See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266474593

Comparing the use of artificial neural networks and case-based reasoning in

modeling bridge deterioration

Article · January 2002

CITATIONS READS

13 652

1 author:

George Morcous
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
98 PUBLICATIONS   1,093 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Historical and Existing Structures (ARCHES) View project

Load rating of tied-arch Bridge systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by George Morcous on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Congrès annuel de la Société canadienne de génie civil

Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering

Montréal, Québec, Canada

5-8 juin 2002 / June 5-8, 2002

COMPARING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS AND

CASE-BASED REASONING IN MODELING BRIDGE DETERIORATION.
G. Morcous
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

ABSTRACT: Bridge Management Systems (BMSs) have been developed to optimize maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement decisions for bridge networks under budget constraints. The success of
these systems depends greatly on their ability to predict the future condition of bridges/bridge components
in an accurate and timely fashion. Current BMSs employ deterioration models, such as regression models
and Markovian models, for that purpose. Since the late 1990’s, artificial intelligence approaches, such as
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) and Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) have been proposed to develop
deterioration models that eliminate the limitations of existing models based on their ability to learn from
data and to model complex relationships. In this paper, a comparison of using ANNs and CBR in modeling
bridge deterioration is carried out using bridge deck data obtained from the Ministry of Transportation of
Quebec. The objective of this comparison is to determine the pros and cons of the two approaches and to
guide transportation agencies in selecting the approach that best suits their needs.

1. INTRODUCTION

Preserving the condition of highway bridges has become the main concern of asset managers since the
collapse of the Silver Bridge between WV and OH in 1967 and the loss of 47 lives. This condition has
been significantly declined during the last few decades as a result of aging, increased traffic loads,
severity of surrounding environment, and inadequate preventive maintenance. A recent survey on the
condition of highway bridges in the United States has showed that about 14% of the 583,414 nation’s
bridges are classified as structurally deficient and 16% are classified as functionally obsolete (U.S. DOT
1999). Tremendous amounts of funds are required to return the condition of these bridges to an
acceptable level of safety and serviceability. Therefore, optimizing the allocation of the limited budget on
bridge maintenance needs is becoming a critical decision-making problem.

Bridge Management Systems (BMSs) have been developed since the mid 1980’s to assist decision
makers in selecting the most-cost effective maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement (MR&R)
strategies for bridge networks. The success of these systems as decision support systems depends
greatly on their ability to predict the future condition of bridges at the network level. This is why the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have prescribed a bridge
deterioration model as one of the minimum requirements of any BMSs (AASHTO 1993).

In general, a deterioration model is defined as a link between a measure of facility condition and a vector
of explanatory variables that represent deterioration factors (Ben-Akiva and Gopinath 1995). Current
BMSs employ either deterministic models, such as regression models and mathematical models, or

1
stochastic models, such as Markovian models, in modeling bridge deterioration. These models have been
first used for pavements and later for bridges and sewer pipes (Shahin 1994; Bulusu and Sinha 1997;
Wirahadikusumah et al. 2001). Although these models have different theoretical foundations and
performance characteristics, they share some limitations. These models describe the future condition of a
facility as a function of its current condition and some deterioration factors. The effect of facility condition
history on the predicted condition is not considered. Moreover, updating these models when new data
becomes available is a difficult and time-consuming task.

During the last two decades, artificial intelligence (AI) approaches have been of interest to many
researchers in the transportation industry because of their non-traditional heuristic problem-solving skills.
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) and Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) are two AI approaches that can be
classified as Machine Learning (ML) approaches because they simulate different learning capabilities of
the human brain. A common aspect of the two approaches is their ability to transform the row data into
usable knowledge that be easily applied. These approaches have been widely used in developing several
planning, prediction, classification, estimation, and design applications (Boussabaine 1996; Watson 1997).

