IABMAS BMC BMS Report 20100806 PDF

THE IABMAS BRIDGE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OVERVIEW OF EXISTING BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 2010
Photos cover Rijkswaterstaat, the Netherlands
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
THE IABMAS BRIDGE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OVERVIEW OF EXISTING BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 2010
July, 2010
Bryan T. Adey Institute for Construction and Infrastructure Management, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zrich, Switzerland E-mail: bryan.adey@ibb.baug.ethz.ch
Leo Klatter Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Center for Public Works, The Netherlands E-mail: leo.klatter@rws.nl
Jung S. Kong School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Korea University, Address: Seoul, Korea E-mail: jskong@korea.ac.kr
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Members of the IABMAS Bridge Management Committee 2010 Adams, Teresa, USA Adey, Bryan T., Switzerland Aldayuz, Jose, USA Bien, Jan, Poland Bleiziffer, Jelena, Croatia Branco, Fernando, Portugal Bruehwiler, Eugen, Switzerland Ellis, Reed, Canada Furuta, Hitoshi, Japan Hajdin, Rade, Switzerland Hawk, Hugh, Canada Jensen, Jens Sandager, Denmark Kerley, Malcolm, USA Klatter, Leo, the Netherlands Kong, Jung Sik, South Korea McCarten, Peter, New Zealand Messervey, Tom, Italy Neves, Luis, Portugal Pardi, Livia, Italy Shepard, Richard, USA Shirole, Arun, USA Sderqvist, Marja-Kaarina, Finland Thompson, Paul, USA Zandonini, Riccardo, Italy
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 12 GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 15 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 Level of ownership......................................................................................................................................15 Number of users .........................................................................................................................................16 Years of first and current versions..............................................................................................................17
IT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................. 20 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Type of architecture ...................................................................................................................................20 Mode of data entry ....................................................................................................................................21 Reporting capabilities.................................................................................................................................22 Web access.................................................................................................................................................22
INVENTORY INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 22 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Total number of objects .............................................................................................................................22 Number of bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls and other objects ...................................................23 Archived construction information.............................................................................................................24 Archived inspection and intervention information.....................................................................................25
INSPECTION INFORMATION................................................................................................................... 26 5.1 5.2 5.3 Level of information storage ......................................................................................................................26 Information handled on the element level .................................................................................................26 Information handled on the structure level................................................................................................28
INTERVENTION INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 29 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Information handled on the element level .................................................................................................29 Information handled on the structure level................................................................................................30 Information handled on the project level...................................................................................................30 Intervention costs.......................................................................................................................................31 Prioritization...............................................................................................................................................32
PREDICTION INFORMATION................................................................................................................... 32 7.1 7.2 7.3 Predictive capabilities.................................................................................................................................32 Planning time frames .................................................................................................................................34 Uses of prediction information...................................................................................................................36
OPERATION INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 37 8.1 Data collection ...........................................................................................................................................37
Adey, Klatter, Kong

8.2 9
IABMAS 2010
Education and qualification .......................................................................................................................38
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 40 9.1 9.2 9.3 on the BMSs in the report...........................................................................................................................40 on the type of information gathered..........................................................................................................40 on the process of compiling this report......................................................................................................41 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 41 QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................................................................................. 42 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.15 11.16 11.17 11.18 Ontario Bridge Management System, OBMS .............................................................................................42 Quebec Bridge Management System, QBMS .............................................................................................46 DANBRO Bridge Management System, DANBRO.......................................................................................49 The Finnish Bridge Management System, FBMS ........................................................................................52 Bauwerk Management System, GBMS ......................................................................................................55 Eirspan........................................................................................................................................................58 APT-BMS, APTBMS .....................................................................................................................................62 BMS@RPI, RPIBMS .....................................................................................................................................65 Korea Road Maintenance Business System, KRMBS ..................................................................................68 Lat Brutus...............................................................................................................................................71 DISK........................................................................................................................................................74 SMOK .....................................................................................................................................................77 SZOK.......................................................................................................................................................80 SGP.........................................................................................................................................................83 Bridge and Tunnel Management System, BaTMan ...............................................................................87 KUBA ......................................................................................................................................................91 ABIMS.....................................................................................................................................................94 Pontis .....................................................................................................................................................97
10 11
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. LEVEL OF OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................................................16 FIGURE 2. NUMBER OF USERS .....................................................................................................................................17 FIGURE 3. YEARS OF FIRST AND CURRENT VERSIONS .................................................................................................17 FIGURE 4. TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE .............................................................................................................................20 FIGURE 5. MODE OF DATA ENTRY ...............................................................................................................................22 FIGURE 6. TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER PRINCIPAL USER....................................................................................23 FIGURE 7. TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER OBJECT TYPE PER PRINCIPAL USER .......................................................24 FIGURE 8. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NUMBER ..............................................................................................................24 FIGURE 9. ARCHIVED CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION................................................................................................25 FIGURE 10. NUMBER OF CONDITION STATES..............................................................................................................27 FIGURE 11. COST INFORMATION.................................................................................................................................31 FIGURE 12. PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES .........................................................................................................................33 FIGURE 13. PLANNING TIME FRAMES .........................................................................................................................34 FIGURE 14. USES OF PREDICTION INFORMATION .......................................................................................................36 FIGURE 15. RIGHTS TO USE..........................................................................................................................................37 FIGURE 16. EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................................39
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (1) ........................................................................................................................14 TABLE 2. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (1) ........................................................................................................................15 TABLE 3. LEVEL OF OWNERSHIP AND NUMBER OF USERS ..........................................................................................16 TABLE 4. YEARS OF FIRST VERSIONS ............................................................................................................................18 TABLE 5. YEARS OF CURRENT VERSIONS .....................................................................................................................19 TABLE 6. TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE, MODE OF DATA ENTRY, WEB ACCESS ..................................................................21 TABLE 7. NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER OBJECT TYPE.......................................................................................................23 TABLE 8. ARCHIVED CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION..................................................................................................25 TABLE 9. COLLECTION OF INSPECTION DATA AND ABILITY TO ENTER CONDITION, SAFETY, VULNERABILITY AND RISK, AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY INFORMATION FROM INSPECTIONS ON THE ELEMENT LEVEL..............26 TABLE 10. NUMBER OF CONDITION STATES................................................................................................................28 TABLE 11. ABILITY TO ENTER CONDITION, SAFETY, VULNERABILITY AND RISK, AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY INFORMATION FROM INSPECTIONS ON THE STRUCTURE LEVEL .......................................................................29 TABLE 12. INTERVENTION INFORMATION ON THE ELEMENT, STRUCTURE AND PROJECT LEVEL...............................30 TABLE 13. COST AND PRIORITIZATION INFORMATION ...............................................................................................32 TABLE 14. PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES ...........................................................................................................................33 TABLE 15. TIME FRAME FOR SHORT-TERM PREDICTIONS...........................................................................................35 TABLE 16. TIME FRAME FOR LONG-TERM PREDICTIONS ............................................................................................35 TABLE 17. USES OF PREDICTION INFORMATION .........................................................................................................36 TABLE 18. RIGHTS TO USE............................................................................................................................................38 TABLE 19. EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATION ..............................................................................................................39
10
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
ABSTRACT
Even though infrastructure managers are increasingly using infrastructure management systems to support their decision making processes, most owners and developers of these systems lack an up-todate view of the capabilities of the most advanced of these systems and how their system compares to others. Such knowledge can be used to help determine future development of their systems or allow identification of who to contact to investigate in detail how others have done, or are doing, what they are planning to do. To fill this knowledge gap the bridge management committee of IABMAS decided in July of 2008 to compile a report on the bridge management systems of the world to be issued in conjunction with the 2010 IABMAS conference. The report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1), from 15 countries, being used to manage approximately 900000 objects. It provides a general overview of the bridge management systems and does not focus on the details of specific procedures used within the systems. It is expected that it will improve infrastructure management by reducing duplicate efforts in the integration of new functionality into management systems and by encouraging the development of ever better systems. The main body of this report includes a summary of the information in the questionnaires and basic comparisons between the systems. The information summarized and compared includes: General system information, IT system information, Inventory information of the principal user, Inspection information, including structure types, and numbers of structures per structure type Intervention information, including data collection level, information on the assessment on the element level, information on the assessment on the structure level, Prediction information, including the aspects being modeled, and Operation information, with respect to data collection and quality assurance.
The questionnaires are given in the appendix.
11
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
INTRODUCTION
Well functioning infrastructure, is vital to the prosperity and well-being of the people of a country. It should be managed to maximize its benefit to society; requiring the implementation and systematic following of appropriate procedures and practices to ensure that optimal intervention strategies are determined and followed. In order to handle the amount of information required to do this, for even moderately sized networks, an increasing number of infrastructure owners are supporting their decision making process with increasingly sophisticated computerized management systems. Although ultimately it is expected that management systems will include all infrastructure objects1 and their roles within their respective networks in an integrated manner, the current state of the art is the development and implementation of management systems that best match current practice and decision making. Bridges, due to their individuality, complexity, and the significant impact on society if they do not function as intended, have often been the starting point for the development of these systems, and hence the use of the terminology bridge management system, even though many of these systems are often used to handle many other objet types. Even though infrastructure management systems are in full development most owners and developers of these systems lack an up-to-date view of the capabilities of the most advanced of these systems and how their system compares to others. Such knowledge could be used to help determine future development of their systems or allow identification of who to contact to investigate in detail how others have done, or are doing, what they are planning to do. To fill this knowledge gap the bridge management committee of IABMAS decided in July of 2008 to compile a report on the bridge management systems of the world to be issued in conjunction with the 2010 IABMAS conference. The report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1), from 15 countries, being used to manage approximately 900000 objects. It provides a general overview of the bridge management systems and does not focus on the details of specific procedures used within the systems. For example, no information is given on how cost calculations are made, only whether or not they are made. This type of information can be found in other reports, for example [1, 2]. It is expected that this report will improve infrastructure management by reducing duplicate efforts in the integration of new functionality into management systems and by encouraging the development of ever better systems. The main body of this report includes a summary of the information in the questionnaires and basic comparisons between the systems. The information summarized and compared includes: General system information (i.e. general information on the management system), IT information (i.e. general information about the information technology aspects of the management system), Inventory information (i.e. information on the infrastructure objects owned or managed by the principal user of the management system, including structure types, numbers of structures per structure type, and archives),
An infrastructure object is an item in a network that is often considered as a single unit, e.g. bridge, road section, retaining wall. The word object is used instead of structure as many items that may be considered in management systems are not necessarily seen by all people as structures, e.g. a road sign or a culvert.
12
Adey, Klatter, Kong -
IABMAS 2010
Inspection information (i.e. information about inspections where the information obtained is either entered into or used by the management system, such as the information collected and how it is collected), Intervention information (i.e. information about maintenance and preservation activities such as repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities, that is either entered into or used by the management system, including data collection level, information on the assessment on the element level, information on the assessment on the structure level), Prediction information (i.e. the aspects being predicted by the management system, as well as how these predictions are made, including the types of algorithms used, where applicable), Operational information (i.e. information with respect to how data entered into the management system is collected and how its quality is assured), and Additional information (i.e. a blank field for the entry of additional information if desired).
This report summarizes the information included in the questionnaires and provides basic comparisons between systems. Table 1 contains, for each system investigated, the country of ownership, the name of the owner, the name of the system, the abbreviation used for the system in this report, and the contact person for more information about the system and their e-mail address. Due to ambiguity in some of the answers provided in the questionnaires there may be some errors in the synthesis of the results. These ambiguities often resulted from a misunderstanding of the question.
13
Adey, Klatter, Kong

