Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Multi-objective optimisation of bridge retrofit

and post-event repair selection to enhance
sustainability

Citlali Tapia & Jamie E. Padgett

To cite this article: Citlali Tapia & Jamie E. Padgett (2016) Multi-objective optimisation of bridge
retrofit and post-event repair selection to enhance sustainability, Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 12:1, 93-107, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2014.995676

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.995676

Published online: 20 Jan 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 327

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20

Download by: [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] Date: 23 October 2017, At: 07:28
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2016
Vol. 12, No. 1, 93–107, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.995676

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

enhance sustainability
Citlali Tapia* and Jamie E. Padgett1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University, 6100 Main Street MS-318, Houston, TX 77005, USA
(Received 10 December 2013; final version received 11 October 2014; accepted 14 October 2014)

The decaying state of our infrastructure paired with rising emphasis on sustainable engineering suggests the need for
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017

upgrades which are selected based on their ability to provide adequate performance under natural hazards and minimise
negative impacts on the three pillars of sustainability: society, environment and economy. This paper poses a framework
based on a multi-objective genetic algorithm to help identify optimal retrofit and repair combinations which ensure public
safety while minimising lifetime environmental, economic and social performance measures of sustainability for
infrastructure exposed to natural hazards. Assessment of the case-study application results reveals the relationship between
life-cycle environmental, economic and social indicators of sustainability for a bridge subject to earthquakes. The
framework is anticipated to help guide the selection of retrofit and repair combinations by providing a set of ‘near-optimal’
non-dominated solutions, which enhance sustainability while ensuring public safety and mitigating or repairing damage
from natural disasters.
Keywords: sustainability; multi-objective optimisation; genetic algorithm; risk assessment; life-cycle analysis; natural
hazard mitigation; triple bottom line

Introduction Management Agency [FEMA], 2000; Furuta, Frangopol,

A sustainable structure is one which ‘serves the
surrounding community while maintaining life cycle
phases from design to end-of-life, which demand as little
environmental resources as possible at an acceptable
economic expense’. In addition, the recurring theme
regarding what constitutes a sustainable system presented
by state and federal organisations and engineering
societies such as state Departments of Transportation
(DOT) and the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), is the consideration of lifetime environmental,
social and economic performance – otherwise known as
the ‘triple bottom line’ principles (ASCE, 2010; Lautso
et al., 2004; Pearce & Vanegas, 2002; Taylor& Fletcher,
2006). In line with this theme, several studies have begun
to quantify social, environmental or economic indicators
of sustainability to compare alternative designs for
structures, including bridges (Collings, 2006; Gervasio &
Silva, 2008; Keoleian et al., 2005).
Furthermore, past studies and natural disaster data
have suggested that natural hazards among other threats
can obstruct infrastructure sustainability due to the adverse
consequences that damage and post-disaster repairs have
on the triple bottom line principles (Bastidas-Arteaga,
Schoefs, Chateauneuf, Sanchez-Silva, & Capra, 2010;
Bastidas-Arteaga, Schoefs, Stewart, & Wang, 2013;
Dong, Frangopol, & Saydam, 2013; Federal Emergency
& Nakatsu, 2011; Furuta, Katayama, Dogaki, &
Frangopol, 2005; Itoh, Wada, & Liu, 2005; Tapia,
Ghosh, & Padgett, 2011). For example, in the aftermath
of hurricane Ike, Texas, residents near Galveston required
funds in excess of $1.74 billion from the FEMA to deal
with, among other things, the more than 25 million cubic
yards of waste that had been generated by the event
(FEMA, 2008). In 1994, the 6.7 magnitude earthquake
which took place in Northridge, California, resulted in 60
fatalities, approximately 7000 injuries, and more than
40,000 damaged structures in the surrounding area (U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS], 2012).
These resulting adverse social, environmental and
economic consequences can be diminished by implement-
ing natural hazard risk mitigation strategies for structures.
Improved hazard protection via enhanced structural
design, retrofit or other upgrades reduces the damage
incurred, and the number of major repairs required, after a
natural disaster. By limiting lifetime damage from extreme
events, public safety is improved, waste generation is
minimised, repair costs are reduced and additional
environmental impacts, such as emissions or energy
expenditures from structural repairs or replacements, are
avoided. However, selecting retrofit and repair strategies
that simultaneously achieve social, environmental and
economic sustainability criterion, in the face of natural

