Risk Assessment Protocol for Existing Bridge Infrastructure Considering Climate Change
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Structural Assessment: This criterion considers whether a given methodology evaluates the health of the bridge structure to determine its rating (e.g., fair, poor, etc.).
- Impact of Projected Climatic Data: This criterion considers whether a methodology incorporates an assessment of projected climate data (e.g., future projected temperature data or wind speed data).
- Economic Impact: This criterion considers whether a methodology evaluates the economic impact of non-serviceable bridges (e.g., cost to replace or cost of limited traffic or restricted traffic flow).
- Societal Impact: This criterion considers whether a methodology evaluates the societal impact of the restricted or limited flow of goods and services to surrounding communities.
- Ease of Use: This criterion considers the level of ease in the implementation and utilization of a methodology by practitioners and decision-makers from different knowledge backgrounds (e.g., technical, management, policymakers, etc.).
- Considering two or more criteria;
- Considering climate change;
- Quantitative, qualitative, and easy to apply.
Criteria | Application | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Methodology | Structural | Projected Climatic Data | Economic Impact | Societal Impact | Quantitative | Qualitative | Ease of Application |
Wang et al. [19] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Johnson and Weaver [20] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Deco and Frangopol [21] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
Nelson and Freas [22] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
Khelifa et al. [23] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Ghile et al. [24] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
Ontario Bridge Index [25] | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Dawson et al. [26] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Markogiannaki [27] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Hawchar et al. [28] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Chang et al. [29] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Kumar et al. [30] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
PIEVC Protocol [31] | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
This Paper | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
- Step 1: Selecting a Bridge
- Superstructure, which includes bearings, bridge deck, cast-in-place slab, and girders.
- Substructure, which includes the abutment, wing and return walls, piers, pier cap, and foundation.
- Non-structure, which includes parapets, joints, and drainage systems.
- 2.
- Step 2: Disassembling the Bridge to Components
- 3.
- Step 3: Calculating Utilization Ratios
- 4.
- Step 4: Identifying Severity Factors
- How long is the bridge out-of-service? The protocol assesses the duration of the bridge being out-of-service, setting a cut-off time of 10 days. In determining the impact of service disruption, it is important to identify the categorization of a bridge to the community the bridge services. Experts would assess if the specific bridge was categorized as “critical” or “non-critical”. Critical bridges, such as those connecting major transportation corridors or servicing remote communities, will require a shorter service interruption, while non-critical bridges can withstand a longer period of service interruption. Therefore, the threshold may vary depending on the specific criticality of the bridge function. It is important to recognize that there are no universal, one-size-fits-all standards for determining the threshold on bridge out-of-service duration. The protocol suggests a 10-day cutoff as a starting point in the absence of a categorization of a specific bridge.
- What is the magnitude of the damage to the surrounding ecosystem? The methodology evaluates the magnitude of damage to the surrounding ecosystem and identifies whether the damage is permanent or not. Understanding the ecological impact of the bridge failure is critical in determining the overall severity of the impact.
- What is the magnitude of damage to the bridge structure? The protocol considers the magnitude of the damage to the bridge structure and determines the impact of damage for rebuilding, repairing, or managing through regular maintenance and repair programs.
- 5.
- Step 5: Calculating the Overall Risk Rating
3. Results
3.1. Step 1: Bridge Selection
- Age: Originally constructed in 1959.
- Span: A 28.8 m single-span rigid frame bridge.
- Construction: Three variable-depth reinforced concrete box girders; abutments situated adjacent to highway shoulders.
- Operation: Structure carried two lanes of Westminster Drive over four lanes of Highway 401.
- Age: The bridge was replaced after the decision of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) in 2014.
- Span: Two-span continuous integral abutment bridge, 29.8 m each.
- Construction: GiGo (get in get out) bridge construction concept, pier situated in the median.
