Ehsan Fereshtehnejad

January 27, 2025

12 minutes

bridge deterioration

Decoding Bridge Deterioration: The Power and Process of Predictive Modeling for Bridge Longevity

Bridges are vital components of transportation infrastructure, connecting communities, supporting the movement of vehicles, and facilitating the flow of goods and services. However, like all structures, bridges age over time, enduring wear and tear from natural forces, heavy traffic, and environmental conditions. Managing bridge health is a complex responsibility. Inadequate preservation efforts, including maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, or replacement, can compromise safety and lead to significant costs. This is where bridge deterioration modeling becomes indispensable. These models predict how bridge components and elements deteriorate, enabling timely maintenance and effective resource allocation. By providing insights into future trends, they help bridge owners avoid reactive decisions, optimize budgets, and maintain structural integrity. With predictive capabilities, infrastructure managers can schedule proactive maintenance, prioritize repairs, and make data-driven choices to extend the lifespan of critical infrastructure.

In this article, we’ll explore the various bridge deterioration modeling methods essential for effective bridge management, shedding light on their applications, benefits, and the advanced technologies used to forecast bridge conditions with greater precision.

What is Bridge Deterioration?

Bridge deterioration is the process through which bridge components degrade over time due to a combination of environmental, operational, and material factors. It refers to the loss of structural integrity, which can manifest in cracks, corrosion, fatigue, and other forms of damage that compromise the safety and performance of the infrastructure.

Several forms of deterioration impact bridges, including:

  • Corrosion: Corrosion typically affects metal components, such as steel reinforcement or structural beams, especially in regions with high moisture or salt exposure (e.g., coastal areas).
  • Cracking: Concrete or other materials may develop cracks from thermal cycles, heavy loads, or material fatigue, which can grow over time if not addressed.
  • Fatigue: Cyclical loadings, like that caused by traffic or environmental stresses, can weaken the materials over time, leading to eventual failure.
  • Scour: Erosion around bridge foundations due to water flow can weaken the structure's base, leading to collapse in extreme cases.

These types of deterioration not only affect the safety of the infrastructure but also its operational life and the cost of maintaining or replacing bridges.

Key Factors Influencing Bridge Deterioration

Understanding the primary factors that contribute to the deterioration of bridges is critical for effective management and maintenance. Numerous studies, including those by Moomen et al. (2016), Caltrans (2015), Agrawal et al. (2008), Al-Rashed et al. (2023), Althaqafi and Eddie (2022), Abed-Al-Rahim (1995), Thorkildsen (2020), and Miller and Jahren (2014), have shed light on various aspects of bridge deterioration. Here are some of the most significant factors:

  1. Environmental Factors: Weather conditions (rain, snow, freeze-thaw cycles) accelerate damage. Microenvironments, such as debris accumulation near joints or exposure to seawater, further worsen deterioration.
  2. Material Properties: Durability depends on material choice; for example, high-performance concrete withstands environmental damage better than standard concrete.
  3. Structural Type: Features like skewness or joints amplify stresses or create conditions that accelerate deterioration.
  4. Load and Usage: Heavy traffic or vehicles with loads exceeding bridge design limits accelerate wear and tear.
  5. Age: Older bridges naturally experience greater deterioration.
  6. Hydrological Factors: For culverts, factors like water flow velocity, sediment, and obstructions are significant.

These factors emphasize the importance of proactive maintenance and informed material selection.

Bridge Deterioration Models and Their Types

Bridge deterioration models predict the condition of bridge members (components or elements) over time, assuming no condition-improving action is performed on them. These models are a vital part of Bridge Management Systems (BMS), as they forecast the future condition of structures, enabling BMS to identify optimal treatments and conduct lifecycle planning.

Various modeling techniques exist to simulate bridge deterioration, each offering unique advantages. These models can generally be categorized into three primary types:

  1. Statistical Models:
    • These models leverage historical data to forecast future deterioration based on observed trends. They are widely used in bridge management due to their reliance on available data.
  2. Mechanistic Models:
    • Focus on the physical processes affecting materials, providing detailed insights into their behavior under stress. While highly detailed, mechanistic models require extensive data and are more complex to develop, which limits their widespread adoption in bridge management. These models are typically less common in the bridge management field.
  3. Hybrid Models:
    • A combination of both statistical and mechanistic models, hybrid models aim to integrate the strengths of both approaches to create more accurate predictions. They are beneficial in certain scenarios where both material behavior and historical data are needed for more precise forecasts.

Given the complexities associated with mechanistic models, this article focuses on statistical bridge deterioration models, which are widely used in the bridge management field.

Modeling Levels

Bridge deterioration models can be categorized based on the level of detail they provide in component-level and element-level models. Each level serves different purposes and offers distinct advantages depending on the needs of the bridge management system.