*Corresponding author. Email: cittapia@gmail.com

q 2015 Taylor & Francis
 924 C. Tapia and J.E. Padgett
hazard risks, is not straightforward. This is partially due to
the many currently existing retrofit strategies that reduce
hazard risks, to the broad range of potential repair
alternatives that restore the functionality of damaged
structures, and to the up-front monetary investment
required for each of these existing strategies (Anderson
& Gruendler, 1995; Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA], 2006; Gupta & Hartnagel, 2003; Hwang,
Jernigan, Billings, & Werner, 2000; Padgett & DesRoches,
2009; Wright, DesRoches, & Padgett, 2011). In addition,
trade-off relationships and interactions between total life-
cycle sustainability (LCS) indicators associated with
retrofit or repair strategies may be unknown making it a
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
challenge to identify sustainably optimal strategies. This
type of problem can be approached through multi-
objective optimisation.
Although studies of structural performance proposing
life-cycle optimisation frameworks do exist, their objec-
tives typically seek to find optimal initial design or
maintenance scheduling (Frangopol, Enright, & Estes,
2000; Frangopol & Estes, 1997; Liu, Hammad, & Itoh,
1997) without consideration of hazard exposure or
resilience strategies. The majority of these studies focus
on minimising the total expected life-cycle cost (LCC)
(Chang & Shinozuka, 1996; Furuta, Kameda, Fukuda, &
Frangopol, 2003; Hassanain & Loov, 2005) and some even
consider the influence of natural hazard risk on lifetime
costs (Patidar, Labi, Sinha, & Thompson, 2007; Sobanjo
& Thompson, 2013). However, these past studies neglect
performance measures relating to infrastructure environ-
mental and social impacts under natural hazards. Therefore,
this paper presents a framework which utilises multi-
objective optimisation to find structural retrofits and repair
options which not only minimise the lifetime monetary
costs of a bridge subject to earthquake hazards, but also
environmental and social cost while ensuring public safety.
The key contribution of this paper is that it provides one of
the first studies to offer systematic risk-based quantification
of sustainability indicators integrated in an optimisation
framework to explore sustainable upgrades to structures.
It also demonstrates the insights and trade-off analyses that
can be afforded by application of the proposed method.
In subsequent sections, the use of LCS analysis to quantify
lifetime indicators of sustainability is presented as well as
the general process for solving multi-objective optimisation
problems by a genetic algorithm (GA) search heuristic.
The aforementioned gaps are addressed by posing a
framework which enhances structural sustainability by
optimising retrofit and repair options given life-cycle risks
from natural hazards. Retrofits considered in this study refer
to pre-event risk mitigation strategies used to enhance
structural performance while repairs refer to construction
activities undertaken to restore post-event functionality. The
framework makes use of multi-objective GA (MOGA) to
minimise expected LCS indicators while maintaining a
target safety level. The proposed model is applied to a
representative multi-span continuous (MSC) steel girder
bridge subjected to seismic hazards in order to find the ‘near-
optimal’ retrofit and repair combinations that minimise the
six considered lifetime indicators of sustainability, namely:
embodied energy (EE), carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
monetary cost (MC), waste (W), downtime (D) and fatalities
(F), while simultaneously maintaining a minimum level of
safety. Initial investments for retrofits, implications of
alternative repair and restoration activities, as well as
acknowledgement of all three pillars of sustainability, are
accounted for through these six indicators.
Solutions derived based on these indicators are referred
to as ‘near-optimal’ because MOGA is a heuristic and
optimality cannot be guaranteed (Moore et al., 2003). It can
only be ensured that good enough, non-dominated,
solutions are found through MOGA. However, for
simplicity, ‘near-optimal’ solutions will be more generally
referred to as ‘optimal’ solutions throughout the remaining
of the paper. The methodology presented will aid in the
selection of structural upgrades and restorations that satisfy
demands from natural hazards while balancing competing
sustainability objectives and ensuring public safety.
A presentation of future research needs and potential
opportunities to further the integration of sustainability in
traditional engineering decisions concludes this paper.
LCS analysis and MOGA
General LCS analysis model
In order to satisfy the objectives of sustainability
throughout the phases of a structure’s life cycle, negative
impacts on the three pillars of sustainability must be
minimised. A structure’s life cycle consists of construc-
tion, operation, maintenance, hazard exposure and
demolition phases. The influence on sustainability from
each of these phases can be quantified through a life-cycle
analysis – a method commonly used to quantify indicators
of sustainable performance (Curran, 2006). Although the
model for performing LCS analysis has been presented in
full detail by Padgett and Tapia (2013) for quantifying
environmental life-cycle metrics of sustainability, an
overview of the method is provided herein because it is a
critical input to the three pillar sustainability optimisation
approach proposed in this paper.
The total LCS values for a given indicator (e.g.
monetary cost and embodied energy) are assessed as a
summation of contributions from each life phase
(Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2013; Royal
Society of Chemistry [RSC], 2010):
LCS ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sop ðX; TÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ þ Sh ðX; TÞ
þ Sd ðX; TÞ;
ð1Þ
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
where X is a vector of structural parameters, such as the
type and geometry of the structure, and T is the total
service life of the structure of interest. Sc, Sop, Sm, Sh and Sd
are the sustainability indicators from retrofit construction,
operation, maintenance, hazard exposure and demolition
phases, respectively. In this study, retrofit construction
refers to the upfront investment required for a structural
retrofit (or risk mitigation upgrade) option implemented
at the present date with the intention of reducing natural
hazard-related damage. Specific values for material,
equipment and potential traffic detour distances used in
each life phase are summed in terms of sustainability
indicators to find total contributions from each LCS phase.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
For example, if the sustainability indicator of interest is
carbon dioxide emissions, the CO2 resulting from the
production of materials used for the retrofit, equipment
usage and rerouting during retrofit construction is summed
to find the Sc phase contributions. Similarly, this is done
for the rest of the life phases. While maintenance,
operation and demolition phase totals are assumed to be
constant regardless of the retrofit type chosen or the post-
event repairs implemented on the structure, retrofit
construction and hazard exposure phases do vary
depending on the options applied.
The hazard exposure phase, Sh, relies on natural hazard
risk information and it is stressed in this study because the
optimisation will be performed on hazard-related retrofits
and repairs. Calculation of this phase can be further
expanded by summing sustainability indicator contri-
butions at each year t during the total service life, T, of
the structure, considering N potential damage states to the
structure and considering M different structural com-
ponents. The total expected hazard exposure phase
contributions can then be written as

M X
 X N X
T   Equation (2), can be further expanded to consider not only
E Sh X; T ¼ P I n;j;m ðX; tÞ I n;j;m ðX; tÞ; ð2Þ
m¼1 n¼1 t¼1
where I n;j;m ðX; tÞ is a total discounted component-level
sustainability indicator value (examples of sustainability
indicators include carbon dioxide emissions and monetary
cost) associated with a pre-selected repair strategy j and
P ½I n;j;m ðX; tÞ is the probability of incurring that sustain-
ability indicator from the natural hazard induced damage
state n at time t for structural component m. The evaluation
of this term is expanded in Equations (3) and (4); however,
in general this probability considers the reliability of the
structure as well as the likelihood of hazard occurrence for
use in calculating the damage consequences in terms of
sustainability indicator values. In addition, the theorem of
total probability is used to account for contributions from
the various hazard damage levels, n, points in time, t, and
structural components, m, as indicated by the summations.
95
3
The discounted component-level sustainability indi-
cator value is quantified as I n;j;m ðX; tÞ ¼ UC n;j;m ðXÞzðtÞ.
UCn,j,m(X) is the upfront sustainability indicator value
associated with component-level repair actions
implemented and its calculation will be discussed in the
following sections of this paper. z(t) is a discount factor
which is a function of discount rate d and time t, and is
used to convert future quantities into present-day values.
This concept of utilising a discount factor is widely
accepted for monetary (economic) costs to account for the
time value of money; however, appropriate discount rates
for social and environmental indicators are yet to be
established (Hunkeler, Lichtenvort, Rebitzer, Ciroth, &
Europe, 2008). It is acknowledged that social and
environmental indicators of sustainability may have
different effects at different points in time and that further
research may result in more appropriate discount ratios
and adequate discount functions. Because such refinement
is beyond the scope of this study, discounting is applied
only to expected economic indicators of sustainability
(monetary values) but not to environmental or social
indicators. The discount factor z(t) for economic indicators
in this study is taken as (1 þ d) – t with a discount rate d of
3%. This rate is an intermediate value from those
recommended by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget in the past 10 years (Office of Management and
Budget, 2013) and is assumed to be an after-inflation risk-
free rate. For environmental and social indicators where no
discounting is applied, z(t) is taken as 1.
Consequences of damage may differ depending on
whether the focus is on components of the structure or on
the whole structural system. For example, grouting is a
repair that targets a particular damaged structural
component, while rerouting of traffic is a consequence of
damage (or loss of functionality) of the entire structural
system. Therefore, the hazard exposure phase, shown in
contributions from component-level repairs of the
structure, but also contributions from system-level
consequences to the structure and is given by