The use of ANNs in modeling bridge deterioration was first proposed by Sobanjo (1997) in a small-scale
investigation, where an ANN model that predicts the future condition of bridge superstructure as a function
of its age was developed. A more detailed investigation was carried out later by Tokdemir et al. (2000) to
incorporate several explanatory variable, such as highway type, design type, material type, traffic volume,
and age, in predicting the sufficiency rating of bridges. A time-series based ANN model was developed by
Lou, et al. (2001) to predict the short-term future condition of pavement cracks given past condition
records. These investigations have demonstrated the potential of using ANNs in modeling infrastructure
deterioration.

The use of CBR in modeling infrastructure deterioration was first proposed by Morcous et al. (2001). In
this proof-of-concept investigation, the future condition of bridge decks was predicted by reusing the
recorded condition of other decks that are similar in their physical features (e.g. material, structural
system, cross section, span, etc.), environmental and operational conditions (e.g. region, highway class,
traffic, load, etc.), and inspection and maintenance history. This application showed the ability of the CBR
approach to consider the effects of past conditions on the predicted ones. Moreover, it demonstrated the
success of the CBR model over traditional forecasting models (i.e. regression models) in condition
prediction. Also, CBR is being used for the service life prediction of low-slope roofs as a part of the
Building Envelope Life Cycle Asset Management (BELCAM) research project.

In this study, a comparison between using the ANN and CBR approaches in modeling bridge deterioration
is carried out using bridge deck data obtained from the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ). This
comparison evaluates the two approaches with respect to their predictive power, simplicity of
development, and ease of update. The main objective of this comparison is to guide transportation
agencies in selecting the approach that best suits their resources, data stock, and performance
requirements. An earlier comparison between the two approaches was carried out by Arditi and Tokdemir
(1999) to evaluate their performance in predicting the outcome of construction litigations. Although this
comparison showed that the percentages of correct predictions due to using the CBR and ANN
approaches were 83% and 67% respectively, this conclusion was justified for the domain of construction
litigation only and has to be verified for other domains. Moreover, the attributes used in Arditi and
Tokdemir’s investigation were static attributes, while this study involves the use of time-dependent
attributes that describe bridge condition history.

The paper is organized as follows. The first section describes the bridge data used in developing the
proposed models. The second section introduces the ANN approach and presents the development of the
ANN model. The next section introduces the CBR approach and presents the development of the CBR
model. Then, the following section compares the two models from different perspectives. Finally,
conclusions and recommendations on using the two approaches for modeling bridge deterioration are
discussed.

2
2. BRIDGE DATA

Data was obtained from the database of the MTQ, which is a part of a comprehensive system for
managing various highway structures. This database contains 9500 province-owned highway structures
that are grouped into eight categories: culverts, slab bridges, beam bridges, box-girder bridges, truss
bridges, arch bridges, cabled bridges, and other structures. The database includes three types of data for
each highway structure:
• Inventory data: which consist of approximately 220 data items that can be categorized into:
administrative (e.g. identification, location, jurisdiction, etc.), technical (e.g. environment, traffic,
postings, etc.), and descriptive (e.g. geometry, material, structural system, etc.) (MTQ 1997).
• Condition data: which are the outcome of the detailed visual inspection carried out for each structure
every 3 years (or less) since 1993. These data are collected using 21 different inspection forms, each
of which corresponds to a group of correlated structural elements such as foundation elements, truss
elements, and deck elements. Each inspection form includes the material condition rating (MCR),
which represents the condition of an element based upon the severity and extent of observed defects,
and the performance condition rating (PCR), which describes the condition of an element based upon
its ability to perform its intended function in the structure (MTQ 1995). Both MCR and PCR are
represented in an ordinal rating scale that ranges from 1 to 6, where 6 represents a new condition.
Figure 1 shows how the MCR of an element in a highway structure in Quebec is determined given the
type of element (i.e., primary, secondary, or auxiliary), the percentage of material defects in the
element cross section, surface area, or length, and the severity of these defects (i.e. very low, low,
medium, severe, and very severe).
• MR&R data: which represent the major maintenance actions that are recommended to take place in
the future. The cost and the expected time of each action are roughly estimated. Data about
maintenance actions that took place in the past are collected by the regional offices and not recorded
in the MTQ database.

