Railway importance in the transportation industry is increasing continuously, due to the growing demand of both passenger travel and transportation of goods. However, more than 35% of the 300,000 railway bridges across Europe are over 100-years old, and their reliability directly impacts the reliability of the railway network. This increased demand may lead to higher risk associated with their unexpected failures, resulting safety hazards to passengers and increased whole life cycle cost of the asset. Consequently, one of the most important aspects of evaluation of the reliability of the overall railway transport system is bridge structural health monitoring, which can monitor the health state of the bridge by allowing an early detection of failures. Therefore, a fast, safe and cost-effective recovery of the optimal health state of the bridge, where the levels of element degradation or failure are maintained efficiently, can be achieved. In this article, after an introduction to the desired features of structural health monitoring, a review of the most commonly adopted bridge fault detection methods is presented. Mainly, the analysis focuses on model-based finite element updating strategies, non-model-based (data-driven) fault detection methods, such as artificial neural network, and Bayesian belief network–based structural health monitoring methods. A comparative study, which aims to discuss and compare the performance of the reviewed types of structural health monitoring methods, is then presented by analysing a short-span steel structure of a railway bridge. Opportunities and future challenges of the fault detection methods of railway bridges are highlighted.
Office of Rail and Road. Passenger rail usage 2015-16 Q1 statistical release. London: Office of Rail and Road, 2015.
2.
LeeJJLeeJWYiJH. Neural networks-based fault detection for bridges considering errors in baseline finite element models. J Sound Vib2005; 280(3–5): 555–578.
3.
ChattopadhyayGReddyV. Development of integrated model for assessment of operational risks in rail track. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, Singapore, 2–4 December 2007, pp. 612–616. New York: IEEE.
4.
SharmaKKumawatJMaheshwariS. Railway security system based on wireless sensor networks: state of the art. Int J Comput Appl2014; 96(25): 32–35.
5.
TanteleEAOnoufriouT. Optimization of life-cycle preventative maintenance strategies using genetic algorithm and Bayesian updating. In: FrangopolDMRichardSKuskoCS (eds) Proceedings of the 5th international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management, Philadelphia, PA, 11–15 July 2010, pp. 1603–1610. CRC Press.
6.
European Commission. EU transport in figures (statistical pocketbook). Brussels: European Commission, 2012.
7.
ElfgrenLOlofssonJBellB. Sustainable bridges: assessment for future traffic demands and longer lives. Priority sixth sustainable development global change & ecosystems integrated project, publishable final activity report, 2008, http://uic.org/cdrom/2008/11_wcrr2008/pdf/I.2.3.1.1.pdf
8.
ReyerMHurlebausSManderJ. Design of a wireless sensor network for structural health monitoring of bridges. In: Proceedings of the international conference on sensing technology (ICST), Palmerston North, New Zealand, 28 November–1 December 2011, article no. 6137033, pp. 515–520. IEEE.
9.
LeBAndrewsJ.Modelling railway bridge asset management. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2013; 227(6): 644–656.
PharesBMGraybealBARolanderDD. Reliability and accuracy of routine inspection of highway bridges. Transp Res Record2001; 1749: 82–92.
12.
GangoneMVWhelanMJJanoyanKD.Wireless monitoring of a multispan bridge superstructure for diagnostic load testing and system identification. Comput-Aided Civ Inf2011; 26(7): 560–579.
13.
RafiqMIChryssanthopoulosMKSathananthanS. Bridge condition modelling and prediction using dynamic Bayesian belief networks. Struct Infrastruct E2015; 11(1): 38–50.
14.
DoeblingSWFarrarCRPrimeMB. A summary review of vibration-based fault identification methods, the shock and vibration. Digest1998; 30(2): 91–105.
15.
ChaseSBAktanAE. Health monitoring and management of civil infrastructure systems, vol. 4337. Bellingham, WA: SPIE, 2001.
16.
YeungWTSmithJW. Fault detection in bridges using neural networks for pattern recognition of vibration signatures. Eng Struct2005; 27(5): 685–698.