M X
 X N X
T  
E S~ h X; T ¼ P I n;j;m ðX; tÞ I n;j;m ðX; tÞ
m¼1 n¼1 t¼1
N X
X T  
þ P SRn ðX; tÞ SRn ðX; tÞ; ð3Þ
n¼1 t¼1
where S~ h ðX; TÞ represents the hazard exposure phase
including contributions from component- and system-level
consequences, SRn(X,t) is a total discounted system-level
sustainability indicator value associated with system
damage n and P[SRn(X,t)] is the probability of incurring
that system sustainability indicator from the natural
hazard-induced damage state n at time t. The discounted
 946 C. Tapia and J.E. Padgett

system-level sustainability indicator value is quantified
as SRn ðX; tÞ ¼ USn ðXÞzðtÞ. USn(X) is the upfront sustain-
ability indicator value associated with system-level
damage which will be discussed in the following sections
and z(t) is a discount factor applied as already described.
The expansion of this model is an extension of the seismic
LCC model proposed by Ghosh and Padgett (2011) which
assumes that hazard damage can be modelled as a non-
homogenous Poisson process to reflect the occurrence of
hazard events as well as time-dependent vulnerability
associated with ageing.
Recall that the probability density function for time to
failure of a Poisson process is an exponential distribution.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
the peak ground acceleration and the damage states
considered are DS1 ¼ slight, DS2 ¼ moderate, DS3 ¼
extensive and DS4 ¼ complete. At the complete damage
level (n ¼ 4), the mean annual rate of damage is quantified
by
Ð only
performing
  the first integration in Equation (5),
P DS4 X; t jIM dHimðimÞdim:
In this paper, the time variation of structural
vulnerability with age is taken into account using time-
dependent fragility models, as shown in Equation (5).
When a retrofit is applied to a structure, the structure’s
component- and system-level fragility values shift and, in
the majority of cases, this shift signifies a reduction in the
vulnerability of the components and the structure as a

In this work, failure is taken as synonymous with incurring whole. Therefore, as different retrofits are implemented,
a sustainability indicator. Assuming unit increments for the parameters that define the fragility model change (e.g.
numerical integration of the time to failure density when the lognormal distribution is a common model for
estimating the probability of incurring a total discounted structural fragility with median and dispersion values
sustainability indicator value (e.g. cost and emissions), indicating hazard intensity levels upon which various
Equation (3) can be further expanded and written as levels of damage are anticipated). As a result, the
conditional probability of failure of the components, and

M X
 X N X
T
 the structural system itself, changes with retrofit. This
E S~ h X; T ¼ ln;m X; t
affects the estimate of ln;m ðX; tÞ and ln ðX; tÞ in the model.
m¼1 n¼1 t¼1
! Repairs which occur post-event, on the other hand, are
X
t


 exp 2 ln;m X; t I n;j;m X; t assumed to mainly affect the sustainability indicator totals,
t¼1 I n;j;m ðX; tÞ, which differs depending on the repair strategy
X
N X
T
 selected. In addition, the structure is assumed to return to
þ ln X; t its pre-disaster state after a repair is applied. Repair actions
n¼1 t¼1 and retrofits are selected by the optimisation algorithm as
!
X
t

 discussed in the following sections. The general values
 exp 2 ln X; t SRn X; t ; required for estimating indicator values I n;j;m ðX; tÞ are the
t¼1 upfront UCn,j,m(X) values. In order to estimate UCn,j,m(X)
ð4Þ values, the following information is needed: data referred
to as ‘coefficients’ for the indicator of interest, volume of
where ln;m ðX; tÞ and ln ðX; tÞ are the mean annual rate
material required for the repair action j to be taken and
of damage level n occurrence due to natural hazard
equipment required for this repair. Further information
exposure for the structural component m and structural
regarding where this information can be found and how it
system,

Prespectively.  Collectively, the term ln ðX; tÞ is estimated can be found in Padgett and Tapia (2013).
exp 2 tt¼1 ln ðX; tÞ is the time to failure density (or
In addition, a specific example for estimating UCn,j,m(X)
incurrence of the sustainability indicator).
values is provided in the case-study section of this paper.
The mean annual rate of damage, for example, at the
system level ln ðX; tÞ, can be estimated as follows for
damage states n ¼ 1 to n ¼ 3: General MOGA model
ð  

 
 dH ðimÞ Several methods exist which can be used to solve multi-
ln X; t ø P DSn X; t jIM   dim
im  objective problems, such as linear optimisation, mixed
integer programming, Particle Swarm Optimization,
ð  

 dH ðimÞ modified GAs, among others. Most structural engineering
2 P DSnþ1 X; t jIM   dim; ð5Þ
im  design and decision problems involve selecting values for
a set of variables that describe the performance of the
where DSn is the damage state being analysed in ascending structure while satisfying requirements such as safety
order of damage, H(im) is the hazard curve that expresses limits and codes of practice. In the majority of cases, these
the mean annual rate of exceeding a specific level of variables are discrete and finding optimal local or global
hazard intensity im and P½DSn ðX; tÞjIM is the fragility solutions is difficult. However, over the years, GAs have
estimate (i.e. conditional probability of exceeding damage been demonstrated to be powerful tools for dealing with
state n at time t given the level of hazard intensity measure discrete optimisation especially in the field of structural
im). In this study, the hazard intensity measure utilised is engineering (Pezeshk & Camp, 2002). GAs have the
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
advantage of being able to handle both discrete and
continuous problems (Deb, 2001) in addition to nonlinear
problems that include integer and discrete variables
(Furuta et al., 2011). MOGA allows users to obtain a set of
several near-optimal solutions simultaneously, as opposed
to a single solution (Furuta et al., 2011). While variations
of GAs do exist, this paper focuses on a simple extension
of a single-objective GA, referred to as MOGA.
A complete review of well-known GA variations can be
found in Konak, Coit, and Smith (2006).
Consistent with past engineering studies applying
optimisation to life-cycle quantities (Furuta et al., 2003,
2005; Goldberg, 1989), the general steps which describe
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
the MOGA process are shown in Figure 1. In this study,
which is a minimisation MOGA, solutions are considered
the ‘most successful’ if the total values for all objective
functions are not larger than the total values derived using
another potential solution. The steps presented in Figure 1
are repeated until termination conditions, such as the
maximum number of iterations or convergence of
solutions, are met. Objective functions, constraints and
GA parameters must be defined before implementing the
MOGA process. GA parameters consist of population size,
number of generations, crossover rate and mutation rate.
In GAs, a gene refers to the parameters which make up
a solution (e.g. one single repair action for one bridge
component) and a generation is every new ‘loop’, or
iteration, in the GA process as indicated in Figure 1 by the
‘Gen þ 1’ arrow. Parameter values depend on the given
Generate Initial
Population
Conduct Crossover
Perform Mutation
Gen +1
Evaluate Fitness
Functions
Perform Selection
Termination no
Criterion Met?
yes
Terminate
Figure 1. General MOGA process.
97
5
problem, fitness (objective) functions and the GA variation
being used. Some studies suggest performing additional
algorithms to calibrate such parameters (Allen, Haupt, &
Young, 2007; Law & Szeto, 2007; Lin, Lee, & Hong,
2003; Meyer-Nieberg & Beyer, 2007). However, given its
heuristic nature, no single algorithm can ensure appro-
priate GA parameter values will be returned or guarantee
an optimal calibration which increases the GA perform-
ance. This means that without more variables being
deterministic, a unique solution cannot exist, even after
multiple iterations.
LCS multi-objective optimisation by GA framework
LCS MOGA process
In order to address the challenge of selecting optimal
structural upgrade options, such as retrofits and repairs,
which not only ensure public safety but also satisfy the
objectives of sustainability, the LCS analysis model
(Equation (1)) can be integrated into the MOGA process
(Figure 1) to form the LCS multi-objective optimisation
framework which is formulated as follows:
Minimize :
LCS1 ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sop ðX; TÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ
þ S~ h ðX; TÞ þ Sd ðX; TÞ
LCS2 ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sop ðX; TÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ
þ S~ h ðX; TÞ þ Sd ðX; TÞ
†
†
LCSk ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sop ðX; TÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ
þ S~ h ðX; TÞ þ Sd ðX; TÞ
s:t: : bf;life $ bf;life;min ;
ð6Þ
where LCS1 to LCSk are total LCS indicator objectives,
calculated as described in Equations (1) – (5), for
sustainability measures 1 to k such as monetary cost,
waste and CO2 emissions. For this study, only one
constraint related to public safety is utilised. However, the
framework can accommodate multiple constraints related
to any aspect of the structure beyond safety.
The constraint for this optimisation framework is
set equal to a minimum system lifetime reliability index,
bf,life,min, whose value depends on the decision maker, on
structural details, and on the level of safety required. The
system-level probability of failure is used in the constraint
because system performance is often indicative of the
structure’s ability to meet safety (or functionality)
objectives. In this study, the upgrades considered are
limited to repairs and retrofit. Because retrofits are
 968 C. Tapia and J.E. Padgett

