sustainability

Article
Deterioration Models for Bridge Pavement Materials for a Life
Cycle Cost Analysis
Daeseok Han 1 , Jin-Hyuk Lee 2, * and Ki-Tae Park 2

1 Department of Road and Transportation Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and
Building Technology, Goyang-daero 283, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang-si 10223, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
2 Department of Structural Engineering Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology,
Goyang-daero 283, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang-si 10223, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-31-910-0771

Abstract: As the Framework Act on Sustainable Infrastructure Management has recently been enacted
in Korea, it has become mandatory to establish a medium-and long-term plan for managing social
infrastructure and evaluating the feasibility of maintenance projects. However, road agencies are
experiencing problems due to a lack of deterioration models which are essential to conducting a life
cycle cost analysis. Thus, this study developed deterioration models for bridge pavements as the first
step to secure the power of execution of the Infrastructure Management Act. The deterioration model
subdivided pavement materials into asphalt, conventional concrete, and latex-modified concrete.
This study analyzed the data on diagnosis for the last 12 years in Korea by applying the Bayesian
Markov Hazard Model. The average life expectancy by pavement type was analyzed as follows:
12.8 years for asphalt pavement; 23.4 years for concrete pavement; and 9.8 years for latex-modified
concrete pavement. For the probabilistic life cycle cost analysis and risk management, probability
distributions of life expectancy, effective range by confidence level, and Markov transition probability
were presented. This study lays a foundation for deterministic and probabilistic life cycle cost
analysis of bridge pavement. Future studies need to develop deterioration models standardized for
all components of bridges and all types of social infrastructure.
Citation: Han, D.; Lee, J.-H.;
Park, K.-T. Deterioration Models for Keywords: asset management; bridge; pavement; life cycle cost analysis; life expectancy; deterioration
Bridge Pavement Materials for a Life model; Markov chain; pavement material
Cycle Cost Analysis. Sustainability
2022, 14, 11435. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su141811435

Academic Editor: Antonio D’Andrea 1. Introduction

Received: 12 July 2022

As social infrastructure that had been built in Korea (Republic of Korea; ROK) since
Accepted: 8 September 2022
the 1970s became superannuated [1] and failures (i.e., events) occurred therefrom, Korea
Published: 12 September 2022
enacted the Framework Act on Sustainable Infrastructure Management (hereinafter, the
Infrastructure Management Act) in 2020. This Act focuses on reorganizing a system that
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
manages the social infrastructure and requires the following: to re-establish criteria for
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
maintenance; to set up a long- and short-term management plan; and to evaluate the
published maps and institutional affil-
feasibility of maintenance projects. This Act specifies, as one of its fundamental principles,
iations.
to “minimize the life cycle cost incurred by deterioration” [2] and prescribes to apply a Life
Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) as an evaluation of the economic feasibility of performance
improvement projects [3].
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
The LCCA derives future budgetary demands necessary to anticipate a change in a
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. state of assets retained by an organization and secure a targeted service level. To conduct
This article is an open access article the LCCA, a deterioration model with an asset register is essential for anticipating a future
distributed under the terms and condition of the assets. Based on the “Special Act on the Safety Control and Maintenance of
conditions of the Creative Commons Establishments (hereinafter, the Infrastructure Safety Act)” enacted in 1990s [4], Korea has
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// endeavored to develop data on the status, condition, and history of social infrastructure for
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the last 30 years. As a result, Korea has developed detailed data on major social infrastruc-
4.0/). ture in a systematic way [5]. However, no deterioration model and LCCA techniques have

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811435 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 2 of 15

been established so far for each type/member of social infrastructure, which are officially
applicable. That is, even if it is forced to conduct an LCCA by enacting new legislation, it is
not prepared to respond thereto in the real world.
Thus, this study aimed to develop a bridge pavement deterioration model for the
LCCA as the first step to secure a power of execution of the Infrastructure Management Act.
This study subdivided deterioration models by pavement materials (asphalt, concrete, and
Latex-Modified Concrete (LMC)) to develop a direction for the development of deterioration
models presented by ISO 55001 and International Infrastructure Management Manual
(IIMM) which could respond to deterministic/probabilistic LCCA. To sufficiently secure
empirical bases, data on inspection and diagnosis conducted for the last 12 years in Korea
were applied. As analytical tools, the Bayesian Markov Hazard (BMH) model combining a
Markov chain, a multi-state exponential hazard model, and a Markov Chain Monte-Carlo
(MCMC) technique were introduced. As its findings, life expectancy by condition grade,
deterioration curve, probability density and distribution of the life expectancy, confidence
intervals of life expectancy at the 3-sigma rule, and Markov Transition Probability (MTP)
as Probability of Failure (POF) were suggested.
This paper presents not only life expectancy for LCCA but also the factors necessary
for asset management in a comprehensive manner. It is expected that the methodologies
and procedures for deterioration modeling presented herein will become useful precedents
that can be referred by other studies on infrastructure.

2. Literature Reviews
ISO 55001, an international standard for managing assets, states that it is essential
to predict events likely to occur in the future [6]. It is a basis for sustainable organization
management to define in advance the types of events and characteristics of risk which will
obstruct an organization from achieving its objectives and establish strategies in preparation.
The IIMM developed by applying ISO 55000 series and classifying types of deterioration
models into deterministic models and probabilistic models [7]. Furthermore, ISO 55001
(Clause 10.2) requires the identification of a potential failure of assets and uses the same for
preventive measures [1]. This means the application of Risk Centered Maintenance (RCM).
It is required to investigate in advance the POF to realize the RCM, which would be able
to be developed only through a probabilistic model. Thus, this study intended to develop
a deterioration model which could support both functions to apply the requirements of
ISO 55001.
Internationally, many studies are being conducted on social infrastructure deteriora-
tion modelling with a focus on pavement and bridges with various statistical techniques
are applied thereto [8–41]. Do et al. [8] classified deterioration modelling techniques into six
types and presented their advantages, disadvantages, and selection methods, respectively.
Here, they are classified into the citation of useful life in accounting standards, simple
calculation of elapse time between maintenances, multiple regression analysis, reliability
analysis, traditional Markov chain, and advanced Markov chain application theory. It is
presented that the appropriate methodology (or model) shall be selected based on the type,
scale, and characteristics of obtained data and the information to be obtained through the
deterioration model. Han and Lee [9] presented the conditions of deterioration model for
asset management, as follows: (1) description of the transition of the deterioration speed,
(2) derivation of information of uncertainty in the deterioration process, (3) derivation of
influence of explanatory variables, (4) direct application of the Level of Service (LOS), and
(5) resolution of lack of samples and presumption of model parameters. As a result, the
BMH model was presented as a model optimized to meet these conditions.
The BMH model was proposed by Kaito and Kobayashi [10] and it overcomes the
limitations of a model proposed by Tsuda [11] by applying the MCMC which is a non-
parametric method. Thereafter, Bayesian Markov Mixed Hazard Model (hereinafter, the
BMMH) that represents the heterogeneity of samples with a benchmark curve and hetero-
geneity factor was presented [12,13]. This study compared and examined the BMH Model
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 3 of 15