17.
Ignat-ComanAIsocDJoldişA. A case-based reasoning approach for fault detection state in bridges assessment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on automation, quality and testing, robotics, Cluj-Napoca, 22–25 May 2008, article no. 4588730, pp. 178–183. New York: IEEE.
18.
Connecticut Department of Transportation, Office of Rail and H.W. Lochner Inc. Railroad bridge inspection manual. Newington, CT: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Public Transportation, Office of Rail, 2012.
19.
WangLChanTHT. Review of vibration-based fault detection and condition assessment of bridge structures using structural health monitoring. In: Proceedings of the second infrastructure theme postgraduate conference, St Lucia, QLD, Australia, 26 March 2009.
20.
ChanTLiXKoJ. Fatigue analysis and life prediction of bridges with structural health monitoring data: part II: application. Int J Fatigue2001; 23: 55–64.
21.
ChaseSB. A long term bridge performance monitoring program. Proc SPIE2004; 5395: 122–127.
StajanoFHoultNWassellI. Smart bridges, smart tunnels: transforming wireless sensor networks from research prototypes into robust engineering infrastructure. Ad Hoc Netw2010; 8(8): 872–888.
24.
OuJP. Some recent advances of structural health monitoring systems for civil infrastructure in mainland China. In: Proceeding of the 1st international conference on structural health monitoring and intelligent infrastructure, Tokyo, Japan, 13–15 November 2003, pp. 131–144. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
25.
LynchJPLohKJ. A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks for structural health monitoring. Shock Vib Digest2006; 38(2): 91–128.
26.
WebbGTVardanegaPJMiddletonCR. Categories of SHM deployments: technologies and capabilities. J Bridge Eng2015; 20(11): 04014118.
27.
ZhaoXLiuHYuY. Bridge displacement monitoring method based on laser projection-sensing technology. Sensors2015; 15(4): 8444–8643.
28.
DoeblingSWFarrarCRPrimeMB. Damage identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: a literature review. Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-13070-MS, 1996. Washington, DC: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
29.
CardenEPFanningP. Vibration based condition monitoring: a review. Struct Health Monit2004; 3(4): 355–377.
30.
FanWQiaoP. Vibration-based damage identification methods: a review and comparative study. Struct Health Monit2011; 10(1): 83–111.
31.
KimJ-TParkJ-HLeeB-J. Vibration-based damage monitoring in model plate-girder bridges under uncertain temperature conditions. Eng Struct2007; 29(7): 1354–1365.
32.
Dos SantosJPCrémonaCDa SilveiraAPC. Real-time damage detection based on pattern recognition. Struct Concr2016; 17: 338–354.
33.
HeX-HYuZ-WChenZ-Q. Finite element model updating of existing steel bridge based on structural health monitoring. J Cent South Univ T2008; 15(3): 399–403.
34.
XieHWangYLiuM. Influences of climate change on reliability of bridge superstructure. Appl Mech Mater2011; 94–96: 1549–1555.
35.
VenkatasubramanianVRengaswamyRYinK. A review of process fault detection and diagnosis part I: quantitative model-based methods. Comput Chem Eng2003; 27(3): 293–311.
36.
VenkatasubramanianVRengaswamyRKavuriSN. A review of process fault detection and diagnosis part III: process history based methods. Comput Chem Eng2003; 27(3): 327–346.
37.
LampisMAndrewsJD. Bayesian belief networks for system fault diagnostics. Qual Reliab Eng Int2009; 25(4): 409–426.
38.
KanMSTanACCMathewJ. A review on prognostic techniques for non-stationary and non-linear rotating systems. Mech Syst Signal Pr2015; 62–63: 1–20.
39.
SanayeiMKhalooAGulM. Automated finite element model updating of a scale bridge model using measured static and modal test data. Eng Struct2015; 102: 66–79.
NairACaiCS. Acoustic emission monitoring of bridges: review and case studies. Eng Struct2010; 32(6): 1704–1714.
44.