considered to change the structural parameters and hence
the reliability of the structure, the system lifetime
reliability index, bf,life, must be re-evaluated each time
the structural parameters of the structure of interest
change. The reliability index b is related to the probability
of failure, Pf, of the bridge structure by Pf ¼ F(– b) where
F is the standard normal cumulative distribution function.
A higher value of bf,life represents a lower probability of
failure of the bridge system, hence the reason for a
minimum bf,life value constraint. Therefore, bf,life is
calculated as – F21(Pf,life) where Pf,life is the lifetime
probability of failure of the bridge system.
For each generation of the LCS multi-objective
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
‘Retrofit Options’ subtitle) or a different component repair
option (under the ‘Repair Options’ subtitle). The upgrades
of interest in this study are structural retrofits pre-event and
post-disaster repairs; however, the framework can be
extended to other types of upgrades as well.
The initial population of retrofit and repair combi-
nations is used to evaluate fitness functions, which are
the sustainability objective functions and the constraint
bf,life, shown in Equation (6). The termination condition
is met once the number of non-dominated solutions
approximately converges or a maximum number of
generations (i.e. iterations) are reached. Until the
predefined termination condition is reached, the frame-

optimisation application, a new population, consisting
of new retrofits and repairs, is selected to quantify the
objective functions, LCS1 to LCSk, and the constraint,
bf,life. Changes in retrofit options are reflected in X, which
indicates the type of structure and design details selected
in the present MOGA generation. The general process for
implementing the life-cycle sustainability multi-objective
genetic algorithm (LCS MOGA) framework is shown in
Figure 2. As displayed in Figure 2, the LCS MOGA
framework begins by generating an initial population
composed of structural retrofit and repair options for each
structural component, 1 to M, and for each increasing level
of hazard damage, 1 to N. Each numbered block in the
figure represents a different retrofit option (under the
work goes on to implement GA procedures consisting of
selection, crossover and mutation. The selection pro-
cedure chooses acceptable retrofit and repair combi-
nations from the current population to populate the next
generation.
In order for retrofit and repair combinations to survive,
all corresponding total sustainability values, LCS1 to
LCSk, cannot be larger than the total values resulting from
another combination in the population. In addition, each
repair and retrofit combination can also be rejected if it
violates the predefined constraint. In the context of the
LCS MOGA framework presented, Figure 3(a),(b) shows
examples of how crossover and mutation are performed
on retrofit and repair combinations. Focusing on one

Population of Chromosomes
Retrofit Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
+
Repair Options per Component and per Damage State
Damage State 1 Damage State 2 Damage State N
Component 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Component 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Component M 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Convert into Retrofit & Repair Chromosomes

New Generation (Gen) Evaluation of Fitness Functions

Gen= Gen + 1 LCS1 to LCSk Sustainability Indicator
Objective Functions and βf,lifeConstraint

Genetic Algorithm Termination Condition

Yes No Results
Procedures Iteration < Max # End
Optimal Combinations
Selection, Crossover, Generations? of Retrofit and Repairs
Mutation

Figure 2. LCS multi-objective optimisation by GA framework for selecting optimal retrofits and repair combinations.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 99
7

(a) Combination 1 New Combination 1

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 2 1
Crossover
Combination 2 New Combination 2
3 4 3 2 1 3 4 3 4 5

Crossover Point
(b) Combination 1 New Combination 1
Mutation
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 2 5

Figure 3. Genetic operations performed on retrofit and repair combinations, implementing (a) crossover operation and (b) mutation
operation.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017

structural component, the first block of each combination Case study: application of framework for optimal
shown in the figure represents a retrofit option, while the upgrade selections
next four blocks represent repair actions implemented at Bridge model details
slight, moderate, extensive and complete damage states,
A case study is conducted to illustrate the application of
respectively, of the component.
the proposed LCS MOGA framework to the selection of
Figure 3(a) illustrates how during crossover of
optimal upgrade alternatives for a structure subject to
combination 1 and combination 2 all data beyond the
natural hazards. The framework is applied to an MSC steel
randomly selected ‘crossover point’ (indicated in the
girder bridge with the geometry shown in Figure 4.
figure by a dotted line) is swapped between the two
In order to complete the probabilistic seismic loss
combinations resulting in new combinations of retrofit and
assessment given in Equations (4) and (5), regional hazard
repairs. Figure 3(b) shows how during mutation a single
curves and bridge fragility values are required. For this
‘gene’, represented by a numbered block, from combi-
study, the seismic hazard curve for Berkeley County,
nation 1 is randomly replaced by another ‘gene’. After the
South Carolina, obtained from USGS (2013) is utilised,
GA procedures are completed, and termination conditions
which expresses the mean annual rate of exceeding various
are met, the end result is a set of non-dominated, near-
levels of earthquake peak ground acceleration.
optimal, retrofit and repair options which satisfy the
Although the case-study bridge is assumed to be
objectives of sustainability and constraint.
exposed to earthquake hazards, the framework can be

13 m

40.2 m

2.4 m
3.72 m

0.9 m

Figure 4. MSC steel girder bridge geometry.