and the BMMH Model to select the most appropriate deterioration modelling technique
for this study. The BMMH Model satisfies the ideal conditions for the deterioration model
proposed by Han and Lee [9], and is able to develop and compare deterioration models
for various sample groups all at once [14,15]. However, the BMMH Model assumes that
deterioration models have the similar shape of deterioration curve (i.e., a process in which
a deterioration rate changes) due to their nature to utilize a benchmark approach. Such
an assumption may not be significant in studies that simply compare the performance of
design/material alternatives based on life expectancy. However, such an assumption may
become fatal in studies on the LCCA where a process in which deterioration rate change
acts as an optimization variable. Thus, this study determined that it would be appropriate
to apply the BMH Model considering the possibility that a deterioration curve may vary
depending on pavement materials.
Studies on pavement management conducted since the mid-1960s are being conducted
more actively in the 21st century [16,17]. Significant results were derived even in Korea in
relation to pavement deterioration characteristics from information accumulated through
the operation of the Pavement Management System (PMS) [9,14,15,18–21]. However, it
is impractical to apply the findings on general road pavement to the LCCA of bridge
pavement. This is because it is difficult to assume that their deterioration characteristics
are similar due to their different pavement design, materials, and understructure. Further-
more, a condition of pavement is internationally represented with cracking, rutting, and
International Roughness Index (IRI). However, Korea regards bridge pavement as a bridge
component and thus its condition is evaluated based on its grade in accordance with the
Infrastructure Safety Act [22]. Naturally, the road pavement deterioration models cannot
be applied to the LCCA of bridge pavement in Korea and it would be reasonable to derive
models by historical performance data of bridge pavement.
A bridge is a complicated structure composed of many components. The American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines 48 detailed components (at Level 3:
individual elements) [23]. Previous studies on bridges have focused on the structural
defects in abutment, pier, deck, etc., or the safety of components having a direct effect
on collapse [24–31]. Of course, as there are a variety of studies on the deterioration
characteristics of bridge pavement [11,32–36], it is impractical to apply the findings of
studies conducted in other countries to the LCCA in Korea without change. This is because
the LCCA shall reflect thoroughly the deterioration characteristics of its own assets.
Next, the subdivision of the deterioration model is also of interest. It would be
convenient to develop a network-based model which represents the whole bridge pavement.
However, such a model would not be able to reflect a difference in life expectancy resulting
from deviation of technology or materials of pavement. Even the IIMM stated that it would
be able to secure the accuracy of prediction only considering the deviation of these assets
in terms of technology and environment [7]. In general, asphalt and concrete are used as
materials for bridge pavement. However, it takes too long to cure the concrete pavement
(28 days or more) [42] and civil complaints are frequently raised due to work zones. To
mitigate the problem, the LMC is used as the main material in Korea, which reduces the
curing period significantly. The LMC pavement has physical characteristics different from
those of conventional concrete and asphalt pavement and has high installation costs [32–34].
Thus, it is necessary to confirm its difference from conventional concrete pavement in terms
of life expectancy.
The implications obtained through the literature review and plan for application
thereof in this study are summarized as follows:
(1) The deterministic and probabilistic approaches shall be applicable simultaneously to
comply with international standards for asset management;
(2) The BMH model is appropriate as a deterioration modeling technique to support a
variety of asset management information;
(3) The deterioration model for bridge pavement cannot cite a deterioration model for
road pavement and shall be built with data native to Korea;
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 4 of 15

(4) The deterioration model for bridge pavement shall be subdivided to correspond to
reality in Korea. It is appropriate to divided it into asphalt, concrete, and LMC.

3. Methodology
3.1. Description of the BMH Model
3.1.1. A Basic Structure of the BMH Model
In this section, the study introduces the process, based on Kaito [10] and Tsuda [11],
to disassemble the MTP using the multi-state exponential hazard functions which are the
basic structure of the BMH model.
The Markov chain represents a condition with discrete grade i (i = 1, . . . , J ). Here, a
probability of condition change among grades can be represented with probability variable
πij (see Equation (1)) and the MTP can be organized by collecting these probability elements
J
(see Equation (2)). Naturally, under the axiom of probability, πij ≥ 0 and ∑ j=1 πij = 1.
Since deterioration models do not include maintenance effects, the following shall be
J
additional conditions: π ji = 0 (i > j); and ∑ j=1 πij = 1.

Prob[h(τB ) = j|h(τA ) = i ] = πij (1)

· · · π1J
 
π11
 .. .. .. 
Π= . . .  (2)
0 · · · πJ J
In Equation (1), τA and τB mean the time when a condition is investigated and Z
means the elapsed time between them. These data could be obtained in a field by a road
manager. However, what shall be assumed by the deterioration model is not how much
the condition changes between τA and τB but the time ζ i (yc ) between τi and τi−1 when the
condition grade i (i = 1, . . . , J − 1) changes (i.e., life expectancy of grade i). It is impossible
to figure out in an investigation system with a specific cycle. The BMH model regards it as
a probability variable and seeks a solution to disassemble MTP based on the multi-state
hazard model [11].
A multi-state hazard model could represent the condition of an object as plural discrete
grades with a possibility of change and formulate routes changeable among these grades
as a conditional probability. First, the life expectancy (ζ i ) of condition grade i of pavement
becomes a probability variable of the probability density function f (ζ i ) and the probability
distribution function Fi (ζ i ). The Fi (ζ i ) is a deterioration function and a survival function
Fei (ζ i ), which is equivalent thereto as follows:

Prob[ζ i ≥ yi ] = Fei (ζ i ) = 1 − Fi (yi ) (3)

Z y
i
Fi (yi ) = f i (ζ i )dζ i (4)
0
The probability in which the condition i changes to the condition i + 1 during time
interval [yi , yi + ∆y] is as follows:

d Fei (yi )
f (y ) dyi d  
λi ( yi ) = i i = − = − log Fei (yi ) = θi (5)
Fei (yi ) Fei (yi ) dyi

Here, θi is a hazard function. The hazard function f i (ζ i ) for life expectancy at condition
i is as follows:  Z y 
i
Fei (yi ) = exp − λi (u)du = exp (−θi yi ) (6)
0

f i (ζ i ) = θi exp (−θi ζ i ) (7)

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 5 of 15

Defining a probability of change among condition grades, the routes of deterioration

possible within unit time are summarized as (1) πii , (2) πii+1 , (3) πij , (4) πiJ and may be
induced to the multi-state exponential hazard model as follows [11]:

πii = exp (−θi Z ) (8)

θi
πii+1 = {− exp(−θi Z ) + exp(−θi+1 Z )} (9)
θ i − θ i +1
j k −1 j −1
θm θm
πij = ∑ ∏ θm − θk ∏ θ m +1 − θ k
exp (−θk Z ) (10)
k =i m =i m=k

where  k −1
∏
θm

 θm −θk = 1, at (k ≤ i + 1)
m =i
(11)
 j −1
 ∏
 θm
θ m +1 − θ k = 1, at (k ≥ j)
m=k
J −1
πiJ = 1 − ∑ πij (12)
j =1

