We are IntechOpen,

the world’s leading publisher of

Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists

6,900
Open access books available
184,000
International authors and editors
200M Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact [email protected]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter

Remote Assessment of the

Serviceability of Infrastructural
Assets
Ikwulono D. Unobe and Andrew D. Sorensen

Abstract

The continued serviceability of structures and infrastructural assets over time is a

very important component of design and construction. Traditionally, structural health
monitoring techniques utilize sensors and field inspections to capture distress and
defects in structural members to allow for repairs and retrofitting prior to catastrophic
collapse. However, these processes are usually quite expensive (financially and time
wise), making it difficult to assess all assets. Rather, it necessary to identify specific
assets requiring field investigations. To do this, an ability to remotely compute the real
time serviceability of these structures and periodically update their condition to
determine the criticality of field inspections is important. Several methods and pro-
cesses have been proposed for this purpose with respect to different loading condi-
tions and type of structures. This chapter will offer insight into remote monitoring of
structures and infrastructure over time as they sustain damage from varied loading
conditions.

Keywords: infrastructure, remote monitoring, reliability analysis, Bayesian updating,

infrastructural decay, structural health monitoring, wind loads

1. Introduction

Structures are primarily designed to have the capacity to withstand certain loads
they can be expected to bear. Over their design lives, structural members can be
expected to deteriorate, with an attendant decrease in their capacities. This is gener-
ally as a result of exposure to environmental factors, aging of the constituent mate-
rials, as well as the residual effects of loading conditions. Such degradation of
structures occurs in a number of ways including fatigue, corrosion, cracking, and
scour. Thus, maintaining infrastructure to ensure its continued ability to fulfill design
criteria is very important for the safety and security of a society. To this end, accurate
knowledge of the in-service state of infrastructural assets cannot be trifled with. This
brings to the fore, the pertinence of periodic inspection and maintenance for these
assets, especially those designed to last for a long time, to ensure they continue to
meet specified design requirements.

1
Failure Analysis – Structural Health Monitoring of Structure and Infrastructure Components

The process of inspecting or monitoring structures with a view to identifying and

assessing damage to them is referred to as structural health monitoring (SHM). Prin-
cipally, the inspection aspect is carried out by visual means. However, such visual
inspections have a number of shortcomings including subjectivity of the inspecting
personnel, the ability to only capture surface damage in visible locations, and the
limitation of the inspection to damage without a congruent monitoring of loads
applied to the structure. In addition, the sheer volume of infrastructural assets requir-
ing such inspections and maintenance precludes the possibility of thorough inspec-
tions being carried out regularly on most, increasing the possibility of critical
information getting missed during cursory examinations. For example, the Federal
Highway Administration specifies biennial routine inspections for every bridge within
its purview. These inspections are primarily designated to be carried out via visual
inspection, with more advanced equipment and methods only deployed for more in-
depth inspection if deemed necessary. However, with about 600,000 bridges included
in this inspection regime, rigorous visual inspection of each bridge becomes a very
difficult task to achieve within the projected time frame, leading to increased risks of
failure.
With the unreliability of such conventional lifetime assessment methods [1, 2],
SHM has become a very important tool for assessing the lifetime of a structure. To
curtail the stated shortcomings in the inspection and maintenance process, it became
necessary to expand the original scope of SHM frameworks. In redefining the SHM
process, Ref. [3] asserted that a monitoring system should include four operations
namely acquisition, validation, analysis and management. Ideally, a single SHM sys-
tem would collect information on both loads and system response to the loading. In
addition to monitoring duties, an ideal SHM system would also incorporate some
prognostic methods that will allow for the damage levels to be evaluated and the in-
situ health of the structures to be determined. This will allow for an analysis of the
present and future performance of the infrastructural assets. Integrating a variety of
disciplines including material science, non-destructive evaluation, fracture and
fatigue mechanics, structural dynamics and structural design, SHM frameworks can
be designed to collect information on deflections and strains, system behavior,
thresholds of systems and members, input values for lifetime assessment, and main-
tenance planning [1]. To this end, SHM frameworks originally designed for capturing
and assessing the initiation and propagation of damage, have been expanded to collect
other information related to the performance of the structure [1, 4]. To prevent
damage to structures, the monitoring or data acquisition stage of SHM is carried out
principally using non-destructive evaluation (NDE) techniques. These techniques
allow for the evaluation of the integrity of materials and structures without
compromising their continued abilities to meet design criteria. Used widely for
detecting and characterizing defects and damage in infrastructure, NDE techniques
have been extensively researched and offer a useful means of collecting information
for SHM to adequately characterize the in-situ health of infrastructure.
A holistic monitoring system must be able to provide sufficient information for
users to make decisions on the continued serviceability of the structure, and on
maintenance, repair and replacement regimens. With the plethora of tools developed
for capturing damage and structural response, the determination of the presence of
damage has become a relatively trivial task. However, the extrapolation of the effect
of the damage on the serviceability of the structure remains a relatively complicated
undertaking. Currently, most systems deployed for SHM of infrastructural assets are
essentially either sensor arrays or other equipment used to identify the existence of
2
Remote Assessment of the Serviceability of Infrastructural Assets
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109356

damage or distress in the structures under investigation, without requisite provision

