Risk assessment of bridges using

Bayesian belief network: with

consideration of seismic and aging

Dr. Solomon Tesfamariam, P.Eng.

Associate Professor
School of Engineering at Okanagan Campus

Earthquake Engineering by the Beach II

A Workshop on Seismic Risk of Civil Infrastructures
Villa Orlandi, Anacapri, Italy – June 8-10, 2013
Introduction
Introduction
Bridges in British Columbia (BC)

120
Total  No. of  Bridges  2743
100
s
e
g 80
d
ir
B
 f 60
o
 .
o 40
N
20

0
0 4 1 7 2 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4
0 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 0
8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Year  of  Construction
 Bridge Damage from
1994 Northridge Earthquake

70 64
Before  1 940
60 56
1940-­‐1971
50
No.  of  Bridges

1972-­‐1980
40
30 30 After  1 980
30 25
20 17

10 5
1 2 2 1
0
Minor Moderate Major Collapse

Basöz, Kiremidjian, King and Law (1999)

 BC Road Bridges

1200
1039
1000
s 800
e
g
d
ir
B
 f 600 535
 o 458
.
o 400
N

200 91

0
Before  1940 1940-­‐1971 1972-­‐1980 After  1980
Year  of  Construction
 Problem Statement

• Existing bridges are vulnerable

• Comprehensive evaluation and retrofit is costly

• Prioritize retrofit based on criticality

• Use risk-based prioritization

Seismic risk
 Seismic Risk

Seismic risk may be defined the probability that

a specified loss will exceed some quantifiable
value during a given exposure time

EERI Committee on Seismic Risk 1989

 Why Risk Analysis?

… to quantify the potential for building

damage (risk assessment) and evaluate
the effectiveness of proposed retrofit
(risk management)
 Risk Index
Risk = Likelihood of failure x Consequence of failure

Seismic Risk

Bridge damageability Consequence

of failure

Site seismic hazard Bridge vulnerability

Earthquake Hazard Assessment

Earthquake

Ground Shaking

Liquefaction
Landslide
 Bridge Consequence of Failure

Consequence of failure

Length, Height Road type SADT

 Vulnerability Assessment

• QMT (Filiatrault et al. 1994): {structural type

index, structural complexity index, deck
discontinuity index, support redundancy index,
bearing condition index, skew index}
• New Zealand (Transit New Zealand 1988): {year
designed, superstructure hinges, superstructure
overlap, superstructure length, pier type, bridge
skew, abutment type}
 BC MoTH Bridge Assessment System II

Bridge Assessment System Index

Adjusted Urgency Importance Operation Live load

bridge rating index and safety capacity
condition index index index
Index
 Bridge Vulnerability

Superstructure Current Substructure

condition

Skewness Deck Bearing Support Year of

discontinuity condition redundancy construction

Bearing Bearing seating

type condition
Aging and deterioration
 Age of Infrastructure

http://www.pppcouncil.ca/issues_infraDeficit.asp
 Canada’s Infrastructure Crisis

· There is a growing infrastructure

investment deficit occurring in
many sectors
· Financial costs to repair and
replace deteriorating BC bridges
exceeds $2 billion
· Need to prioritize based on risk-
informed decision
(http://www.pppcouncil.ca/
issues_infraDeficit.asp#Civil)
 Markov Chains

§ A stochastic process is considered Markov

process if the probability of a future state in the
process depends only on the current state and
not on how it was attained (Parzen 1962)

§ A Markov chain is a special case of the Markov

process whose development can be treated as a
series of transitions between certain states

21
Unit Jump Markov Chain Model
Prediction of Bridge Deterioration
using Markovian Models
 Advantage of Markov Chains Models

• Ability to capture the uncertainty from different

sources, such as,

– Uncertainty in initial condition,

– Uncertainty in applied stresses,
– Presence of condition assessment errors, and
– Inherent uncertainty of the deterioration process

(Morcous et al. 2003)

• Incremental models that account for the current
condition in predicting the future condition

• Applicability to both components and large size

networks because of their computational
efficiency and simplicity of use

(Morcous et al. 2003)

Integration of Macro- and Micro-Deterioration
Models for Multilevel Bridge Management

(Lounis and Madanat 2002)

 Future Condition State

• Given the initial condition vector P{S(0)} of the

bridge element, the future condition vector
P{S(tn)} at time n can be obtained as:

P{S (t n )} = P{S (0)}P n

 Markov Deterioration
Deterioration  Type
Severe  environment
Maintence  Alternative
Rehabilitate
Performance  Level
3
Uncertainty
 Complex System

“As complexity rises, precise statements

lose meaning and meaningful statements
lose precision.”