Figure 1: Material condition rating system used in the MTQ

The focus of this article is modeling the deterioration of concrete bridge decks. This is because the
concrete bridge deck is considered the most deteriorating bridge component in North America due to the
premature corrosion of reinforcing steel as a result of using deicing salts and the rapid degradation of
concrete as a result freeze-thaw cycles (Freyermuth et al. 1970). Given the factors that affect the
deterioration of other bridge component, the same procedures can be followed.

3
In order to obtain a consistent data set for model development, the MTQ database was screened by
eliminating deck records with incomplete inventory data or missing condition data. Furthermore, deck
records that have positive deterioration rates were also eliminated because they indicate that major
maintenance actions have been made during the observation period, while data about these actions are
not available in the database. For better consistency, only concrete bridge decks in beam bridges were
selected since this type of bridges is the most dominant in Quebec. The screening process resulted in 259
bridge decks that have 3 consecutive inspection records with an average inspection period of 2.8 years.

The factors that affect the deterioration of concrete bridge decks were defined based on three sources: 1)
a previous study carried out by Carrier and Cady (1973), 2) a literature review carried out by the author on
the deterioration factors recognized by state-of-the-art BMSs (Morcous 2000), and 3) data collection
practices in the MTQ. These attributes are listed in Table 1 along with their possible values for symbolic
attributes and range of values for numeric attributes. Other factors that significantly affect the deterioration
of concrete bridge decks, such as concrete cover thickness, protective system, drainage system, concrete
permeability, could not be considered in this study because data related to these factors are not readily
available in the MTQ database.

Table 1: Attributes used in developing the two models

3. ANN MODEL DEVELOPMENT

An ANN is a collection of interconnected computational elements called neurons that have performance
characteristics in common with biological neurons (Fausett 1994). This brain-like structure makes ANN
models superior to knowledge-based models and mathematical models in solving problems that involve
intuitive judgment, possess high degrees of non-linearity, and contain time-dependent data. In this study,
a three-layer back propagation neural network was selected to develop a model that predicts the future
condition of concrete bridge decks. This is because this type of ANNs has the ability to approximate any
non-linear function and to map unknown relationships between inputs and outputs (Hornik et al. 1989).

For model development, symbolic attributes have to be transformed into numeric attributes because
neural networks deal only with numbers (Nelson and Illingworth 1991). Two methods can be used to
transform these attributes into a form suitable for ANN representation: a binary-value transformation and a
continuous-value transformation (Moselhi et al. 1991). In a binary-value transformation, a symbolic
attribute is replaced by a vector of binary attributes, each of which represents a single attribute value.

4
Selected attribute value is assigned 1 while other values are assigned 0s. In a continuous-value
transformation, a symbolic attribute is transformed into a numeric attribute that takes integer or real
values, each of them represents a single attribute value. Attribute values have to be ranked in such a way
that the value with the higher rank results in a higher value for the network output. The binary-value
transformation results in a higher number of input neurons than the continuous-value transformation,
which affects negatively the network performance especially when small number of training patterns is
available. However, the binary-value transformation is more realistic and does not require ranking attribute
values, which is a subjective task. Therefore, the binary-value transformation was used with all symbolic
attributes listed in Table 1, which resulted in a total of 25 input neurons.

Although the MCRs of bridge deck and girders are measured using an ordinal rating scale, MCR attributes
are considered as cardinal numeric attributes. This is because the value of these attributes is calculated
as the aggregation of the MCRs of different parts in the bridge deck/girder. For example, the deck MCR is
calculated as the weighted average of the MCRs of: the two exterior faces, the two end portions (each
portion has a length equal to two times the girder depth), and the middle portion.