Table 1. Management Systems (1) No. 1 Country Canada Owner Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Stantec Consulting Ltd. Quebec Ministry of Transportation System Name Abb. Ontario Bridge Management OBMS System Quebec Bridge QBMS Management System DANBRO Bridge DANBRO Management System The Finnish Bridge FBMS Management System Bauwerk Management GBMS System Eirspan APT-BMS BMS@RPI Korea Road Maintenance Business System Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP Bridge and Tunnel Management System Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS
IABMAS 2010
Contact person* Name E-Mail Reed Ellis reed.ellis@sta ntec.com reed.ellis@sta ntec.com jorn.lauridsen @vd.dk MarjaKaarina.Soder qvist@liikenn evirasto.fi Haardt@bast. de lduffy@nra.ie daniele.zonta @unitn.it mackaneuji@k ajima.com paul@kict.re.k r. Ilmars@lvceli.l v leo.klatter@r ws.nl Jan.Bien@pwr .wroc.pl Jan.Bien@pwr .wroc.pl joan.ramon.ca sas@upc.es boe.eriksson@vv .se lennart.lindbla d@vv.se
Canada
Reed Ellis
Denmark
Danish Road Directorate
Jrn Lauridsen MarjaKaarina Sderqvist Peter Haardt Liam Duffy Daniele Zonto Makoto Kaneuji
Finland
Finnish Transport Agency
5 6 7 8
Germany Ireland Italy Japan
German Federal Highway Research Institute Irish National Road Association Autonomous Province of Trento Kajima Corporation and Regional Planning Institute of Osaka Korean Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs Latvian State Road Administration Dutch ministry of transport Polish Railway Lines Local Polish Road Administrations Spanish Ministry of Public Works
Korea
KRMBS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP
K.H. Park
10 11 12 13 14
Latvia Netherla nds Poland Poland Spain
Ilmars Jurka Leo Klatter Jan Bien Jan Bien Joan R. Casas Bosse Eriksson Lennart Lindlad
15
Sweden
Swedish Road Administration
BaTMan
*All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31, 2009.
14
Adey, Klatter, Kong

Table 2. Management Systems (1) Abb. Switzer16 Swiss Federal Roads Authority KUBA KUBA land United Alabama Department of 17 ABIMS ABIMS States of Transportation America United American Association of State 18 Pontis Pontis States of Highway and Transportation America Officials *All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31, 2009. No. Country Owner System Name
IABMAS 2010
Contact person* Name E-Mail rade.hajdin@i Rade Hajdin mc-ch.com Eric Christie christiee@dot .state.al.us jaldayuz@mb akercorp.com
Jos Aldayuz
2
-
GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION

The level of system ownership, The number of users of the system, and The years of the first and current version of the systems.
The following general system information is summarized in the report:
The following general system information is only provided in the questionnaires in the appendix: 2.1 The name and the web page address of the owner of the system, The name and the web page address of the developers of the system, and The names of, and how to access, the references and manuals related to the system. Level of ownership
The level of ownership indicates the level, i.e. country level, province, state canton or prefecture level, or country or municipality level, at which system changes are coordinated (Figure 1, Table 3). For example, if a system is listed as being on the country level than when a new version of the system is released by AASHTO, e.g. Pontis 5.2 to replace Pontis 5.1, replaces all licensed version of the system, even if they are used by an organization on the provincial level. This characterization includes systems owned by a government organization (e.g. KUBA is owned by the Federal Roads Authority of Switzerland) or a private organization (e.g. Pontis is owned by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; a private organization) on a specific level. The majority of systems are owned at the country level (12/18), and only one (SZOK) was owned at a municipality level.
15
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
14 12
Number of Systems
10 8 6 4 2 0 Country Province/ State/ Canton/ Prefecture Level of ownership County/ Municipality
Figure 1. Level of ownership
Table 3. Level of ownership and number of users Level of ownership Province/ State/ County/ Country Canton/ Municipality Prefecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 5 1 Number of users Single Multiple 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
No.
Country
Name
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total
OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis
*USA United States of America 2.2 Number of users
The number of users of each system (Table 3), indicated as either single or multiple, gives an indication of the extent of use of the systems (Figure 2). 12/18 of the systems are used by multiple users indicating
16
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
that many bridge managers use the systems of others instead of developing their own. Cross-border users are rare. PONTIS is the only system that reports foreign users.
14 12
Number of Systems
10 8 6 4 2 0 Single Number of users Multiple
Figure 2. Number of users
2.3
Years of first and current versions
The years of the first and current versions of the systems give an indication of the use of systems and how actively systems are being modified (Figure 3, Table 4, Table 5). Since the first release dates of systems are relatively evenly distributed over time, starting in 1985 with DISK, it can be inferred that there are steadily more administrations using management systems to support their decision making. Since the majority of systems (14/17) have new versions released in the last five year period and one, the GBMS, is scheduled for release in the near future, it can be inferred that systems, in general, are actively being developed.
16 14
Number of Systems
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 Year First version Current version
Figure 3. Years of first and current versions
17
Adey, Klatter, Kong

Table 4. Years of first versions No. 1 Canada 2 Canada 3 Denmark 4 Finland 5 Germany 6 Ireland 7 Italy 8 Japan 9 Korea 10 Latvia 11 12 Netherlands Poland 13 Poland 14 15 Sweden Spain 16 17 18 Switzerland USA USA Pontis 1 1
IABMAS 2010
Country
Lat Brutus
DANBRO
APTBMS
BaTMan
RPIBMS
Eirspan
KRBMS
QBMS
OBMS
GBMS
SMOK
Name 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1 1 1 1 1
ABMS
FBMS
KUBA
SZOK
DISK
SGP
1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
Total
18
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Table 5. Years of current versions No. 1 Canada 2 Canada 3 Denmark 4 Finland 5 Germany 6 Ireland 7 Italy 8 Japan 9 Korea 10 Latvia 11 12 Netherlands Poland 13 Poland 14 15 Sweden Spain 16 17 18 Switzerland USA USA Pontis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 4 8
Country
Lat Brutus
DANBRO
APTBMS
BaTMan
RPIBMS
Eirspan
KRBMS
QBMS
OBMS
SMOK
GBMS
Name 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
ABMS
FBMS
KUBA
SZOK
DISK
SGP
Total
19
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
3
-
IT INFORMATION
Type of architecture, Mode of data entry, Reporting capabilities, and Web access.
The following IT information is summarized in the report:
Information on the system platform is only provided in the questionnaires in the appendix. 3.1 Type of architecture
A wide range of information over the architecture of the systems was given. The majority of systems are either two tier or three tier systems (Figure 4). More information with respect to the architecture can be found in the questionnaires in the appendix. Much of this information is not easily reducible.
12 10
Number of Systems
8 6 4 2 0 1 Tier 2 Tier Architecture 3 Tier
Figure 4. Type of Architecture
20
Adey, Klatter, Kong

Table 6. Type of architecture, mode of data entry, web access Type of system architecture No. Country Name 1 Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 2 Tier 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 6 1 5 11 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Tier Mode of data entry* Desktop and portable computer 1 1 Only desktop computer Unclear
IABMAS 2010
Web Access Yes No 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
*How data is entered into the system. 3.2 Mode of data entry
The majority (12/18) systems have the capability to enter data at a desk top computer, whereas 4 systems have the ability to enter data both at a desk top computer and through mobile computers (Figure 5, Table 6).
21
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
14 12
Number of Systems
10 8 6 4 2 0 Only desktop computer Desktop and portable computers Mode of data entry Unclear
Figure 5. Mode of data entry
3.3
Reporting capabilities
All systems have reporting capabilities. As the GBMS is a prototype this information was not given. 3.4 Web access
Ten of the systems allow access to information in the system over the internet (Table 6).
4
4.1
INVENTORY INFORMATION
The total number of objects in the system, The number of bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls and other objects, in the system The archived construction information in the system, and The archived inspection and intervention information in the system. Total number of objects
The following inventory information is summarized in the report:
The inventory information reported is that of the principal user. This was possible for all systems except for Pontis. As Pontis is owned by a private company (at the country level) it is used on principally on the the state level, being licensed to 44 of the States in the USA, and therefore has no single principal user. For Pontis, the approximate numbers of objects given are those in all of the States in the USA. The total number of objects per system range from zero, for the GBMS which is still a prototype and for SZOK where the numbers were not given, to 750000 for Pontis (Figure 6 ).
22
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
33276
35000 30000
Number of Objects
9200
12050
20000 15000
14685
5400
5631
5000
Eirspan
DANBRO
APTBMS
RPIBMS
KRBMS
Lat Brutus
BaTMan
System
Figure 6. Total number of objects per principal user
Table 7. Number of objects per object type No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Bridges 2800 8700 6000 11487 0 2800 1011 750 5317 934 4000 8290 0 13252 288 5000 9728 500000 580357 Culverts 1900 0 6000 3078 0 0 0 0 0 845 600 24189 0 5979 300 1250 6112 250000 300253 Tunnels 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 314 0 14 26 0 0 800 365 2 0 1541 Retaining Walls 700 500 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 771 0 0 13 1000 0 0 3054 Other objects 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 3277 380 725 0 0 4643 Total 5400 9200 12050 14685 0 2800 1011 750 5631 1779 4795 33276 0 22508 1781 8340 15842 750000 889848
4.2
Number of bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls and other objects
The predominant use of the systems is for bridges, although SMOK has more culverts than bridges (24189 vs. 8290), and BatMan has more tunnels than bridges (800 vs. 288). The total number of objects per object type can be seen for all systems in Table 7, and for all systems except Pontis in Figure 7. Pontis has approximately 250000 culverts and 500000 bridges. For Pontis, no other object types were reported although it is known that at least some states use it for the management of sign structures, high mast light poles, traffic signal mast arms, retaining walls, tunnels, and drainage structures. The
Pontis
QBMS
OBMS
SMOK
SGP
GBMS
ABMS
FBMS
SZOK
DISK
KUBA
750000
2800
1779
1011
750
1781
10000
4795
8340
15842
25000
22508
23
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
percentage of total number of object type/ total number of objects can be seen in Figure 8 and Table 7. It can be seen that some systems are used to deal exclusively with bridges, such as APTBMS and Eirspan, whereas others are used to deal with a wide range of infrastructure objects, such as BatMan and KUBA.
35000 30000
Number of Objects
25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

