Implementing bridge model updating for operation and maintenance purposes: examination based on UK practitioners’ views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a vision of creating bridge digital twins as virtual simulation models of bridge assets to facilitate remote management. Bridge model updating is one digital twin technology which can enable the continuous updating of the structural model as new monitoring data is collected. This paper examines why there is currently little industry uptake of monitoring, modelling and model updating for the operation and maintenance of bridges despite over two decades of research in these fields. The study analyses the findings from a series of semi-structured industry interviews with expert bridge professionals in the U.K. and from an extensive literature survey of bridge model updating studies to examine the disconnects between research and practice and the practical issues of implementing bridge model updating. In particular, the study found that localised damage resulting in local reduction in structural stiffness, a key assumption made in the majority of research, is subject to question by practitioners as many common types of bridge damage may not induce noticeable change in structural stiffness that existing model updating techniques would identify. Key recommendations for future research are proposed to drive adoption of bridge monitoring, modelling and model updating and thus realise their industrial value.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".