Multi-objective optimisation of bridge retrofit and post-event repair selection to enhance sustainability

References

• Allen, C.T., Haupt, S.E., & Young, G.S. (2007). Source characterization with a receptor/dispersion model coupled with a genetic algorithm. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 46, 273–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010). The role of the civil engineer in sustainable development. ASCE Policy Statement 418. Retrieved May, 2013, from http://www.asce.org/Public-Policies-and-Priorities/Public-Policy-Statements/Policy-Statement-418—The-Role-of-the-Civil-Engineer-in-Sustainable-Development/.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, R.E., & Gruendler, J.J. (1995). Illinois Department of Transportation seismic bridge condition survey. Paper presented at the restructuring: America and beyond: 13th structures congress, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Bastidas-Arteaga, E., Schoefs, F., Chateauneuf, A., Sanchez-Silva, M., & Capra, B. (2010). Probabilistic evaluation of the sustainability of maintenance strategies for RC structures exposed to chloride ingress. International Journal of Engineering under Uncertainty: Hazards, Assessment and Mitigation, 2, 61–74.
   Google Scholar
• Bastidas-Arteaga, E., Schoefs, F., Stewart, M.G., & Wang, X. (2013). Influence of global warming on durability of corroding RC structures: A probabilistic approach. Engineering Structures, 51, 259–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, S., & Shinozuka, M. (1996). Life cycle cost analysis with natural hazard risk. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2, 118–126.
   Google Scholar
• Collings, D. (2006). An environmental comparison of bridge forms. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Bridge Engineering, 159, 163–168.
   Google Scholar
• Curran, M.A. (2006). Life cycle assessment: Principles and practice (Report No. EPA/600/R-06/060). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. EPA.
   Google Scholar
• Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms (Vol. 16).Chichester, London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, Y., Frangopol, D.M., & Saydam, D. (2013). Time variant sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subject to multiple hazards. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42, 1451–1467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Analysis of the life cycle impacts and potential for avoided impacts associated with single-family homes (Report No. EPA 530-R-13-004). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2000). FEMA 364: Planning for a sustainable future: the link between hazard mitigation and livability (Report No. FEMA 364). Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2005). HAZUS-MH (Hazards US Multi-Hazard) [Software]. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2008). Hurricane Ike impact report. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/hazard/hurricane/2008/ike/impact_report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Highway Administration. (2006). Seismic retrofitting manual for highway structures: Part 1 – Bridges (Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-032).McLean, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Frangopol, D.M., Enright, M.P., & Estes, A.C. (2000). Integration of maintenance, repair, and replacement decision in bridge management based on reliability, optimization, and life-cycle cost. Paper presented at the 8th international bridge management conference, Denver, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Frangopol, D.M., & Estes, A.C. (1997). Lifetime bridge maintenance strategies based on system reliability. Structural Engineering International, 7, 193–198.
   Google Scholar
• Furuta, H., Frangopol, D.M., & Nakatsu, K. (2011). Life-cycle cost of civil infrastructure with emphasis on balancing structural performance and seismic risk of road network. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7, 65–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furuta, H., Kameda, T., Fukuda, Y., & Frangopol, D.M. (2003). Life-cycle cost analysis for infrastructure systems: Life-cycle cost vs. safety level vs. service life. In Life-cycle performance of deteriorating structures (pp. 19–25). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 10.1061/40707(240)3.
   Google Scholar
• Furuta, H., Kameda, T., Nakahara, K., Takahashi, Y., & Frangopol, D.M. (2006). Optimal bridge maintenance planning using improved multi-objective genetic algorithm. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2, 33–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furuta, H., Katayama, H., Dogaki, M., & Frangopol, D.M. (2005). Effects of seismic risk on life-cycle cost analysis for bridge maintenance. Paper presented at the 4th international conference in current and future trends in bridge, construction and maintenance, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
   Google Scholar
• Gervasio, H., & Silva, L.S.D. (2008). Comparative life-cycle analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 4, 251–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J.E. (2011). Probabilistic seismic loss assessment of aging bridges using component-level cost estimation approach. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40, 1743–1761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, S., & Hartnagel, .A. (2003). Seismic design and retrofit of bridges on Missouri's earthquake priority routes. Paper presented at the 19th US–Japan bridge engineering workshop, Tsukuba, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Hassanain, M.A., & Loov, R.E. (2005). Cost optimization of concrete bridge infrastructure. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30, 841–849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunkeler, D.J., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., Ciroth, A., & Europe, S. (2008). Environmental life cycle costing. Boca Raton, FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, H., Jernigan, J.B., Billings, S., & Werner, S.D. (2000). Expert opinion survey on bridge repair strategy and traffic impact. Post earthquake highway response and recovery seminar. St. Louis, MO: Center for Earthquake Research and Information.