APTBMS QBMS Eirspan DANBRO RPIBMS Lat Brutus KRBMS BaTMan Pontis OBMS SMOK SGP GBMS ABMS FBMS SZOK DISK KUBA
Other objects Retaining Walls Tunnels Culverts Bridges
System
Figure 7. Total number of objects per object type per principal user
Percentage of total number of objects
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
APTBMS Eirspan DANBRO RPIBMS Lat Brutus KRBMS BaTMan Pontis OBMS QBMS SMOK SGP GBMS ABMS FBMS SZOK DISK KUBA
Other objects Retaining Walls Tunnels Culverts Bridges
System
Figure 8. Percentage of total number
4.3
Archived construction information
Only five of the systems permit construction information to be archived in the system, although the majority of systems allow the information to be either stored in some way or referenced (Figure 9). It was assumed that if data could be entered into the system that reports could also be uploaded.
24
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
6
Number of Systems
5 4 3 2 1 0 Basic data Uploaded reports entered, uploaded reports References No or not given
Type of archived construction information
Figure 9. Archived construction information
Table 8. Archived construction information Basic data entered, uploaded reports 1 1 Uploaded reports
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total
Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis
References
No or not given
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 3
4.4
Archived inspection and intervention information
All systems currently in operation allow archiving of inspection and intervention information. Information for the GBMS was not given.
25
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
5
5.1
INSPECTION INFORMATION
Level of information storage (element or structure), Type of information handled on element level, Type of information handled on structure level, and Type of information handled on project level. Level of information storage
The following inspection information is summarized in the report:
All systems currently in operation allow the storing of inspection information at both the element and structure level (Table 9). The only system where this was not reported was the GBMS, the prototype.
Table 9. Collection of inspection data and ability to enter condition, safety, vulnerability and risk, and load carrying capacity information from inspections on the element level Inspection data on element level Not Yes given 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 Condition Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 No Safety, vulnerability, risk Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 No Load carrying capacity Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlan ds Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerlan d USA USA Total
10
5.2
Information handled on the element level
The following was reported on the element level (Table 9): All 18 of the systems handle information on condition. Fourteen of the systems handle information related to safety, vulnerability or risk. There is, however, some ambiguity in how respondents interpreted the field on safety, vulnerability, risk,
26
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
at the element level. It was intended that there was at least some explicit consideration of the probability of failure of the element and the consequences of the element failing. Eight of the systems handle information on load carrying capacity.
Although not specifically requested in the questionnaire, information was provided on the number of condition states used in each system for 16 systems (Figure 10, Table 10).The majority of systems use ratings of six condition states or fewer. Although noted in the questionnaire as not given it is known that Pontis can handle up to five condition states. In Pontis the number of condition states used depends on the organization that licenses it. The range of condition states currently being used is three to five, with four being the most common.
6 5
Number of Systems
4 3 2 1 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 Not given
Number of condition states
Figure 10. Number of condition states
27
Adey, Klatter, Kong

Table 10. Number of condition states Number of condition states No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 3 4 1 1 1 1 5 6 7 8 9
IABMAS 2010
100
Not given
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 4 0 0 1 1 1 2
5.3
Information handled on the structure level
The following was reported that on the structure level (Table 11): Seventeen of the systems handle condition information from inspections. The other, the FBMS, generates a condition rating for the structure based on element level information. Thirteen of the systems handle information from inspections with respect to safety, risk, vulnerability. The same ambiguity exists on the structure level as on the element level, though. Fourteen systems handle information from inspections on load carrying capacity. There is, however, some ambiguity in the answers provided. The question was intended to determine whether information on the load carry capacity could be entered during an inspection. It is not clear that all respondents interpreted the question in this way. For example, many state agencies in the USA commonly do not ask their inspectors to determine the load-carrying capacity of a structure, but enter the information into the system once it is calculated by an engineer.
28
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Table 11. Ability to enter condition, safety, vulnerability and risk, and load carrying capacity information from inspections on the structure level Condition No. Country Name Yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherla nds Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerla nd USA USA Total OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 No Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 No Safety, vulnerability, risk Not given Load carrying capacity Yes 1 1 1 1 No Not given
6
6.1
INTERVENTION INFORMATION
The type of interventions handled on the element level, The type of interventions handled on the structure level, The type of interventions handled on the project level, and The type of costs information handled, Information handled on the element level
The following intervention information is summarized in the report:
The following was reported that on the element level (Table 12): Twelve of the systems have predefined interventions. Sixteen of the systems allow user defined interventions. Thirteen of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies.
29
Adey, Klatter, Kong

Table 12. Intervention information on the element, structure and project level Element level User defined/ custom Intervention strategy Predefined standard Structure level User defined/ custom Intervention strategy Predefined standard Predefined standard
IABMAS 2010
Project level User defined/ custom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Intervention strategy 1 1 1 1 1 5
No.
Country
Name
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Canada OBMS Canada QBMS Denmark DANBRO Finland FBMS Germany GBMS Ireland Eirspan Italy APTBMS Japan RPIBMS Korea KRBMS Latvia Lat Brutus Netherlan DISK ds Poland SMOK Poland SZOK Spain SGP Sweden BaTMan Switzerlan KUBA d USA ABMS USA Pontis Total
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 12
1 1 1 8
1 13
1 1 14
1 8
1 2
6.2
Information handled on the structure level
The following was reported on the structure level (Table 12): Eight of the systems have predefined interventions. Fourteen of the systems allow user defined intervention. Eight of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies.
There is, however, some ambiguity in the answers. Some respondents stated that the predefined interventions on the structure level were built from the predefined interventions on the element level where it is expected that others may not have indicated this even if it was true. 6.3 Information handled on the project level
The following was reported on the project level (Table 12): Two of the systems have predefined interventions. 30
Adey, Klatter, Kong Nine of the systems allow user defined intervention. Two of the systems either calculate, or allow entry of, intervention strategies.
IABMAS 2010
It is believed, however, that the question was not commonly understood. It was meant to mean that multiple objects could be taken into consideration. 6.4 Intervention costs
The following was reported with respect to intervention costs (Figure 11, Table 13): 18 16
Number of Systems
Seventeen of the systems can handle intervention cost information. The exception is the KRSBM. Eleven of the systems consider life-cycle costing at least partly. Only a minority of systems (6/18) handle inspection costs. Nine of the systems handle traffic delay costs. These systems either calculate or allow entry of the costs of traffic delay. Nine of the systems handle indirect user costs. These systems either calculate or allow entry of the indirect costs.
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay Indirect user cost cost Cost information Life-cycle costing
Figure 11. Cost information
31
Adey, Klatter, Kong

Table 13. Cost and prioritization information Cost information No. Country Name Inspection cost Intervention cost 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 Traffic delay cost 1 1 1 1 1 Indirect user cost 1 1 1 1 1 1 Life-cycle costing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IABMAS 2010
Prioritization Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 1 1 6
1 1 1 1 9
1 1 1 9 1 1 1 11
1 1 1 1 1 12 6
6.5
Prioritization
Twelve of the systems prioritize interventions, although there are seemingly large differences in how interventions are prioritized, including the use of condition, cost benefit analysis, risk, combined rating of multiple priority indices and using user defined ratings (Table 13). This information can be found in the questionnaires in the appendix.
7
7.1
PREDICTION INFORMATION
Predictive capabilities of the systems; Planning time frames; and Uses of prediction information Predictive capabilities
The following prediction information is summarized in the report:
The following was reported with respect to predictive capabilities (Figure 12, Table 14): Nine of the systems can predict deterioration. Five of these systems use probabilistic methods.
32
Adey, Klatter, Kong -
IABMAS 2010
Nine of the systems are reported to predict improvement, i.e. the improvement due to future interventions, of which two are reported to use probabilistic methods. Thirteen of the systems are reported to predict costs. As there are only nine systems that predict future deterioration and improvements due to future interventions, it is assumed that the additional four systems that predict costs do so only on an operational basis, i.e. taking into consideration only the existing condition state and likely intervention costs for the objects in those condition states.
18 16
Number of Systems
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Deterioration Improvement Predictive capability Cost
Figure 12. Predictive capabilities
Table 14. Predictive capabilities No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlan ds Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerlan d USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Deterioration Yes Prob. Det. 1 1 Improvement Yes Prob. Det. 1 1 Cost No Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 4 1 9 1 9 1 2 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 No
Yes 1 1 1 1
No
Yes 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
33
Adey, Klatter, Kong 7.2 Planning time frames
IABMAS 2010
Although not asked in the questionnaires, it was possible in many cases to deduce the planning time frames (Figure 13, Table 15, Table 16). Two time frames were considered: a short time frame for the development of work programs, and a long time frame for the prediction of future budgets and the development of maintenance policies.
The difference between the predictions may either be different methods of calculation or simply a recommendation of what may be viably considered and what not. In the analysis, the long time frame was taken to be identical to that of the short, if only one predictive period was specified. The short time frame prediction periods for Pontis were not given in the questionnaire, most likely because the agencies that license Pontis are able to configure the work program horizon, i.e. short time frame, to be any period from five years to 30 years to fit their budgeting processes. A ten-year horizon is most common. Although the long time frame prediction periods, seen the users of Pontis, was not reported, most likely due to the freedom agencies that license Pontis have in defining it.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Number of Systems
Short term Long term
96-100
6-10
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
11-15
16-20
21-25
46-50
51-55
56-60
Years
Figure 13. Planning time frames
Not given
1-5
N/A
34
Adey, Klatter, Kong

