Climate change may have multifaceted impacts on the safety and performance of infrastructure. Accounting for the different ways in which potential climate change scenarios can affect our infrastruc...

Bridges in a changing climate: a study of the potential impacts of climate change on bridges and their possible adaptations

Vulnerability of bridges to individual and multiple hazards- floods and earthquakes

As climate change is emerging as a major challenge for man-made systems in the coming century, there has been significant effort to understand how to position infrastructure to adapt and de...

/pdf/reconciling-complexity-and-deep-uncertainty-in-33xzlju7y2.pdf

Reconciling complexity and deep uncertainty in infrastructure design for climate adaptation

Bridges play a crucial role in modern societies, regardless of their culture, geographical location, or economic development. The safest, economical, and most resilient bridges are those that are well managed and maintained. In the last three decades, structural health monitoring (SHM) has been a promising tool in management activities of bridges as potentially it permits one to perform condition assessment to reduce uncertainty in the planning and designing of maintenance activities as well as to increase the service performance and safety of operation. The general idea has been the transformation of massive data obtained from monitoring systems and numerical models into meaningful information. To deal with large amounts of data and perform the damage identification automatically, SHM has been cast in the context of the statistical pattern recognition (SPR) paradigm, where machine learning plays an important role. Meanwhile, recent technologies have unveiled alternative sensing opportunities and new perspectives to manage and observe the response of bridges, but it is widely recognized that bridge SHM is not yet fully capable of producing reliable global information on the presence of damage. While there have been multiple review studies published on SHM and vibration-based structural damage detection for wider scopes, there have not been so many reviews on SHM of bridges in the context of the SPR paradigm. Besides, some of those reviews become obsolete quite fast, and they are usually biased towards applications falling outside of bridge engineering. Therefore, the main goal of this article is to summarize the concept of SHM and point out key developments in research and applications of the SPR paradigm observed in bridges in the last three decades, including developments in sensing technology and data analysis, and to identify current and future trends to promote more coordinated and interdisciplinary research in the SHM of bridges.

/pdf/three-decades-of-statistical-pattern-recognition-paradigm-3qv682h3.pdf

Three decades of statistical pattern recognition paradigm for SHM of bridges

The capacities of our infrastructure systems to respond to volatile, uncertain, and increasingly complex environments are increasingly recognized as vital for resilience. Pervasive across infrastructure literature and discourse are the concepts of centralized, decentralized, and distributed systems, and there appears to be growing interest in how these configurations support or hinder adaptive and transformative capacities towards resilience. There does not appear to be a concerted effort to align how these concepts are used, and what different configurations mean for infrastructure systems. This is problematic because how infrastructure are structured and governed directly affects their capabilities to respond to increasing complexity. We review framings of centralization, decentralization, and distributed (referred to collectively as de/centralization) across infrastructure sectors, revealing incommensurate usage leading to polysemous framings. De/centralized networks are often characterized by proximity to resources, capacity of distribution, volume of product, and number of connections. De/centralization of governance within infrastructure sectors is characterized by the number of actors who hold decision-making power. Notably, governance structures are often overlooked in infrastructure de/centralization literature. Next, we describe how de/centralization concepts are applied to emerging resilient infrastructure theory, identifying conditions under which they support resilience principles. While centralized systems are dominant in practice and decentralized systems are promoted in resilience literature, all three configurations—centralized, decentralized, and distributed—were found to align with resilience capacities in various contexts of stability and instability. Going forward, we recommend a multi-dimensional framing of de/centralization through a network-governance perspective where capabilities to shift between stability and instability are paramount and information is a critical mediator.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ac0a4f/pdf

Centralization and decentralization for resilient infrastructure and complexity

An overabundance of evidence, both observational and from model projections, indicate that changes to the climate system are taking place at unprecedented rates. Although the magnitudes of these ch...

https://tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23789689.2019.1593003

O. Larsson Ivanov

Papers

A review of the potential impacts of climate change on the safety and performance of bridges