine learning-based procedures, researchers and
bridge maintenance agencies can adopt a data-driven approach to bridge O&M without
physically examining bridges [1,2,6,10,11]. Data collected from SHM systems, for instance,
can be analyzed using either supervised (e.g., classification, ensemble learning, regres-
sion) or unsupervised machine learning algorithms (e.g., clustering and association) [6].
Sun et al. (2020) provided an overview of how these algorithms have been used to process
data from SHM systems, as well as an assessment of their strengths and limitations.
Wu et al. (2020) observed that developments in data-driven bridge O&M are generally
heading toward five areas of application [1]: (1) investigation of bridge deterioration factors
and the development of bridge structural health models, (2) estimation of failure probability
or load capacity, (3) evaluation of bridge life expectancy, (4) generation of solutions for
resolving issues related to bridge or network-level O&M and selection of appropriate
SHM and NDT tools, and (5) assessment or prediction of bridge condition. In one of the
most recent studies, Mortagi and Ghosh (2022) suggested factoring in the potential adverse
effects of climate change when evaluating the seismic performance of aging highway bridge
structures [12]. Sony et al. (2022) proposed a windowed one-dimensional convolutional
neural network model to detect structural problems in bridges using the vibration responses
collected by SHM systems [13]. Abdelmaksoud et al. (2021) recommended parameterized
logistic models as an alternative to the existing bridge deterioration models used as a
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697 3 of 10

reference for establishing an optimum inspection frequency and maintenance schedule for
each bridge [14]. Their technique uses fewer parameters than reliability-based models and
can be used without the assumptions normally needed to forecast bridge condition using
Markov chain-based models integrated in a number of bridge management systems.
In addition to these studies, a new body of research using bridge inspection data
from databases such as the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database and the Korean
Bridge Management System (KOBMS) has begun to emerge [7,15–20]. The objectives
of these studies can be generally categorized into two: predictive and informative (or
descriptive) [21]. The objective of predictive data mining studies is to solve a specific
problem by forecasting the future values of one or more database fields using data from
other fields [4]. An example of such studies includes the work of Li et al. (2021) wherein
they used the descriptive text from more than 8000 inspection reports to develop a neu-
ral network model aimed at promoting consistency and reliability in bridge condition
assessment among inspectors [19]. Xia et al. (2021) developed a fully data-driven, regional-
level bridge maintenance management framework using data extracted from inspection
reports [22]. Lei et al. (2022) developed a framework for regional-level bridge mainte-
nance planning based on deep reinforcement learning using data accumulated from years
of bridge-inspection reports [23]. Informative data mining, on the other hand, seeks to
identify patterns hidden inside massive data sets that a domain expert may not readily
recognize. For example, Radovic et al. (2017) conducted a two-step cluster analysis on the
inspection data of 9809 concrete decks of highway bridges to discover which combination
of concrete deck design parameters could result in bad and good conditions [7]. Kim
and Yoon (2010) analyzed the inspection data of 5289 bridges located in North Dakota
using multiple regression analysis to determine the critical factors that contribute to the
deterioration of bridges exposed to cold temperatures [18]. Diaz Arancibia et al. (2020)
studied the inspection data of more than 1400 deck girder-type highway bridges to de-
termine whether bridge performance is sensitive to skew [16]. Alogdianakis et al. (2020)
conducted a statistical analysis of the inspection data of nearly 20,000 coastal bridges to
determine the critical distance from the coastline to inland, where airborne sea chlorides
can be expected to cause deterioration to bridges [24]. Kim and Queiroz (2017) examined
the four-year inspection data of over 1 million bridge decks and superstructures to identify
their performance against different environmental conditions, study how their condition
ratings changed over time, and examine how the performances of different structural types
compare to one another [17].