for quantifying the damage and defining the residual capacities of the structures.
Thus, while providing good data on the loading of a system, and the damage incurred,
these systems do not provide information on its continued serviceability, making
manual inspections in the SHM process irreplaceable. To this end, SHM systems
remain a precursor to physical inspections, giving inspectors an idea of the state of
infrastructure and a basis for the determination of inspection and maintenance
schedules. This brings to the fore the importance of accurately analyzing the data
collected from the SHM systems.
Two approaches are used for the analysis and interpretation of the data collected,
and primarily differ in the use or avoidance of a physics-based model for analyzing the
behavior of the structure [5]. Model based approaches involve updates to models that
capture damage and eroding capacity with respect to applied loads to reflect changes
in the structural parameters observed from collected data [6–8]. In analyzing the
strengths and weaknesses of the approaches, Ref. [5] determined that rather than
being considered alternatives, both systems should be considered to be complemen-
tary, depending on the needs and requirements of the SHM system. Although well
established, these methods are developed using idealizations of the structural behav-
ior, without taking into considerations uncertainties in materials, geometry and load-
ing conditions in analyzing the data collected. These uncertainties could lead to
discrepancies between projected structural behavior and the actual behavior, possibly
creating incorrect assumptions on the state of a structure. To this end, such deter-
ministic methods remain at best approximations of the condition of a structure and
must be used with caution. To overcome this shortcoming, a probabilistic process that
accounts for these uncertainties, thus allowing for a more realistic estimation of the
state of the structure, and its reliability can be applied. This inclusion of reliability
methods in SHM processes, enhances the ability of monitoring systems and compo-
nents in real time, and allows for the introduction of predefined alert levels to trigger
specified actions once a value dips below a critical reliability index [5].
Beyond the use of reliability methods, Bayesian updating processes have become a
popular means for updating the state of structures in SHM frameworks. These pro-
cesses, utilize the data collected alongside prior knowledge on the performance of the
structure to make inferences on its current state and future performance. The incor-
poration of Bayesian updating processes, moves SHM frameworks from being moni-
toring systems to becoming more holistic systems, inculcating both monitoring and
analysis into making decisions on the condition and future performance of infrastruc-
tural assets.
Some steps are important for such SHM frameworks. These are obtaining data on
the loading and response of structures, characterizing damage or distress from this
information, analyzing the information, and making conclusions based on the char-
acterizations. These steps are carried out to get a good grasp of the state of the
structure, prior to full on-site inspections. However, with the cost of permanent
sensors, it is quite unfeasible to instrument all infrastructural assets. The alternative,
periodic inspections are also impractical due to the number and geographical spread of
these assets. To counteract these challenges, this chapter proposes a trade-off between
both. This alternative involves the use of existing and regularly updated data such as
wind speeds, traffic information and ground motion from seismic events to extrapo-
late the condition of infrastructural assets exposed to these conditions, and update
their conditions, allowing for the optimization of an inspection regimen. To this end,
the objectives of this chapter include:
3
Failure Analysis – Structural Health Monitoring of Structure and Infrastructure Components

1. The identification of loading scenarios with readily available data and the
extrapolation of such data to site specific conditions for the locations of
infrastructural assets.

2. The development of a procedure for the use of these loading conditions to

determine the in-service state of the structures.

3. The determination of a methodology that will allow for periodic updating of the
state of these assets using the collected information and prior knowledge of the
performance of the assets.

To meet these objectives, the rest of the chapter is designed to begin with a
background and overview of the SHM process, and then focuses on a methodology
designed to meet each objective. A case study example of traffic signal structures is
included to demonstrate the use of the proposed methodology.

2. Overview of structural health monitoring

Designed principally to determine and assess structural integrity, structural health

monitoring has continued to evolve with improvements in the technology and pro-
cesses used in achieving the said goals. Some fundamental bases of SHM include an
assumption that all materials have inherent flaws, and the necessity of at least two
system states in order to assess damage. As an important tool for assessing the condi-
tion and lifetime performance of a structure, Ref. [9] opined that systems which only
include sensors deployed on structures without a definition or classification system for
the damage cannot truly be classified as SHM systems. The study stated that a true
SHM system would include a quantifiable and pre-established definition of damage to
be detected by the sensors. Also, in the development and deployment of a SHM
system, a classification process for the identification of damage and assessment of its
extent needs to be defined [9]. To improve the practice of SHM for infrastructure,
Ref. [3] proposed a condition-based assessment framework for the management of
bridges. This process, would ideally provide information on damage to the structure
and erosion of structural resistance, as well as the probability of the structure’s per-
formance falling below a set standard and an estimation of the remaining useful
service life. An SHM system encompassing these parts would arm inspectors with
adequate information on the service condition of these infrastructural assets, allowing
them to make decisions on the repairs/retrofitting, while drastically cutting down on
the need for periodic manual inspections. There are five principal steps in a SHM
process. These are detection, localization, classification, assessment and prediction
[9, 10]. While the first two steps involve utilizing sensors and other equipment for
monitoring via non-destructive evaluation of the structure under investigation, the
last 3 steps involve analyses of the data collected from the monitoring process. Thus, it
can be said that an optimal SHM process consists of monitoring of structural behavior,
and analyzing this data for a proper prognostication of structural health.

2.1 System monitoring

Monitoring of structures for SHM involves use of instrumentation and processes

for the detection and localization of damage. With the inability of sensors to measure
4
Remote Assessment of the Serviceability of Infrastructural Assets
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109356

damage, the data collection at the system monitoring stage is qualitative in nature,
giving useful information on the presence and type of damage present in a structure,
but not offering quantitative information on the extent of the damage and the
remaining useful life of the structure or structural member. Most sensor systems
deployed for the purpose of SHM consist principally of this monitoring process,
without going further to quantify the damage and predict remaining useful life of the
structures [9]. Although only one part of a holistic SHM process, the importance of
proper deployment of sensors and instrumentation towards damage detection and
monitoring cannot be overestimated. With sensing systems, there is a trade-off
between sensitivity to damage of a sensing system and its noise rejection capability,
and also the size of damage detectable is inversely proportional to the frequency range
of excitation [9]. Generally, the length and time associated with the initiation and
evolution of damage dictates the properties of the sensing system to be used. Non-
destructive evaluation techniques have been widely investigated for this purpose.
These techniques can be deployed in an online manner for continuous monitoring, or
in an offline manner for inspection purposes. NDE methods researched and deployed
for SHM include vibration-based methods [11–13], optical based methods [14], radi-
ography [15], ultrasonic testing [16, 17], acoustic emission [18, 19], electromagnetic
methods [20–22], magnetic particle inspection [23, 24] and thermographic methods
[25–28]. These methods are usually used to capture damage in either continuous
monitoring schemes or in inspection regimes. Several types of damage are usually the
targets of such non-destructive evaluation processes. Ref. [13] in a follow up of a study
by Ref. [29], determined that the material and geometric changes that can be charac-
terized as damage by these systems include cracks, corrosion, buckling, creep, fas-
tener loosening and loss of preload, debonding, delamination, microstructural
degradation, and pull-out.