1. Component-Level Deterioration Models

  • These models predict the future condition ratings of the primary components of a bridge: the deck, superstructure, and substructure, as well as culverts.
  • Condition Ratings: Component condition ratings are described in the NBI (National Bridge Inventory) guidelines (FHWA, 1995), specifically items 58, 59, 60, and 62. The most recent SNBI (Specifications for National Bridge Inventory) guidelines (FHWA, 2022) provide updates for these ratings under items B.C.01~04.

Component-level models focus on the condition of bridge components, where each component comprises multiple elements. Component-level models provide insights into how these major components perform over time in general. These models are essential for overall lifecycle planning and budget estimation, especially for large bridge inventories.

2. Element-Level Deterioration Models

  • These models predict the future condition states of individual bridge elements, such as bearings, joints, and guardrails.
  • Condition States: Element-level models estimate the expected percentage of bridge elements in condition states 1-4. The definitions of these condition states are provided in AASHTO (2019) and FHWA (2014) for each element type.

Element-level models offer a more granular prediction of deterioration, enabling bridge managers to understand how specific elements may deteriorate over time and when individual elements may need attention or replacement.

Importance of Accurate Bridge Deterioration Models

Through the use of accurate deterioration models, bridge owners can better estimate future budget needs. This is crucial for long-term planning and budgeting within Bridge Management Systems. The models also play a key role in identifying optimal treatment strategies for bridge and culvert inventories, ensuring that preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation efforts are made at the right time. The development of reliable and accurate bridge deterioration models is essential to maintaining the safety, longevity, and financial sustainability of infrastructure, emphasizing the importance of data accuracy and the need for reliable modeling techniques.

Methods for Developing Bridge Deterioration Models

Deterioration models can take various forms, from simple age-based methods to more sophisticated machine-learning techniques. These models generally fall into two categories: deterministic and stochastic.

Deterministic Models

Deterministic models predict the future condition of a bridge based on a set of predefined rules or known parameters. These models are useful for estimating the lifespan of bridges in predictable environments where deterioration is influenced by a limited number of factors.

Key Types of Deterministic Models:

  1. Age-Based Method: This model relies on the premise that the condition of structures over time solely depends on their age [FHWA, BMS Workshop]. This assumption makes it easy to use but also oversimplifies it. The primary drawback is that it doesn’t account for other influential factors like traffic load, climate, or material properties.
  2. Time in Condition Rating (TICR) Method: This approach focuses on how long bridges stay in a specific condition before deteriorating [FHWA, BMS Workshop]. It measures the time each bridge component stays in different condition ratings, allowing for more accurate predictions than age-based models.

Stochastic Models

Stochastic models take into account the randomness and uncertainty inherent in deterioration processes. These models use probability to predict future conditions, offering more nuanced and realistic predictions than deterministic models.

Key Types of Stochastic Models:

  1. Markov Chain Transition Probability (MCTP) Method: This model tracks how bridge or bridge components transition between the states probabilistically over time. It uses transition probabilities to predict how likely a bridge element or component will stay in a given condition the next time. This is useful for modeling how random factors, such as environmental conditions or traffic loads, affect deterioration rates. [FHWA, BMS Workshop].
  2. Machine Learning (ML) Method: ML models are becoming increasingly popular in bridge deterioration modeling because they can integrate a wide range of data sources (e.g., material properties, traffic patterns, environmental conditions, structural configurations) to generate more accurate predictions. These models are built by training algorithms on large datasets, allowing them to identify patterns and predict future conditions based on past behavior. Many of these models also enable stochastic predictions of future condition by providing the likelihood of transitioning into various conditions.

Important Considerations in Developing Bridge Deterioration Models

A reliable bridge deterioration model depends heavily on the accuracy and quality of the inspection data used. To enhance the reliability of this data, bridge owners can implement data exploration and visualization techniques to detect errors and clean the dataset accordingly. Leveraging advanced AI/ML-based platforms, such as anomalyX developed by AssetIntel [Fereshtehnejad et al., 2022], can assist in automatically identifying anomalous data and streamlining the data cleaning process.

The process of developing deterioration models requires thorough data preparation. The level of effort varies depending on the modeling method. Below are considerations for different modeling methods:

Age-Based Method

  • Data Preparation: The age of bridges at each condition rating needs to be calculated.
  • Considerations:
    • The Age-Based method involves less effort than other methods as it simply relies on the bridge's age to predict the condition rating.
    • The model’s predictions can be inconsistent for bridges whose condition doesn’t align with the model’s expectations based on their age.