Research Motivation and Objective

Bridge management agencies in Taiwan currently face several challenges. The budget
allocated for bridge maintenance has been declining every year, undermining the recruit-
ment of qualified bridge inspectors and the awarding of contracts for bridge rehabilitation.
In addition, a large portion of its bridge inventory has already aged. At least 5000 bridges
have been in service for more than four decades, and the construction dates of more than
8000 are undocumented (Table 2). Furthermore, due to Taiwan’s location, topographical
features, and geological composition, its bridges are vulnerable to the destructive effects of
extreme natural hazards such as typhoons and earthquakes [25]. Flood-induced scouring,
erosion, and debris collision frequently result in catastrophic failures during typhoons and
torrential rainstorms [26].
These challenges necessitate a cost-effective bridge maintenance and inspection strat-
egy capable of maintaining the safety and serviceability of Taiwan’s bridge infrastructure.
To inform the development of such a strategy, this study aims to determine the types
of bridge structural configurations and the particular bridge components that are most
likely to develop deterioration by using the KDD process to analyze the data stored in the
inventory and inspection modules of the TBMS. Knowing such information could help
bridge maintenance agencies rethink their bridge maintenance strategies and focus their
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697 4 of 10

limited resources on bridges and components that are likely to deteriorate, resulting in a
more economical use of maintenance funds.

Table 2. Age distribution of bridges in Taiwan (from Taiwan’s National Statistical System for
Vehicle Bridges).

Freeway Highway Railway Country/County

Bridge Age Total
Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges
<2 0 0 0 2 2
2 to 10 60 285 42 611 998
11 to 20 11 893 115 2192 3211
21 to 30 1526 1182 218 4245 7171
31 to 40 51 729 340 4010 5130
>40 589 689 572 3257 5116
Unknown 15 45 110 8661 8831

2. Materials and Methods

Using the KDD process, this study examined the inventory and inspection data
extracted from the TBMS to identify the types of bridge structural configurations and
components that are most susceptible to deterioration. The k-means and Apriori unsu-
pervised algorithms were used for data preprocessing and mining. Figure 2 presents a
flowchart of the implemented KDD procedure. Each of its elements is discussed in the
following subsections.

Figure 2. Research flowchart.

2.1. TBMS Bridge-Inspection and Inventory-Data Overview

The inventory and five-year inspection data (2012 to 2016) of 2849 inland and coastal
bridges, including those spanning major river systems, were extracted from the TBMS
database. These bridges are maintained by either the central government or the local
government agencies in the south–central region of Taiwan, including the cities of Taichung,
Tainan, and Kaohsiung, as well as the counties of Changhua, Yunlin, Chiayi, and Pingtung.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697 5 of 10

Since the inspection forms for slab, girder, and box-girder bridge types all contain identical
fields, only these bridges were included in this study. Although other types such as arch,
truss, and cable-supported bridges also exist in Taiwan, their numbers are too limited to be
considered. Each type was classified into three groups according to the number of spans:
single span, two to three spans, and four or more spans. These groupings were established
to reduce the variability in deterioration patterns caused by certain structural features
such as the number of spans, length of span, type of underpass, etc. Table 3 provides an
overview of the distribution of bridges based on their type and number of spans.

Table 3. Location and distribution of bridges covered in this study.

Slab Girder Box Girder

Bridge Location Single 2 to 3 ≥4 Single 2 to 3 ≥4 Single 2 to 3 ≥4
Span Spans Spans Span Spans Spans Span Spans Spans
Taichung City 81 17 1 245 141 42 2 3 3
Tainan City 0 18 6 0 132 42 0 2 6
Kaohsiung City 126 32 3 263 97 20 1 0 3
Changhua County 38 3 0 33 26 13 0 1 0
Yunlin County 8 0 2 75 59 39 4 0 0
Chiayi County 259 26 2 290 96 35 2 1 3
Pingtung County 153 40 6 199 100 46 2 1 1