 8
100 C. Tapia and J.E. Padgett
applied to a structure exposed to any natural hazards so
long as information regarding the hazards and the
structure’s vulnerability exists. Eight bridge configuration
options are considered in this study: no retrofit application
(defined as ‘as-built’), steel jackets, restrainer cables, seat
extenders, shear keys, elastomeric isolation bearings,
restrainer cables in conjunction with shear keys and seat
extenders in conjunction with shear keys. Bridge fragility
values for the ‘as-built’ case are adopted from Padgett and
Tapia (2013) and those for the cases when each of the
seven retrofits are applied are adapted from median-value
scaling factors as proposed in Padgett (2007). Additional
details regarding the ‘as-built’ case can be found in
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
Neilson (2005), and theory behind the retrofits and their
impact on bridge performance is found in Padgett (2007).
Estimates of retrofit construction investments (Sc)
associated with each retrofit considered in this study are
tabulated in Table 1 in terms of CO2, EE, MC, D, F and
W. Because the type of retrofits and the amount of material
required for each retrofit will vary depending on the bridge
in question, the data used in Table 1 are specific for the
MSC steel bridge presented in this case study. In order for
retrofits to be applied, no downtime is assumed to be
incurred, no fatalities are expected to occur and no waste
(related to demolition) is assumed to be generated,
therefore these values are listed as 0 in Table 1. The total
service life of the bridge is 75 years with retrofits occurring
at year 25, which is assumed to be the present date.
Therefore, 50 years of remaining service life are evaluated
with the LCS MOGA framework.
Seven bridge components are considered in this study.
Each component of the bridge considered as potentially
vulnerable to earthquakes is tabulated in the first column
of Table 2 along with their respective acronyms in
parenthesis. Traditional seismic bridge damage states
consist of slight (s), moderate (m), extensive (e) and
complete (c) states. For each bridge component and at each
level of damage, 17 different repair options combined are
considered. These possible repair strategies targeting
component damage are listed in Table 2 and are selected
Table 1. Upfront investments for retrofits considered in the case study in terms of various sustainability metrics.
Case # Retrofit type CO2 (kg)
1 As-built 0 0
2 Steel jacket 9668
3 Restrainer cables 958
4 Seat extenders 6862
5 Shear keys 5623
6 Restrainer cables and shear keys 6581
7 Seat extenders and shear keys 12,485
8 Elastomeric isolation bearings 27,587
Note: D, F and W are for simplification purposes assumed to be negligible for retrofit construction phase and taken to be 0.
based on the results of a web-based survey conducted by
Padgett and DesRoches (2007). Associated upfront EE,
CO2, MC and W quantities (representing UCn,j,m(X)
values) are shown within parentheses in the third column.
Column 2 lists a bold capital ‘repair code’ letter assigned
to each repair action for ease of identification as well
lowercase letter within parentheses designating the
damage state for which the repair is applicable.
As noted in Table 2, only waste generated due to
demolition of the entire bridge is taken into account
because waste contributions from other repairs are
minimal. Because repairs appropriate at different levels
of damage vary depending on the bridge type considered,
Table 2 values are only valid for the MSC steel bridge
presented in this case study. The number of fatalities and
downtime of the bridge are two sustainability metrics
evaluated at the system level, rather than at the component
level, because these consequences tend to be associated
with overall structural system collapse or system-level
closure. The number of fatalities and the downtimes
associated with each level of system damage (representing
USn(X) values) are tabulated in Table 3. The estimated
upfront sustainability metric totals associated with bridge
component repairs in Table 2 are adopted from Padgett and
Tapia (2013). Table 3 metrics of downtime and fatalities
associated with system-level damage are based on
HAZUS-MH (FEMA, 2005) and Padgett, Ghosh, and
Dennemann (2009), respectively.
In addition, maintenance phase Sm values
(EE ¼ 6,243,565 MJ, CO2 ¼ 446,026 kg, MC ¼ $488,123,
W ¼ 0 m3, F ¼ 0, D ¼ 0) are estimated by adopting the
bridge maintenance activities and schedule proposed in
Collings (2006) and bridge demolition phase, Sd, values
(EE ¼ 4,731,513 MJ, CO2 ¼ 515,705 kg, MC ¼ $59,578,
W ¼ 245 m3, F ¼ 0, D ¼ 0) are estimated as given in
Padgett and Tapia (2013). Although it is acknowledged that
the values in Tables 1–3 could potentially be treated as
random variables, only the probability of incurring a
condition (damage state) requiring each of the repair actions
is considered in this study.
Upfront retrofit construction investment (Sc)
EE (MJ) MC ($) D (days) F (life) W (m3)
0 0 0 0
243,711 36,000 0 0 0
24,148 8460 0 0 0
172,984 9000 0 0 0
41,478 15,000 0 0 0
65,626 23,460 0 0 0
214,462 24,000 0 0 0
177,134 37,237 0 0 0
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 9
101

Table 2. Bridge components potentially damaged in the earthquake and corresponding repair actions.

Repair/replacement action (EE in MJ; CO2 in kg;

Bridge component Repair code cost in $; waste in m3)
Column (Col) A (s,m) Epoxy injection (3, 0.12, 91, 0)
B (s,m) Patch with concrete (60, 8, 7722, 0)
C (s) No action (0, 0, 0, 0)
D (s,m) Grouting (297, 42, 35, 0)
E (s,m) Concrete lining (60, 8, 93, 0)
F (s,m) Wrap (27,083, 138, 2263, 0)
G (s,m,e) Replace column (15,007, 1240, 3552, 0)
H (m,e) Reinforce and recast (6545, 890, 3709, 0)
I (e,c) Demolish and replace bridge (21,134,402, 1,214,652,
8,04,309, 245)
Expansion bearings longitudinal (EBL) J (s,m,e) Jack bridge into place (13,655, 1192, 2500, 0)
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017

K (s,m) No action (0, 0, 0, 0)

L (s,m.e.c) Replace bearing expansion and bridge deck
(1,332,995, 7324, 476,260, 0)
Fixed bearings transverse (FBT), fixed bearings M (s) No action (0, 0, 0, 0)
longitudinal (FBL), expansion bearings transverse (EBT) N (s) Patch with concrete (382, 52, 20, 0)
O (m,e) Anchor replacement (107, 8, 82, 0)
P (e,c) Replace bearing (86,085, 6474, 1199, 0)
Abutment passive (AbPass) Q (s,m) Epoxy injection (5, 0.24, 185, 0)
R (s,m) Patch with concrete (611, 81, 965, 0)
S (s,m.e,c) No action (0, 0, 0, 0)
T (s,m) Add reinforcement and cover (1452, 115, 1000, 0)
U (s,m) Grouting (3030, 426, 349, 0)
V(m) Demolish and replace bridge (21,134,402, 1,214,652,
804,309, 245)
Abutment active (AbAct) W (s,m,e) Regrade and resurface (14,691, 1851, 20,103, 0)
X (s,m,e) Add fill and asphalt (13,623, 1246, 2559, 0)
Y (s,c) No action (0, 0, 0, 0)
Z (e) Replace structural section (251,139, 18,703, 85,773, 0)
Note: Values within parentheses indicate EE, CO2, MC and W, respectively, for repair action indicated.