3.2. Step 2: Identifying and Analyzing Each Component for Impact Assessment
3.3. Step 3: Calculation of Utilization Factor for Design Temperature and Projected Temperature
3.4. Step 4: Severity Evaluation
3.5. Step 5: Determination of Overall Risk Rating
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- IPCC. Climate Change Widespread, Rapid, and Intensifying; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 9 August 2021; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Nasr, A.; Kjellström, E.; Björnsson, I.; Honfi, D.; Ivanov, O.L.; Johansson, J. Bridges in a changing climate: A study of the potential impacts of climate change on bridges and their possible adaptations. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 16, 738–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Van Vuuren, D.P.; Edmonds, J.; Kainuma, M.; Riahi, K.; Thomson, A.; Hibbard, K.; Hurtt, G.C.; Kram, T.; Krey, V.; Lamarque, J.-F.; et al. The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis—Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Larsen, P.H.; Goldsmith, S.; Smith, O.; Wilson, M.L.; Strzepek, K.; Chinowsky, P.; Saylor, B. Estimating future costs for Alaska public infrastructure at risk from climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 442–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bush, E.; Lemmen, D.S. (Eds.) Canada’s Changing Climate Report; Government of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2019; 444p.
- Altamimi, S.; Amleh, L.; Fang, F. Assessing risk of climate change on existing Canadian bridge infrastructure: A multidisciplinary approach. In Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference 2022, Whistler, BC, Canada, 25–28 May 2022; Gupta, R., Sun, M., Brzev, S., Alam, M.S., Ng, K.T., Li, J., El Damatty, A., Lim, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. Chapter 52. [Google Scholar]
- CSA Group. Bridging the Gap in Climate Policy. 2018. Available online: https://www.csagroup.org/article/bridging-the-gap-in-climate-policy/ (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Neumann, J.E.; Price, J.; Chinowsky, P.; Wright, L.; Ludwig, L.; Richard, S.; Jones, R.; Smith, J.; Perkins, W.; Jantarasami, L.; et al. Climate change risks to US infrastructure: Impacts on roads, bridges, coastal development, and urban drainage. Clim. Chang. 2015, 131, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guest, G.; Zhang, J.; Atadero, R.; Shirkhani, H. Incorporating the effects of climate change into bridge deterioration modeling: The case of slab-on-girder highway bridge deck designs across Canada. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04020175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Agyekum, A.K.; Amoakwa, A.B.; Babon-Ayeng, P.; Pariafsai, F. Toward the attainment of climate-smart PPP infrastructure projects: A critical review and recommendations. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 19195–19229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palu, S.; Mahmoud, H. Impact of climate change on the integrity of the superstructure of deteriorated U.S. bridges. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasr, A.; Bjornsson, I.; Honfi, D.; Ivanov, L.; Johansson, J.; Kjellstrom, E. A review of the potential impacts of climate change on the safety and performance of bridges. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 2019, 6, 192–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, D.; Deng, X.; Mao, J.; Mao, W.; Ye, Y.; Bi, X. Macro-and microstructures of heavy fogs and visibility in the Dayaoshan expressway. J. Meteorol. Res. 2007, 21, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jevrejeva, S.; Jackson, L.P.; Grinsted, A.; Lincke, D.; Marzeion, B. Flood damage costs under the sea level rise with warming of 1.5 °C and 2 °C. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 074014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croce, P.; Formichi, P.; Landi, F. Climate change: Impacts on climatic actions and structural reliability. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clemen, R.; Reilly, T. Making Hard Decision with Decision Tools; Thomas Learning: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Elhag, T. An integrated AHP–DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2008, 54, 513–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, T.E.; Weaver, C.P. A framework for assessing climate change impacts on water and watershed systems. Environ. Manag. 2009, 43, 118–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Decò, A.; Frangopol, D. Risk assessment of highway bridges under multiple hazards. J. Risk Res. 2011, 14, 1057–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, R.; Freas, K. Incorporating climate change risk assessment into infrastructure planning. Water Pract. Technol. 