2.2. Bridge-Inventory and Inspection-Data Preprocessing

A data set may contain discrepancies, missing values, or noise due to human error
and technical issues, among other causes [8,20,27–29]. This is particularly true for data
contained in bridge management databases, where the periodic updating of inspection
and inventory data for the most part remains a manual process requiring the participation
of qualified bridge inspectors. To ensure the data sets are adequate and accurate, and
that the knowledge mined from these is reliable, data should be preprocessed before data-
mining techniques are applied [5,20,27,29]. Data preprocessing can be in the form of data
reduction, missing-value imputation, noise treatment, and data resampling, depending
on the characteristics of the raw data and the intended data mining technique [6,8,27,28].
For this research, the bridge inspection and inventory data extracted from the TBMS
were preprocessed using Microsoft Excel to ensure that each field contained consistent
formal terms.
To prepare the TBMS inspection data for the subsequent association analysis, a three-
part data preprocessing was performed. First, the extracted data were checked for inconsis-
tencies with the DER&U evaluation criteria. Instances of components with a D value of
0 were reviewed to check whether they were indeed bridge components specified on the
inspection form but not integrated into the actual configuration of the inspected bridge.
Components with an E value of 0 were also reviewed, particularly bridge foundations
whose condition often cannot be conveniently assessed. Inspectors sometimes assign “null,
0, null” DER values to foundations since they are embedded. In such a situation, however,
the condition of the piers and abutments can be regarded as a reference, as they often
manifest the condition of their corresponding supports. Therefore, the corresponding
DER for the foundations were assumed to be “1, 0, 0” for piers or abutments in good
condition (i.e., D = 1). Next, invalid test data and bridges with incomplete data records
were deleted, as their inclusion could undermine the outcomes of the association analysis.
Finally, components with recorded D values of 3 and 4 were replaced with a value of 2,
forming two groups: components with deterioration (i.e., D = 2) and components without
deterioration (i.e., D = 1).

2.3. Cluster Analysis

Cluster analysis is an unsupervised machine learning algorithm that divides or par-
titions large data sets into several distinct clusters containing members that share a high
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697 6 of 10

degree of attribute similarity [5,9,29,30]. It can be used either as an independent data

mining technique or as a supportive data preprocessing technique to enhance the data set
format in preparation for application of another data mining algorithm [15,29,30]. Different
clustering algorithms have been extensively used in bridge engineering and management
studies to analyze data obtained from structural health monitoring systems [6] and bridge
inspection data [7,15].
Depending on the cluster algorithm applied, the degree of similarity between cluster
members can be measured in terms of distance, density, or continuity [29]. For this research,
the distance-based k-means algorithm built into the IBM SPSS Statistics 21 was used to
partition the bridge into clusters in preparation for the subsequent association analysis. The
k-means algorithm organizes or partitions a data set D containing n objects into a k number
of clusters (k ≤ n). It randomly assigns k objects as initial centroids. The algorithm then
forms clusters by aligning each remaining object with its nearest centroid. A new centroid
is calculated based on the new cluster formed. The similarity measure within each cluster
is improved by iterating the process until the clusters formed do not change. In the end,
the similarity measure within each cluster should be at its highest and at its lowest between
clusters. An in-depth explanation of the k-means algorithm can be found in [5,29].

2.4. Association Analysis

Association analysis is another unsupervised data mining technique used to discover
interesting knowledge or patterns behind massive data sets [5,29,30]. This provides knowl-
edge in the form of frequent item sets or association rules that indicate the relationships
between items in large data sets [4]. One well-known application of association analysis is
to analyze market basket transactions to recognize trends in consumer spending [5]. Its
application has since been expanded, including in the analysis of data from automated
building operation and management systems [30], bridge structural health monitoring sys-
tems [6], and the construction industry [8] For this research, the SPSS Modeler 18.2 was used
to discover the association between the items in the bridge inventory data and the deterio-
ration of a bridge component. The Apriori algorithm was used to generate the association
rules. To check the objective interestingness of the generated rules, the support, confidence,
and lift of each rule were determined. For the formal definitions of these parameters, the
reader is directed to the works of Tan et al. (2019) and Han et al. (2012) [5,29].