As shown in Equation (8) through (12), the Markov transition matrix becomes, after all,
a function of θi (i = 1, . . . , J − 1). However, an influence from explanatory variables that
interfere with deterioration process cannot be included in their forms. Thus, an estimation
equation can be formulated as follows by adding to an estimation of θi unknown parameter
vector β i,m (i = 1, . . . , J − 1; m = 1, . . . , M + 1) corresponding to independent variable xm :


θi = f ξ; β i = exp( β i + β 1,1 x1 , . . . , β i,m x m )
(13)
(i = 1, . . . , J − 1; m = 1, . . . , M + 1)

Here, the life expectancy of each condition grade i is defined as a survival function of
the exponential hazard function (see Equation (14)). The life expectancy up to condition J is
derived by accumulating the life expectancy of each condition grade Rik (i = 1, . . . , J − 1)
Z ∞ ∞ 1
  Z  
Rik = Fei yik dyik = exp −θik yik dyik = k (14)
0 0 θi

That is, the essence of the BMH model can be summarized as the process of β i,m to
estimate θi and, to this end, the Metropolis-Hastings (M-H) technique is used, which is one
of the most popular techniques among the MCMC.

3.1.2. Parameter Estimation by MCMC

Compared to conventional statistical techniques, such as the Maximum Likelihood
Estimation (MLE), etc., the Bayesian statistical technique has the advantage of a lack of
samples, an overflow caused by an increase in the dimensions in the matrix, the setting of
an initial value of a parameter, and a local maximum [43]. These advantages are particularly
effective in the deterioration modeling of social infrastructure, which requires substantial
time and effort to secure samples sufficiently and has a variety of variables in elucidating
the process of deterioration.
The basis of Bayesian statistics is to figure out or update the relation between prior
distribution (or prior knowledge) and posterior distribution. The posterior distribution
starts from the fact that it is proportional to the multiplication of prior distribution with a
likelihood function [20] (see Equations (15) and (16)).

π ( β|ξ ) ∝ L( β|ξ )π ( β) (15)

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 6 of 15

β is a probability variable corresponding to prior distribution π ( β). π ( β|ξ ), which

is the posterior distribution of β, is defined, in accordance with the Bayesian theorem,
as follows:
L( β|ξ )π ( β)
π ( β|ξ ) = R (16)
L( β|ξ )π ( β)dθ
In summary, the Bayesian computation can be defined as follows: (1) definition of prior
distribution π ( β) (also referred to as the initial value); (2) definition of likelihood function
L( β|ξ ) utilizing ξ newly obtained; (3) adjustment of prior distribution π ( β) and update
R distribution π ( β|ξ ). However, it is still difficult or impossible to compute
of posterior
L(ξ ) = L( β|ξ )π ( β)dθ referred to as the “normalized constant” (see Equation (16)),
i.e., the marginal probability of ξ. This problem is resolved by the MCMC. To realize the
MCMC, it is necessary to provide substantial explanation and formulas in relation to the
following: definition of likelihood function satisfying Equation (8) through (12); realization
of MCMC with M-H techniques; derivation of posterior distribution; examination of
maximization using Geweke statistics, etc. This paper will explain in brief the definition of
the likelihood function required to predict a model coefficient and the M-H technique.
k k
 
First, ξ = δij , zk , x k represents data that can be collected in the field. Here, δij is a
dummy variable to become 0 or 1 depending on a change of condition and zk is an interval
between investigation

times. In accordance with the Bayesian update rules, a likelihood
function L β ξ is defined, with πij (z), as follows:

)δijk
j −1
(
J −1 J j h −1
K θlk θlk  
∏ ∏ ∏ ∑ ∏ θk − θk ∏ θk exp −θhk zk


L βξ = k
(17)
i =1 j = i k =1 h =i l =i l h l =h l +1 − θ h

As presented in Equation (13), β i is defined as a function of explanatory variable

k . The prior distribution is normalized as follows so that it is similar to the posterior
xm
distribution by assuming normal distribution β i ∼ NM (µi , Σi ) with an M + 1 dimension.

J −1
∝ L βξ ∏ g ( β i | µi , Σi )



π βξ
i =1 (
J −1 J K j −1 j h −1
∝ ∏ ∏ ∏ ∏ θlk ∑ ∏ 1
θlk −θhk
i =1 j = i k =1 l =1 h =i l =i
)δijk (18)
j −1  
·∏ 1
θlk+1 −θhk
exp −θhk zk
l =h
J −1 n o
· ∏ exp − 21 ( β i − µi )Σi −1 ( β i − µi )0
i =1

µi and Σi are average and covariance matrices of prior distribution, respectively. The

J −1
MCMC is applied to compute L ξ = L β ξ ∏i=1 g( β i |µi , Σi )dβ, which is a normalized

R

constant necessary to obtain posterior distribution.

This sampling technique is named “Markov” because an extracted sample is influ-
enced only by the immediately preceding (current) condition and a sample is extracted
under the Monte-Carlo sampling based on a probability distribution [43]. In brief, the
M-H technique closes the distance with a target distribution (invariant distribution) by
repeating the process to update prior distribution into posterior distribution with sam-
pled jumping distribution [44]. Samples derived from the MCMC are classified into the
following two groups: a burn-in sample group necessary to reach a convergence region;
and an effective sample group used to organize distribution and assume parameters. Many
statistical techniques have been developed to check whether the effective sample group con-
verges. However, Geweke statistics are widely used [9,10,12–15,20,21,40,41]. For detailed
information of the Geweke test, please refer to the references [44–46].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 7 of 15

Lastly, in relation to the application of the BMH model, some important presumptions
are enumerated, which shall be perceived by readers:
(1) The state of infrastructure which changes in a continuous manner is represented as a
discrete grade;
(2) According to the basic nature of Markov chains, it is presumed that a change in object
state is influenced only by its immediately previous state;
(3) Deterioration characteristics (deterioration speed, uncertainty, influence of explana-
tory variables, etc.) vary depending on the grade and are mutually independent;
(4) The life expectancy of each grade is presumed to be a stochastic variable depending
on survival function (i.e., distribution function) and hazard function (i.e., probability
density function);
(5) It is presumed that the hazard function follows an exponential function which re-
flects the nature of event occurrence time depending on a degree of risk and the
“memoryless” characteristic of Markov chains;
(6) It is presumed that the conditions applied as an explanatory variable are maintained
without change during the life expectancy;
(7) It is presumed that the result of model parameters derived through MCMC is always
the same.