2.2 Prognostication of structural health

Beyond identifying the existence and type of damage, it is vital for SHM processes
to adequately characterize the damage to determine the continued serviceability of the
structure in the presence of these defects/damages. Determining the continued health
of the structure and its constituent members involves analysis of the captured dam-
age, and its effect on structural capacity. This requires the identification/development
of damage models that accurately represent the initiation and propagation of the
identified damage, and the degradation of capacity due to the damage propagation.
Ref. [13] opined that a typical SHM scheme for development of damage models
includes six principal steps including identification of the damage mechanism, identi-
fication of structural parameters affected, modeling of structure, sensitivity studies on
the model, modeling of the damage mechanism, and sensitivity studies of variations of
different parameters.
There are four possible levels of analyzing data collected from a SHM system to
characterize the health of the structure. These are inferences using the raw data,
analyzing the data to detect damage, deterioration or changes in structural behavior,
localizing and quantifying the damage and/or changes, and predicting future perfor-
mance based on current condition [5]. The first two levels do not usually require very
rigorous levels of analysis, beyond quite straightforward determination of a deviation
from the original state of the structure as an indication of damage. The last two levels
on the other hand usually require an extensive examination of the data in a bid to
determine the condition of the structure, the level of damage and distress, its residual
5
Failure Analysis – Structural Health Monitoring of Structure and Infrastructure Components

capacity and the future performance that can be expected of it. To determine these
levels, reliability analysis (level 3) and Bayesian updating (level 4) are used to make
inferences from the data collected.

2.2.1 Reliability analysis

A very important aspect of structural health monitoring involves the use of the
damage incurred by, and capacity of the structure to estimate its remaining useful life
i.e. the residual capacity for specific loading scenarios. The determination of deterio-
ration levels and changes in structural capacity, require both a characterization of
damage as well as a proper determination of the effect of the damage on the structural
capacity. Several studies have offered methods into using damage models to estimate
residual capacities for structures and their members. These include estimation of
remaining fatigue life [30, 31], post impact capacity [32], residual capacity post
corrosion initiation [33], etc. In these studies, the computation of the residual capac-
ities is done in either a deterministic or a probabilistic manner. Deterministic estima-
tions of residual capacity are quite straightforward, and relatively uncomplex.
However, with the presence of uncertainties in both loads, material properties and
geometry of structural members, such deterministic estimations may not offer an
accurate estimate of the damage and residual capacity of a structure.
To curtail the disadvantages of deterministic computations, probabilistic methods
have been developed which consider the uncertainties associated with the different
parameters involved in the load and resistance of structures. Two types of uncer-
tainties are commonly encountered namely aleatory and epistemic uncertainties [34].
Aleatory uncertainty refers to uncertainties that cannot be reduced or minimized such
as uncertainties associated with material or geometric properties. Epistemic uncer-
tainties on the other hand refer to uncertainties which can be minimized as more
knowledge is gained of the system and more care is taken in modeling it to closer
reflect its actual state. Uncertainties from sensor measurements can be said to be
epistemic, and can be reduced with the development or acquisition of more precise
instrumentation.
Structural reliability in utilizing a probabilistic approach to define the performance
of a structure, takes cognizance of uncertainties relating to different aspects of design
and construction, thus improving the accuracy of analytically deduced performance
of the structure [35, 36]. Fundamentally, reliability analysis sets out to determine the
likelihood of a structure’s performance failing to live up to its design criteria [37]. This
analysis principally revolves around the definition and evaluation of a limit state.
Limit states are commonly designed around safety, serviceability or durability criteria
and define the boundary for acceptable performance and failure [3]. These limit states
are evaluated to determine the likelihood that a structure or structural member fails to
meet a specific design criterion (probability of failure). This probability of a system
failing to meet the specific performance criterion is defined generically as shown in
Eq. (1) below [38].

Pf ¼ Pr½g ðxÞ < 0Š (1)

where: Pf is the probability of failure, g(x) is a performance or limit state function

and x is a vector of all the random variables included in the limit state function.
In reliability analysis, the reliability of a structure is quantified using a reliability
index. This index, is a measure of structural reliability and captures the inherent
6
Remote Assessment of the Serviceability of Infrastructural Assets
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109356

influence of parameter uncertainties [39]. In a SHM framework, this reliability index

becomes a quantified measure of the structure’s likely performance under the loading
scenario in question, and allows for more informed decision making on the structure.
Used as a defining parameter for condition assessment, a reliability index can be
defined as a decision criterion for structural performance, with the dropping of a
structure’s performance below this limit indicative of a need for immediate inspection
and possible remedial actions. Inculcating a reliability analysis into the SHM frame-
work will thus bridge the gap between capturing damage and distress, and extrapo-
lating the effects of these captured damages on the performance of the structure.
These probabilistic methods have been used to good effect in several studies to
characterize the expected behavior of structures under expected loading over the
lifetimes of these structures [33, 40–43]. However, some of these studies assume the
initial state of the structure is undamaged and do not update the probabilistic model to
account for damage and eroding capacity during its design life. Others that do account
for eroding capacity utilize specific models for certain time dependent loads that
cannot be extrapolated to other loading types. In addition, although useful for esti-
mating the performance of a structure at the set point in time, reliability analysis on its
own does not give a good indication of future performance. Model updating i.e. the
updating of the models describing a structure and its performance with new informa-
tion collected from the structure is needed to do this. A commonly used model
updating method is Bayesian updating.