3. Results
The 2849 bridges were clustered using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 on the basis of seven
bridge inventory fields or attributes that were selected through trial and error from the
initial 20 fields listed in Table 4 until the clusters attained the best quality. These attributes
include bridge length, maximum net width, structural type, main beam type, main beam
material, beam shape, and abutment type. Based on these attributes, the bridges, through
their inspection data, were grouped into eight clusters. The 1781 single-span bridges were
clustered into three groups, the 795 bridges with two to three spans into three groups, and
the 273 bridges with more than four spans into two groups (Figure 3).
These bridge clusters were then analyzed using SPSS Modeler 18.2 to discover the
association between the items in the bridge inventory data and the deterioration of a bridge
component in each cluster. The seven attributes or bridge inventory fields could form
different combinations. If a combination of these attributes accounts for more than 10% of
all possible combinations in a cluster and the number of bridge components with a D value
of 2 or higher in the records accounts for more than 25% of said records, the statistical results
of such a combination indicate a greater likelihood of bridge component deterioration. At
the end of the association analysis, rules that suggest the bridge configurations that are
likely to contribute to the deterioration of a specific component were generated.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697 7 of 10

Table 4. TBMS bridge-inventory attributes.

No. Attribute Type Contents

Taichung City, Tainan City, Kaohsiung City, Changhua
1 Department nvarchar
County, Yunlin County, Chiayi County, Pingtung County
2 Section nvarchar Dajia District, Daan District, Dali District, Daya District, etc.
3 Route nvarchar Pingtung 127, etc.
4 Year built int Unknown—2013
5 Number of spans int 1 to 44
6 Length float 6 to 1770 m
7 Maximum span length float 6 to 173 m
8 Maximum net width float 1.74 to 80.25 m
9 Slab area float 12.4 to 72,216 m2
10 Driveway int 1 to 10
11 Bridge structure nvarchar Slab bridge, girder bridge, box-girder bridge
12 Type of support nvarchar Simple, fixed, continuous
13 Material of girder nvarchar Reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, steel
14 Type of girder nvarchar Slab, I-girder, T-girder, rectangular girder, box-girder
15 Type of beam nvarchar I-beam, rectangular beam
16 Type of abutment nvarchar Cantilever, gravity, semi-gravity
17 Type of expansion nvarchar Finger plate, gai-top, etc.
18 Type of bearing nvarchar Simple clamping, synthetic rubber, pot bearing, etc.
19 Type of wingwall nvarchar Cantilever, gravity, semi-gravity
20 Type of pavement nvarchar Reinforced concrete, asphalt concrete, others

Figure 3. Bridge clusters: (a) single-span bridges, (b) 2- to 3-span bridges, (c) ≥ 4-span bridges.

For single-span bridges, four association rules suggest that the deterioration of the
abutment, girder, and bridge deck should be anticipated more than for other components.
Gravity-type abutments are 25% more likely to deteriorate. Steel girders supporting bridges
less than 12.712 m wide while resting on cantilever abutments have a 32.18% chance of
developing defects. Two association rules for bridge decks on single-span bridges were
determined. Bridge decks with widths between 12.712 to 23.684 m and supported by
cantilever-type abutments have a 96% chance of forming deterioration. Meanwhile, bridge
decks carried by rectangular beams and girders made of reinforced concrete have a 28.89%
chance of deteriorating.
For bridges with two to three spans, the deck guard rails, abutments, and pier founda-
tion should be inspected more closely. Three association rules concerning deck guard rails
were generated. First, deck guard rails on bridges supported by buttressed counterfort
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697 8 of 10