To develop a ANN model with adequate generalization ability, data patterns were divided randomly into
three sets: 1) a training set that is used to refine network weights (77%), 2) a testing set that is used to
measure the network ability to tackle unseen data while training (11.5%), and 3) a validation set that is
used to evaluate the overall performance of the trained network (11.5%). These percentages were
determined based on common practices and data availability. The neural network simulator "Brainmaker"
developed by California Scientific Software was used in training and testing the model (Brainmaker 1996).
Network parameters, such as the number of hidden neurons and learning rate, were determined
automatically by the simulator based on the network performance during the training process. For
example, the learning rate was set to change linearly from 1.0 to 0.1 according to the percentage of
correct predictions (from 100% to 0%) in each training cycle. This set up is efficient since high learning
rates are recommended in the early training cycles to avoid lengthy training, while in advanced training
cycles, low learning rates are recommended to fine tune network weights and achieve network stability
(Yeh et al. 1993). Figure 2 plots the average absolute error and root mean square (RMS) error of the ANN
model in all training cycles. Although the decrease of these errors while training progresses is expected,
this figure shows that the number of training cycles used in model development, which is 2000, is quite
sufficient since the value of these errors became almost constant before this number.

0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
RMS Error
Error

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
Average Abolute Error
0.01
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

No. of Training Cycles

Figure 2: The performance of the ANN model while training

5
The results of validating the ANN model were evaluated at different tolerance values. A tolerance value is
the maximum acceptable absolute difference between the predicted condition and the actual condition;
the lower the tolerance value, the higher the prediction accuracy. The developed ANN model resulted in
correct predictions for 33% of the validation set when a tolerance value of 0.10 was allowed and for 100%
of the validation set when a tolerance value of 1.0 was allowed. These percentages indicate the accuracy
of the ANN model and will be presented with those of the CBR model in the following section.

4. CBR MODEL DEVELOPMENT

CBR solves a problem by reusing the solution of previous cases (i.e., examples) that are similar to the
current problem (sometimes called query case). These cases, which are stored in the so-called case
library, are defined as instances that record problem definitions and their corresponding solutions. CBR
differs in concept from other AI approaches such as ANNs and expert systems because these approaches
utilize only the general knowledge of the problem domain, while CBR is able to benefit from the specific
knowledge of previously solved problems, which is usually more accurate (Aamodt and Plaza 1994).

In general, the CBR approach has four main aspects (Kolodner 1993): 1) case representation that
organizes the information on case contents (i.e. the problem, the solution, and the outcomes) in the
system case library; 2) case accumulation that is responsible for storing new cases into the case library to
support CBR learning capabilities; 3) case retrieval that queries the case library for the most relevant
case(s) to the current problem in order to reuse them; and 4) case adaptation that revises the retrieved
case(s) to fit the current problem context.

The CBR development tool, called CBRMID, was selected to develop the intended CBR model. CBRMID
was developed specifically to generate CBR applications for modeling infrastructure deterioration
(Morcous et al 2002). CBRMID has distinct characteristics, such as: representing infrastructure facilities
with deep hierarchical decomposition; considering the interaction among facility components in the
matching process; allowing the versatility and extensibility of both case structure and contents; supporting
data reusing and sharing; representing facility time-dependent data; and accounting for the fuzziness of
retrieval knowledge.

In order to use CBRMID for model development, two sets of cases are required in addition to the set of
cases that build the case library. The first set is called the testing set and is used to refine model
parameters, such as attribute weights and degrees of similarities. The second set is called the validation
set and is used to evaluate the refined model. These two sets were selected to be the same as the sets
used in developing the ANN model to guarantee a fair comparison. Initially, attribute weights were
assigned the same numeric value assuming that all the attributes listed in Table 1 have the same
importance. Then, attribute weights were adjusted manually to represent their relative importance based
on the knowledge obtained from the literature and from the statistical analysis that was carried out by
Morcous (2000). For example, the weight of the “Region” attribute was set to 0.8 (i.e. very important) while
the weight of the “Truck %” attribute was set to 0.4 (i.e. slightly important). These weights were refined in
several iterations along with the degrees of similarity among attribute values till the results of the testing
set became satisfactory. Adjusted attribute weights and degrees of similarity were then used with the
validation set to assess the accuracy of the CBR model.