3.2. Data Collection and Processing

Bridges on the national highway managed by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and
Transport (MOLIT) were used to develop a deterioration model. The total length of the
national highway in Korea is about 14,098 km. The national highway is widely distributed
throughout the nation and has a total of 8850 bridges [47,48].
These bridges are managed in accordance with the Infrastructure Safety Act. The
methods and cycles for diagnosis are applied as differentiated depending on the scale and
condition grade of a bridge. The diagnosis is conducted in a unit of component and the
findings thereof are collected and managed through the Bridge Management System (BMS).
This study derived a deterioration model from data on inspection and diagnosis of all
bridges collected for 12 years (2009~2020). A proportion by pavement material used in
each bridge showed that asphalt, concrete, LMC, and other types were 88.3%, 5.5%, 5.9%,
and 0.3%, respectively. In other words, it is possible to conduct the LCCA of all bridges
(99.7%) except for some special cases (0.3%) based on the three pavement types.
Since the BMH model uses condition grades as a unit of assumption, the criteria
and meaning of determination on each condition grade are very significant. The criteria
for determining the condition of bridge pavement under the Infrastructure Safety Act
do not classify asphalt and concrete and determines four grades based on defect rate,
effect on vehicle driving, and drainage condition. Here, since the defect rate is calculated
as ‘damaged area/total area of bridge pavement’, it is possible to evaluate the grade
objectively. However, the driving performance, drainage condition, and the final state
grade are based on three indicators that are difficult to represent with numeric values
determined depending on the inspector’s intuition [22]. For criteria in detail, please refer
to Table 1 [22].
The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) was applied as an external explanatory
variable having an effect on deterioration. Truck volume may be more significant in
developing a deterioration model. However, there was no alternative, because the AADT
represented the only data on all bridges in the BMS database. For reference, a correlation
coefficient ‘R-value’ between AADTs and the truck volumes was derived to be 0.84, which
may be determined as being regarded as a variable with which the AADT can replace the
traffic volume of trucks. Due to limitations on purpose and secured data of this study,
effects of the following shall be left for future studies: scale and form of bridges (rigid-frame
bridge, PSCI bridge, cable bridge, etc.); climatic requirements (temperature, moisture, salt
stress, etc.); and design deviation (thickness of pavement layer, etc.)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 8 of 15

Table 1. Definition of condition grades of bridge pavement in Korea [22].

Bridge Pavement Condition

Grade
Defect Rate 1 Driving Performance 1 Drainage Condition 1
A Micro-cracks - -
Partial ponding caused by
Pavement defect rate of Minor damage to pavement
B fault in drainage grade
less than 2% and thus no effect on driving
and facility
Decline of driving due to
Pavement defect rate of Effect on driving due to
C ponding caused by fault in
2~10% damage to pavement
drainage grade and facility
Decline of safety of passing
Pavement defect rate of Overall re-pavement
D vehicles due to ponding
10% or more required
caused by faulty drainage
1 Labels were added to the original reference [22].

A time series data set is required to apply the BMH model. As presented in Equations
(1) and (12), a data set is composed of the following: a condition grade h(τA ) at time A; a
condition grade h(τB ) at time B; a time interval Z between two inspection times; and an
explanatory variable m (i.e., AADT) that an analyst intends to apply. A total of 8935 data
sets were developed as processing data on bridge pavement. Among them, the following
were removed: (1) data with simple input errors (5 data sets); (2) data whose condition
grade is upgraded with repair and reinforcement (330 data sets); and (3) data improper for
developing a model due to short time periods that elapsed with an inspection interval of
less than one year (2706 data sets). As a result, a total of 5894 data sets were classified as
effective. By reorganizing the data sets by pavement materials, the following were secured:
5257 (89.2%) data sets with asphalt pavement; 288 (4.9%) data sets with concrete pavement;
and 349 (5.9%) data sets with LMC pavement. It was determined that, even if the number
of samples was relatively small in relation to concrete and LMC pavement, it would not be
so impractical to develop a deterioration model empirically.

4. Results
4.1. Estimation of Hazard Functions, Life Expectancies, and Deterioration Curves
In this section, this study compares and analyzes the following: model parame-
ters by bridge pavement type; hazard function; life expectancy; and results of deriva-
tion of deterioration curve. The MCMC was applied to a total of six model parameters
β i,m (i = 1, . . . , 3; m = 1 + 1) (see Equation (13)). The number of times being sampled for
each parameter was 35,000. The initial 5000 times were regarded as burn-in samples to
enter a convergence region and 30,000 samples thereafter were used to assume parameters.
The final model parameter values in Table 2 were easily obtained as expectation values of
the distribution of the effective samples (i.e., Sample ID 5001~35,000), that is, the average
of the effective samples. A stride of random walk was set to 0.001 to guarantee the stable
movement of MCMC. Table 2 and Figure 1 present the process and result of assuming
parameters with MCMC.
It is shown that the Geweke’s Z-score, based on which it was determined whether
β i,m converged normally, was close to 0.00, which is an optimal value (tolerance interval
[–2,2]). From the path of MCMC illustrated in Figure 1, it can be known that the sampling
was conducted in a very stable manner. In particular, it can be verified that it entered into
an effective region from about 1000 times of sampling and then repeated similar patterns
thereafter. Table 3 shows the results of deriving hazard function and life expectancy by
pavement type derived from the results in Table 2. For a deterioration curve derived by
linking life expectancy by condition grade, please refer to Figure 2.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 9 of 15

Table 2. Parameters of the BMH model by the condition ratings.

Table 2. Parameters of the BMHBetas
model(β
byi,mthe
) condition ratings. Explanatory Variable
Condition (Geweke’s Z-Score) AADT (𝒙𝟏 ) 1
Betas (βi,m ) Explanatory Variable
Grade Asphalt(Geweke’s Z-Score) Concrete LMC AADT (x1 ) 1
Condition Grade
Asphalt Concrete LM
Asphalt β i,0 β i,1 Concrete β i,0 β i,1 LMC β i,0 β i,1
Asphalt Concrete LMC
−0.804 −1.101 −0.735
A toβi,0
B βi,1
-βi,0
2 βi,1 βi,0
- βi,1
-
−0.804 (0.008) −1.101 (0.017) −0.735 (0.016)
A to B -2 - -
(0.008) −1.676 0.055
(0.017) −2.461 1.758
(0.016) −1.622 0.394
B to C 0.214 0.375 0.
B to C
−1.676 (−0.011)
0.055 (0.018)
−2.461 (0.059)
1.758 (−0.067)
−1.622 (0.089)
0.394 (−0.113)
0.214 0.375 0.273
(−0.011) (0.018) (0.059) (−0.067) (0.089) (−0.113)
−1.659 −5.184 6.754 −1.301 0.605
C−to1.659
D -
−5.184 6.754 −1.301 0.605
C to D (−0.005)
- (0.527) (−0.556) (0.005) (−0.005)
(−0.005) (0.527) (−0.556) (0.005) (−0.005)
1 Normalized by (0,1]. 2 The mark ‘-‘ indicates insignificant variables due to an inverted relation
1 2
Normalized by (0,1]. The mark ‘-‘ indicates insignificant variables due to an inverted relationship.

Figure 1. Trace-plots of the MCMC by parameters (case: asphalt pavement).