abutments have a 75% of developing deterioration. Deck guard rails on bridges with
widths between 28.28 and 40.42 m have a 67.86% chance of deterioration. In both situations,
the bridge length is less than 59.84 m. Another bridge configuration to look for that has an
association with the condition of the guard rails is if the bridge is slab-type, has a length
of less than 15.52 m, and is supported by semi-gravity abutments. Guard rails have a 72%
chance of developing deterioration in this case. For bridges with widths between 17.4 and
26.64 m that are supported by semi-gravity type abutments and T-shaped girders, there is
an 80% likelihood of abutment and pier foundation deterioration.
For bridges with more than four spans, seven association rules involving the su-
perstructure drainage, deck guard rails, approach embankment, approach guard rails,
retaining walls, and bridge deck were generated. Superstructure drainages in bridges
supported by pile bent-type abutments have a 100% chance of developing deterioration.
Deck guard rails on bridges supported by pile-bent abutments also have a 100% chance of
developing deterioration. The same likelihood should also be expected on deck guard rails
in bridges with U-shaped girders. Two association rules involving the approach embank-
ment were generated. The approach embankments of bridges with I-shaped girders and
cantilever-type abutments have a 25.62% chance of deteriorating. If the beam is rectangular,
the chance of deterioration is 37.5%. For both of these rules, the bridge length is between
386.64 and 732.48 m. Two bridge configurations were found to have an association with the
development of deterioration in the approach guard rails, retaining walls, and bridge deck.
There is a 25.62% chance that these components will deteriorate on bridges with lengths
between 386.64 and 732.48 m, with rectangular beams and abutments of the cantilever
type. Approach guard rails, retaining walls, and deck of bridges with a length of less
than 386.64 m, a width of less than 10.76 m, and abutments of the cantilever type have
probabilities of deterioration of 25.6%, 27.77%, and 40%, respectively.

4. Discussion
These results revealed two issues. First, they reflect how Taiwan’s geographical
characteristics affect its bridge infrastructure. Approximately two-thirds of the island of
Taiwan is covered by steep mountain ranges along the east coast. River systems have
carved through these mountains and developed valleys, necessitating the construction of
several bridges to link the surrounding cities and counties. Based on their GPS coordinates,
most of the single-span bridges are located in the upper and middle sections of these rivers,
where the slope is often steep, the current is strong, and the channel cross-section is narrow.
Single-span bridge abutments, girders, and decks become susceptible to deterioration
under these conditions, particularly if the bridge clearance is low. The other two groups of
bridges are located halfway downstream, where both the slope and the current gradually
recede. Thus, deterioration often forms in the embankments and retaining walls due to
lateral erosion of the river.
Second is the influence of cantilever-type abutments in the development of deterio-
ration in some of the components that form the first and third bridge groups. The results
indicate that cantilever-type abutments may lead to the development of deterioration in the
steel girders and bridge decks of single-span bridges. The approach guard rail, retaining
walls, and deck of bridges with more than four spans may also develop defects due to the
same type of abutment. Cantilever-type abutments support 30.37% of single-span bridges
and 55.68% of bridges with more than four spans. This could be because the effects of heavy
rainfall and flooding have exceeded the existing design criteria set to build these abutments.
Therefore, a review of the standards for the design and construction of cantilever-type
abutments may be needed to mitigate the effects of extreme weather events.

5. Conclusions
The TBMS inventory and five-year inspection data of 2849 slab, girder, and box-girder
bridges in the south–central region of Taiwan were analyzed using the KDD process to gain
insight into their deterioration patterns. Using clustering and association algorithms, the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697 9 of 10

