Statistical Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Bridges in Estonia


  • Sander Sein Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee, 5, Tallinn 19086, Estonia
  • Jose Campos Matos University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, Guimarães, 4800-058, Portugal
  • Juhan Idnurm Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee, 5, Tallinn 19086, Estonia



bridge management, condition assessment, multivariate analysis, principal component analysis, statistical analysis, visual inspections


This paper introduces a possible way to use a multivariate methodology, called principal component analysis, to reduce the dimensionality of condition state database of bridge elements, collected during visual inspections. Attention is paid to the condition assessment of bridges in Estonian national roads and collected data, which plays an important role in the selection of correct statistical technique and obtaining reliable results. Additionally, detailed overview of typical road bridges and examples of collected information is provided. Statistical analysis is carried out by most natural reinforced concrete bridges in Estonia and comparison is made among different typologies. The introduced multivariate technique algorithms are presented and collated in two different formulations, with contrast on unevenness in variables and taking into account the missing data. Principal components and weighing factors, which are calculated for bridges with different typology, also have differences in results and element groups where variation is retained.


Abdi, H.; Williams, L. J. 2010. Principal Component Analysis, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 2(4): 433–459.

Andrić, I. 2015. Signs by the Roadside. Sezam book. 472 p. Cattell, R. B. 1966. The Scree Test for the Number of Factors, Multivariate Behavioural Research 1(2): 245–276.

Chambers, J. M. 1977. Computational Methods for Data Analysis, A Wiley Publication in Applied Statistics. New York: Wiley. 268 p. Das, P. C. 1998. New Developments in Bridge Management Methodology, Structural Engineering International 8(4): 299–302.

Estes, A. C.; Frangopol, D. M. 2005. Life-Cycle Evaluation and Condition Assessment of Structures, Structural Engineering Handbook, 2nd edition, chapter 36, 1–36.

Hanley, C.; Kelliher, D.; Pakrashi, V. 2015. Principal Component Analysis for Condition Monitoring of a Network of Bridge Structures, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 628:1–8.

Hanley, C.; Matos, J. C.; Kelliher, D.; Pakrashi, V. 2016. Integrating Multivariate Techniques in Bridge Management Systems for Life-Cycle Prediction, in Civil Engineering Research in Ire- land 2016. Ed. by Nanukuttan, S.; Goggins, J., 29–30 August 2016, Galway, Ireland, 237–242.

Hotelling, H. 1933. Analysis of a Complex of Statistical Variables into Principal Components, Journal of Educational Psychology 24(6): 417–441.

Ilin, A.; Raiko, T. 2010. Practical Approaches to Principal Component Analysis in the Presence of Missing Values, Journal of Machine Learning Research 11: 1957−2000.

Jackson, J. E. 2003. A User’s Guide to Principal Components. Wiley-Interscience. 592 p.

Jolliffe, I. T. 2002. Principal Component Analysis. 2nd edition. Springer. 518 p.

Jolliffe, I. T.; Cadima, J. 2016. Principal Component Analysis: a Review and Recent Developments, Philosophical Transactions 374(2065): 1−16.

Lauridsen, J.; Bjerrum, J.; Andersen, N. H.; Lassen, B. 1998. Creating a Bridge Management System, Structural Engineering International 8(3): 216–220.

Manyika, J.; Chui, M.; Brown, B.; Bughin, J.; Dobbs, R.; Roxburgh, C.; Byers, A. H. 2011. Big Data: the Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity. McKinsey & Company. 156 p. Available from the Internet: com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/big- data-the-next-frontier-for-innovation

Martinez, W. L.; Martinez, A. R.; Solka, J. 2010.Exploratory Data Analysis with MATLAB. 2nd edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC. 508 p.

Matos, J. C.; Casas Rius, J. R.; Chatzi, E. N.; Høj, N. P.; Strauss, A.; Stipanovic, I.; Hajdin, R. 2015. COST Action TU 1406. eBook of the 1st Workshop Meeting, Geneva, 21–22 September 2015. ETH-Zürich.

Mueller, J.; Stewart, M. G. 2011. Terror, Security, and Money: Balancing the Risks, Benefits, and Costs of Homeland Security. Oxford University Press. 280 p.

Pearson, K. 1901. LIII. On Lines and Planes of Closest Fit to Systems of Points in Space, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 2(11): 559–572.

Qian, G. Q.; Gabor, G.; Gupta, R. P. 1994. Principal Components Selection by the Criterion of the Minimum Mean Difference of Complexity, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 49(1): 55–75.

Ringnér, M. 2008. What is Principal Component Analysis?, Nature Biotechnology 26(3): 303−304.

Roweis, S. T. 1998. EM Algorithms for PCA and SPCA, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems: 626–632.

Rücker, W.; Hille, F.; Rohrmann, R. 2006. Guideline for the Assessment of Existing Structures. SAMCO Final Report. Federal Institute of Materials Research and Testing (BAM), Division VII.2 Buildings and Structures. 48 p.

Scherer, W. T.; Glagola, D. M. 1994. Markovian Models for Bridge Maintenance Management, Journal of Transportation Engineering 120(1): 37–51.

Sánchez-Silva, M.; Klutke, G. A. 2016.Reliability and Life-Cycle Analysis of Deteriorating Systems. Springer International Publishing. 355 p.

Thompson, P. D.; Small, E. P.; Johnson, M.; Marshall, A. R. 1998. The Pontis Bridge Management System, Structural Engineering International 8(4): 303–308.




How to Cite

Sein, S., Matos, J. C., & Idnurm, J. (2017). Statistical Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Bridges in Estonia. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 12(4), 225–233.