There are different methods to calculate the output of a CBR model from the outcome of the retrieved
cases (Arditi and Tokdemir 1999). In the developed model, the outcome of the retrieved case that has the
highest similarity with the query case was considered. The results of validating the CBR model were also
evaluated using different tolerance values. This evaluation resulted in correct predictions for 70% of the
validation set when a tolerance value of 0.10 was allowed and for 97% of the validation set when a
tolerance value of 1.0 was allowed. Figure 3 shows the results of validating both the ANN model and the
CBR model when the tolerance value ranges from 0 to 1. A comparison of the accuracy of the two models
is presented in the following section.

6
 100%

80%

% Correct Predictions
60%
CBR

40%
ANN

20%

0%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tolerance Value

Figure 3: Comparing the results of validating the ANN and CBR models

5. COMPARING THE ANN & CBR MODELS

The ANN model, like statistical models, is based on the concept of generalized knowledge. In this
concept, data patterns used in developing the model are disregarded afterwards and the model is used
independently. This approach usually results in a model that is highly dependent on the quality of training
patterns and on how close user inputs to these patterns are. The incompleteness and/or inconsistency of
some patterns significantly affect the overall performance of the model, which sometimes leads to
undetectable errors that cannot be tracked. Moreover, if the user input is not close of any of the training
patterns, the model will not refuse to answer but it will produce inaccurate results without any warnings
(i.e. black box model). This interprets the performance of the ANN model shown in Figure 3 where the
model could not provide more than 33% correct predictions when a high level of accuracy was required
(i.e. an error of only 0.1 was allowed), while it was able to provide 100% correct prediction when an error
of 1.0 is allowed.

On the other hand, the CBR model is based on the concept of specialized knowledge. In this concept, the
data used in model development is an indispensable component of the model because the CBR model
provides an answer for a problem only if there is a similar problem(s) in its case library. This means that
the CBR model does not produce any answers or produces answers with very low similarities when the
case library does not cover the user input, the fact that warns the user about the inaccuracy of the output.
The CBR model specifies exactly the case(s) that are retrieved and allows the user to track these cases,
their circumstances, and solutions. This interprets the performance of the CBR model shown Figure 3,
where the model was able to provide 77% correct predictions when with an error of 0.1 or less, while it
could not provide any prediction for 7% of the cases even when an error of 1.0 is allowed.

The experience with the development of a CBR model has shown that the process of tuning attribute
weights and setting up similarity measures is not a simple task. Several iterations have to be done in this
process in addition to the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge either by consulting domain experts or
performing some statistical tests. However, the developed CBR model can be easily expanded by defining
new attributes and updated by the accumulation of new cases in its case library. Also, CBR models
handle cases with their original representation, the fact that maintains the integrity of the conveyed
information. On the other hand, although the development of an ANN model seems to be less laborious,
expanding and/or updating an ANN model requires as much effort as in its initial development. Moreover,
ANN models do not accept cases with symbolic attributes the fact that requires either binary or continuous
transformation and lead to losing information in the process of data conversion (Arditi and Tokdemir
1999).

7
6. CONCLUSIONS

This paper presented the use of two artificial intelligence approaches, ANN and CBR, in modeling bridge
deterioration. Bridge deck data obtained from the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec was utilized in
developing and validating the ANN and CBR models. The two models predict the future condition of
concrete bridge decks based on their current condition, previous condition, and some explanatory
variables. Comparing the output of the two models with actual data showed that the CBR model is more
accurate than the ANN model especially when small tolerance values are allowed. However, the CBR
model cannot provide predictions for the cases that do not have enough similarity with any of the stored
cases. Also, the development experience of the two models indicated that the CBR model is easier to
update and expand than the ANN model, however it may need much effort in its initial development. In
general, the CBR approach was found to be more successful than the ANN approach since the accuracy,
extensibility, and ease of update and important issues to many transportation agencies.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge Dr. H. Rivard for his fruitful comments and continuous support. Many
thanks to Guy Richard, Eng., Director, and René Gagnon, Bridge Engineer, of the Structures Department
- Ministry of Transportation of Quebec - for their help in providing the author with data and manuals.