Figure 1. Trace-plots of the MCMC by parameters (case: asphalt pavement).
Table 3. Hazard functions and life expectancy by condition grade.
It is shown that the Geweke’s Z-score, based on which it was determined wh
Hazard Functions
𝛽𝑖,𝑚 converged normally, was close to 0.00, which Life
is Expectancy
an optimal(Year)value (tolerance int
[–2,2]). From the path of MCMC illustrated in Figure 1, R
Condition Grade θi = exp (β 0 + β 1 x 1 ) = 1/θbe
iti can i known that the sam
Asphaltin a very
was conducted Concrete
stable manner.LMC In particular,
Asphalt itConcrete
can be verified LMCthat it entered
A to B an effective region
0.448 from about
0.332 1000 times
0.480 of sampling
2.24 and then
3.06 repeated
2.11 similar pat
B to C thereafter. 0.189
Table 3 shows 0.165the results 0.220of deriving
5.29hazard 6.13
function and 4.57life expectanc
pavement type derived from the results in Table 2. For a deterioration curve derive
C to D 0.190 0.070 0.321 5.26 15.18 3.16
linking life expectancy by condition grade, please refer to Figure 2.
Total life expectancy (year) 12.78 24.36 9.84
Table 3. Hazard functions and life expectancy by condition grade.
Average life expectancy by pavement material type was analyzed as 12.8 years,
Hazard Functions Life Expectancy (year)
Condition
24.4 years and 9.8 years for asphalt, concrete and LMC, respectively. The presented contents
𝜽𝒊 = 𝐞𝐱𝐩 (𝜷𝟎 + 𝜷𝟏 𝒙𝟏 ) 𝑹 = 𝟏/𝜽𝒊
were a deterministic
Grade deterioration model and can be used as a condition update𝒊 function
Asphalt Concrete LMC Asphalt Concrete LMC
when applying the LCCA. The life of concrete was almost twice that of asphalt. On the
contrary, the LMCA to B
pavement 0.448
belonging to 0.332 0.480 a life shorter
concrete showed 2.24 than asphalt
3.06 2.11
B to C 0.189 0.165 0.220 5.29
pavement. In terms of the shape of the deterioration curve, the deterioration curve of 6.13 4.57
asphalt and LMCCwas to Dclose to
0.190 0.070
linear, and the 0.321
deterioration 5.26
curve of concrete was 15.18
close to 3.16
Total life expectancy
logarithmic, wherein the deterioration (year) became slow. In12.78
rate gradually 24.36
particular, all three 9.84
types of pavement showed similar deterioration characteristics up to C grade. However,
the life expectancy was relatively long in C → D grade in concrete pavement.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 10 of 15

1
Concrete Asphalt LMC

Condition grade
2

4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Life expectancy (years)

Figure 2.
Figure Comparison of
2. Comparison of deterioration
deterioration curves
curves by
by bridge
bridge pavement
pavement materials.
materials.

It is necessary to examine whether the results of this study are consistent with the
Average life expectancy by pavement material type was analyzed as 12.8 years, 24.4
physical properties of pavement materials. The Structural Number of Pavement (SNP) is an
years and 9.8 years for asphalt, concrete and LMC, respectively. The presented contents
index that can compare the structural strength of pavements equally. American Association
were a deterministic deterioration model and can be used as a condition update function
of State Highway Officials (AASHO) road test, the fourth Highway Development and
when applying the LCCA. The life of concrete was almost twice that of asphalt. On the
Management (HDM-4) model of the World Bank, and the conversion factor of the surface
contrary, the LMC pavement belonging to concrete showed a life shorter than asphalt
layer proposed/applied by the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), the
pavement. In terms of the shape of the deterioration curve, the deterioration curve of as-
value of 0.30 to 0.44 for asphalt and 0.50 for concrete are specified [49–51]. That is, concrete
phalt and LMC was close to linear, and the deterioration curve of concrete was close to
has a high contribution of up to 1.7 times. The difference in life expectancy between concrete
logarithmic, wherein the deterioration rate gradually became slow. In particular, all three
and asphalt presented in this study was about 1.9 times, confirming a similar trend.
types of pavement showed similar deterioration characteristics up to C grade. However,
In light of the preceding research on the presumption of life expectancy by pavement
the life expectancy
material, was relatively
the life expectancy of asphalt, → D grade
long in Cconcrete, andin LMC
concrete pavement. to be about
is presumed
10~15 years, 25~30 years, and 15 years, respectively [32–35]. They consistent
It is necessary to examine whether the results of this study are also presentedwith thethe
physical properties of pavement materials. The Structural
difference in pavement strength and durability as a cause for such deviation. It Number of Pavement (SNP)
seems is
an index that can compare the structural strength of pavements equally.
that the life expectancy of asphalt and concrete is similar to the findings of this research. American Asso-
ciation
However, of State Highway
the life expectancyOfficials
of LMC (AASHO) road test, different
was substantially the fourth Highway
from that in Development
the preceding
and Management (HDM-4) model of the World Bank,
research. It is presumed that the “Rapid Setting-LMC (RS-LMC)” which is widely and the conversion factorused
of thein
surface layer proposed/applied by the American Concrete
Korea is disadvantageous to securing strength, compared to traditional LMC [52,53].Pavement Association (ACPA),
the value of 0.30 to 0.44 for asphalt and 0.50 for concrete are specified [49–51]. That is,
concrete has a high
4.2. Uncertainty contribution
of Life Expectancy andof up to 1.7 times.
Confidence The by
Intervals difference
3-Sigma Rule in life expectancy be-
tween concrete and asphalt presented in this study was
The life expectancies presented in Figure 2 were represented as single about 1.9 times, confirming
values inatermssim-
ilar trend. However, since they include uncertainty, they could be significantly different
of average.
fromInaverage
light of life
the preceding
expectancyresearch
depending on the onpresumption
the conditions of life
of expectancy
each bridge. by Thus,
pavement this
material, the life expectancy of asphalt, concrete, and LMC is
study presented the probability distribution of life expectancy using parameter samplespresumed to be about 10~15
years,
derived 25~30 years,
through theand
MCMC15 years, respectively
process (see Figure[32–35]. They also
3) and derived presented the
a confidence difference
interval of life
in pavementbystrength
expectancy applyingand durability
3-sigma rules as
[54]a (see
cause for 4).
Table such deviation.
Statistical It seems
ranges of lifethat the life
expectancy
expectancy of asphalt and
based on a confidence levelconcrete
of 95% is similar to
(2-sigma) the
are findings of
illustrated in this
Figure research.
4. However, the
life expectancy
In Figure 3, of asphalt
LMC was and substantially
LMC had adifferentrelatively from
smallthatdispersion
in the preceding research. It
of life expectancy.
is presumed that
Furthermore, the “Rapid
the form Setting-LMC
of distribution is also(RS-LMC)”
clear. On the which is widely
contrary, in theused
case in Korea is
of concrete,
disadvantageous
the probability density to securing strength, compared
was distributed in a wide area to traditional
and its peak LMC was[52,53].
not clear, either. If
additional data were secured, the form of distribution might change. However, in light of
4.2. Uncertainty
the fact of Life Expectancy
that the number of the dataandwasConfidence
about 350, Intervals
it is notby 3-Sigma
very likelyRulethat the peak position
of probability
The life expectancies presented in Figure 2 were represented as singlethe
density would move significantly (i.e., probability that value
values in of life
terms
expectancy would change significantly). However, in case of concrete
of average. However, since they include uncertainty, they could be significantly different C grade → D grade
with the
from largest
average lifedispersion,
expectancyitdepending
was necessary on theto verify the reliability
conditions of results
of each bridge. Thus,by this
collecting
study
more data and updating the model in a continuous manner.
presented the probability distribution of life expectancy using parameter samples derived
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

through the MCMC process (see Figure 3) and derived a confidence interval of life expec-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 tancy by applying 3-sigma rules [54] (see Table 4). Statistical ranges of life expectancy
11 of 15
based on a confidence level of 95% (2-sigma) are illustrated in Figure 4.