SekułaKKołakowskiP. Piezo-based weigh-in-motion system for the railway transport. Struct Control Hlth2012; 19(2): 199–215.
45.
AdeyBHajdinRBrühwilerE. Effect of common cause failures on indirect costs. J Bridge Eng2004; 9(2): 200–208.
46.
YiT-HLiH-NGuM. Experimental assessment of high-rate GPS receivers for deformation monitoring of bridge. Measurement2013; 46(1): 420–432.
47.
ChangK-CKimC-WKawataniM. Feasibility investigation for a bridge damage identification method through moving vehicle laboratory experiment. Struct Infrastruct E2014; 10(3): 328–345.
48.
NielsenDRamanDChattopadhyayG. Life cycle management for railway bridge assets. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2013; 227(5): 570–581.
49.
KrügerMGrosseCUKurzJH. Acoustic emission analysis techniques for wireless sensor networks used for structural health monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management–bridge maintenance, safety, management, life-cycle performance and cost, Porto, 16–19 July 2006, pp. 873–874. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
50.
LédecziÁHayTVölgyesiP. Wireless acoustic emission sensor network for structural monitoring. IEEE Sens J2009; 9(11): 1370–1377.
51.
RobertsGWMengXDodsonAH. The use of kinematic GPS and triaxial accelerometers to monitor the deflections of large bridges. In: Proceedings of the deformation measurements and analysis, 10th symposium on deformation measurements, Orange, CA, 19–22 March 2001.
52.
RobertsGWMengXDodsonAH. Integrating a global positioning system and accelerometers to monitor the deflection of bridges. J Surv Eng2004; 130(2): 65–72.
53.
BarnesJRizosCKanliM. High accuracy positioning using Locata’s next generation technology. In: Proceedings of the 18th international technical meeting of the satellite division of the Institute of Navigation, Long Beach, CA, 13–16 September 2005, pp. 2049–2056. The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2005).
54.
MoschasFStirosS. Measurement of the dynamic displacements and of the modal frequencies of a short-span pedestrian bridge using GPS and an accelerometer. Eng Struct2011; 33(1): 10–17.
55.
PsimoulisPAStirosSC. Measuring deflections of a short-span railway bridge using a robotic total station. J Bridge Eng2013; 18(2): 182–185.
56.
HanHWangJMengX. Reconstruction of bridge dynamics using integrated GPS and accelerometer. J Chin Univ Min Technol2015; 44(3): 549–556.
57.
BrownCJKarunaRAshkenaziV. Monitoring of structures using the global positioning system. P I Civil Eng Str B1999; 134: 97–105.
58.
AkyidizIFSuWSankarasubramaniamY. Wireless sensor network: a survey. Comput Netw2002; 38(4): 393–422.
59.
LaoryIHadj AliNBTrinhTN. Measurement system configuration for damage identification of continuously monitored structures. J Bridge Eng2012; 17(6): 857–866.
60.
HodgeVJO’KeefeSWeeksM. Wireless sensor networks for condition monitoring in the railway industry: a survey. IEEE T Intell Transp2015; 16(3): 1088–1106.
61.
LiuWGaoW-CSunY. Optimal sensor placement for spatial lattice structure based on genetic algorithms. J Sound Vib2008; 317(1–2): 175–189.
MeoMZumpanoG. On the optimal sensor placement techniques for a bridge structure. Eng Struct2005; 27(10): 1488–1497.
64.
AzarbayejaniMEl-OseryAIChoiKK. A probabilistic approach for optimal sensor allocation in structural health monitoring. Smart Mater Struct2008; 17(5): 055019.
65.
SoyozSFengMQ. Long-term monitoring and identification of bridge structural parameters. Comput-Aided Civ Inf2009; 24(2): 82–92.
66.
KatipamulaSBrambleyMR. Methods for fault detection, diagnostics, and prognostics for building systems: a review, part I. HVAC R Res2005; 11(1): 3–25.
67.
GoodallRMRobertsC. Concepts and techniques for railway condition monitoring. IET Seminar Digest2006; 2006(11575): 90–95.
68.