2012, 7, wpt2012061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khelifa, A.; Garrow, L.A.; Higgins, M.J.; Meyer, M.D. Impacts of climate change on scour-vulnerable bridges: Assessment based on HYRISK. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2013, 19, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghile, Y.; Taner, M.; Brown, C.; Grijsen, J.; Talbi, A. Bottom-up climate risk assessment of infrastructure investment in the Niger River Basin. Clim. Chang. 2014, 1, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MTO. Bridge Repairs. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. 2015. Available online: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/highway-bridges/ontario-bridges.shtml (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Dawson, R.; Thompson, D.; Johns, D.; Wood, R.; Darch, G.; Chapman, L.; Hughes, P.; Watson, G.; Paulson, K.; Bell, S.; et al. A systems framework for national assessment of climate risks to infrastructure. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 2018, 376, 1471–2962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markogiannaki, O. Climate change and natural hazard risk assessment framework for coastal cable-stayed bridges. Front. Built Environ. 2019, 5, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawchar, L.; Naughton, O.; Nolan, P.; Stewart, M.; Ryan, P. A GIS-based framework for high-level climate change risk assessment of critical infrastructure. Clim. Risk Manag. 2020, 29, 100235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.; Ortega, O.; Weidner, J. Integrating the risk of climate change into transportation asset management to support bridge network-level decision-making. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2021, 27, 04020044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, N.; Poonia, V.; Gupta, B.B.; Goyal, M.K. A novel framework for risk assessment and resilience of critical infrastructure towards climate change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 165, 120532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandik, D.; Lapp, D. The PIEVC Protocol for assessing public infrastructure vulnerability. In Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering 2021 Annual Conference, Virtual Conference, 26–29 May 2021; Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction: London, ON, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977, 15, 234–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Omer, T.; Nehdi, M. Condition assessment of reinforced concrete bridges: Current practice and research challenges. Infrastructures 2019, 3, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajializadeh, D.; OBrien, E.; O’Connor, A. Virtual structural health monitoring and remaining life prediction of steel bridges. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 44, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nathwani, J.S.; Pandey, M.D.; Lind, N.C. Engineering Decisions for Life Quality: How Safe Is Safe Enough? Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Moss, R.E.S. Applied Civil Engineering Risk Analysis, 2nd ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Frischmann, B.M. Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- CSA Group. Climate Change Provisions for CSA S6:25 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. 2018. Available online: https://www.csagroup.org/article/research/climate-change-provisions-for-csa-s625-canadian-highway-bridge-design-code-findings-and-recommendations/ (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- D’Andrea, M.; Young, W.; Turnbull, A. Westminster Drive Underpass—Accelerated Bridge Construction Using GIGO (Get In-Get Out) Bridge Concept. In Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference, London, ON, Canada, 1–4 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
Scenario | 2046–2065 Mean Temperature Increase (Range) | 2081–2100 Mean Temperature Increase (Range) |
---|---|---|
RCP2.6 | 1.0 (0.4 to 1.6) | 1.0 (0.3 to 1.7) |
RCP4.5 | 1.4 (0.9 to 2.0) | 1.8 (1.1 to 2.6) |
RCP6.0 | 1.3 (0.8 to 1.8) | 2.2 (1.4 to 3.1) |
RCP8.5 | 2.0 (1.4 to 2.6) | 3.7 (2.6 to 4.8) |
Scenario | RCP2.6 | RCP8.5 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
2031–2050 | 2081–2100 | 2031–2050 | 2081–2100 | |
British Columbia | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 5.2 |
Prairies | 1.5 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 6.5 |
Ontario | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 6.3 |
Quebec | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 6.3 |
Atlantic | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 5.2 |
North | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 7.8 |
Canada | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 6.3 |
System | Sub-Item # | Component | Critical to Structural Integrity? (Y/N) | Impacted by Temperature? (Y/N) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Superstructure | 1.1 | Deck | Y | Y |
1.2 | Girders | Y | Y | ||
1.3 | Cast-in-place slab | Y | Y | ||
2 | Substructure | 2.1 | Abutment | Y | Y |
2.2 | Piers (Columns) | Y | Y | ||
3 | Non-structure | 3.1 | Joints | Indirectly | Y |
3.2 | Drainage System | Indirectly | Y |
Occurrence | Overall Rating | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Socioeconomic Factor | Rating (A) | Utilization Factor | Rating (B) | Definition | Probability | Rating (C) | Definition | Rating |
Complete termination of service, time-out-of-service ≥ 10 days, significant damage to surroundings with permanent damage, complete re-build of structure is required. | High (3) | Total and permanent damage to the system and fails to satisfy design limit. Utilization Factor ≥ 100% | High (3) | Highly likely for the severity to occur. | Probability ≥ 65% | High (3) | Critical level of risk due to climate change. Requires immediate intervention and significant resources | 18 ≤ Rating ≤ 27 |
Major interruption to service with significant cost for work around, time-out-of-service < 10 days, alternative structures are available, non-permanent damage to surrounding, partial re-build of structure is required. | Medium (2) | Significantly reduces the effectiveness of the system such that it would fail to satisfy the design requirements. However, the system would still operate. 90% ≤ Utilization Factor < 100% | Medium (2) | Likely/possible for the severity to occur. | 35% < Probability ≤ 65% | Medium (2) | Moderate level of risk due to climate change. Requires planning for intervention. | 9 ≤ Rating < 18 |
Some interruption to service with workaround options available, little damage to surrounding ecosystem that can be cleaned up, no re-build of structure is required, no time out of service. | Low (1) | Reduced effectiveness, design requirements would still be satisfied. Utilization Factor < 90% | Low (1) | Unlikely for the severity to occur. | Probability ≤ 35% | Low (1) | Insignificant level of risk, manageable through preventative maintenance programs. | 1 ≤ Rating < 9 |
Structure | Components | Is It Pivotal to Integrity of Structure? | Is It Impacted by Temperature? |
---|---|---|---|
Substructure | Abutment | No | No |
Piers | Yes | Yes | |
Superstructure | Girders | Yes | Yes |
Cast-in-place Deck | Yes | Yes | |
Adjoining | Joints | Yes | Yes |
Drainage System | No | Indirectly |
Component | Capacity | Load Combination | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Utilization Factor | Utilization Factor 1 | Utilization Factor 2 | Utilization Factor 3 | ||
Girder Moment (Positive) | 13,740 kN∙M | 0.77 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.86 |
Girder Shear | 4933 kN | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.29 |
Pile Moment 4 | 502 kN∙m | 0.72 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 1.00 |
Pile Shear | 4800 kN | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.12 |
Structure | Components | Is It Pivotal to Integrity of Structure? | Is It Impacted by Temperature? | Utilization Factor |
---|---|---|---|---|
Substructure | Abutment | No | No | NA |
Piers | Yes | Yes | 1.00 | |
Superstructure | Girders | Yes | Yes | 0.86 |
Cast-in-place Slab | Yes | Yes | NA | |
Adjoining | Joints | Yes | Yes | NA |
Drainage System | No | Indirectly | NA |
Structure | Utilization Ratio U/R | Governing Utilization Ratio | Assigned Level of Risk |
---|---|---|---|
Substructure | Pile Moment: 1 Pile Shear: 0.12 | 1.00 | 3 |
Superstructure | Girder Moment: 0.86 Girder Shear: 0.29 | 0.86 | 1 |
Non-structure | NA | - | |
Risk score of governing utilization factor | 3 |
Socioeconomic Factors | Assigned Level of Risk as per Table 5 |
---|---|
Out of commission for ≥ 10 days. | 3 |
Major interruption to service with high cost of work required. | 2 |
Alternatives available. | 1 |
Little or reversible damage to surrounding eco-system. | 1 |
Partial rebuild of structure required. | 2 |
Risk score of the socioeconomic factor. | 2 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Altamimi, S.; Amleh, L.; Fang, L. Risk Assessment Protocol for Existing Bridge Infrastructure Considering Climate Change. Climate 2024, 12, 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12090132
Altamimi S, Amleh L, Fang L. Risk Assessment Protocol for Existing Bridge Infrastructure Considering Climate Change. Climate. 2024; 12(9):132. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12090132
Chicago/Turabian StyleAltamimi, Shereen, Lamya Amleh, and Liping Fang. 2024. "Risk Assessment Protocol for Existing Bridge Infrastructure Considering Climate Change" Climate 12, no. 9: 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12090132
APA StyleAltamimi, S., Amleh, L., & Fang, L. (2024). Risk Assessment Protocol for Existing Bridge Infrastructure Considering Climate Change. Climate, 12(9), 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12090132