2.2.2 Bayesian updating

Structural model updating involves the adjustment of a theoretical model to reflect

the responses garnered from the actual structure, and thus improve the ability of the
model to characterize the behavior and response of the structure to applied loads. For
a model updating procedure to be useful in practice, it must be able to handle noisy
data, relatively small datasets, errors in the model, incorporate existing knowledge
about the structural system performance, and be insensitive to distributions of model
parameters [44]. Bayesian techniques are particularly advantageous for model
updating as they meet these criteria, thus making them ideal for use in SHM.
Used in many fields for the updating prior probabilistic models with observed
data, Bayesian updating provides a consistent framework for introducing new infor-
mation into existing probabilistic models towards improving their accuracy. This
technique, by balancing prior information with observed data, allows for the proper
estimation of posterior distributions of uncertain parameters, ensuring that logically
consistent inferences can be drawn, and used in prognostic models.
In SHM, Bayesian techniques allow information gleaned from inspections as well
as monitoring regimes to be combined and used in better predicting future perfor-
mance of structures [41]. Using a Bayesian framework, Ref. [45] proposed a process
for model updating to reflect the changing state of structures as new information on
their state is gleaned from sensors attached to them. In following other model
updating procedures, this process makes three base assumptions. These are the exis-
tence of variations within the model parameters, the understanding that the models
only approximate actual systems and their behaviors, and the knowledge that the
model and its corresponding system may be more sensitive to some parameters than
to others [45]. This approach to model updating has some peculiar advantages includ-
ing its explicit consideration of uncertainties, as well as the ability to incorporate both
prior information and newly obtained data into the prediction process [41]. This
7
Failure Analysis – Structural Health Monitoring of Structure and Infrastructure Components

Bayesian updating process requires knowledge of a number of compositional parts

including quantifiable damage level of the structure, or a damage model that allows
this quantified damage to be computed, a capacity model, and a relationship between
the capacity and damage, defining the erosion of capacity with increasing damage.
To utilize this updating procedure, two approaches are generally considered. The
first involves the implementation of a monitoring scheme to assess a quantifiable
damage level, and using this in a reliability model to compute a probability of failure.
The second method is the use of monitoring schemes to monitor the load exposure of
the structure and then use this in a damage model to estimate the damage done prior
to the determination of updated probabilities of failure from a reliability model.
Ideally, both these methods require some level of monitoring to collect information on
the structure under investigation. As such, the first step in designing a Bayesian
updating scheme for the health of in-service structures is the determination of data
collection on loads and/or system response to the loads.

2.3 Remote assessment of serviceability state

Data collection for use in a SHM Bayesian updating framework usually involves the
use of set in place sensors or the periodic inspection of the structures using mobile
equipment/tools. While permanent sensors to collect data on infrastructural assets is
an appealing idea, the sheer cost and logistical challenge of installing these sensors and
maintaining them for all infrastructural assets limits the possibility of the use, espe-
cially for relatively low-cost infrastructural assets. Similarly, periodic inspections
while useful are curtailed by the aforementioned logistical and practical challenges.
These shortcomings underscore the challenges of implementing such updating
schemes. To this end, a remote monitoring regime utilizing information which can be
collected without the installation of onsite monitoring tools, and used to assess the
state of the infrastructure would be very beneficial. Such a regimen, can be used in
optimizing inspection intervals, thus reducing the cost of inspection and maintenance
while also minimizing risk of abrupt failures.
The development of such remote monitoring and assessment methods, requires
some very specific information. It is necessary to first identify possible types of
damage/loading which can be remotely assessed without onsite sensors or equipment.
Two possible loading scenarios which can be monitored in such a manner are wind
loads and seismic loads. Wind loads are determined from wind speeds, and stations
capturing this phenomenon are quite common around towns and cities. Seismic loads
are captured from seismological stations and are quite similar for relatively large areas.
With the proliferation of locations with equipment collecting data on these load types,
it is quite possible to collect data from various sources and aggregate this data into
loading history for infrastructural assets at a site of interest, and then use this infor-
mation to obtain the state of the infrastructure. Periodically carrying out this process,
timely information can be obtained and the Bayesian updating process used to update
the condition of the asset in question.
Some studies have offered ideas and proposed paths towards such remote assess-
ment of infrastructure. Ref. [31] touted the possibility of aggregating wind speeds
collected from stations around a site of interest into the wind speeds for the location,
and using these wind speeds in analyzing the damage to traffic ancillary structures.
Ref. [30] took this idea further in developing a framework using historic wind speed
data gleaned from different locations into making predictions on the remaining useful
fatigue lives of these traffic structures. Ref. [46] similarly utilized historic wind data
8
Remote Assessment of the Serviceability of Infrastructural Assets
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109356

to determine the fatigue state of high mast illumination poles. Ref. [47] presented a
framework for rapid assessment of seismic damage to bridges. This study combined
probabilistic analysis with a machine learning algorithm to predict likely damage to
bridges in the event of a seismic event, so as to optimize decision making on what to
do about the said bridges after an earthquake. These studies aimed to help optimize
inspection and maintenance regimes by offering a means of obtaining an idea of the
state of these infrastructural assets and their remaining useful lives prior to scheduling
inspections and repair/retrofitting actions. While offering cogent processes for the
remote assessment of infrastructure, these studies stopped short of using a Bayesian
updating process and thus while giving an estimate of the state, cannot be used to
continually update the state of the structure over time.
Incorporating a Bayesian updating process into reliability-based decision analysis
process for bridges, Ref. [48], determined that including prior information on the
performance of the bridges had a telling effect on the resulting reliability analyses.
Further buttressing the utility of a Bayesian updating process which incorporates
such information in analyzing current and future performance [49], offered a pro-
cess for estimating the remaining useful life of a structure after developing fatigue
cracks using a Bayesian updating process. This study identified parameters leading
to damage growth, and utilized simulations and Bayesian inference to identify
unknown parameters that will allow for an accurate estimation of the fatigue
growth rate.
In developing a framework for remote asset management, some criteria need to be
met. These include the consideration of uncertainties in material and model parame-
ters, the ability to leverage historic loading information in determining the condition
of the structures, and beyond that, the ability to predict future performance based on
the prior knowledge of the state, and updated information collected about the struc-
ture. To design a Bayesian updating framework for remote assessment, this study
proposes laid out in the next section.