0.009
Asphalt Concrete LMC
0.008
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

0.007

Probability of density
0.006
through the MCMC process (see Figure 3) and derived a confidence interval of life expec-
tancy0.005
by applying 3-sigma rules [54] (see Table 4). Statistical ranges of life expectancy
based on a confidence level of 95% (2-sigma) are illustrated in Figure 4.
0.004

0.003
0.009
0.002
0.008 Asphalt Concrete LMC

0.001
0.007
Probability of density

0.0060
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.005
Life expectancy (years)
0.004
Probabilitydensity
Figure3.3.Probability
Figure densityof
oflife
lifeexpectancy
expectancybybybridge
bridgepavement
pavementmaterials.
materials.
0.003
1 Table 4. Statistical confidence intervals of life expectancy at the 3-sigma rule.
0.002 1 1
Max Max Max
Average
0.001 Confidence Interval at 3-Sigma
Average
Rule (Year)
Average
Material
Condition grade

−3σ −02σ −1σ

Condition grade

+1σ +2σ +3σ

Condition grade
2 Min 2 µ Min 2 Min

Asphalt 11.44 11.950 5 12.53 10 15

12.78 20 13.0125 3013.66 35 40
14.29
Concrete 11.56 14.66 20.14 Life expectancy 26.99
24.36 (years) 37.94 51.72
3 3 3
LMC 6.84 7.79
Figure 3. 9.10 of life expectancy
Probability density 9.84 by bridge pavement
10.35 12.42
materials. 14.75

41 14 1 4
0 5 10 Max 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Max 35 40 0 5 10 Max 15
Life expectancy (years) Life expectancy (years) Life expectancy (years)
Average Average Average
(a) (b) (c)
Condition grade

Condition grade

Condition grade

2 Min 2 Min 2 Min

Figure 4. Deterioration curves at confidence interval 95% (2-sigma) (a) Asphalt pavement; (b) Con-
crete pavement; (c) LMC pavement.
3 3 3

Table 4. Statistical confidence intervals of life expectancy at the 3-sigma rule.

Confidence Interval at 3-Sigma Rule (year)

4 Material 4 4
0 5 10 −𝟑𝛔0 5 −𝟐𝛔15 20 −𝟏𝛔
10 15 25 30 35 40𝛍 0 +𝟏𝛔 5 +𝟐𝛔 10 +𝟑𝛔 15
Life expectancy (years) Life expectancy (years) Life expectancy (years)
Asphalt 11.44 11.95 12.53 12.78 13.01 13.66 14.29
(a) (b) (c)
Concrete 11.56 14.66 20.14 24.36 26.99 37.94 51.72
Figure 4. Deterioration
LMC4. Deterioration
6.84 curves
7.79at confidence
9.10 interval 95%
9.84(2-sigma) (a) Asphalt pavement; (b) Con-
Figure curves at confidence interval 95%10.35
(2-sigma) (a)12.42 14.75
Asphalt pavement;
crete pavement; (c) LMC pavement.
(b) Concrete pavement; (c) LMC pavement.
In Figure 3, asphalt and LMC had a relatively small dispersion of life expectancy.
Table 4. Statistical confidence intervals of life expectancy at the 3-sigma rule.
The probability
Furthermore, the formdistribution
of distribution of life expectancy
is also clear. Onillustrated
the contrary,in Figure 3 canofbe
in the case used as
concrete,
a probability density of Monte Carlo
Confidence sampling.
Interval at That
3-Sigma is, the
Rule probability
(year)
the probability density was distributed in a wide area and its peak was not clear, either. Ifdistribution of
Material
future budgetary
additional data−𝟑𝛔 demand can
−𝟐𝛔 the −𝟏𝛔
were secured, be prepared through
𝛍
form of distribution a repetitive
+𝟏𝛔change.+𝟐𝛔
might LCCA simulation.
However, +𝟑𝛔 The
in light of
scope
the factofthat
Asphalt required
11.44 budget
the number ofcan
11.95 thebedata
derived
12.53 based
was about on the
12.78
350, confidence
it is 13.01
not level. This the
13.66
very likely that means
14.29
peak that the
posi-
probabilistic
tion
Concrete LCCA
of probability
11.56 would
density become
14.66would feasible.
move
20.14 significantly
24.36 (i.e.,26.99probability that the value
37.94 51.72of life
expectancy
LMC would
6.84 change
7.79 significantly).
9.10 However,
9.84 in case of
10.35 concrete C
12.42 grade → D grade
14.75
4.3. Calculation of POF Presneted by Markov Transition Probability Matrix
InThe estimation
Figure of POF
3, asphalt andisLMC
essential
had atorelatively
manage organizational risks,
small dispersion to apply
of life the RCM.
expectancy.
Here, if a failure is defined as a transition between condition grades, the POF can be
Furthermore, the form of distribution is also clear. On the contrary, in the case of concrete,
organized in an MTP format and used as a probabilistic condition update function.
the probability density was distributed in a wide area and its peak was not clear, either. One
If of
additional data were secured, the form of distribution might change. However, in light ofcan
the biggest advantages of the BMH model is that the MTP standardized in a unit time
the fact that the number of the data was about 350, it is not very likely that the peak posi-
tion of probability density would move significantly (i.e., probability that the value of life
expectancy would change significantly). However, in case of concrete C grade → D grade
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 12 of 15

be combined through multi-state hazard functions (see Equations (8)–(12)). Table 5 shows
the results of MTP calculation by pavement material type.

Table 5. Average Markov transition probability matrix by pavement material.

Materials Condition Grade 1 2 3 4 Avg. Hazard Function

1 0.639 0.327 0.032 0.002 0.448
2 - 0.828 0.156 0.016 0.189
Asphalt
3 - - 0.827 0.173 0.190
4 - - - 1.000 -
1 0.717 0.259 0.023 0.001 0.332
2 - 0.848 0.147 0.005 0.165
Concrete
3 - - 0.932 0.068 0.070
4 - - - 1.000 -
1 0.619 0.339 0.038 0.004 0.480
2 - 0.803 0.168 0.030 0.220
LMC
3 - - 0.725 0.275 0.321
4 - - - 1.000 N/A

The MTP in Table 5 is an average condition change probability by pavement ma-

terial. If the AADT of bridge is applied as an explanatory variable of hazard function
(see Equation (13)), the probabilistic LCCA becomes feasible at every individual bridge.
This is because the MTP and hazard function unique to each bridge are secured. Mean-
while, the life expectancy of concrete pavement with C grade was relatively long (see
Figure 2). Compared to 3→4 grade transition probability, concrete pavement (0.068) was
lower than asphalt pavement (0.173) by more than 2.5 times and LMC (0.275) by more than
4 times, respectively.
It is presumed that these findings resulted from the physical characteristics of the
material itself and behavioral characteristics with bridge deck. In general, concrete has a
relatively high strength and loses almost no durability even with long-term use. Further-
more, since the same material as the bridge deck is used, it can be well-attached to the
bridge deck and is structurally stable in terms of shrinkage, expansion, and vibration. In
addition to this, it is presumed that the RS-LMC is disadvantageous to secure structural
stability and strength, because latex is included therein.