bridges were arranged into clusters and then analyzed to discover the association between
the inventory data and the deterioration of the bridge components within each cluster.
This process generated association rules that suggest the bridge configurations that are
likely to contribute to the deterioration of a specific component. Among the results, it
was revealed that for single-span bridges, gravity-type abutments are more susceptible to
deterioration than any other type. For bridges with two to three spans, their abutments and
pier foundations have an 80% chance of developing deterioration if they include T-girder,
semi-gravity abutment, and a length of 17.4 to 26.64 m. For bridges with more than four
spans, deterioration in the approach embankment, approach guard rail, retaining walls,
and bridge deck should be expected, particularly for bridges with a length and width of less
than 386.64 m and 10.76 m, respectively. The deterioration patterns in the bridges analyzed
reflect the effect of Taiwan’s topography and extreme natural events. These results can not
only help bridge agencies plan their maintenance and inspection program, but also provide
new insight for bridge designers in creating more resilient bridges.
As previously mentioned, the deterioration values of the components extracted from
the TBMS inspection module were modified. To facilitate analysis, bridge components with
recorded D values of 3 and 4 were replaced with a value of 2. Thus, only the occurrence
of component deterioration (i.e., whether a component has deterioration or not) and not
its severity (i.e., whether the deterioration is fair, bad, or serious) was considered in the
analysis. Future research may incorporate the variances in the degree of deterioration
of the bridge components to determine the bridge configuration and components most
susceptible to severe deterioration.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.-H.C. and N.-J.Y.; methodology, Y.-H.C. and J.M.M.T.;
software, Y.-H.C.; validation, Y.-H.C., N.-J.Y. and J.M.M.T.; formal analysis, Y.-H.C. and J.M.M.T.;
investigation, Y.-H.C. and J.M.M.T.; resources, Y.-H.C. and N.-J.Y.; data curation, Y.-H.C. and J.M.M.T.;
writing—original draft preparation, Y.-H.C.; writing—review and editing, N.-J.Y. and J.M.M.T.;
supervision, N.-J.Y.; project administration, N.-J.Y.; funding acquisition, N.-J.Y. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Department of Civil
Engineering, National Central University, Taiwan, for their administrative support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wu, C.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Jiang, R.; Chen, M.; Wang, X. Critical review of data-driven decision-making in bridge operation and
maintenance. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 18, 47–70. [CrossRef]
2. Yang, J.; Xiang, F.; Li, R.; Zhang, L.; Yang, X.; Jiang, S.; Zhang, H.; Wang, D.; Liu, X. Intelligent bridge management via big data
knowledge engineering. Autom. Constr. 2022, 135, 104118. [CrossRef]
3. Buchheit, R.B.; Garrett, J.H.; Lee, S.R.; Brahme, R. A Knowledge Discovery Framework for Civil Infrastructure: A Case Study of
the Intelligent Workplace. Eng. Comput. 2000, 16, 264–274. [CrossRef]
4. Fayyad, U.; Stolorz, P. Data mining and KDD: Promise and challenges. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 1997, 13, 99–115. [CrossRef]
5. Tan, P.-N.; Steinbach, M.; Karpatne, A.; Kumar, V. Introduction to Data Mining, 2nd ed.; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
6. Sun, L.; Shang, Z.; Xia, Y.; Bhowmick, S.; Nagarajaiah, S. Review of Bridge Structural Health Monitoring Aided by Big Data and
Artificial Intelligence: From Condition Assessment to Damage Detection. J. Struct. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020073. [CrossRef]
7. Radovic, M.; Ghonima, O.; Schumacher, T. Data Mining of Bridge Concrete Deck Parameters in the National Bridge Inventory by
Two-Step Cluster Analysis. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part A Civ. Eng. 2017, 3, F4016004. [CrossRef]
8. Yan, H.; Yang, N.; Peng, Y.; Ren, Y. Data mining in the construction industry: Present status, opportunities, and future trends.
Autom. Constr. 2020, 119, 103331. [CrossRef]
9. Ng, H.S.; Toukourou, A.; Soibelman, L. Knowledge Discovery in a Facility Condition Assessment Database Using Text Clustering.
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2006, 12, 50–59. [CrossRef]
10. Jin, X.; Wah, B.W.; Cheng, X.; Wang, Y. Significance and Challenges of Big Data Research. Big Data Res. 2015, 2, 59–64. [CrossRef]
11. An, Y.; Chatzi, E.; Sim, S.; Laflamme, S.; Blachowski, B.; Ou, J. Recent progress and future trends on damage identification
methods for bridge structures. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2019, 26, e2416. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 1697 10 of 10

