Jiang, Y; Yang, G; Li, H; Zhang, T and Khudhair, A (2024) Physics-informed knowledge-driven decision-making framework for holistic bridge maintenance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(9): 04024105, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Bridge maintenance is a highly intricate task that involves considering a wide range of factors in order to achieve optimal decisions that align with multiple objectives, criteria, and the entire lifecycle of the bridge. While physics-informed analysis, such as the finite element method (FEM), can simulate complex and closely coupled scenarios, such as bridge structural analysis, it cannot account for some loosely coupled discrete factors, which could be addressed by ontological reasoning. Therefore, this paper presents a knowledge-driven decision-making framework that combines static knowledge reasoning with dynamic FEM analysis results to support holistic bridge maintenance decisions. One significant contribution of this research is the development of a comprehensive bridge maintenance ontology that incorporates knowledge derived from bridge maintenance standards. Another key contribution is the ability to employ complex runtime rules-based reasoning to tackle intricate bridge maintenance scenarios. To enable automatic knowledge-driven reasoning, an integrated workflow is developed to orchestrate semantic modeling with numerical modeling through a Python-based Web Ontology Language application programming interface (OWL API). This integration facilitates the efficient orchestration of the framework. A case study is presented to demonstrate the potential for the developed framework in assisting with the complex holistic decisions required for bridge maintenance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bridge maintenance; finite element method; holistic decision-making; knowledge engineering; ontology; semantic reasoning; semantic web; web ontology language |
| Index terms: | finite element method, case study, semantic web, modelling, lifecycle, ontology, reasoning, structural analysis, workflow, programming, decision-making, integration |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, programming, project delivery, analytical methods, management, education and knowledge transfer, structural engineering, cognitive psychology, decision analysis, networking, organizational analysis, engineering analysis |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Risk Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here