Lotfi Zadeh
 Uncertainty

Vagueness Ambiguity
The lack of definite or One-to-many
sharp distinctions relationships

Discord (conflict) Non-specificity

Disagreement in choosing Two or more alternatives
among several alternatives are left unspecified

Klir and Yuan (1995)

 Uncertainty Quantification

Probabilistic methods
• Variance propagation
• Monte Carlo simulations (higher order MCS)
• First order reliability methods

Fuzzy-based method
• Fuzzy arithmetic and possibility theory
• Fuzzy rule-based models

Random sets (PBA, Dempster-Shafer)

Bayesian Belief Network
 Bayesian Approach to
Probability and Statistics

• Classical Probability: Physical property of the

world (e.g., 50% flip of a fair coin).
True probability.

• Bayesian Probability: A person’s degree of

belief in event X. Personal probability.
 Bayesian Belief Network (BBN)

• Represented with Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG),

nodes are variables and arrows are informational
or causal dependencies

Damage/Loss Consequence of Failure

EDRI

35
• DAG represents the dependencies between
variables and specifies the joint probability
distribution
• Random variables make up the nodes.
• Directed links represent causal direct influences.
• Each node has a conditional probability table
quantifying the effects from the parents.
• No directed cycles.
 BBN
Variable   Variable  
A1 A2

Variable A1 Probability Variable A2 Probability

L P(A1=L) L P(A2=L)
M P(A1=M) M P(A2=M)
H P(A1=H) H P(A2=H)

Unconditional   Variable   Unconditional  

probability  (UP) B3 probability  (UP)

Variable Variable Variable B3

A1 A2
Probability
L M H
L L P(B3=L|A1=L,  A2=L) P(B3=M|A1=L,  A2=L) P(B3=H|A1=L,  A2=L)
… … … … …

H M P(B3=L|A1=H,  A2=M) P(B3=M|A1=H,  A2=M) P(B3=H|A1=H,  A2=M)

H H P(B3=L|A1=H,  A2=H) P(B3=M|A1=H,  A2=H) P(B3=H|A1=H,  A2=H)

Conditional  probability  table  (CPT)

• Employs Bayes’ theorem:

• H is a hypothesis, E is evidence and P() are

probabilities

38
BBN implementation of bridge
seismic risk assessment
 BBN seismic risk assessment of bridges

Risk

BridgeDamageability
FailureConsequence

BridgeVulnerability Length Height RoadType SADT

PGA Liquefaction

SuperStructure AgingDeterioration SubStructure

Distance

Soil_type Magnitude D50 sigma_vo sigma_vo_prime qc Skewness BearingCondition DeckDiscontinuity SupportRedundancy YearOfConstruction

BearingType BearingSeatCondition
 Site seismic hazard

PGA Liquefaction

Distance

Soil_type Magnitude D50 sigma_vo sigma_vo_prime qc

 Consequence of failure

FailureConsequence

Length Height RoadType SADT

 Bridge vulnerability

BridgeVulnerability

SuperStructure AgingDeterioration SubStructure

Skewness BearingCondition DeckDiscontinuity SupportRedundancy YearOfConstruction

BearingType BearingSeatCondition
 Risk index

Risk

BridgeDamageability FailureConsequence

PGA Liquefaction BridgeVulnerability

Excel Interface
 Scenario

• Site seismic hazard = high

• Environmental condition = Severe environment
• Scenario 1
• Support redundancy = No pier
• Year of construction = 2010
• Scenario 2
• Support redundancy = Single column
• Year of construction = 1960
Probability of Risk Index = Very High
Thanks for listening
You always got to be prepared, but you never know for what -
Paradox of risk management