LCS multi-objective optimisation application

formulation
Six total lifetime indicators of sustainability are included
as objectives in this case-study application: embodied
energy, carbon dioxide emissions, monetary cost, waste,
downtime and the number of fatalities. As aforemen-
tioned, lifetime indicators of sustainability can be
quantified by summing their contributions from each
life-cycle phase as shown in Equation (1). However,
because the operation phase, Sop, contributions are
assumed to be minimal for this bridge type, this indicator
is excluded from the summation and case-study objective
functions. Substituting the sustainability indicator objec-
tives of interest into Equation (6), the LCS MOGA
problem is formulated as follows:
Table 3. Sustainability measures based on bridge system-level
performance by increasing the damage level.
Sustainability measure Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Downtime (days) 7 30 120
Fatalities (people) 0 0 0 4.154
Minimize :
LCSEE ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ þ S~ h ðX; TÞ þ Sd ðX; TÞ
LCSCO2 ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ þ S~ h ðX; TÞ þ Sd ðX; TÞ
LCSMC ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ þ S~ h ðX; TÞ þ Sd ðX; TÞ
LCSW ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ þ S~ h ðX; TÞ þ Sd ðX; TÞ
LCSD ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ þ S~ h ðX; TÞ þ Sd ðX; TÞ
LCSF ðX; TÞ ¼ Sc ðXÞ þ Sm ðX; TÞ þ S~ h ðX; TÞ þ Sd ðX; TÞ
s:t: : bf;life $ 3:0;
ð7Þ
where LCSEE, LCSCO2, LCSMC, LCSW, LCSD and LCSF
are the objective functions quantifying total lifetime
embodied energy in units of mega joules (MJ), carbon
dioxide emissions in kilograms (kg), monetary cost in
dollars ($), waste in cubic yards (m3), downtime in days
(d) and fatalities in the number of lives lost, respectively.
The input variables required in order to evaluate
Equation (7) are the retrofit and repair actions selected by
400
the algorithm, as shown in the first box of Figure 2, for
each bridge component at each of the four possible
 10
102 C. Tapia and J.E. Padgett

damage states considered. Once these initial retrofit and
repairs have been selected, Tables 1 –3 can be used to
gather the values corresponding to the input variables,
which are then used to quantify Equation (7). The
subjective constraint, bf,life,min, is set equal to 3.0, which is
equivalent to a lifetime system failure probability (Pf) of
0.00135, for this example at a level consistent with other
cost optimisation studies conducted on a similar bridge
type (Frangopol et al., 2000). It is important to note that bf,
life,min is a value defined by the decision maker and can
vary because it depends on a number of factors including
the structure, type of natural hazard exposure and level of
safety required, as well as risk tendency of the decision
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
dominated solutions from the 100,000 random combi-
nations. Finally, the optimal combinations found in the
second step are compared to the optimal combinations
found utilising the MOGA framework. This is done to find
how many of the solutions found by MOGA dominate
those found through the random approach. Based on this
benchmark comparison, 99% of the solutions found by
LCS MOGA were better than those found in the random
test – indicating MOGA offers advantages.
Due to the large amount of data, it is not feasible to list
all optimal combinations of retrofits and repairs here.
Instead, repairs found to be optimal for this case study are
tabulated in Table 4 and categorised by associated optimal