8. REFERENCES

Aamodt, A. and Plaza, E. (1994) Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations,
and System Approaches, AICOM, 7 (1), 39-59.
AASHTO (1993) Guidelines For Bridge Management Systems, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., USA.
Arditi, D. and Tokdemir, O. (1999) Comparison of Case-Based Reasoning and Artificial Neural Networks,
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 13 (3), 162-169.
Ben-Akiva, M. and Gopinath, D. (1995) Modeling Infrastructure Performance and User Costs, Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, 1 (1), 33-43.
Boussabaine, A. H. (1996) The Use of Artificial Neural Networks in Construction Management: A Review,
Construction Management and Economics, E&FN Spon, 14, 427-436.
Brainmaker (1996) Neural Network Software, California Scientific Software, Nevada City, CA, USA.
Bulusu, S. and Sinha, K. C. (1997) Comparison of Methodologies to Predict Bridge Deterioration,
Transportation Research Record, TRB, 1597, 34-42.
Carrier, E. and Cady, P. D. (1973) Deterioration of 249 Bridge Decks, Transportation Research Record,
TRB, 423, 46-57.
DOT (1999) Memorandum: Strategic Goals for Deficient Bridges, U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington D.C., USA.
Fausett, L. (1994) Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, and Applications, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Freyermuth, C. L., Klieger, P., Stark, D. C., and Wenke, H. N. (1970) Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks-
A Review of Cooperative Studies, Transportation Research Record, TRB, 328, 50-60.
Hornik, K., Strathcombe, M., and White, H. (1989) Multilayer Feed Forward are Universal Approximators,
Neural Networks 2, Pergamon 2 (4), 359-366.
Kolodner, J. (1993) Case-Based Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, USA.
Lou, Z., Gunaratne, M., and Dietrich, B., (2001) Application of Neural Network Model to Forecast Short-
Term Pavement Crack Condition: Florida Case Study, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, 7 (4),
166-171.
Ministry of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ) (1995) Manuel d’Inspection des Structures: Evaluation des
Dommages, Bibliothèque Nationale du Québec, Gouvernement du Québec, Canada.
Ministry of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ) (1997) Manuel de l’Usage du Système de Gestion des
Structures SGS-5016, Bibliothèque Nationale du Québec, Gouvernement du Québec, Canada.

8
 Morcous, G. (2000) Case-Based Reasoning for Modeling Bridge Deterioration, Ph.D. thesis, Department
of Building, Civil, and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Morcous, G., Rivard, H., and Hanna, A. M. (2001) Predicting the Condition of Bridge Decks Using Case-
Based Reasoning, Proceedings of the CSCE 29th Annual Conference, D. Noakes (editor), CSCE,
Victoria, BC, Canada.
Morcous, G., Rivard, H., and Hanna, A. M. (2002) Case-Based Reasoning System for Modeling
Infrastructure Deterioration, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 16 (2).
Moselhi, O., Hegazy, T., and Fazio, P. (1991) Neural Networks As Tools in Construction, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 117 (4), 606-625.
Nelson, M. M. and Illingworth, W. T. (1991) A Practical Guide to Neural Nets, Addison-Wesley, New York.
Shahin, M. Y. (1994) Pavement Management for Airports, roads, and Parking Lots, Chapman & Hall, New
York, USA.
Sobanjo, J. O. (1997) A Neural Network Approach to Modeling Bridge Deterioration, Proceedings of the
4th Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Philadelphia, PA, 623-626.
Tokdemir, O. B., Ayvalik, C., and Mohammadi, J. (2000) Prediction of Highway Bridge Performance by
Artificial Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms, Proceeding of the 17th International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction, ISARC, Taipei, Taiwan, 1091-1098.
Watson, I. (1997) Applying Case-Based Reasoning: Techniques for Enterprise Systems, Morgan
Kaufmann Publisher, San Mateo, CA, USA.
Wirahadikusumah, R., Abraham, D., and Iseley, T. (2001) Challenging Issues in Modeling Deterioration of
Combined Sewers, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, 7 (2), 77-84.
Yeh, Y., Kuo, Y., and Hsu, D. (1993) Building KBES For Diagnosing PC Pile With Artificial Neural
Network, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 7 (1), 71-93.

View publication stats