 OK, so hello, everyone. So I bring here also a bridge, a zero bridge case study. I will try to fit in 10 minutes, so let's see. I will present firstly, Briser Group, which is the owner of this bridge. Then I will focus on the case study, zero bridge in three main aspects. The serial monitoring system, the structure, the main bridge, and the assessment of the serial performance that was done until now. Current steps towards efficient asset management that is currently being done in my research. And finally, try to present this case study already framed in this integrated value of information analysis flow chart that was developed in the workshop in Munich. And this case was used to do that brainstorming during the session. So Briser, as a group, is one of the largest total motorway operates in the world. It has concessions in the United States, and Netherlands, and India. It's headquarters in Portugal. In Portugal is the largest transport infrastructure group, and it's responsible for the management of transport infrastructures, roads, and railways. And they have already some investments on ACHM. Mainly they have two bridges, Soraya Bridge and Ziri Bridge, that are located near of the capital, Lisbon. And in this case, I will present the case study of the Lisbon Bridge. It is this beautiful bridge that I present in the right. So some key aspects of the monitoring system. It is a permanent monitoring system that was installed during the construction. It was another aspect at that time because the monitoring project was part of the bridge project. It has approximately 400 sensors that measures 10 different types of parameters. And use three different acquisition systems among static dynamic and bopic solutions. Just to give you an idea of the dimension of the system, it has more than 10 kilometers of cable end. Sample rate can up to 100 hertz. And just a number. Every year, BRISA has one million records more to use and to support in the asset management of this bridge. In complements, and this was done during my PhD, it is a finite element model, very refined, very detailed, that we agreed in the last conference workshop called it as a virtual bridge, so. In terms of the structure, so it's a big bridge of 13 kilometers. It has sub-structures, by the main bridge. The focus of this work will be in the main bridge, which is a cantilever construction. And in terms of the structural performance, it was done, as I said, a finite element model, very refined, that simulated since the construction of the first pile until a age of 100 years. What I show here is a time phased analysis that I've done in Diana, which includes a detailed geometry, a detailed material characterization, and the very detailed time history of the bridge. So this is the bridge. It spans seven piers. And based on this finite element model that was developed and using the data that was collected since the construction, we were able to see that the measurements were quite in agreement with the finite element model on the other way round, the finite element model interprets the data very well, which offered to the owner confidence and go forward in this issue of ACGM. Nevertheless, for this specific type of bridges, so built by the cantilever method, it's quite, the challenge is mainly predicting the trend over time of the deflections, okay? So what I presented are two predictions, one in red and other in green. And depending on the equip and shrinkage models that we use, you might have different trends, different slopes. So this is mainly due to some limitations that I will not be exhaustive here, but mainly related with geometry and material modeling. For that reason, I got a Marie Curie Fellowship and I'm currently integrating what I did in my PhD, mainly the structural analysis, with a reliability modeling, where we want to get more, let's say, robust predictions of these deflections profiles over time. Some work has been done, mainly in terms of the material model equip and shrinkage. We have been applying basic analysis by using different equip and shrinkage models. So not only the Eurocode models, but also others that are widely accepted for these properties. As you can see in the graph below, we have a prior, which is very wide broad. We have the function, the likelihood, and we can get, by using the Bayesian updating, get a much more, let's say, narrow prediction for, in this case, quick deformations. So also in complement, there is also another issue that for these effects of equip and shrinkage, geometry aspect is also important because different thickness will lead to different equip and shrinkage rates. So there are some limitations on when the finite element solution. So we are developing also a 3D model and try to compare how far these deflections are sensitive to these different model approaches. So with all this information that I presented you briefly, this is the framework that was developed in Munich. Quite complex, even for me that was there, I think for you it's even more difficult at this time to understand everything, but I tried to put things in a way that what I presented is the flow chart was developed. What I will show you is how I fill in or better, how we fill in, because this was done with the help of all the colleagues that were in Munich. So first of all, the knowledge on decision content. So we agree that Decision Maker is a private company. Additional stakeholders involved could be the state users, insurance companies. The owner wants to minimize costs or maximize income if there are tools, which is the case. Constraints might be the budget, functionality, serviceability in terms of limit states, according to error code thresholds and the inspection times. And also because this bridge is a landmark, it's one of, if I'm not wrong, is the second longest bridge in Europe. Also to ensure a reputation of BRISA in terms of that they are in the cutting edge of asset management. In terms of asset information, I will not read all of this, but as you saw in the presentation, we have a lot of information, a very detailed characterization of everything that is related with this bridge. The objectives that were defined in the Munich workshop is that is to minimize operation costs and the other side could be maximize the income, the tools, and avoid the reputation loss because it is a huge asset. In terms of what is the optimization problem, we could formulate the objective function is based on performance. Why? Yes. Okay, this is like in F1 when it goes to, we are back, is it okay? Okay. So the remedial actions related with these excessive deflections from these specific type of bridges was mainly defined in three actions, do nothing, okay? Strengthening, mainly, which is usually in this case, additional per stressing, or also to reduce traffic speed if the deflections are quite excessive for the comfort of the users. In this case, because we have monitoring, we identified which information is available, so as you saw, we have a lot of data in terms of strains, rotations, bearing displacements, in complement as usual, they have visual inspection data, mainly mapping of cracks on concrete. And the indicators that were explored in this brainstorm could be strains on concrete that appears on deck, the rotations in the deck near all the supports, deflections at midspans from the virtual bridge, because although this bridge has sensors to measure deflections, this remains a research issue that is measuring long-term deflections on concrete bridges, displacement bearings, and the crack size, okay? So and finally, how we could assess the performance and as you saw in that graph that I present with two predictions, one green line and red line, it's mainly by assessing the rate of the deflection over time, so depending on how we change the input variables, all these slopes might change, okay? More information about this work, there are a lot of information about this bridge in the literature, and thank you for your attention. This is what we expect for all the case studies in this workshop, so this is more or less the goal. Well done. So maybe we can spare a little bit of time tomorrow on your case study. However, you have to solve an interesting question. I would have a question for your presentation. How do you price some stability data? Sorry? How do you address consequences to some stability data? So that would be maybe the tricky part in your case study. What does it cost when we have some stability failure as it is defined from the euro codes? Yes, in terms of deflections, we have, it's not quite specific to the euro codes, in terms of limited deflections, it's mainly what impose a maximum that is related with the spanlet over a certain ratio. But this is not something that from what I know, there is no agreement between codes. Euro code on the United States, they change a lot in terms of what is developed. But yes. Very good.