SathananthanSOnoufriouTRafiqMI. A risk ranking strategy for network level bridge management. Struct Infrastruct E2010; 6(6): 767–776.
69.
GalarDKumarUVillarejoR. Hybrid prognosis for railway health assessment: an information fusion approach for PHM deployment. Chem Eng Trans2013; 33: 769–774.
70.
TanteleEAOnoufriouT. Optimum preventative maintenance strategies using genetic algorithms and Bayesian updating. Ships Offshore Struct2009; 4(3): 299–306.
71.
CaoYYimJZhaoY. Temperature effects on cable stayed bridge using health monitoring system: a case study. Struct Health Monit2011; 10(5): 523–537.
72.
ZhouG-DYiT-H. A summary review of correlations between temperatures and vibration properties of long-span bridges. Math Probl Eng2014; 2014: 638209.
73.
VenkatasubramanianVRengaswamyRKavuriSN. A review of process fault detection and diagnosis part II: qualitative models and search strategies. Comput Chem Eng2003; 27(3): 313–326.
74.
ZioE. Prognostic and health management of industrial equipment. In: Kadry (ed.) Diagnostic and prognostic of engineering systems: methods and techniques. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2012, pp. 333–356.
75.
CatbasFNSusoyMFrangopolDM. Structural health monitoring and reliability estimation: long span truss bridge application with environmental monitoring data. Eng Struct2008; 30(9): 2347–2359.
76.
MottersheadJEFriswellMI. Model updating in structural dynamics: a survey. J Sound Vib1993; 167(2): 347–375.
77.
BrownjohnJMWXiaPQHaoH. Civil structure condition assessment by FE model updating: methodology and case studies. Finite Elem Anal Des2001; 37: 761–775.
78.
SchluneHPlosMGylltoftK. Improved bridge evaluation through finite element model updating using static and dynamic measurements. Eng Struct2009; 31(7): 1477–1485.
79.
SimoenEDe RoeckGLombaertG. Dealing with uncertainty in model updating for damage assessment: a review. Mech Syst Signal Pr2015; 56: 123–149.
80.
DingYLiA. Finite element model updating for the Runyang Cable-stayed Bridge tower using ambient vibration test results. Adv Struct Eng2008; 11(3): 323–335.
81.
TeughelsAMaeckJDe RoeckG. Damage assessment by FE model updating using damage functions. Comput Struct2002; 80(25): 1869–1879.
82.
JaishiBRenW-X. Structural finite element model updating using ambient vibration test results. J Struct Eng2005; 131(4): 617–628.
83.
FengDFengMQ. Model updating of railway bridge using in situ dynamic displacement measurement under trainloads. J Bridge Eng2015; 20(12): 04015019.
84.
XiaCDe RoeckG. Modal analysis of the Jalon Viaduct using FE updating. In: CunhaACaetanoERibeiroP (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on structural dynamic (EURODYN), Porto, 30 June–2 July 2014, pp. 2311–2317.
85.
BaşaĝaHBTürkerTBayraktarA. A model updating approach based on design points for unknown structural parameters. Appl Math Model2011; 35(12): 5872–5883.
86.
DebKPratapAAgarwalS. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE T Evolut Comput2002; 6(2): 182–197.
87.
Di MaioFVagnoliMZioE. Risk-based clustering for near misses identification in integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety analysis. Sci Technol Nucl Ins2015; 2015: 693891.
88.
JinS-SChoSJungH-J. A new multi-objective approach to finite element model updating. J Sound Vib2014; 333(11): 2323–2338.
89.
ZhongRZongZNiuJ. A damage prognosis method of girder structures based on wavelet neural networks. Math Probl Eng2014; 2014: 130274.
90.
LeeJWKimJDYunCB. Health-monitoring method for bridges under ordinary traffic loadings. J Sound Vib2002; 257(2): 247–264.
91.
ShabbirFOmenzetterP. Model updating using genetic algorithms with sequential niche technique. Eng Struct2016; 120: 166–182.
92.