maker. retrofit, bridge component and level of seismic damage

repaired. Repairs are given in terms of their code letters
listed in Table 2. These results suggest a library of viable
Results and discussion retrofits and repairs that may be considered by an owner to
The LCS multi-objective optimisation by GA framework achieve improved hazard performance and meet sustain-
is performed by following the process shown in Figure 2. ability objectives. Results also reveal that despite there
Fitness functions are evaluated by substituting the being 84,325 optimal combinations of retrofit and repairs,
sustainability computation model from Equation (4) into there are only 8638 different expected sustainability value
the optimisation objectives posed in Equation (7). Input
estimates for Sc are those presented in Table 1, and upfront
Table 4. Optimal retrofits and repairs by bridge component and
sustainability indicator values UCn,j,m(X) for EE, CO2, MC damage level.
and W measures are given in Table 2, as well as upfront
USn(X) values for D and F measures in Table 3. GA Optimal repairs associated with
optimal retrofits
parameters utilised for this case-study application are as
follows: population size ¼ 500, mutation rate ¼ 0.1 and Bridge Damage Seat extenders Elastomeric
crossover rate ¼ 0.6. These parameter values are selected component level and shear keys isolation bearings
based on judgement combined with insight from past Col s A; B; D; E; F; G A; B; D; E; F; G
studies (Furuta et al., 2003; Furuta, Kameda, Nakahara, m A; B; E; F; G; H A; B; E; F; G; H
Takahashi, & Frangopol, 2006). The initial number of e G; H G; H; I
generations was set at 75 and increased by intervals of 25 c I I
until convergence, which occurred at generations ¼ 200. EBL s K K
m J J; L
Out of a total of 3,317,760 potential retrofit and repair e J J; L
combinations, results show that the size of the final c L L
population is 84,325 near-optimal solutions. Although this FBT s N N
may seem like a large number of solutions, it represents m O O
only 2.5% of the over 3 million retrofit and repair e O O; P
c P P
combinations. The resulting near-optimal combinations FBL s N N
are solutions because they minimise life-cycle contri- m O O
butions of sustainability metrics while maintaining a target e O; P O; P
lifetime reliability index value. In addition, a randomised c P P
test composed of 100,000 randomly generated retrofit and EBT s N N
m O O
repair combinations is performed in order to have a e O; P O; P
benchmark to compare the quality of the solutions c P P
obtained through the proposed LCS MOGA framework AbPass s Q; R; T; U Q; R; T; U
and provide confidence in the proposed approach. m Q; R; T; U Q; R; T; U; V
The test is composed of 100,000 random combinations e S S
c S S
because a population of similar size to the one generated in AbAct s Y Y
the MOGA framework should be used to perform the m W; X W; X
random test. The randomised test performed has three e W; X; Z W; X; Z
major steps. First, 100,000 repair and retrofit combinations c Y Y
are formed and evaluated utilising the LCS analysis Note: s, m, e and c refer to slight, moderate, extensive and complete
process presented. The second step is to find the non- damage states.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Table 5. Ranges for LCS sustainability metric values of optimal
solutions by optimal retrofit.
LCS metric total ranges associated with
optimal solutions by retrofit
Seat extenders Elastomeric isolation
LCS metric and shear keys bearings
CO2 (kg) 172,605 – 172,850 172,859 – 190,451
EE (MJ) 2,590,799– 2,596,145 2,323,932 – 2,622,762
MC ($) 4,307,339– 4,333,126 3,970,280 – 4,266,405
D (days) 8a 7a
F (life) 0.04a 0.036a
W (m3) 3a 2–5
a follow one of the five trends displayed in Figure 5(a) – (e).
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
All solutions in the optimal set have the same expected value of
sustainability metric total.
totals. This means many non-dominated combinations
result in the same values for expected total embodied
energy, carbon dioxide emissions, monetary cost, waste,
downtime and number of fatalities. To provide insight on
the unique total sustainability values identified in the
optimal set, total ranges for each of the six sustainability
metrics considered are given in Table 5.
Resulting near-optimal combinations show that, for
this case study, only two of the seven retrofit options are
optimal: (1) seat extenders and shear keys and (2)
elastomeric isolation bearings. Because these options are
the most effective in preventing complete system-level
damage, they most significantly influence sustainability
metric totals. It is interesting that both of these retrofits are
optimal because, as seen in Table 1, they are among those
upgrades with the highest upfront investment costs (Sc).
This highlights an advantage of applying the proposed
LCS MOGA framework when lifetime sustainability
benefits and savings resulting from applying various
retrofits are unknown.
Most traditional LCC optimisations focus explicitly on
monetary costs. Therefore, to serve as a comparative study
to the presented optimisation considering six sustainability
indicators, an optimisation based only on monetary cost
was performed on the case-study bridge. Results from this
optimisation based on monetary cost revealed that only 21
unique combinations of retrofit and repairs are optimal.
In addition, resulting optimal combinations showed that
only one of the seven retrofit options is optimal in this
case: elastomeric isolation bearings. Therefore, these
results highlight that solutions based on monetary cost
alone are not enough to answer the sustainability
optimisation problem. By optimising monetary cost, only
a subset of the possible solutions can be identified.
Previously unknown trade-off relationships between
the six sustainability metric totals can also be determined
through this framework. Visualisation of a six-dimensional
plot comparing all sustainability metrics is challenging;
therefore metrics are compared two at a time for ease of
11
103
interpretation. Fifteen pairs of metrics are formed and
analysed such that all metrics are compared to each other,
for example: CO2 vs. EE, CO2 vs. MC, CO2 vs. D and so
forth. The importance of these comparisons lies in finding
the trends formed between the metrics, as well as
identifying those pairs that share similar relationships.
Trends formed from case-study results are displayed
in Figure 5(a) – (e) in terms of LCS values for the
sustainability indicators indicated on the axes. These
values include all ‘costs’ incurred for the given retrofit and
repair options implemented on all bridge components at all
damage states. In addition, all 15 sustainability metric pairs
Figure 5(a) is a plot of CO2 vs. EE total LCS values
and has a strong positive correlation. This may be logical
because both CO2 and EE are metrics from the
environmental category of sustainability, and in general
energy-intensive construction activities and traffic detours
also produce emissions. Both CO2 vs. MC and EE vs. MC
follow the positive relationship shown in Figure 5(b).
Although it is expected for environmental metrics of
sustainability to have a negative relationship with
monetary cost, the uncharacteristic positive trend between
these metrics is most likely due to the consideration of
upfront costs from the retrofit construction phase (Sc)
and social costs. This shows that the consideration of
additional metrics, in this case social metrics, and
additional bridge life-cycle phases, such as upfront retrofit
cost, can alter the relationships between metrics within
other components of sustainability. This highlights the
importance of approaching sustainability analyses of
structures from a holistic point of view; holistic in that it
includes all components of sustainability – environmental,
social and economic – and all significant and relevant life-
cycle phases of the structure.
Figure 5(c) depicts trends for the following metric
comparisons: CO2 vs. D, CO2 vs. F, EE vs. D, EE vs. F,
MC vs. D and MC vs. F. The data form a relatively
constant graph when plotting the aforementioned pairs of
metrics. This constant graph signifies a lack of relationship
between the pairs of metrics which can be due to
significant downtime and fatalities only occurring when
there is complete bridge system failure. The positive step
graph shown in Figure 5(d) corresponds to CO2 vs. W and
is also seen for EE vs. W and MC vs. W. Because in this
study only waste generated due to complete bridge
demolition and replacement is considered, this trend is
reasonable. For example, for one optimal retrofit repair
combination, no repairs for the slight, moderate and
extensive damage levels involved demolishing and
replacing the bridge. Therefore, although there are CO2
emissions from the repair and rerouting activities, no
waste of significance is assumed to be generated. However
at the complete level of damage, demolishment and
replacement of the bridge are required, therefore in this
 12
104 C. Tapia and J.E. Padgett
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017