5. Conclusions
As the first step to secure an execution power of the Infrastructure Management
Act, this study developed a deterioration model for bridge pavement in Korea. This
study subdivided deterioration models by pavement material by accepting a direction of
developing deterioration models as presented in ISO 55001 and IIMM and developed a
deterioration model which could respond to deterministic/probabilistic LCCA altogether.
In sum, the findings of this study are as follows:
1. The average life expectancy by pavement material was analyzed to be 12.8 years,
23.4 years and 9.8 years for asphalt, conventional concrete, and LMC, respectively.
Thus, a basis of the deterministic LCCA was established;
2. This study presented the probabilistic distribution of life expectancy and the POF
(i.e., MTP matrix) by pavement material by applying the BMH model. Thus, a basis
of the probabilistic LCCA was established;
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 13 of 15

3. The effective range of life expectancy at a confidence level of 95% was 12.0~13.7 years,
14.7~37.9 years, and 7.8~12.4 years for asphalt, concrete, and LMC, respectively. This
result may be referred even to define the service life and effective range necessary to
evaluate asset values;
4. The life expectancy of the LMC pavement most expensive in terms of price was shorter
than that of conventional asphalt. It is necessary to figure out causes therefore and
review in terms of technology and economic feasibility whether to continue to apply
LMC pavement.
The limitation of this study and future research tasks may be classified into the
following three groups: First, as the purpose of the study was restricted to the development
of a deterioration model for LCCA, we did not approach in depth the influence on various
internal/external explanatory variables. It is necessary for future research to sophisticate
deterioration models considering bridge understructure, deviation in pavement design,
environmental factors, etc. Second, it is necessary to verify how much the research findings
correspond to reality. Even if this study asked experts of BMS and PMS about the accuracy
of life expectancy of three types of pavement, even experts with broad experiences could
not give a definite answer. As the best alternative solution, it is necessary to apply various
deterioration modeling techniques and compare the results thereof in a relative manner.
Lastly, bridge pavement is only one of numerous components. The securement of execution
power of the Infrastructure Management Act presented as the fundamental purpose of
this study is achievable only after enabling the LCCA for all components of bridges and
all social infrastructure. Future research shall develop deterioration models standardized
for various types of social infrastructure by applying a method to develop a deterioration
model as presented in this study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.H.; methodology, D.H.; software, D.H.; validation,

D.H.; formal analysis, J.-H.L. and D.H.; investigation, J.-H.L.; resources, J.-H.L.; data curation,
J.-H.L.; writing—original draft preparation, D.H.; writing—review and editing, J.-H.L. and K.-T.P.;
visualization, J.-H.L.; supervision, K.-T.P.; project administration, K.-T.P.; funding acquisition, K.-T.P.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Research for this paper was carried out under the KICT Research Program (project
no. 20220217-001, Development of DNA-based smart maintenance platform and application tech-
nologies for aging bridges) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors appreciate the technical support of the asset metrics research team of
Kyoto University and Osaka University. Also, we conducted this study with research support from the
Ministry of Science and ICT and the project “Development of DNA-based smart maintenance platform
and application technologies for aging bridges”. We express our gratitude to everyone involved.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Lee, Y. Megatrend—Inquire into the Future of Construction Vol. 4: Sustainable Infrastructure Management; Korea Research Institute for
Construction Policy: Seoul, Korea, 2021; p. 119. (In Korean)
2. MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). Framework Act on Sustainable Infrastructure Management; National
Act-17237; MOLIT: Sejong City, Korea, 2020; p. 1. (In Korean)
3. MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). Evaluation Standard for Performance Improvement Project of Road Facilities;
Government Notice–2021/213; MOLIT: Sejong City, Korea, 2021; p. 4. (In Korean)
4. MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). Special Act on the Safety and Management of Facilities; National Act-17237;
MOLIT: Sejong City, Korea, 2021; pp. 12–15. (In Korean)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 14 of 15