ChangCCChangTYPXuYG. Adaptive neural networks for model updating of structures. Smart Mater Struct2000; 9(1): 59–68.
93.
MolinerECuadradoM.Assessment of long-term structural health at Villanueva del Jaln Viaduct. In: PomboJ (ed.) Proceedings of the second international conference on railway technology: research, development and maintenance. Stirlingshire, UK: Civil-Comp Press. Paper 73, 2014. DOI: 10.4203/ccp.104.73.
94.
ZioEDi MaioF. A data-driven fuzzy approach for predicting the remaining useful life in dynamic failure scenarios of a nuclear system. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2010; 95(1): 49–57.
95.
QinSJ. Survey on data-driven industrial process monitoring and diagnosis. Annu Rev Control2012; 36(2): 220–234.
96.
YinSDingSXXieX. A review on basic data-driven approaches for industrial process monitoring. IEEE T Ind Electron2014; 61(11): 6414–6428.
97.
GalottoLBrunADMGodoyRB. Data based tools for sensors continuous monitoring in industry applications. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on industrial electronics, 3–5 June 2015, article no. 7281536, pp. 600–605. New York: IEEE.
98.
RigamontiMBaraldiPZioE. Identification of the degradation state for condition-based maintenance of insulated gate bipolar transistors: a self-organizing map approach. Microelectron Reliab2016; 60: 48–61.
DemuthHBBealeMHDe JessO. Neural network design. Stillwater, OK: Martin Hagan, 2014.
102.
BishopCM. Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
103.
KusyMZajdelR. Probabilistic neural network training procedure based on Q(0)-learning algorithm in medical data classification. Appl Intell2014; 41(3): 837–854.
104.
ShuJZhangZGonzalezI. The application of a damage detection method using artificial neural network and train-induced vibrations on a simplified railway bridge model. Eng Struct2013; 52: 408–421.
105.
Al-RahmaniAHRasheedHANajjarY. A combined soft computing-mechanics approach to inversely predict damage in bridges. Proc Comput Sci2012; 8: 461–466.
106.
LeeJKimS. Structural damage detection in the frequency domain using neural networks. J Intel Mat Syst Str2007; 18(8): 785–792.
107.
HakimSJSAbdul RazakH. Structural damage detection of steel bridge girder using artificial neural networks and finite element models. Steel Compos Struct2013; 14(4): 367–377.
108.
ParkJHKimJTHongaDS. Sequential damage detection approaches for beams using time-modal features and artificial neural networks. J Sound Vib2009; 323: 451–474.
109.
MehrjooMKhajiNMoharramiH. Damage detection of truss bridge joints using Artificial Neural Networks. Expert Syst Appl2008; 35(3): 1122–1131.
110.
LiJDackermannUXuY-L. Damage identification in civil engineering structures utilizing PCA-compressed residual frequency response functions and neural network ensembles. Struct Control Hlth2011; 18(2): 207–226.
111.
CremonaCCuryAOrcesiA. Supervised learning algorithms for damage detection and long term bridge monitoring. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management: bridge maintenance, safety, management, resilience and sustainability, Stresa, 8–12 July 2012, pp. 2144–2151. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
112.
AlvesVCuryARoitmanN. Structural modification assessment using supervised learning methods applied to vibration data. Eng Struct2015; 99: 439–448.
113.
ZhouXTNiYQZhangFL. Damage localization of cable-supported bridges using modal frequency data and probabilistic neural network. Math Probl Eng2014; 2014: 837963.
114.
LeeJJYunCB. Damage localization for bridges using probabilistic neural networks. KSCE J Civil Eng2007; 11(2): 111–120.
115.
NiYQ. Structural health monitoring of cable-supported bridges based on vibration measurements. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural dynamics (EURODYN), Porto, 30 June–2 July 2014.
116.
DuhamelPVetterliM. Fast Fourier transforms: a tutorial review and a state of the art. Signal Process1990; 19(4): 259–299.
117.
ArangioSBontempiF. Structural health monitoring of a cable-stayed bridge with Bayesian neural networks. Struct Infrastruct E2014; 11: 575–587.