Figure 5. Trade-off relationships between the following LCS metric values: (a) CO2 vs. EE, (b) CO2 vs. MC, (c) CO2 vs. D, (d) CO2 vs.
W, (e) F vs. W.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
case both CO2 emissions and waste are generated. Hence it
is possible to have increasing CO2 emissions while the
amount of waste generated does not change.
Figure 5(e) displays F vs. W and shows a nearly
constant graph which signifies a lack of relationship
between these metrics. Both D vs. W and D vs. F also have
a similar relationship. The figure shows how W values
increase while F values remain near the same value. Recall
that values of W are evaluated at the bridge component
level while F values are evaluated at the system level.
Therefore, when one of the seven bridge components
incurs enough damage to require demolishing the bridge,
waste generated due to demolition of the entire bridge is
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
taken into account in the LCS values shown in Figure 5(e).
Fatalities, on the other hand, are assumed to only occur
when the entire bridge system collapses, i.e. ‘complete’
system damage. As a result of these assumptions, one
component can incur enough damage to require demoli-
tion of the bridge (therefore cause waste), but for the entire
bridge system to not collapse (therefore no fatalities
occurred), therefore causing the increase in W but not F
values on the plot.
Relationships among these six sustainability metrics
are not obvious from upfront retrofit investments or
upfront cost of repairs in terms of sustainability metrics.
This underlines the advantage of applying the LCS MOGA
framework when interactions, relationships and corre-
lations between multiple objectives are unknown, as is the
case with LCS objectives. In addition, the application of
the LCS MOGA and resulting upgrade options can offer a
viable set of practical solutions to improving bridge safety
while striving for enhanced sustainability. The total
sustainability indicator ranges can further provide a
benchmark for comparison with non-traditional retrofit or
repair options that may either have reduced upfront
investment (in terms of sustainability metrics), provide
improved hazard resilience or a combination thereof.
Conclusions
Although there has been rising awareness of sustainability
in the field of engineering, there is still a need to integrate
sustainability concepts into the selection of infrastructure
upgrades such as retrofit or repair methods. Currently,
upgrades are typically selected based on monetary cost and
structural safety. However, retrofits, repairs and replace-
ments should be selected such that they not only provide
adequate performance under natural hazards, but also
satisfy the three objectives of sustainability simul-
taneously. The proposed LCS MOGA framework makes
use of multi-objective optimisation by GA (MOGA) to
identify and select optimal retrofit and repair strategies
that ensure safe structural performance under natural
hazards while minimising environmental, economic and
social lifetime performance measures of sustainability.
13
105
Contributions from all the life-cycle phases of the structure
are accounted for in the framework, including the upfront
investments required for retrofit actions.
The case study presented applies the LCS MOGA
framework to an MSC steel girder bridge subject to
earthquake hazards. In this study, optimal retrofit and
repair combinations are those which minimise lifetime
contributions from the six sustainability metrics: embo-
died energy (EE), carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
monetary cost (MC), waste (W), downtime (D) and
number of fatalities (F). EE, W and CO2 emissions are
considered as environmental metrics, F and D as social
metrics, and MC as an economic metric of sustainability.
All three pillars of sustainability are accounted for through
these six metrics; however, this framework can also be
extended in future research to address other sustainability
measures of interest. Public safety is ensured by imposing
a minimum reliability index constraint in the optimisation.
Results show that 2.5% of all possible combinations are
non-dominated (near-optimal) and findings highlight
relationships between lifetime metrics of sustainability,
which were relationships previously unknown particularly
for solutions to infrastructure exposed to natural hazards.
This framework is anticipated to help guide the
selection of retrofit and repair combinations by providing a
set of optimal solutions which enhance sustainability
while ensuring public safety and mitigating or repairing
damage from natural disasters. Future work should explore
alternate optimisation methods as well as multi-criteria
decision analysis in which stakeholder preferences are also
elicited and weighted in ranking solutions to solve the
sustainability problem presented, optimisation of actions
beyond retrofits and repairs, such as initial design of new
structures, operation and maintenance strategies, as well as
the timing of such actions during the life of a structure.
In addition, the proposed framework can offer a basis for
exploring the uncertainty associated with the sustainability
metrics considered, the sensitivity to GA parameter values
selected and the sensitivity of the solution set to
sustainability indicator value variation. Furthermore,
while the demonstrated LCS MOGA framework was
applied using objectives of minimising expected values of
sustainability metrics, it has application to minimising the
risk of exceeding target levels of such metrics which is a
topic of ongoing research.
Acknowledgements
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 14
106 C. Tapia and J.E. Padgett
Funding
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of this research
by the National Science Foundation (NSF) [grant number
CMMI-1055301]. The first author acknowledges the support of
NSF through the Graduate Research Fellowship Program [grant
number 0940902].
Note
1. Email: jamie.padgett@rice.edu
References
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
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.
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010). The role of the civil
engineer in sustainable development. ASCE Policy State-
ment 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/
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.
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.
Bastidas-Arteaga, E., Schoefs, F., Stewart, M.G., & Wang, X.
(2013). Influence of global warming on durability of
corroding RC structures: A probabilistic approach. Engin-
eering Structures, 51, 259– 266.
Chang, S., & Shinozuka, M. (1996). Life cycle cost analysis with
natural hazard risk. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2,
118– 126.
Collings, D. (2006). An environmental comparison of bridge
forms. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Bridge Engineering, 159, 163– 168.
Curran, M.A. (2006). Life cycle assessment: Principles and practice
(Report No. EPA/600/R-06/060). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. EPA.
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary
algorithms (Vol. 16). Chichester, London: Wiley.
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.
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.
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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2005). HAZUS-MH
(Hazards US Multi-Hazard) [Software]. Washington, DC:
Author.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2008). Hurricane
Ike impact report. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/
hazard/hurricane/2008/ike/impact_report.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2006). Seismic retrofitting
manual for highway structures: Part 1 – Bridges (Report No.
FHWA-HRT-06-032). McLean, VA: Author.
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.
Frangopol, D.M., & Estes, A.C. (1997). Lifetime bridge
maintenance strategies based on system reliability. Struc-
tural Engineering International, 7, 193– 198.
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.
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). doi:10.1061/40707(240)3
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.
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, construc-
tion and maintenance, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Gervasio, H., & Silva, L.S.D. (2008). Comparative life-cycle
analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 4, 251– 269.
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.
Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimiz-
ation, and machine learning. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gupta, S., & Hartnagel, B.A. (2003). Seismic design and retrofit
of bridges on Missouri’s earthquake priority routes. Paper
presented at the 19th US – Japan bridge engineering work-
shop, Tsukuba, Japan.
Hassanain, M.A., & Loov, R.E. (2005). Cost optimization of
concrete bridge infrastructure. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 30, 841– 849.
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.
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.
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.
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 conven-
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
tional steel expansion joints. Journal of Infrastructure
Systems, 11, 51 – 60.
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.
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.
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.
Lin, W.-Y., Lee, W.-Y., & Hong, T.-P. (2003). Adapting
crossover and mutation rates in genetic algorithms. Journal
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 07:28 23 October 2017
of Information Science and Engineering, 19, 889– 903.
Liu, C., Hammad, A., & Itoh, Y. (1997). Maintenance strategy
optimization of bridge decks using genetic algorithm.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 123, 91 –100.
Meyer-Nieberg, S., & Beyer, H.-G. (2007). Self-adaptation in
evolutionary algorithms. Parameter Setting in Evolutionary
Algorithms, 47– 76. Heidelberg: Springer.
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.
Neilson, B. (2005). Analytical fragility curves for highway
bridges in moderate seismic zones. Atlanta, GA: Georgia
Institute of Technology.
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/
Padgett, J.E. (2007). Seismic vulnerability assessment of
retrofitted bridges using probabilistic methods. Atlanta,
GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches, R. (2007). Bridge functionality
relationships for improved seismic risk assessment of
transportation networks. Earthquake Spectra, 23, 115– 130.
Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches, R. (2009). Retrofitted bridge
fragility analysis for typical classes of multispan bridges.
Earthquake Spectra, 25, 117– 141.
15
107
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Sobanjo, J.O., & Thompson, P.D. (2013). Development of risk
models for Florida’s Bridge Management System (Report
No. Final Report).. Tallahassee, FL: FDOT.
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.
Taylor, A.C., & Fletcher, T.D. (2006). “Triple-bottom-line”
assessment of urban stormwater projects. Water Science
Technology, 54, 459– 466.
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
U.S. Geological Survey. (2013). U.S. Geological Survey.
Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://www.usgs.gov/
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.