3. Methodology

The methodology for the remote asset management is very similar to that for any
SHM process, and can be divided into two parts namely data collection and data
analysis. The data collection process is relatively straightforward, and begins with an
identification of the requisite information needed for the assessment. This data comes
in form of historic information on the loading patterns, collected from monitoring
stations within the vicinity of the location of interest. Cleaning the data and aggregat-
ing the information into a usable form specific to the location of interest can then be
carryout using processes specific to the type of data. Data analysis on the other hand
requires extensive knowledge about geometry of the structure, material properties
and model parameters as detailed in the following sections. The overall process is as
follows:

1. Determine the load and damage mechanism to be investigated.

2. Identify monitoring stations collecting the needed data in the vicinity of the site
in question.

3. Collect the data and aggregate into site specific data.

9
Failure Analysis – Structural Health Monitoring of Structure and Infrastructure Components

4. Compute the damage using probabilistic methods.

5. Periodically update the reliability using Bayesian methods and timely

information from monitoring stations.

6. Schedule inspections once the reliability falls below a predetermined threshold.

7. Update the reliability models with results from inspections and/or maintenance
processes.

Details on each step in the process are laid out in the following sections.

3.1 Data analysis

In SHM, two levels of analyzing information collected on the state of a structure

require extensive examination of said data. These are the levels of quantifying
damage/changes to the structure and that of predicting future performance based on
the latest information on condition [5]. Reliability analysis can be used for the first
level, and Bayesian updating off the results from the reliability analyses used for the
second.
Carrying out a reliability analysis of the structure in question requires a number of
steps. To begin with, a limit state equation including both resistance and damage
models needs to be ascertained. These models should ideally be models that include
measurable parameters, which can be captured via a site inspection. As such, when a
structure is flagged for inspection, measurements made during said inspection can be
used in eventually updating the condition of the structure for future estimation of its
condition.
After determination of a limit state, a method of solving the probabilistic problem
needs to be decided upon. Popular methods for solving such problems include first
order reliability method (FORM), second order reliability method (SORM), Monte
Carlo simulations, Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations, Hasofer-Lind procedure,
and Rackwitz- Fiessler procedure. These methods each has its pros and cons and a
determination of which would be ideal for the particular set of circumstances is
needed. The process for the reliability analysis is as follows:

• Identify a limit state equation including both capacity and demand models
appropriate to the scenario under investigation.

• Identify all nondeterminate variables in the limit state, their distributions and
parameters.

• Compute the reliability index or probability of failure using these parameters and
the limit state function in one of the methods mentioned above.

The relationship between the probability of failure and reliability index can be
described using the normal cumulative function as shown in Eq. (2) [35, 38].

Pf ¼ Φð βÞ (2)

where Φ is the standard normal cumulative function.

10
Remote Assessment of the Serviceability of Infrastructural Assets
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109356

The reliability analysis giving a probability of failure and a reliability index for
the structure offers insight into the reliability parameters correlating to the point-in-
time condition of the structure i.e. a Level 3 type assessment of the state of the
structure.
Bayesian updating using the prior information on historic loadings, as well as fresh
information from either the reliability analysis or from inspections can then be used to
update the reliability models for a prediction of the possible future performance of the
structure given the point-in-time knowledge of its condition. Based on the Bayes’
theorem of conditional probability, the underlying idea can be used to update a
quantified characteristic state of a structure, using the Bayesian framework as shown
in Eq. (3) [48].

pf ða þ bÞ p f ða Þ
pf ðbjaÞ ¼ (3)
1 pf ðaÞ

where pf ðbjaÞ is the probability of failure in b subsequent years given that it has
survived a number of years, and pf ða þ bÞ and pf ðaÞ are the probabilities of failure in
time a + b and a respectively.
Updating the probability of failure using timely information on loading, and /or
from inspections, would allow for continuous monitoring of the condition, and pre-
diction of future performance, offering a cheap and quick way to remotely obtain
insights into the condition of infrastructural assets.

3.2 Case study

To demonstrate the laid-out methodology, a case study is presented. This illustra-

tive example involves two traffic signal structures placed in different orientations at
the same location. Selected from the cases presented in Ref. [30], these represent
structures at a location which showed significant damage from wind forces in the
aforementioned study. Installed in 1997, these traffic signal structures are in a location
with significant wind loads a explained in Ref. [30]. To this end, the analysis carried
out in the study, showed that each is expected to have degraded significantly, making
them good candidates to test the remote assessment strategy laid out in this study.
Both traffic signal structures are cantilevered structures, with the mast arm extending
from a single pole, which also has a luminaire post over it.