118.
LeeJWuFZhaoW. Prognostics and health management design for rotary machinery systems: reviews, methodology and applications. Mech Syst Signal Pr2014; 42(1–2): 314–334.
119.
HeXKawataniMHayashikawaT. A bridge damage detection approach using train-bridge interaction analysis and GA optimization. Proc Eng2011; 14: 769–776.
120.
BellinoAFasanaAGaribaldiL. PCA-based detection of damage in time-varying systems. Mech Syst Signal Pr2010; 24(7): 2250–2260.
121.
CavadasFSmithIFCFigueirasJ. Damage detection using data-driven methods applied to moving-load responses. Mech Syst Signal Pr2013; 39(1–2): 409–425.
122.
LaoryITrinhTNPosenatoD. Combined model-free data-interpretation methodologies for damage detection during continuous monitoring of structures. J Comput Civil Eng2013; 27(6): 657–666.
123.
KimC-WMoritaTOshimaY. A Bayesian approach for vibration-based long-term bridge monitoring to consider environmental and operational changes. Smart Struct Syst2015; 15(2): 395–408.
124.
RenJ-YSuM-BZengQ-Y. Railway simply supported steel truss bridge damage identification based on deflection. Inform Technol J2013; 12(17): 3946–3951.
125.
BreretonRG. The Mahalanobis distance and its relationship to principal component scores. J Chemometr2015; 29(3): 143–145.
126.
SunZKrishnanSHackmannG. Damage detection on a full-scale highway sign structure with a distributed wireless sensor network. Smart Struct Syst2015; 16(1): 223–242.
127.
ZhanJWXiaHChenSY. Structural damage identification for railway bridges based on train-induced bridge responses and sensitivity analysis. J Sound Vib2011; 330(4): 757–770.
128.
GentileCSaisiA. Continuous dynamic monitoring of a centenary iron bridge for structural modification assessment. Front Struct Civil Eng2015; 9(1): 26–41.
129.
AraújoIGLaierJE. Operational modal analysis using SVD of power spectral density transmissibility matrices. Mech Syst Signal Pr2014; 46(1): 129–145.
130.
CabboiAGentileCSaisiA. Vibration-based SHM of a centenary bridge: a comparative study between two different automated OMA techniques. In: CunhaACaetanoERibeiroP. (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on structural dynamic (EURODYN), Porto, 30 June–2 July 2014, pp. 1461–1468.
131.
MartinsJFPiresVFPiresAJ. Unsupervised neural-network-based algorithm for an on-line diagnosis of three-phase induction motor stator fault. IEEE T Ind Electron2007; 54(1): 259–264.
132.
HoellSOmenzetterP. Fukunaga-Koontz feature transformation for statistical structural damage detection and hierarchical neuro-fuzzy damage localisation. J Sound Vib2017; 400: 329–353.
133.
BaraldiPDi MaioFRigamontiM. Clustering for unsupervised fault diagnosis in nuclear turbine shut-down transients. Mech Syst Signal Pr2015; 58: 160–178.
134.
YanRMaZKokogiannakisG. A sensor fault detection strategy for air handling units using cluster analysis. Automat Constr2016; 70: 77–88.
135.
CuryACrémonaC. Assignment of structural behaviours in long-term monitoring: application to a strengthened railway bridge. Struct Health Monit2012; 11(4): 422–441.
136.
GuoWOrcesiADCremonaCF. A vibration-based framework for structural health monitoring of railway bridges. In: StraussAFrangopolDBergmeisterK (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on life-cycle civil engineering (IALCCE 2012), Vienna, 18 September 2012, pp. 1118–1125. CRC Press.
137.
LangoneRReyndersEMehrkanoonS. Automated structural health monitoring based on adaptive kernel spectral clustering. Mech Syst Signal Pr2017; 90: 64–78.
138.
SilvaMSantosAFigueiredoE. A novel unsupervised approach based on a genetic algorithm for structural damage detection in bridges. Eng Appl Artif Intel2016; 52: 168–180.