12. Mortagi, M.; Ghosh, J. Consideration of Climate Change Effects on the Seismic Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Deteriorating Highway
Bridges. J. Bridg. Eng. 2022, 27, 04021103. [CrossRef]
13. Sony, S.; Gamage, S.; Sadhu, A.; Samarabandu, J. Multiclass Damage Identification in a Full-Scale Bridge Using Optimally Tuned
One-Dimensional Convolutional Neural Network. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2022, 36, 04021035. [CrossRef]
14. Abdelmaksoud, A.M.; Balomenos, G.P.; Becker, T.C. Parameterized Logistic Models for Bridge Inspection and Maintenance
Scheduling. J. Bridg. Eng. 2021, 26, 04021072. [CrossRef]
15. Chang, K.; Chi, S. Bridge Clustering for Systematic Recognition of Damage Patterns on Bridge Elements. J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
2019, 33, 04019028. [CrossRef]
16. Diaz Arancibia, M.; Rugar, L.; Okumus, P. Role of Skew on Bridge Performance. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2020, 2674,
282–292. [CrossRef]
17. Kim, Y.J.; Queiroz, L.B. Big Data for condition evaluation of constructed bridges. Eng. Struct. 2017, 141, 217–227. [CrossRef]
18. Kim, Y.J.; Yoon, D.K. Identifying Critical Sources of Bridge Deterioration in Cold Regions through the Constructed Bridges in
North Dakota. J. Bridg. Eng. 2010, 15, 542–552. [CrossRef]
19. Li, T.; Alipour, M.; Harris, D.K. Mapping textual descriptions to condition ratings to assist bridge inspection and condition
assessment using hierarchical attention. Autom. Constr. 2021, 129, 103801. [CrossRef]
20. Martinez, P.; Mohamed, E.; Mohsen, O.; Mohamed, Y. Comparative Study of Data Mining Models for Prediction of Bridge Future
Conditions. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2020, 34, 04019108. [CrossRef]
21. Kim, H.; Soibelman, L.; Grobler, F. Factor selection for delay analysis using Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Autom. Constr.
2008, 17, 550–560. [CrossRef]
22. Xia, Y.; Lei, X.; Wang, P.; Sun, L. A data-driven approach for regional bridge condition assessment using inspection reports. Struct.
Control. Health Monit. 2021, 29, e2915. [CrossRef]
23. Lei, X.; Xia, Y.; Deng, L.; Sun, L. A deep reinforcement learning framework for life-cycle maintenance planning of regional
deteriorating bridges using inspection data. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 2022, 65, 149. [CrossRef]
24. Alogdianakis, F.; Charmpis, D.C.; Balafas, I. Macroscopic effect of distance from seacoast on bridge deterioration—Statistical data
assessment of structural condition recordings. Structures 2020, 27, 319–329. [CrossRef]
25. Chang, J.-C. Natural hazards in Taiwan. Geojournal 1996, 38, 251–257. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, H.; Hsieh, S.-C.; Lin, C.; Wang, C.-Y. Forensic Diagnosis on Flood-Induced Bridge Failure. I: Determination of the Possible
Causes of Failure. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2014, 28, 76–84. [CrossRef]
27. Luengo, J.; García-Gil, D.; Ramírez-Gallego, S.; García, S.; Herrera, F. Big Data Preprocessing: Enabling Smart Data; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2020.
28. García, S.; Ramírez-Gallego, S.; Luengo, J.; Benítez, J.M.; Herrera, F. Big data preprocessing: Methods and prospects. Big Data
Anal. 2016, 1, 9. [CrossRef]
29. Han, J.; Kamber, M.; Pei, J. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012.
30. Xiao, F.; Fan, C. Data mining in building automation system for improving building operational performance. Energy Build. 2014,
75, 109–118. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.