3.2.1 Loading model

The first step in the methodology involved collecting data pertinent to the
structure under investigation. For the traffic signal structure, the principal type of
load affecting its performance relates to the wind forces acting on it. To this end,
wind speeds were collected from different weather monitoring stations in the
vicinity of the traffic structures. A process laid out in Ref. [30] for cleaning the data
to get rid of outliers, incomplete data and erroneous readings was then used to
obtain a dataset that representative of the historic wind speeds in the general area.
These were then converted into hourly wind data using the Durst curve. Next, these
wind data were aggregated into site specific wind data using the process described
in Ref. [31]. The equation used in obtaining the wind data specific to the site is as
shown in Eq. (4).
11
Failure Analysis – Structural Health Monitoring of Structure and Infrastructure Components

Pn Sd,i
i¼1 Ri
Sd ¼ Pn 1 (4)
i¼1 Ri

where Sd is the wind parameter for a specific time period d, n is the number of
weather stations used in the interpolation process, Sd,i is the wind parameter for the
time period d at the weather station i, and Ri is the distance of weather station i from
the site of interest.
The synthesized wind data collected and interpolated for the location as described
above led to the computation of approximate historic wind information for the site,
and thus the wind forces the structures located therein are expected to have borne
over their service lives. With the historic wind forces acting on the structure collected,
the next step involved the determination of stresses from these forces at critical
locations, and the response of the structure to these loadings.
Assuming that the cyclic wind forces on the structure will lead to fatigue at
certain critical locations on the structure, the stresses at identified critical
locations due to the wind forces were computed. The base of the mast arm and the
base of the pole were selected as critical fatigue locations as a number of studies
have pinpointed these locations to be fatigue critical given the concentration of
stresses there. The deterioration of the connections at these locations were then
analyzed and used as a defining parameter for the service states of the traffic signal
structures.

3.2.2 Deterioration model

To ensure ease in updating using information gleaned from site inspections, it is

imperative that the structural degradation model used includes measurable
degradation parameters. Prior studies on wind fatigue degradation of similar
structures made use of the Miner’s rule for cumulative fatigue damage in analyzing
the fatigue damage. Although a valid process for estimating fatigue damage, this
process does not give observable parameters, and would not be updateable using
results from site inspections. To this end, a fracture mechanics approach for
crack propagation is used in this study instead, and a limit state function defined
related to the crack propagation through the weld at both critical locations as shown
in Eq. (5) [50].
ð af
da
g ðX, tÞ ¼  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiB CSBR N ≤ 0 (5)
ai Y ðaÞ πaÞ

where ai is the initial crack length, af is the crack size associated with failure, Y(a)
is a geometry function accounting for shape of specimen and mode of failure, C is a
material property, B is an equivalent damage material property, SR is the equivalent
stress range, and N is the number of stress cycles.
The limit state equation was then evaluated using the statistical parameters for the
random variables shown in Table 1. This process was used to compute the annual
reliability and probabilities of failure for the traffic signal structures. These can be
expressed as the point in time probabilities of failure which do not consider the
previous year’s probability of failure. Next, an updated probability of failure for each
year is computed using a Bayesian updating process as expressed in Eq. (3).
12
Remote Assessment of the Serviceability of Infrastructural Assets
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109356

Parameter Mean Coefficient of Variation Distribution

Thickness of Pole 0.18 0.25 Normal

Initial crack length 0.004–0.01 1 Normal

Stress Variable 0.1 Normal

12
C 1.294  10 0.5 Lognormal

Table 1.
Random variables used in the limit state equation.

3.2.3 Results

Cumulative probabilities of failure are obtained for the 25 year span the traffic
structures have been in service. For the reliability analyses, failure is deemed to have
occurred if the crack in the weld extends to the thickness of the tubular pole or mast
arm. Assuming prior knowledge of the existing level of deterioration of the structure
via a knowledge of an existing crack and the corresponding lengths, Figures 1 and 2
show the annual reliabilities of the traffic structure, as a function of the service age.
The influence of time on the reliabilities can be seen with the continual degradation of
the reliability indices over time, irrespective of the initial size of the crack. However,

Figure 1.
Annual point-in-time reliabilities for pole to baseplate connection for (a) traffic structure 1, and (b) traffic
structure 2.

Figure 2.
Annual point-in-time reliabilities for mast arm to baseplate connection for (a) traffic structure 1, and (b) traffic
structure 2.

13
Failure Analysis – Structural Health Monitoring of Structure and Infrastructure Components

the initial size of the defect (ai) also has a telling effect on the structures and the time
until they require inspections and/or maintenance. For example, for the pole to base-
plate connection o traffic structure 2, assuming a reliability index of 3 is the deter-
mined point at which an inspection becomes necessary, the traffic structure would be
due for inspection in year 16 assuming an initial crack size of 0.08 to 0.1 inches, but
would only be due for inspection in year 19 for an initial crack size of 0.04 inches.
However, post inspection, these point-in-time reliabilities are not updated with the
results of the inspection/possible maintenance, and thus they will no longer represent
ground truth.
Annual reliability indices, computed with an inclusion of the influence of prior
knowledge of the performance of the structure in the preceding years is shown in
Figures 3 and 4. These indices are compared with those computed using the cumula-
tive stress but without an inclusion of the previous performance shown in Figures 1
and 2 for an initial crack size e of 0.01 inches.
The results for the updated reliabilities show the effect of prior knowledge on the
reliability of a structure. The reliability and probability of failure for each year
includes the prior knowledge that the structure did not fail in the previous year. From
the results in Figures 3 and 4, it can be observed that the annual point-in-time
reliability indices are significantly less conservative than the Bayesian updated reli-
abilities. Similar to the conclusions drawn in Ref. [48], not taking prior performance

Figure 3.
Comparison of Bayesian updated reliabilities to annual point-in-time reliabilities for pole to baseplate connection
for (a) traffic structure 1, and (b) traffic structure 2.

Figure 4.
Comparison of Bayesian updated reliabilities to annual point-in-time reliabilities for mast arm to baseplate
connection for (a) traffic structure 1, and (b) traffic structure 2.

14
Remote Assessment of the Serviceability of Infrastructural Assets
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109356

into account results in conservative reliability indices which may not be truly reflec-
tive of the performance of the structure. For example, at 25 years, the reliability index
of traffic structure 1 is 1.87 with a corresponding probability of failure of 0.03.
Comparatively, the Bayesian updated reliability index at this time is 2.23 and the
probability of failure is 0.013. Essentially, this means that while the point-in-time
reliability predicts that the likelihood of the structure failing in the next year as 3%,
the Bayesian updated reliability gives a less conservative estimate of 1.3% probability
of the structure failing. This seemingly less conservative result is because known
information about the prior performance of the structure (i.e. not failing in prior
years), is used in the Bayesian updated reliability but is not used in the point-in-time
reliability estimate. Thus, while giving seemingly unconservative results, the Bayesian
updating method does offer a realistic insight into the condition of the structure,
considering its known performance. In addition, this method offers the flexibility
of incorporating post inspection information, into an updated reliability for the
structure.