139.
AlvesVCuryACremonaC. On the use of symbolic vibration data for robust structural health monitoring. P I Civil Eng Str B2016; 169(9): 715–723.
140.
AlvesVCuryARoitmanN. Novelty detection for SHM using raw acceleration measurements. Struct Control Hlth2015; 22(9): 1193–1207.
141.
PearlJ. Fusion, propagation, and structuring in belief networks. Artif Intell1986; 29(3): 241–288.
142.
MastTAReedATYukovichS. Bayesian belief networks for fault identification in aircraft gas turbine engines. In: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE international conference on control applications, Kohala Coast, HI, 22–27 August 1999, vol. 1, pp. 39–44. New York: IEEE.
143.
JensenFVNielsenTD. Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Information Science and Statistics. Berlin: Springer, 2007.
144.
SalamatianSAZarratiARBanazadehM. Assessment of bridge safety due to scour by Bayesian network. P I Civil Eng Wat M2013; 166(6): 341–350.
145.
FranchinPLupoiANotoF. Seismic fragility of reinforced concrete girder bridges using Bayesian belief network. Earthq Eng Struct D2016; 45(1): 29–44.
146.
HolickýMMarkováJSýkoraM. Forensic assessment of a bridge downfall using Bayesian networks. Eng Fail Anal2013; 30: 1–9.
147.
Attoh-OkineNOBowersS. A Bayesian belief network model of bridge deterioration. P I Civil Eng Brid Eng2006; 159(2): 69–76.
148.
WangRMaLYanC. Condition deterioration prediction of bridge elements using dynamic Bayesian networks (DBNs). In: Proceedings of the ICQR2MSE, Chengdu, China, 15–18 June 2012, article no. 6246298, pp. 566–571. New York: IEEE.
149.
ZontaDPozziMZanonP. Bayesian approach to condition monitoring of PRC bridges. Key Eng Mat2007; 347: 227–232.
150.
LebeauKWadia-FascettiS. Predictive and diagnostic load rating model of a prestressed concrete bridge. J Bridge Eng2010; 15(4): 399–407.
151.
Network Rail. Structures condition marking index handbook for bridges (NR/GN/CIV/04, Issue 3). London: Network Rail, 2004.
152.
WeberPJouffeL. Reliability modelling with dynamic Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the 5th IFAC symposium on fault detection, supervision and safety of technical processes, Washington, DC, 9–11 June 2003.
153.
StraubD. Stochastic modeling of deterioration processes through dynamic Bayesian networks. J Eng Mech2009; 135: 1089–1099.
154.
GuYWangJHanR. Dynamic Bayesian network optimized by particle filtering in gene regulatory networks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on e-health networking, digital ecosystems and technologies, Shenzhen, China, 17–18 April 2010, article no. 5496445, pp. 512–515. New York: IEEE.
155.
CoolenFPAMertensPRNewbyMJ. A Bayes-competing risk model for the use of expert judgment in reliability estimation. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1992; 35: 23–30.
156.
CoolenFPA. On Bayesian reliability analysis with informative priors and censoring. Reliab Eng Syst Safe1996; 53: 91–98.
157.
GelmanABoisFJiangJ. Physiological pharmacokinetic analysis using population modeling and informative prior distributions. J Am Stat Assoc1996; 91: 1400–1412.
158.
GuikemaSD. Formulating informative, data-based priors for failure probability estimation in reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2007; 92: 490–502.
159.
BergerJOBayarriMJ. The interplay of Bayesian and frequentist analysis. Stat Sci2004; 19: 58–80.
160.
ChenSHPollinoCA. Good practice in Bayesian network modelling. Environ Modell Softw2012; 37: 134–145.
161.
American Iron and Steel Institute. Steel bridge construction: myths & realities (D432–D407). Washington, DC: American Iron and Steel Institute, 2007.
162.
YanBDaiG-LHuN. Recent development of design and construction of short span high-speed railway bridges in China. Eng Struct2015; 100: 707–717.
163.