TICR Method

The TICR method requires more detailed data processing to calculate the Time-In-Condition Rating (TICR) for each sample data directly. Below are key considerations for realistic TICR calculations:

  • Time Window of Data:
    • The inspection database has a certain time window. For example, the Federal Tape NBI database [FWHA Tape website, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/ascii.cfm] has been collecting US states’ NBI data since 1992. If this data is used to develop a deterioration model using the TICR method, no inspection database exists before 1992 to determine how many years components have been in their starting condition rating at 1992.
  • Solutions:
    • Disregarding Initial Data: Bridge managers may disregard data from the database’s first year until a new condition rating is observed. This works best when a large amount of data exists, as losing a few years of data for each bridge does not significantly impact the accuracy of the model.
    • Using a Defined “Clipping Rule”: Data from the initial years can be included if the condition rating remained in place for longer than a predefined period, known as the “clipping rule” [FHWA, BMS Workshop]. For instance, if the clipping rule is set to 3 years, and the deck condition rating of a bridge is 7 at the year 1992 until the year 1997, then the TICR-7 for this data sample would be 5 years.
    • Clipping Rule with Multiplier: Another option involves considering a clipping rule along with a multiplier for the first recorded TICR (recommended by the manageX ML-based deterioration model generator). From a probabilistic standpoint, half of the TICR is expected to have occurred before the database’s start year. A multiplier of 2 could be used as a reasonable estimate.
    • Condition Rating Rise and Fall: The TICR method sometimes allows for a few years of one-level condition-rating improvement before returning to the previous condition rating.
    • Excluding Data with Multiple Rating Improvements: Data showing more than one condition rating improvement should be excluded, as it likely indicates that a rehabilitation treatment was applied.

MCTP Method

The data processing required for the MCTP method involves forming a matrix that shows the likelihood of condition states or ratings remaining in their original condition and transitioning into one lesser condition.

  • Assumptions and Cleaning Processes:
    • Lumping Transitions: Condition transitions involving more than one level of deterioration can be lumped into one level of deterioration.
    • Disregarding Condition Improvements: Condition improvements are disregarded.
  • Accuracy Enhancements: For more accurate predictions, bridge managers may evaluate different probability distributions to include the effects of age, environmental factors, and protective measures. For instance, some studies have shown that the Weibull Markov Distribution may predict the probability of remaining in the intact condition (Condition-State 1) more accurately than the traditional ratio-based method [FHWA, BMS Workshop].

Effect of Preservation Actions

Despite major repairs, rehabilitations, and replacement projects, preservation actions usually do not directly increase the condition rating of components or the condition state of elements. Consequently, their effect is not distinguishable in the data preparation process. However, these actions are usually indirectly incorporated into deterioration models, primarily through longer time spent in conditions.

Bridge Management Systems (BMS) must have mechanisms to account for the benefits of preservation actions, ensuring these effects are realistically included for optimal long-term planning. AssetIntel’s manageX software offers this functionality by allowing users to define the decimal condition rating that components improve to after undergoing preservation actions. This feature enables more accurate and realistic modeling of long-term bridge condition performance.

Advantages and Limitations of Each Method

Age-Based Method:

Age-based models are relatively simple to develop, requiring only a year’s worth of data at a minimum. These models predict the distribution and expected age of bridges at each condition, followed by a regression model. While straightforward, age-based models are limited by their sole focus on age in predicting conditions, which can lead to inconsistencies for bridges whose actual condition deviates from the model’s predictions for their age [FHWA, BMS Workshop].

TICR Method:

The TICR method demands more historical data and a higher level of inspection data processing than either the Age-based or MCTP methods for component-level deterioration modeling. This approach involves collecting reliable data to directly measure the number of years a component has remained in a given condition rating, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of bridge deterioration models. The TICR method is favored by bridge managers because it allows them to compare and validate the model results with their own assessments.

MCTP Method:

One advantage of the MCTP method is that it offers probabilistic predictions that account for the inherent randomness in the deterioration process. These probabilities can be converted into TICR for both elements and components (See [FHWA, BMS Workshop] for further details). To reduce the randomness in deterioration models, MCTP models are refined by explicitly considering the age and effectiveness of protective members. More details can be found in [FHWA, BMS Workshop]. Like the age-based method, the MCTP method can be developed with just one year of data, although using multiple years of data is recommended for greater accuracy.

ML Method:

The methods discussed above primarily focus on the general randomness within the deterioration process, which can be significant and may reduce the accuracy of predictions. Although age-based and MCTP methods mitigate some uncertainty by factoring in age and protective members, as discussed in the Primary Factors Contributing to the Deterioration of Bridges section, numerous additional factors influence the deterioration of bridge components. These factors go beyond just age and protective members. Machine learning methods can incorporate these additional factors as inputs, providing more accurate predictions for the condition of bridge members over time.

Bridge Deterioration Modeling in manageX

Due to the large benefits of the ML method and the practicality of the predictions provided through the TICR method, AssetIntel™ has developed an automatic Machine-Learning program that generates deterioration models for bridge components, in terms of Time-In-Condition-Rating.