4. Future work

This study set out to offer a framework for remote asset monitoring and assess-
ment. Although a framework is laid out, there is still significant work to be done for
widespread use.
A critical aspect of this framework involves the use of easily accessible data
pertaining to the loading conditions related to the location of the structure. Wind data
is used in the case study presented. However, it is important to identify data related to
other types of loading conditions that can be obtained conveniently and updated
regularly. It should also be possible to extrapolate these data to reflect the conditions
of the site of interest, and use them in damage/deterioration models for the structure.
Damage and capacity deterioration models which can be used with such easily
accessible data and which also capture measurable damage need to be identified for
different loading scenarios pertinent to infrastructural assets. In addition to utilizing
collected data, these models need to characterize damage in a way that can be physi-
cally measured in order to allow for updates to be made to the model from field
inspections and maintenance work carried out.
Although offering a handy way to remotely assess infrastructural assets and update
their conditions, the damage and deterioration models used in this study as well as in
other studies on using reliability analyses are commonly based on idealizations of the
structural systems. More field data is needed to determine the correlation between the
structural systems and these models, in order to improve their predictive capabilities.

5. Conclusions

In a bid to optimize the SHM process, this study set out to offer a framework for
the remote monitoring of infrastructural assets prior to scheduling field inspections
and maintenance programs. Based on a Bayesian updating process, a process of
obtaining remotely accessible data, extrapolating site-specific conditions from this
data, and computing the time dependent performance indices for a structure at a
specific location was laid out. Using a pair of traffic signal structures as a case study,
the Bayesian updated reliabilities and the point-in-time reliability indices were
15
Failure Analysis – Structural Health Monitoring of Structure and Infrastructure Components

computed. The point-in-time reliability indices offered more conservative results, due
to the indices not considering the prior performance of the structure. The Bayesian
updated reliability indices on the other hand accounted for the past performance of
the structure and it’s continued serviceability. Beyond determining its current
serviceability, the Bayesian updating process also provides room for including results
from field inspections and/or maintenance work in future performance indices,
which the point-in-time reliability does not, further buttressing its value in remote
assessment frameworks.

Author details

Ikwulono D. Unobe* and Andrew D. Sorensen

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan,
UT, USA

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
16
Remote Assessment of the Serviceability of Infrastructural Assets
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109356

References

[1] Peil U. Civil infrastructure load [10] Rytter A. Vibrational Based

models for structural health monitoring. Inspection of Civil Engineering
Encyclopedia of Structural Health Structures. Aalborg Denmark: Aalborg
Monitoring. 2009;7:131-157 University; 1993

[2] Schütz W. Fatigue life prediction by [11] Adams RD, Flitcroft JE, Short D,
calculation: Facts and fantasies. Walton D. Vibration Testing as a
Structural Safety and Reliability. 1994;1: Nondestructive Test Tool for Composite
1125-1131 Materials. West Conshohocken, PA,
USA: ASTM International; 1975
[3] Karbhari VM. Design principles for
civil structures. Encyclopedia of
[12] Cawley P, Adams RD. The location
Structural Health Monitoring. 2009;84:
of defects in structures from
1388-1397 measurements of natural frequencies.
Journal of Strain Analysis for
[4] Boller C. Structural health
Engineering Design. 1979;14:49-57
monitoring—An introduction and
definitions. Encyclopedia of Structural
[13] Sundararaman S. Static damage
Health Monitoring. 2009;1:1-23
phenomena and models. Encyclopedia of
Structural Health Monitoring. 2009;8:
[5] Catbas FN. Structural health
158-188
monitoring: Applications and data
analysis. In: Structural Health
Monitoring of Civil Infrastructure [14] Mackerle J. Finite-element modelling
Systems. Cambridge, UK: Elsevier; 2009. of non-destructive material evaluation,
pp. 1-39 an addendum: A bibliography (1997–
2003). Modelling and Simulation in
[6] Doebling S. Damage Detection and Materials Science and Engineering.
Model Refinement Using Elemental 2004;12:799
Stiffness Perturbations with Constrained
Connectivity. Salt Lake City, UT, USA: [15] Bossi RH, Iddings FA, Wheeler GC.
Adaptive Structures Forum; 1996. Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol.
p. 1307 4, Radiographic Testing. USA: American
Society for Nondestructive Testing. Inc;
[7] Friswell MI, Penny JET. Is damage 2002
location using vibration measurements
practical. Euromech 365 International [16] Krautkrämer J, Krautkrämer H.
Workshop: Damas. 1997;97:351-362 Ultrasonic Testing of Materials. Berlin,
Germany: Springer Science & Business
[8] Zimmerman DC, Simmermacher T. Media; 2013
Model correlation using multiple static
load and vibration tests. AIAA Journal. [17] Hardt DE, Katz JM. Ultrasonic
1995;33:2182-2188 measurement of weld penetration.
Welding Journal. 1984;63:273s-281s
[9] Farrar CR, Worden K, Dulieu-Barton
J. Principles of structural degradation [18] Prosser WH, Jackson KE, Kellas S,
monitoring. Encyclopedia of Structural Smith BT, McKeon J, Friedman A.
Health Monitoring. 2009;82:1350-1370 Advanced waveform-based acoustic
17
Failure Analysis – Structural Health Monitoring of Structure and Infrastructure Components