NourSIIssaMA. High speed rail short bridge-track-train interaction based on the decoupled equations of motion in the finite element domain. In: Proceedings of the 2016 joint rail conference (JRC 2016), Columbia, SC, 12–15 April 2016.
164.
RochaJMHenriquesAACalçadaR. Probabilistic assessment of the train running safety on a short-span high-speed railway bridge. Struct Infrastruct E2016; 12(1): 78–92.
165.
RochaJMHenriquesAACalçadaR. Safety assessment of a short span railway bridge for high-speed traffic using simulation techniques. Eng Struct2012; 40: 141–154.
166.
CorbettaMSbarufattiCManesA. Real-time prognosis of crack growth evolution using sequential Monte Carlo methods and statistical model parameters. IEEE T Reliab2015; 64(2): 736–753.
167.
AttemaTKosgodagan AcharigeAMorales-NápolesO. Maintenance decision model for steel bridges: a case in the Netherlands. Struct Infrastruct E2017; 13(2): 242–253.
168.
KreislovaKGeiplovaH. Evaluation of corrosion protection of steel bridges. Proc Eng2012; 40: 229–234.
169.
PolishchukLKKharchenkoHVZvirkoOI. Corrosion-fatigue crack-growth resistance of steel of the boom of a clamp-forming machine. Mater Sci2015; 51(2): 229–234.
170.
BrownjohnJMWDe StafanoAXuY-L. Vibration-based monitoring of civil infrastructure: challenges and successes. J Civil Struct Health Monit2011; 1(3–4): 79–95.
171.
AlvesVMeixedoARibeiroD. Evaluation of the performance of different damage indicators in railway bridges. Proc Eng2015; 114: 746–753.
172.
FernandoDAdeyBTWalbridgeS. A methodology for the prediction of structure level costs based on element condition states. Struct Infrastruct E2013; 9(8): 735–748.
173.
NtotsiosEPapadimitriouCPanetsosP. Bridge health monitoring system based on vibration measurements. B Earthq Eng2009; 7(2): 469–483.
174.
VardanegaPJWebbGTFidlerPRA. Assessing the potential value of bridge monitoring systems. P I Civil Eng Brid Eng2016; 169(2): 126–138.
175.
WellalageNKWZhangTDwightR. Calibrating Markov chain-based deterioration models for predicting future conditions of railway bridge elements. J Bridge Eng2015; 20(2): 04014060.
176.
JardineAKSLinDBanjevicD. A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mech Syst Signal Pr2006; 20(7): 1483–1510.
177.
HuXWangBJiH. A wireless sensor network-based structural health monitoring system for highway bridges. Comput-Aided Civ Inf2013; 28(3): 193–209.
178.
FlouriKSaukhOSauterR. A versatile software architecture for civil structure monitoring with wireless sensor networks. Smart Struct Syst2012; 10(3): 209–228.
179.
ZioE. Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 152: 137–150.
180.
XiaYHaoHZanardoG. Long term vibration monitoring of an RC slab: temperature and humidity effect. Eng Struct2006; 28(3): 441–452.
181.
KhelifaAGarrowLAHigginsMJ. Impacts of climate change on scour-vulnerable bridges: assessment based on HYRISK. J Infrastruct Syst2013; 19(2): 138–146.
182.
IkpongABagchiA. New method for climate change resilience rating of highway bridges. J Cold Reg Eng2015; 29(3): 04014013.
183.
SahlinUDi MaioFVagnoliM. Evaluating the impact of climate change on the risk assessment of nuclear power plants. In: PodofilliniLSudretBStojadinovicB. (eds) Proceedings of the 25th European safety and reliability conference (ESREL 2015), Zrich, September 2015, pp. 2613–2621. CRC Press.
184.
HooperEChapmanL. The impacts of climate change on national road and rail networks. Transp Sustain2012; 2: 105–136.
185.
SantillánDSaleteEToledoMÁ. A methodology for the assessment of the effect of climate change on the thermal-strain-stress behaviour of structures. Eng Struct2015; 92: 123–141.