This program combines the robust benefits of Machine Learning with the practicality of TICR-based predictions. By default, it analyzes the entire history of federal tape data for each U.S. state. The process includes:

  • Data Cleaning and Sampling: Historical data is cleaned and processed to extract samples relevant to TICR.
  • Model Exploration: Various Machine Learning models are applied to identify groups of components with similar deterioration trends.
  • Decision Tree Development: A decision tree is generated to outline the conditions for each deterioration group, offering actionable insights.

These deterioration models can be integrated or modified for use in an Action Trigger model within a Bridge Management System, such as manageX™.

For bridge elements, manageX™ incorporates deterioration predictions based on Markov transition probabilities. This enables the system to estimate the quantities of bridge elements in different condition states over time, providing a detailed view of infrastructure health.

A sample preliminary deterioration model tree, developed for a U.S. state, demonstrates the system's ability to group components and predict their long-term condition trends effectively. By leveraging these models, manageX empowers bridge managers to make data-driven decisions, prioritize interventions, and maintain structural integrity.

Securing Tomorrow’s Infrastructure Today

Bridge deterioration occurs over time due to environmental conditions, material aging, and continuous use, leading to issues such as corrosion, cracking, fatigue, and scour. Predicting these changes is essential for ensuring safety, optimizing maintenance, and reducing long-term costs.

Bridge deterioration models play a crucial role in **Bridge Management Systems (BMS)** by forecasting future conditions and guiding proactive decision-making. These models range from simple Age-Based and Time in Condition Rating (TICR) methods to more advanced Markov Chain Transition Probability (MCTP) and Machine Learning (ML) approaches. Deterministic models follow fixed deterioration patterns, while stochastic models account for variability, providing a more dynamic understanding of bridge aging. Regardless of the method, model accuracy depends on high-quality data, continuous updates, and consideration of influencing factors such as traffic loads, materials, and environmental conditions.

AssetIntel™’s manageX™ takes bridge deterioration modeling to the next level, integrating machine learning, real-time data syncing to refine predictions and improve resource allocation. By leveraging manageX™, infrastructure managers can anticipate maintenance needs, extend bridge lifespan, and optimize budgets, ensuring their bridges and culverts remain safe, cost-effective, and reliable for years to come.

References

  • Abed-Al-Rahim, Imad J., and David W. Johnston. "Bridge element deterioration rates." Transportation research record 1490 (1995).
  • Agrawal, Anil K., Akira Kawaguchi, and Zheng Chen. Bridge element deterioration rates. No. C-01-51. New York (State). Dept. of Transportation, 2008.
  • Al-Rashed, Rawan, Akmal Abdelfatah, and Sherif Yehia. "Identifying the Factors Impacting Bridge Deterioration in the Gulf Cooperation Council." Designs 7, no. 6 (2023): 126.
  • Althaqafi, Essam, and Eddie Chou. "Developing bridge deterioration models using an artificial neural network." Infrastructures 7, no. 8 (2022): 101.
  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Manual for Bridge Element Inspection. Second Edition. 2019.
  • Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). Culverts: A Hidden Risk Inspection Program Years from Completion. Access URL: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/risk-strategic-management/documents/mm-2015-q2-culvert-a11y.pdf.
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Bridge Management Systems Workshop. “Deterioration Model Development, Use, and Maintenance”.
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Recording and coding guide for the structure inventory and appraisal of the nation's bridges. Report Number FHWA-PD-96-001. 1995.
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Specifications for the National  Bridge Inventory. Report NumberFHWA-HIF-22-017. 2022.
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Specification for the  National Bridge Inventory  Bridge Elements. 2014.
  • Fereshtehnejad, Ehsan, Gianluca Gazzola, Pratik Parekh, Chirag Nakrani, and Hooman Parvardeh. "Detecting anomalies in National Bridge Inventory databases using machine learning methods." Transportation research record 2676, no. 6 (2022): 453-467.
  • Miller, Adam M., and Charles T. Jahren. "Rapid replacement of bridge deck expansion joints study–phase I.", Institute of Transportation Iowa State University, (2014).
  • Moomen, Milhan, Yu Qiao, Bismark R. Agbelie, Samuel Labi, and Kumares C. Sinha. "Bridge deterioration models to support Indiana’s bridge management system." (2016).
  • Thorkildsen. Case Study:  Eliminating Bridge Joints with Link Slabs – An Overview of State Practices. Report No. FHWA-HIF-20-062 prepared for FHWA. November 2020.

Book a Consultation.

Ready to transform your operations? Schedule a consultation today and unlock the full potential of your asset management capabilities with our innovative solutions.

SCHEDULE A CALL
SCHEDULE A CALL