5. Facility Management System. Available online: https://www.fms.or.kr/com/mainFrame.do (accessed on 30 May 2022).

6. ISO 55001. 2014 Asset Management-Management Systems-Requirements; ISO (International Organization for Standardization):
Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p. 1.
7. IPWEA (Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia). International Infrastructure Management Manual (International Edition
2015), 5th ed.; IPWEA: North Sydney, Australia, 2015; pp. 2–90.
8. Do, M.; Park, S.; Han, D.; Lee, S.; Shin, H.; Kim, S. Infrastructure Asset Management with ISO 55000; CIR Publication: Seoul, Korea,
2018; pp. 55–60.
9. Han, D.; Lee, S. Stochastic forecasting of life expectancies considering multi-maintenance criteria and localized uncertainty in the
pavement-deterioration process. J. Test. Eval. 2016, 44, 128–140. [CrossRef]
10. Kaito, K.; Kobayashi, K. Bayesian estimation of markov deterioration hazard model. J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. Part A 2007, 63, 336–355.
[CrossRef]
11. Tsuda, Y.; Kaito, K.; Aoki, K.; Kobayashi, K. Estimating markovian transition probabilities for bridge deterioration forecasting.
J. Struct. Eng. Earthq. Eng. 2006, 23, 241s–256s. [CrossRef]
12. Obama, K.; Okada, K.; Kaito, K.; Kobayashi, K. Disaggregated hazard rates evaluation and bench-marking. J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng.
2008, 64, 857–874. [CrossRef]
13. Kaito, K.; Kobayashi, K.; Aoki, K.; Matsuoka, K. Hierarchical bayesian estimation of mixed hazard models. J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng.
2012, 68, 255–271.
14. Han, D.; Kaito, K.; Kobayashi, K.; Aoki, K. Performance evaluation of advanced pavement materials by bayesian markov mixture
hazard model. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 20, 729–737. [CrossRef]
15. Han, D.; Kaito, K.; Kobayashi, K. Application of bayesian estimation method with markov hazard model to improve deterioration
forecasts for infrastructure asset management. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 18, 2107–2119. [CrossRef]
16. Hass, R.; Hudson, W.R.; Falls, L.C. Pavement Asset Management; Scrivener Publishing: Beverly, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 5–8.
17. Heriberto, P.A.; Alaitz, L.U.; Ricardo, A.; Eduardo, R. Research trends in pavement management during the first years of the 21st
century: A bibliometric analysis during the 2000–2013 period. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1041. [CrossRef]
18. Han, D. Empirical evaluation of utility of anti-frost layer in pavement structure considering regional climate characteristics. Int. J.
Pavement Eng. 2022, 8, 2821–2828. [CrossRef]
19. Kobayashi, K.; Do, M.; Han, D. Estimation of markov transition probabilities for pavement deterioration forecasting. KSCE J. Civ.
Eng. 2010, 14, 343–351. [CrossRef]
20. Han, D.; Do, M.; Kim, B. Internal property and stochastic deterioration modeling of total pavement condition index for
transportation asset management. Int. J. Highw. Eng. 2017, 19, 1–11. [CrossRef]
21. Han, D.; Kaito, K.; Kobayashi, K.; Aoki, K. Management scheme of road pavements considering heterogeneous multiple life
cycles changed by repeated maintenance work. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 1747–1756. [CrossRef]
22. MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). Detailed Guidelines for the Safety and Maintenance of Facilities; Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong-Si, Korea, 2021; pp. 1–38. (In Korean)
23. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Material). Standard Classification for Bridge Elements—Uniformat II (E2103/E2103M-19);
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019; p. 4.
24. Huang, Y.H. Artificial neural network model of bridge deterioration. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2010, 24, 597–602. [CrossRef]
25. Akiyama, M.; Frangopol, D.M. Long-term seismic performance of RC structures in an aggressive environment: Emphasis on
bridge piers. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2014, 10, 865–879. [CrossRef]
26. Biondini, F.; Frangopol, D.M. Time-variant redundancy and failure times of deteriorating concrete structures considering multiple
limit states. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 13, 94–106. [CrossRef]
27. Yanweerasak, T.; Pansuk, W.; Akiyama, M.; Frangopol, D.M. Life-cycle reliability assessment of reinforced concrete bridges under
multiple hazards. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 14, 1011–1024. [CrossRef]
28. Lee, J.H.; Choi, Y.; Ann, H.; Jin, S.Y.; Lee, S.J.; Kong, J.S. Maintenance cost estimation in PSCI girder bridges using updating
probabilistic deterioration model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6593. [CrossRef]
29. Saeed, T.U.; Qiao, Y.; Chen, S.; Gkritza, K.; Labi, S. Methodology for probabilistic modeling of highway bridge infrastructure
condition: Accounting for improvement effectiveness and incorporating random effects. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2017, 23, 04017030.
[CrossRef]
30. Saeed, T.U.; Moomen, M.; Ahmed, A.; Murillo-Hoyos, J.; Volovski, M.; Labi, S. Performance evaluation and life prediction of
highway concrete bridge superstructure across design types. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017052. [CrossRef]
31. Sinha, K.C.; Labi, S.A.; McCullouch, B.G.; Bhargava, A.; Bai, Q. Updating and Enhancing the Indiana Bridge Management System
(IBMS), Volume 1 (Technical Manual); Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2008/30; Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue
University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2009; pp. 97–107.
32. Arpad, H.; Chris, H. Comparison of Environmental Implications of Asphalt and Steel-Reinforced Concrete Pavements. Transp. Res.
Rec. 1998, 1626, 105–113. [CrossRef]
33. Kuhlmann, L.A. Performance History of Latex-Modified Concrete Overlays. ACI J. 1981, 69, 123–144.
34. Lee, S.J.; Park, S.I.; Park, S.H. Latex concrete bridge pavement application. Int. J. Highw. Eng. 2000, 2, 55–63.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11435 15 of 15

35. Saeed, T.U.; Qiao, Y.; Chen, S.; Alqadhi, S.; Zhang, Z.; Labi, S.; Sinha, K.C. Effects of Bridge Surface and Pavement Maintenance
Activities on Asset Rating; Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2017/19; Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University:
West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2017; pp. 7–52. [CrossRef]
36. Jin, S.Y.; Lee, J.H.; Choi, Y.R.; Lim, J.; Kong, J.S. Optimal Bridge Maintenance Cost Calculation Algorithms Considering Components
Correlation using Genetic Algorithms; Workshop on Life Cycle Management: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2019.
37. Srikanth, I.; Arockiasamy, M. Deterioration models for prediction of remaining useful life of timber and concrete bridges: A
review. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2020, 7, 152–173. [CrossRef]
38. Estes, A.C.; Frangopol, D.M. Repair optimization of highway bridges using system reliability approach. J. Struct. Eng. 1999, 125,
766–775. [CrossRef]
39. Lavrenz, S.M.; Saeed, T.U.; Murillo-Hoyos, J.; Volovski, M.; Labi, S. Can interdependency considerations enhance forecasts of
bridge infrastructure condition? Evidence using a multivariate regression approach. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 16, 1177–1185.
[CrossRef]
40. Kobayashi, K.; Kaito, K.; Nam, L. A statistical deterioration forecasting method using hidden markov model for infrastructure
management. Transp. Res. Part B 2012, 46, 544–561. [CrossRef]
41. Han, D. Heterogeneous deterioration process and risk of deficiencies of aging bridges for transportation asset management.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7094. [CrossRef]
42. KCS-14 20 10: 2022. Standard Specification for Concrete Construction; KCS (Korean Construction Specification); Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong-Si, Korea, 2022; p. 19. (In Korean)
43. Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 185–214.
44. Koop, G.; Poirier, D.J.; Tobias, J.L. Bayesian Econometric Methods; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007;
pp. 128–157.
45. Geweke, J. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments. In Bayesian Statistics,
4th ed.; Bernardo, J.M., Berger, J.M., Dawid, A.P., Smith, A.F.M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1992; pp. 169–193.
46. Chan, N.H.; Wong, H.Y. Simulation Techniques in Financial Risk Management; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006;
pp. 167–185.
47. MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). Yearbook of Road Statistics 2020; MOLIT: Sejong-Si, Korea, 2021; p. 8.
(In Korean)
48. MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). Yearbook of Road Bridge and Tunnel Statistics 2021; MOLIT: Sejong-Si,
Korea, 2021; p. 3. (In Korean)
49. Rohde, G.T.; Hartman, A. Comparison of procedures to determine structural number from FWD deflections. In Proceedings of
the 18th ARRB Transport Research Conference and Transit New Zealand Land Transport Symposium, Melbourne, Australia,
2–6 September 1999.
50. Morosiuk, G.; Riley, M.J.; Odoki, J.B. Modelling Road Deterioration and Works Effects (Version 2)—Highway Development & Management
Series (HDM-4); Transport Research Laboratory: Crowthorne, UK, 2004; Volume 6, p. B2–B4.
51. ACPA (American Concrete Pavement Association), Equivalency Chart: For Concrete and Asphalt Pavements. ACPA org. Available
online: https://www.scribd.com/document/355669917/ACPAPavementEquivalencyChart-1 (accessed on 1 September 2022).
52. Michael, M.S. Very-Early-Strength Latex-Modified Concrete Overlay. Transp. Res. Rec. 1999, 1, 18–23. [CrossRef]
53. Jeong, W.-K.; Kim, Y.-G.; Kim, K.-H.; Yun, K.-K. Rehabilitation of Concrete Pavement with VES-LMC overlay. J. Ind. Technol. 2005,
25, 3–10. (In Korean)
54. Pukelsheim, F. The three sigma rule. Am. Stat. 1994, 48, 88–91. [CrossRef]