emission detection of matrix cracking in means of infrared thermography. Journal

composites. Materials Evaluation. 1995; of Nondestructive Evaluation. 2004;23:
53:1052-1058 125-132. DOI: 10.1007/s10921-004-
0819-z
[19] Wevers M. Listening to the sound of
materials: Acoustic emission for the [27] Ibarra-Castanedo C, Genest M, Piau
analysis of material behaviour. Ndt & E J-M, Guibert S, Bendada A,
International. 1997;30:99-106 Maldague XP, et al. Active Infrared
Thermography Techniques for the
[20] Rao BPC, Jayakumar T, Raj B. Nondestructive Testing of Materials.
Electromagnetic NDE techniques for Ultrasonic and Advanced Methods for
materials characterization. In: Ultrasonic Nondestructive Testing and Material
and Advanced Methods for Characterization. Hackensack, NJ: World
Nondestructive Testing and Material Scientific; 2007. pp. 325-348
Characterization. Hackensack, NJ, USA:
World Scientific; 2007. pp. 247-277 [28] Maldague X, Ziadi A, Klein M.
Double pulse infrared thermography.
[21] Grimberg R, Premel D, Savin A, le Ndt & E International. 2004;37:559-564
Bihan Y, Placko D. Eddy current
holography evaluation of delamination
[29] Adams D. Health Monitoring of
in carbon-epoxy composites. Insight.
Structural Materials and Components:
2001;43:260-264
Methods with Applications. New York,
[22] Zoughi R. Microwave Non-
NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2007
destructive Testing and Evaluation
Principles. Vol. 4. Berlin, Germany: [30] Unobe ID, Bean B, Sorensen AD.
Springer Science & Business Media; Creating an asset management plan for
2000 traffic signal structures through
interactive explorations of wind
[23] Papaelias M, Cheng L, Kogia M, induced fatigue damage. Structure
Mohimi A, Kappatos V, Selcuk C, et al. and Infrastructure Engineering. 2022;
Inspection and structural health 18:1-14
monitoring techniques for concentrated
solar power plants. Renewable Energy. [31] Diekfuss JA. Reliability-Based
2016;85:1178-1191 Fatigue Assessment of Mast-Arm
Sign Support Structures. Milwaukee,
[24] Lovejoy MJ. Magnetic Particle WI, USA: Marquette University;
Inspection: A Practical Guide. Berlin, 2013
Germany: Springer Science & Business
Media; 1993 [32] Thomas RJ, Steel K, Sorensen AD.
Reliability analysis of circular reinforced
[25] Bagavathiappan S, Lahiri BB, concrete columns subject to sequential
Saravanan T, Philip J, Jayakumar T. vehicular impact and blast loading.
Infrared thermography for condition Engineering Structures. 2018;168:
monitoring–a review. Infrared Physics & 838-851
Technology. 2013;60:35-55
[33] Liu M, Frangopol DM. Time-
[26] Meola C, Carlomagno GM, dependent bridge network reliability:
Giorleo L. Geometrical limitations to Novel approach. Journal of Structural
detection of defects in composites by Engineering. 2005;131:329-337
18
Remote Assessment of the Serviceability of Infrastructural Assets
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109356

[34] Melchers RE, Beck AT. Structural concrete foundation under wind fatigue
Reliability Analysis and Prediction. New and seismic loadings. Structural Safety.
York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2018 2015;57:57. DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.
07.003
[35] Nowak AS, Collins KR. Reliability of
Structures. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC [44] Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS. Updating
Press; 2012 models and their uncertainties. I:
Bayesian statistical framework. Journal
[36] Jiang Z, Hu W, Dong W, Gao Z, of Engineering Mechanics-Proceedings
Ren Z. Structural reliability analysis of of the ASCE. 1998;124:455-462
wind turbines: A review. Energies
(Basel). 2017;10:2099 [45] Vanik MW. A Bayesian Probabilistic
Approach to Structural Health
[37] Dang C, Valdebenito MA, Monitoring. Pasadena, CA, USA:
Faes MGR, Wei P, Beer M. Structural California Institute of Technology; 1997
reliability analysis: A Bayesian
perspective. Structural Safety. 2022;99: [46] Dawood M, Goyal R, Dhonde H,
102259 Bradberry T. Fatigue life assessment of
cracked high-mast illumination poles.
[38] Ayyub BM, McCuen RH. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Probability, Statistics, and Reliability for Facilities. 2014;28:311-320
Engineers and Scientists. Boca Raton, FL,
USA: CRC Press; 2016 [47] Mangalathu S, Hwang S-H, Choi E,
Jeon J-S. Rapid seismic damage
[39] Der Kiureghian A. Analysis of evaluation of bridge portfolios using
structural reliability under parameter machine learning techniques.
uncertainties. Probabilistic Engineering Engineering Structures. 2019;201:109785
Mechanics. 2008;23:351-358.
DOI: 10.1016/j. [48] Stewart MG, Val D, v. Role of load
probengmech.2007.10.011 history in reliability-based decision
analysis of aging bridges. Journal of
[40] Akgül F, Frangopol DM. Rating and Structural Engineering. 1999;125:776-783
reliability of existing bridges in a
network. Journal of Bridge Engineering. [49] Coppe A, Pais MJ, Haftka RT,
2003;8:383-393 Kim NH. Using a simple crack growth
model in predicting remaining useful
[41] Enright MP, Frangopol DM. life. Journal of Aircraft. 2012;49:
Condition prediction of deteriorating 1965-1973
concrete bridges using Bayesian
updating. Journal of Structural [50] Chung H-Y, Manuel L, Frank KH.
Engineering. 1999;125:1118-1125 Optimal Inspection of Fracture-Critical
Steel Trapezoidal Girders: A Summary.
[42] Saad T, Fu CC. Determining Austin, TX: Center for Transportation
remaining strength capacity of Research, University of Texas at Austin;
deteriorating RC bridge substructures. 2004
Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities. 2015;29:04014122

[43] Unobe ID, Sorensen AD. Multi-

hazard analysis of a wind turbine
19