   Google Scholar
• Itoh, Y., Wada, M., & Liu, C. (2005). Lifecycle environmental impact and cost analyses of steel bridge piers with seismic risk. Paper presented at the 9th international conference on structural safety and reliability, Rome, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Keoleian, G.A., Kendall, A., Dettling, J.E., Smith, V.M., Chandler, R.F., Lepech, M.D., & Li, V.C. (2005). Life cycle modeling of concrete bridge design: Comparison of engineered cementitious composite link slabs and conventional steel expansion joints. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11, 51–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konak, A., Coit, D.W., & Smith, A.E. (2006). Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 91, 992–1007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lautso, K., Spiekermann, K., Wegener, M., Sheppard, I., Steadman, P., Martino, A., Domingo, R., & Gayda, S. (2004). PROPOLIS: Planning and research of policies for land use and transport for increasing urban sustainability (Final Report). Helsinki: LT Consultants.
   Google Scholar
• Law, N.L., & Szeto, K.Y. (2007). Adaptive genetic algorithm with mutation and crossover matrices. Paper presented at the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Hyderabad, India.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, W.-Y., Lee, W.-Y., & Hong, T.-P. (2003). Adapting crossover and mutation rates in genetic algorithms. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 19, 889–903.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C., Hammad, A., & Itoh, Y. (1997). Maintenance strategy optimization of bridge decks using genetic algorithm. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 123, 91–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer-Nieberg, S., & Beyer, H.-G. (2007). Self-adaptation in evolutionary algorithms. Parameter Setting in Evolutionary Algorithms, 47–76. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, J.L., Folkmann, M., Balmford, A., Brooks, T., Burgess, N., Rahbek, C., Williams, P., & Krarup, J. (2003). Heuristic and optimal solutions for set-covering problems in conservation biology. Ecography, 26, 595–601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neilson, B. (2005). Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Office of Management and Budget. (2013). Guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs. Retrieved February, 2014, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c%20/.
   Google Scholar
• Padgett, J.E. (2007). Seismic vulnerability assessment of retrofitted bridges using probabilistic methods. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches, R. (2007). Bridge functionality relationships for improved seismic risk assessment of transportation networks. Earthquake Spectra, 23, 115–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches, R. (2009). Retrofitted bridge fragility analysis for typical classes of multispan bridges. Earthquake Spectra, 25, 117–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padgett, J.E., Ghosh, J., & Dennemann, K. (2009). Sustainable infrastructure subjected to multiple threats. Paper presented at the TCLEE 2009: Lifeline earthquake engineering in a multihazard environment, Oakland, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Padgett, J.E., & Tapia, C. (2013). Sustainability of natural hazard risk mitigation: Life-cycle analysis of environmental indicators for bridge infrastructure. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 19, 395–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patidar, V., Labi, S., Sinha, K.C., & Thompson, P. (2007). Multi-objective optimization for bridge management systems (Report No. 590). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, A.R., & Vanegas, J.A. (2002). Defining sustainability for built environment systems: An operational framework. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 2, 94–113.
   Google Scholar
• Pezeshk, S., & Camp, C.V. (2002). State of the art on the use of genetic algorithms in design of steel structures. Recent advances in optimal structural design. Reston, VA: ASCE.
   Google Scholar
• Royal Society of Chemistry (2010). Environment, health, and safety committee note on life cycle assessment. Retrieved July, 2014, from http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/EHSC/EHSCnotesonLifeCycleAssessment.asp.
   Google Scholar
• Sobanjo, J.O., & Thompson, P.D. (2013). Development of risk models for Florida's Bridge Management System (Report No. Final Report).. Tallahassee, FL: FDOT.
   Google Scholar
• Tapia, C., Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J.E. (2011). Life cycle performance metrics for aging and seismically vulnerable bridges. Paper presented at the 2011 ASCE structures congress, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, A.C., & Fletcher, T.D. (2006). “Triple-bottom-line” assessment of urban stormwater projects. Water Science Technology, 54, 459–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Geological Survey. (2012). Historic earthquakes: Northridge, California. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1994_01_17.php.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Geological Survey. (2013). U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://www.usgs.gov/.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, T., DesRoches, R., & Padgett, J.E. (2011). Bridge seismic retrofitting practices in the central and southeastern United States. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, 16, 82–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar