Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T18:31:57.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward an expert system for damage assessment of structural concrete elements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Octavio Melchor-Lucero and
Carlos Ferregut
Octavio Melchor-Lucero
Affiliation:
Visiting Research Engineer
Carlos Ferregut
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas, 79968, U.S.A.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The assessment of damage of structural concrete elements relies on the engineering judgment of the person in charge of the inspection and evaluation. This paper describes a rule-based prototype expert system developed to assist an engineer engaged in the task of assessing postearthquake damage to structural concrete elements in the task of providing guidance for inspection as well as criteria for evaluation and courses of action to take afterwards. The expert system, called DASE, identifies the most likely failure modes that may be developed by columns or beams of a damaged building, determines the severity of damage and, suggests immediate actions to take afterwards, such as rehabilitation procedures or tests, to maintain an acceptable local safety level. Floor damage classification and restoration guidelines can also be provided, assuming that all of the structural components in a building's floor have been inspected. The Analytic Hierarchy Process has been implemented as the overall framework to determine the severity of damage, since it allows judgments and personal values to be represented in a systematic and rational manner. DASE provides graphics that customize the user interface and an explanation facility. The knowledge acquisition process consisted primarily of the analysis of documented knowledge found through literature research.

Keywords

DamageStructuresInspectionExpert System

Information

Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 9 , Issue 5 , November 1995, pp. 401 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

ACI 1968, ACI Committee 201. 1R-68. Lauer, K. Chairman. (1984). Guide for making a condition survey of concrete in service, American Concrete Institute, Reported by the ACI Committee 201.Google Scholar
ACI 1986, ACI Committee 201. 3R-86. Klieger, P. Chairman. (1986). Guide for making a condition survey of concrete pavements. American Concrete Institute, Reported by the ACI Committee 201.Google Scholar
Al-Mandil, M.Y., Baluch, M.H., Azad, A.K., Sharif, A.M., & Pearson-Kirk, D. (1990). Categorization of damage to concrete bridge decks in Saudi Arabia. J. Performance of Constructed Facilities. 4(2), ASCE, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Mandil, M.Y. & Ziraba, Y.N. (1990). Assessment of damage to concrete girder slab bridges in Saudi Arabia. J. Performance of Constructed Facilities. ASCE, 4(3), 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, G. & Sharma, A.K. (1989). Repaired reinforced concrete beams. Repairs of Concrete Structures – Assessments, Methods and Risks, SCM-21, pp. 49–53.Google Scholar
ASCE, Technical Council on Forensic Engineering, Greenspan, H.F. Chairman. (1989). Guidelines for failure investigation. Developed by the Task Committee on Guidelines for Failure Investigation of the Technical Council on Forensic Engineering, Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
ASCE, ASCE 11–90. (1990). Guideline for structural condition assessment of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
Applied Technology Council ATC. (1989). Procedures for postearthquake safety evaluation of buildings and field manual. Funded by: Office of Emergency Services, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, State of California, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
Avent, R. (1987). Concrete repairs: Are we ready to design them? Infrastructure … Repairs and Inspection, Proc. of a session sponsored by the Structural Division of the ASCE, Shah, M.J., Ed., pp. 54–67. Atlantic City, NJ.Google Scholar
Bahlis, J.B. & Mirza, M.S. (1989). Structural integrity of a damaged building. Repairs of Concrete Structures – Assessments, Methods and Risks, SCM-21, pp. 37–39.Google Scholar
Banon, H. & Veneziano, D. (1982). Seismic safety of reinforced concrete members and structures. In Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, J. & Associates. (1975). Effects prediction guidelines for structures subjected to ground motion. San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Cassaro, M., & Martinez-Romero, E. (1986). The Mexico earthquakes—1985: Factors involved and lessons learned. Proc. Int. Conf. held in Mexico City, Mexico, September 19–21, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
Castaneda, D., & Brown, C. (1991). A methodology for conducting forensic investigations of seismic building damage. CERRA-ICASP 6, International Association for civil engineering reliability and risk analysis. 6th Int. Conf. Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Eng. Vol. 1, Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 346–353.Google Scholar
Chen, R., & Liu, X. (1989). A knowledge-based expert system for damage assessment of reinforced concrete industry buildings (RAISE-2). 5th Int. Conf. Structural Safety and Reliability. San Francisco, CA, August 7–11, ASCE, pp. 809–816.Google Scholar
Chung, Y., Meyer, C., & Shinozuka, M. (1987). Seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete members. Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Columbia University, New York, NY. 10027–6699, Technical Report NCEER-87–0022, October 9, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.Google Scholar
Gallegos, H., & Quesada, G. (1989). A corrosion case: Repair procedures. Repairs of Concrete Structures—Assessments, Methods and Risks, SCM-21, 95–98.Google Scholar
Greimann, L.F., Stecker, J.H., Kao, A.M., & Rens, K.L. (1991). Inspection and rating of miter lock gates. J. Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 5(4), 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinter, L.E. (1965). Elementary structural analysis and design. 2nd Ed. The MacMillan Company, New York.Google Scholar
Hwang, T., & Scribner, C. (1984). R/C member cyclic response during various loadings. J. Structural Engineering, ASCE, 110(3), 477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICA. (1988). Experiencias derivadas de lossismos de Septiembrede 1985. Fundación Ingenieros Civiles Asociados, AC., Ed. LIMUSA.Google Scholar
KMU (Kiril and Metodij University). (1984). Implemented methodology and procedure for earthquake damage and usability classification of buildings. Publication No. 70/3, Appendix C, Skopje, Yugoslavia.Google Scholar
Maher, M.L. (1987). Expert systems for civil engineers: Technology and application. ASCE.Google Scholar
Malhotra, V. (Ed.). (1991). Evaluation and rehabilitation of concrete structures and innovations in design. Proc. ACI Int. Conf., Hong Kong, SP-128, Vols. I & II.Google Scholar
Mansur, M.A., & Ong, K.C.G. (1989). Epoxy-repairedbeams. Repairs of Concrete Structures—Assessments, Methods and Risks, SCM-21, 246–250.Google Scholar
Mather, K. (1989). Preservation technology: Evaluating concrete in structures. Repairs of Concrete Structures—Assessments, Methods and Risks, SCM-21, 233–241.Google Scholar
Melchor-Lucero, O. (1993). Development of a prototype expert system for damage assessment of structural concrete elements. Master's Thesis presented in partial fulfillment to the University of Texas at El Paso.Google Scholar
Mendis, P. (1989). Commercial applications and property requirements for epoxies in constructions. Repairs of Concrete Structures—Assessments, Methods and Risks, SCM-21, 391–397.Google Scholar
Mizuhata, K. (1985). Evaluation of seismic safety for reinforced concrete structures due to low-cycle fatigue. Report No. GBRC Vol. 10, No. 4, Laboratory of Japanese Architectural Society, Japan.Google Scholar
Moriconi, G., Pauri, M., Percossi, G., & Busto, S. (1991). The influence of injected epoxy systems on the elastic and mechanical properties of cracked concretes. Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures and Innovations in Design. Proc. ACI Int. Conf. Hong Kong. 233–246.Google Scholar
Nmai, C. & Darwin, D. (1986). Lightly reinforced concrete beams under cyclic load. ACI Journal, Title No. 83–72.Google Scholar
Ohkubo, M. (1990). Current Japanese systems on seismic capacity evaluation and retrofit techniques for existing buildings and postearthquake damage inspection and restoration techniques. Kyushu Institute of Design, 4–9–1, Shiobaru Minami-ku, Fukuoka, Japan 815. Seminar in Structural Engineering, Department of AMES, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Ozaka, Y., & Suzuki, M. (1989). Shear failure of reinforced concrete beams and effect of repair by epoxy resin injection. Repairs of Concrete Structures – Assessments, Methods and Risks, SCM-21, 439–448.Google Scholar
Pakvor, A. (1991). Rehabilitation and reconstruction of concrete structures. Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures and Innovations in Design. Proc. ACI Int. Conf. Hong Kong, 1407–1422.Google Scholar
Park, Y., Ang, A., & Wen, Y. (1985). Seismic damage analysis and damage-limiting design of R/C structures. J. Structural Eng., ASCE, 111(4), 740–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robles, F., Iglesias, J.Hernandez, C., & Garcia, R. (1987). Repair of concrete structures in Mexico City. Building Structures, Proc. sessions at Structures Congress '87 related to buildings, (Sherman, D.R., Ed.), pp. 177–191. Sponsored by the Structural Division of the ASCE, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
Roufaiel, M. & Meyer, C. (1987). Analytical modeling of hysteretic behavior of R/C frames. J. Structural Eng. ASCE, 113(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T.L. (1982). Decision making for leaders. The analytical hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Lifetime learning publications.Google Scholar
Stephens, J. & Yao, J. (1987). Damage assessment using response measurement. J. Structural Eng. ASCE, 113(4), 787–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swamy, R.N. & Jones, R. (1991). Plate bonding technology – the painless technique of structural rehabilitation. Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures and Innovations in Design. Proc. ACI Int. Conf. Hong Kong, 1385–1406.Google Scholar
Tankut, A.T., Ersoy, U. (1991). Behavior of repaired/strengthened reinforced concrete structural members. Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures and Innovations in Design. Proc. ACI Int. Conf. Hong Kong, 1257–1276.Google Scholar
Thoft-Christensen, P., & Hansen, H. (1993). Optimal strategy for maintenance of concrete bridges using expert systems. Results of the CEC supported research project BREU P3091, “Assessment of Performance and Optimal Strategies for Inspection and Maintenance of Concrete Structures Using Reliability Based Expert Systems.”Google Scholar
White, R.N., Gergely, P., Sexsmith, R. (1974). Structural engineering: Behavior of members and systems. Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Whitman, R., & Biggs, J. (1974). Seismic design decision analysis-methodology and pilot application. Report No. 10, Structures Publication No. 385, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Yao, J. (1984). Safety and reliability of existing structures. Pitman advanced publishing program.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, K., Kikuchi, K., & Kuroki, M. (1991). Seismic shear strengthening method for existing reinforced concrete short columns. Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures and Innovations in Design. Proc. ACI Int. Conf. Hong Kong, 1065–1080.Google Scholar