Table 15. Time frame for short-term predictions Short term
IABMAS 2010
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherland s Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1
Table 16. Time frame for long-term predictions Long term 96-100 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 6-10 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 1 1 1-5 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherland s Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Not given
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Not given
6-10
N/A
1-5
No.
Country
Name
96-100
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
35
Adey, Klatter, Kong 7.3 Uses of prediction information
IABMAS 2010
The following was reported with respect to the use of prediction information (Figure 14, Table 17): 16 14
Fifteen of the systems are used to prepare budgets. Five of the systems are used to set performance standards. Eight of the systems are used to match funding sources.
Number of Systems
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Budget preparation Setting of performance standards Selected Uses Matching funding sources
Figure 14. Uses of prediction information
Table 17. Uses of prediction information Used for Setting of performance standards 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 the determination of matching funding sources 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 8
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total
Budget preparation 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 15
36
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
8
8.1
OPERATION INFORMATION
Data collection information, and The education and qualification information of those that use the system Data collection
The following operation information is summarized in the report:
It was reported that in the majority of system (Figure 15, Table 18), that: Inventory information is normally collected and entered by both the infrastructure owner and private companies Inspection and assessment information is normally collected and entered by the infrastructure owners and private companies, and Intervention information is normally entered by the infrastructure owner. The planning of interventions using the system is normally only done by the owner.
14 12
Number of Systems
10 8 6 4 2 0 Owner Owner and Companies Rights to use Companies Inventory Inspection/ Assessment Intervention/ Planning
Figure 15. Rights to use
37
Adey, Klatter, Kong

Table 18. Rights to use Inventory Owner and Companies Companies Owner Owner No. Country Name Inspection/ Assessment Owner and Companies Companies Owner
IABMAS 2010
Intervention/ Planning Owner and Companies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 4 1 Companies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 12 3 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 13
8.2
Education and qualification
The following was reported (Figure 16, Table 19) with respect to the education and qualification of those that use the systems: For seventeen of the systems there is education for inspectors that entered data into the system. For fourteen of the systems there is certification of inspectors that enter data into the system. For eleven of the systems there is education provided for users of the system. For three of the systems there is a certification of the user of the system.
38
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
18 16
Number of Systems
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Yes Existence No Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users
Figure 16. Education and qualification
Table 19. Education and qualification No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Education for inspectors Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 Certification of inspectors Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 4 Education for users Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 7 Certification for users Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 15
39
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Infrastructure managers increasingly use management systems to support their decision-making processes with respect to the infrastructure objects for which they are responsible. These systems are being either developed internally by the managing organization itself (with or without the help of private companies) or are being bought off-the-shelf and modified to suit their needs. At least partially due the active development of these systems and the many different sources from which this development is taking place, most owners and developers of these systems lack an up-todate view of the capabilities of the most advanced of these systems and how their system compares to others. Such knowledge could be used to help determine future development of their systems or allow identification of who to contact to investigate in detail how others have done, or are doing, what they are planning to do. This report, which is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1), from 15 countries, being used to manage approximately 900000 objects, helps to fill this gap by providing a general overview of the surveyed management systems. It is expected that this report will improve infrastructure management by reducing duplicate efforts in the integration of new functionality into management systems and by encouraging the development of ever better systems. Some specific conclusions emerging from the synthesis of the questionnaires are included in the following three subsections. 9.1 on the BMSs in the report
A majority of the systems included in this report are used by multiple users, 12/18 (paragraph 2.2), and with the exception of PONTIS all systems are used within one country. This is most likely due to the differences in bridge management practices between countries. It also indicates that when off the shelf systems are adopted by an agency that they are significantly modified, resulting in a new system and hence a new name (e.g. Eirspan that was developed using DANBRO as a starting point). Based on this observation, it is suggested that the need for standardization in the field of bridge (or infrastructure) management be investigated. It is the authors opinion that a certain level of standardization could potentially enhance the exchange of knowledge and experience between managing agents, and improve the usefulness of management systems. 9.2 on the type of information gathered
The information gathered for this report provides a good overview of features of many of the most advanced bridge management systems currently used in the world. For the next edition of this report it is intended to improve the questionnaire: to increase the value of the report for the end users, to include more bridge management systems, and to reduce the effort for respondents.
40
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
The feedback from the members of the IABMAS BMC and from those who filled out the questionnaires will be used to make the improvements. 9.3 on the process of compiling this report
The process of sending out questionnaires, responding and compiling the report did not include a feedback loop to check the completeness of this information and the interpretation of the answers provided in the questionnaires with the respondents. Such a feedback loop will enhance the quality of the report in terms of consistency and synchronisation of information in the main part of the report and questionnaires in the appendices. A feedback loop will be included in the compilation of the next edition.
10 REFERENCES
1. BRIME report BRIME: BRIdge Management in Europe, Final report, 2001, European Commission DG VII, 4th Framework Programme (www.trl.co.uk/brime/index.htm) 2. Arches, Assessment and Rehabilitation of Central European Highway Structures, Recommendation on Systematic Decision Making Processes Associated with Maintenance and Reconstruction of Bridges, Deliverable D09 (ARCHES-02-DE09), August 2009 (http://arches.fehrl.org/)
41
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11 QUESTIONNAIRES
11.1 Ontario Bridge Management System, OBMS
Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Ontario Bridge Management System - OBMS description Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Stantec Consulting Ltd. http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/ and www.stantec.com Version 1.0 (2002) Current Version 2.0.1 (2008) Stantec Consulting Ltd. (www.stantec.com ) Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/ (English) Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), municipal agencies in Ontario, other Canadian Provinces description Oracle and Microsoft Access Client Server, and Local Database (eg in field) Desktop computer, and Tablet Computers (eg. in field) Crystal Reports, inventory, inspection, analysis results. No. Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 700 Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures * > 3m span Protection structures description Bridge historical maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement contract cost information. Stored in system, .pdf reports optional. Bridge historical maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement contract cost information.
Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels Bridges 2,800 Culverts* 1,900 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
Inventory information (of principal user)
IT information
42
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level
Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional
Ontario Bridge Management System - OBMS description Detailed Visual Inspection of all bridge elements (condition state, severity and extent of defects), and Performance Deficiencies (eg safety or load carrying capacity) Appraisals for Live Load Capacity, Fatigue, Seismic, Scour, Barriers / Railings/ Curbs description Four (4) condition states, defects identified and quantified by Detailed Visual Inspection Performance Measures (load capacity, safety, performance) Performance Measures (load capacity) description Bridge Condition Index (BCI) out of 100, based on element level condition Appraisal Rating for Barriers/Railings and Code Performance Level, and Appraisal Rating for Curbs Appraisal Rating for Load Capacity, Live Load Capacity (tones), and Posted Load Limits Appraisal Rating for Fatigue, Appraisal Rating for Seismic, Appraisal Rating for Scour/Flood
43
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Element level Predefined standard
User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention information Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
Ontario Bridge Management System - OBMS description Default treatments, and unlimited user defined treatments for maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement, including unit costs and effectiveness. Yes, see above. Defined Treatments are applied to element condition states, evaluated using lifecycle cost analysis, and provided to Project Level. description Yes at Element Level. Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation or Replacement, consistent with Element Level Recommended actions, timing and costs developed from Element Level and selected based on lifecycle cost analysis. description Cost and Benefit adjustment factors can be applied at the Project Level. Default is none. Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation, or Replacement. Analysis is based on lifecycle cost analysis framework description Cost of inspection is not included. Intervention costs are specified at element level for specific treatments Yes, included in user defined project cost factors Yes, included in user defined project cost factors Element and Project Level based on lifecycle cost analysis. description Prioritization is based on lifecycle (Benefit/Cost), and on Bridge Condition Index (BCI) at the Network Level. Budgets can be specified or Target BCI can be specified.
44
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Prediction information
Planning time-frame
Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional
Ontario Bridge Management System - OBMS description Default and User Defined Markovian deterioration models for each element/material type are specified. Repair, rehabilitation and replacement of elements. Also complete structure replacement. Project costs are calculated from element treatment unit costs, for current condition and also forecasted to future timing using deterioration models. Detailed lifecycle cost analysis 10 years followed by long term lifecycle cost analysis for an additional50 years. Ten year budgets (Years 1-5, and 6-10) with prioritized projects and resulting network performance measure (BCI) are provided based on the detailed lifecycle cost analysis. description Yes Yes No. A feature in the Network Analysis enables budget setting for predefined Regions, instead of the Provincial total budget. Projects are prioritized to suit these budget constraints and distributed to the Regions accordingly, resulting in a different set of projects than calculated using a global Provincial budget. data collecting group Owner (MTO or municipality), or can be assigned to engineering consultants. OBMS prepares check-out/check-in database for selected structures to provide to consultants. Generally assigned to engineering consultants, but can also be performed by Owner (MTO or municipality). OBMS prepares checkout/check-in database for selected structures to provide to consultants. Owner Stantec performs budgeting and prioritization service for municipalities for a fee. description Inspections performed by or under direct supervision of Professional Engineer with background in bridge inspection. All inspectors required to complete basis training course, and regular MTO update inspection courses. No, generally inspectors and engineers. No. Internal User Group (MTO). Full BMS is available in Tablet Computer version.
Data collection Inventory
Inspection/assessment Operational information Additional
Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other Tablet Computers
45
Adey, Klatter, Kong 11.2 Quebec Bridge Management System, QBMS

Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages)
IABMAS 2010
Basic information
Quebec Bridge Management System - MPS description Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/accueil_en Version 1.0 (2008) Current Version 1.0 (2009) (MPS) Stantec Consulting Ltd. (www.stantec.com ) Quebec Structure Inspection Manuals http://www1.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/en/pub_ligne/index.asp (French) a) Design and Implementation of a New Bridge Management System for the Ministry of Transport of Qubec, IABMAS 08 Korea b) The Qubec Ministry of Transports Bridge Project Tactical Planning Dashboard, Transportation Association of Canada, Toronto 2008. Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) description Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, and Microsoft SQL Express Client Server, and Local Database Desktop computer Crystal Reports, inventory, inspection, analysis results. Yes inventory and inspection. Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 500 Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures * > 3m span Protection structures description Bridge historical maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement contract cost information. Stored in system, .pdf reports optional. Bridge historical maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement contract cost information.
Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels Bridges 8,700 Culverts* Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
IT information
46
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard
User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention information Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
Quebec Bridge Management System - MPS description Detailed Visual Inspection of all bridge elements (condition state, severity and extent of defects), and Performance Rating Live Load Capacity Rating, Indices for Seismic Vulnerability, Historic Structure, Functionality. description Four (4) condition states, defects identified and quantified by Detailed Visual Inspection Load capacity, seismic Detailed Live load rating factors and calculation information description Bridge Condition Index (BCI) out of 100, based on element level condition Performance Rating for Barriers/Railings /Curbs and other elements Rating for Live Load Capacity (tonnes), and Posted Load Limits Historic Structure Index, Functionality Index description Default treatments, and unlimited user defined treatments for repair, rehabilitation and replacement, including unit costs and effectiveness. Yes, see above. Defined Treatments are applied to element condition states, evaluated using lifecycle cost analysis, and provided to Project Level. description Yes at Element Level. Repair, Rehabilitation or Replacement, consistent with Element Level, and Functional Improvements (widening, strengthening) Recommended actions, timing and costs developed from Element Level and selected based on lifecycle cost analysis. description Cost and Benefit adjustment factors can be applied at the Project Level. Default is none. Repair, Rehabilitation, or Replacement . Analysis is based on lifecycle cost analysis framework description Cost of inspection is not included. Intervention costs are specified at element level for specific treatments Yes, included in user defined project cost factors Yes, included in user defined project cost factors Element and Project Level based on lifecycle cost analysis. description Prioritization is based on lifecycle (Benefit/Cost), and on Bridge Condition Index (BCI) at the Network Level. Budgets can be specified or Target BCI can be specified.
47
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Prediction information
Planning time-frame
Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional
Quebec Bridge Management System - MPS description Default and User Defined Markovian deterioration models for each element/material type are specified. Repair, rehabilitation and replacement of elements. Also complete structure replacement. Project costs are calculated from element treatment unit costs, for current condition and also forecasted to future timing using deterioration models. Detailed lifecycle cost analysis 10 years followed by long term lifecycle cost analysis for an additional 50 years. Ten year budgets (Years 1-5, and 6-10) with prioritized projects and resulting network performance measure (BCI) are provided based on the detailed lifecycle cost analysis. description Yes Yes No. A feature in the Network Analysis enables budget setting for predefined Regions, instead of the Provincial total budget. Projects are prioritized to suit these budget constraints and distributed to the Regions accordingly, resulting in a different set of projects than calculated using a global Provincial budget. data collecting group Owner (MTQ), or can be assigned to engineering consultants. Prepares check-out/check-in database for selected structures to provide to consultants. Assigned to engineering consultants, and also be performed by Owner (MTQ) using check-out/check-in database for selected structures to provide to consultants. Owner description Inspections performed by or under direct supervision of Professional Engineer with background in bridge inspection. All inspectors required to complete basis training course, and regular MTQ update inspection courses. Internal training. No. Powerful project level electronic dashboard available. See reference b).
Data collection Inventory
Operational information Additional
Inspection/assessment
Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other Electronic Dashboard
48
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.3 DANBRO Bridge Management System, DANBRO

Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information DANBRO description Road Directorate 2009/1988 Road Directorate vd@vd.dk www.Roaddirectorate.dk http://www.vejsektoren.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=document&objno=1000 54 Available in Danish Road Directorate (National roads /railways/municipality roads) description Windows XP/Delphi 7 Client / Server Data is entered manually in a desktop computer Reports, graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 50 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Archives are included in the system Inspection reports are uploaded (pdf) Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports.
References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels 0 Bridges 6000 Culverts 6000 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 0 0
IT information
49
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard
DANBRO description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions are performed. Other information can be stored, e.g. test results, plans, photos. Aggregated from element level (see next section) description Elements have a condition rating (0-5) based on visual inspection. Is assigned and based on the condition ranking. Yes (Bridge level) description Aggregated from all elements in a structure, worst condition is default. It can be overruled by user. Can be assigned by the user. Can be assigned by the user. description Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined. They can be modified by the user. No Reference strategies are available. They can be overruled by the user. description No Yes Yes description Yes, by description Yes Yes description Generally on the structure level, although the cost of detailed inspections can be included on element level Yes Yes Yes Partly, all interventions are considered to be cyclic, and LCC is used to estimate the long term costs of the intervention strategies. description Based on condition marks.
User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
Intervention information
50
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost
DANBRO description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Offline models are available to correspond with information in the system. Improvements stored in the system. Intervals are assigned as input to all interventions in the system. This enables a partial LCC computation. The system does not generate LCC itself. Year + 10 and used for operational planning. description This information is used as advice for basic planning, and a reference for actual planning. It is also an indicator for structures that do no comply with the target maintenance level. No Yes data collecting group Owner, can be assigned to engineering companies Owners and inspectors from engineering companies Owner description Training course at Road Directorate developed with engineering companies. Mandatory for inspectors. Personal certificate based on above training. Training course by Road Directorate Inspectors personal certificate based on requirements User groups discuss problems and solutions to improve quality.
Prediction information Operational information Additional
Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation
For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
51
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.4 The Finnish Bridge Management System, FBMS

Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities The Finnish BMS (Bridge Register & Project Level BMS) description Tiehallinto (The Finnish Road Administration FINNRA) www.tiehallinto.fi 2009 / 1990 & 1995 Tiehallinto ( www.tiehallinto.fi ) User handbooks for Bridge Register and the Project Level BMS (Hanke-Siha) (in Finnish) Inspection quidelines and handbook (in Finnish) Tiehallinto / cities and communities, consultants companies description Oracle 8 database, Oracle Forms 5, running in CitrixClient- Server Data entered manually 70 ready to use -reports with Visual Basic, Oracle Reports , can be printed in PDF, Excel and Word format Add hoc reports with SQL*Plus, printed in Ascii and Excel - format No, a special web-portal from outside Finnra to Citrix server Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0
IT information
Web access Structure types Bored tunnels
Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
No. on-going data collection (about 20) 11487 3078 0 0
Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures
0 0 0
Quays Piers
about 100 together
Protection 0 structures description Manual bridge folders for planning, design, calculations, construction papers Special inspection reports and research results are preserved in manual archives and bridge folders (basic inputs to Bridge Register) Yes, older repair data (before 1985) not complete
52
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Inspection information Safety, vulnerability, risk
Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Maintenance target measures
Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
The Finnish BMS (Bridge Register & Project Level BMS) description Visual inspections with damage description and estimated repair measures and costs with photos, drawings, test results Visual inspections with damage description and estimated repair measures and costs with photos, drawings, test results description The nine main structural parts' condition is evaluated by the inspector, rates 0-4 (very good - very poor) Is taken into consideration by giving the "repair urgency" grade (immediate, in 2 years, in 4 years, later, no repair) Estimated condition with age behavior curves can be predicted. Only remark "the damage has effect to the load carrying capacity" description The overall condition is evaluated by the inspector, rates 0-4 (very good - very poor) Conclusions can be drawn from the element level Loading tests, evaluation of the need of load limitations, Calculations for special heavy transports. 1) Bridges in "bad condition", the measure "official condition class" (15, very poor to very good) is calculated from the condition and damage information given by the inspector. Bad condition means the classes 1 and 2. 2) Sum of damage points, calculated from the damage information given by the inspector. description Lists of parameters. Inspection handbook gives rules for actions according to structure and damages (Bridge Register and BMS) In BMS yes Repair urgency class (immediate, in 2 years, in 4 years, later, no repair) for every recorded damage description In BMS yes Lists of parameters. Inspection handbook gives rules for actions according to structure and damages (Bridge Register and BMS) Repair urgency, written recommendations by the inspector, the next year of inspection by the inspector description Yes SILKO Bridge Repair Manual Repair index, Reconstruction index, optimal repair policy in BMS description No Yes No No No description Repair index, Reconstruction index, Damage Index
53
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Prediction information
The Finnish BMS (Bridge Register & Project Level BMS) description Age behavior models for structural elements' deterioration Repair measure models LCA and LCC analyses Repair programs for coming 6 years description Yes, by the bridge engineer in the road region Yes, by the Central Administration of Finnra Yes, by the Central Administration of Finnra data collecting group Road regions have the responsibility of basic data collection, engineering companies' inspection consultants possibly input the data, too. Engineering companies' inspection consultants Planning is made by bridge engineers, consultant companies can be involved in some cases description Inspection training course, 3-4 days theory, 1 day in situ training, 1 day examination (theory and in situ inspection) Inspection course examination, no inspections without it. Bridge Register basic course 2 days, BMS basic course 2 days The Bridge Register course (no examination demanding) Yearly training day for bridge inspectors is obligatory. This means "calibration" of inspectors, everyone inspects the same bridge, data is inputted into the Bridge Register. Statistical measures of divergence are calculated. The results lead to "inspector's quality points", which are used when comparing the inspection offers in competitive biddings. If someone does not participate, the quality points from the earlier year are reduced according special rules. A report of inspection quality is produced yearly to follow the data quality. The programs are old. A new design competitive bidding is going on. The design work starts in the end of September this year. Both the Bridge Register and the Project Level BMS (Hanke-Siha) are totally renewed. This means that new features and possibilities for new data will be added. The new programs should be in use in early 2011.
Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Operational information Additional Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other Bridge Inspector Qualifications
Inspection Quality Report
54
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.5 Bauwerk Management System, GBMS

Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Basic information Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1.0) description no BMS under development; prototype will be available and end of 2009 none Not yet (expected in 2010) Federal ministry of traffic building and urban affairs an and Federal states description
No Structure types No. Locks and sluices 0 Retaining Walls Storm surge 0 barriers Support structures Protection structures description Program SIB-Bauwerke Program SIB-Bauwerke Program SIB-Bauwerke
Structure types Weirs Quays Piers
No. 0 0 0
55
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Inspection information Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1.0) description yes yes description yes Stability, traffic safety and durability description Yes (calculated with information from element level) Yes (calculated with information from element level) For the whole bridge Guideline RI-EBW-PRF for the assessment of the damages/defects is basis for calculation of condition index description Warning and threshold values for damages/defects description Threshold values Cost-benefit-analysis description Threshold values Cost-benefit-analysis (object level) and prioritization with knapsackalgorithms (network level) description no yes yes yes partly description no
56
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1.0) description Deterioration models (corrosion, chloride intrusion, carbonation) and service life model (e.g. for bearings and expansion joints) Measure catalogue implemented (different levels; repair, reconstruction) Cost catalogue implemented 6 year planning period and 20 years prediction period description Yes (financial scenario) Yes (quality scenario) no On network level two scenarios (financial and quality scenario) data collecting group Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality; plausibility test for construction and damage data in the BMS-Program Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality Meeting between federal ministry and federal states every 6 months description Further training courses (recommend not obligatory); www.vfib-ev.de Testing and the end of further training courses Not yet No -
Additional
Operational information
57
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.6 Eirspan
Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Eirspan (2008 version) description National Roads Authority, Ireland (www.nra.ie) 2008/2001 Original version developed by Danish Roads Directorate (www.vejdirektoratet.dk) Since 2004 developments made by National Roads Authority, Ireland (www.nra.ie) Individual manual produced for each module (inventory, principal inspection, routine maintenance, etc.) Manuals in English only. Manuals not made available on web. National Roads Authority description Interbase Client, Application server, database Data is entered manually on a desktop computer Printed reports with text, photographs & drawings Yes Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures Protection structures description Archive module contains electronic links to documents Historical condition ratings and photos are stored digitally Description can be stored in archive module
Basic information Inventory information (of principal user) IT information
References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels Bridges 2800 Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
58
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Inspection information Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition
Safety Load carrying capacity Additional
Eirspan (2008 version) description Visual structural inspections recording damage & repair details for each element are stored along with photos & sketches Comprises a summary of element level descriptions. description Condition ratings 0 (best) to 5 (worst) given for each of 13 structural elements Whilst formal risk assessments are not undertaken during inspections, safety and risk are considered in the condition rating. Assessment for load-carrying capacity can be requested as a Special Inspection based on visual inspection. description Condition rating (0 to 5) given for fourteenth structural element structure in general, based on worst condition rating for deck, bearings, piers, abutments or beams/girders. Can be overruled by inspector in exceptional circumstances. Safety may be considered within the condition rating. Inspecting engineer to contact NRA if condition rating = 4 or 5. Assessment for load-carrying capacity can be requested as a Special Inspection based on visual inspection. Repair costs are stored for damaged components.
59
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy
Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Intervention information Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost
Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing
Prioritization Performance measures
Eirspan (2008 version) description A list of standard intervention types for each element is included in the Principal Inspection manual Inspector can define custom interventions if the standard list does not adequately address the damage in question. Inspector chooses the appropriate strategy from the list of standard intervention types, or can enter customized intervention strategy if required. description Comprises information provided at element level. No Intervention strategy for each structure is heavily influenced by information provided at element level. description Information entered for archive only Information entered for archive only Information entered for archive only description Not stored on the database. The system does provide a list of inspections required per year, which may be used to predict annual inspection costs. Estimate of repair cost is entered during inspection. Facility exists for entering actual intervention costs after work is complete. Costs not stored on the BMS, but may be considered when comparing repair strategies for major schemes. Guidelines exist. Costs not stored on the BMS, but may be considered when comparing repair strategies for major schemes. Guidelines exist. Costs not stored on the BMS, but may be considered at a structure level when comparing repair strategies for major schemes. Guidelines exist. LCC not considered at network level. description Advanced prioritization methods are not used. Prioritization of structural interventions is heavily influenced by condition ratings from inspection reports combined with traffic volumes and route importance.
60
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Prediction information
Eirspan (2008 version) description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Improvements are not modeled in the system. There is no effective way of using the system to provide intervention costs to reasonable accuracy. Annual intervention costs based on repairs stated in inspection reports and unit rates of repair can be provided for up to 6 years, but are inaccurate given the associated uncertainties. Inspections only, years 1 to 6. description A facility exists but it is inaccurate (see cost above) No No None data collecting group National Roads Authority and engineering consultancy firms National Roads Authority and engineering consultancy firms National Roads Authority only description Minimum qualification degree in civil engineering or equivalent Minimum experience 4 years bridgeworks including 1 year bridge inspections. Must also attend 4-day bridge inspection workshop in order to be an inspection Team Leader. Regional bridge managers must have degree in civil engineering or equivalent. Regional bridge managers must have 7 years satisfactory engineering experience. Note: National Roads Authority responsible for national road bridges only. Non-national bridges are managed by local authorities. Bridge is categorized as 2.0m span or greater.
Operational information Additional
Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors
Education for users Certification for users Other
61
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.7 APT-BMS, APTBMS

Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) APT-BMS (2008) description Provincia Autonoma di Trento (Autonomous Province of Trento) (http://bms.heidi.it/ - guest access: user: guest; passwd: dims425) 2008 / 2004 University of Trento, Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering (http://www.ing.unitn.it/dims) 3 User manuals and 11 procedures (http://bms.heidi.it/ available at the front page; in Italian) Provincia Autonoma di Trento (Autonomous Province of Trento) / None description Microsoft SQL Client, Application Server, Database, Data Anlysis Server 800 Gb (can be expanded) Reports, graphical, tabular, GIS Yes Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures Protection structures description Any digital design document can be uploaded into the database; reference to hard paper archives is also included Current and past inspection report are generated on demand Past intervention are listed, design document can be uploaded
References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels Bridges 1011 Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
IT information
62
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level
Assessment on element level Condition
Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
APT-BMS (2008) description Each SU and C (see below) includes a set of Standard Elements (SE), which are specified in terms of quantity and Condition State. Inspection report and summary. In addition, the bridge is broken down into Structural Units (SU), such as deck, piles, abutments, which are defined as conceptual entities characterized by common attributes (such as length, material, typology, spatial location). The spatial arrangement of SUs is defined through logical entities labeled connections (C). description Evaluated at the element level on the basis of a procedure that acknowledges AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Standard Element System (3 to 5 possibly conditions identified based on visual inspection. Safety evaluated at the structural unit level, based on formal safety evaluation procedures. Recorded at the structure level. description Different condition indices (overall CS, apparent age) computed from the condition of the single elements. Risk computed from unit level Recorded into the database when formally assessed for sub-standard bridges. No description User can define the effect of interventions Effect of standard interventions are predefined, can be customized by user User define the routine maintenance policy description No No No description Yes No Yes description Yes Yes No (will be implemented in 2010 version) No (will be implemented in 2010 version) Yes for repair and replacement scenarios. description Automatic evaluation of two priority indices for replacement and repair scenarios. On-demand cumulative-time risk and cost analysis of specific MR&M scenarios.
Inspection information
63
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Operational information
APT-BMS (2008) description Based on Markovian models Based on Markovian models LCC evaluated based on intervention scenario and maintenance strategy. 5-year time span for short term intervention scenarios and 50- year time span for strategic planning. description Yes Available, but not exploited so far. Yes For performing risk analysis under specific scenarios, including earthquake and natural disasters. data collecting group Assigned to professional engineers. Owner (APT) for 1-year routine inspection. Assigned to professional engineers for 3-year principal inspections and formal safety evaluation. Owner (APT) description Mandatory training course offered by university. On-site support at the first inspection. No Yes No Posterior quality control of inspectors activity.
Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
Additional
64
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.8 BMS@RPI, RPIBMS

Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information BMS@RPI description
Kajima Corporation
http://www.kajima.com Regional Planning Institute of Osakahttp://www.rpi.or.jp/
Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
2009/2006 Kajima Corporation http://www.kajima.com Users manual and administration manual are available in Japanese language. Aomori Prefectural Government , Ibaraki Prefectural Government/ other cities description Microsoft Windows XP/Vista, Microsoft Access Desktop application Pen tablet PC, Digital Camera Graphical inspection report N/A Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 0 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Construction data can be stored in the form of PDF. Inspection data are updated periodically. Inspection data after the intervention can be recorded.
IT information
No. 0 750 0 0 0
65
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
BMS@RPI description The element level visual inspection are performed and damage description, type of deterioration with the degree of deterioration progress can be recorded at the bridge inspection site using tablet PC. Damage drawing and the place of photo taken can be also recorded at the bridge site using tablet PC description Condition state criteria (1-5) based on visual inspection are established on 35 different type of element and deterioration. According to the level of damage, the element which needs prompt action for the safety reason are designated based on the visual inspection. No description Each element is divided into unit, and the inspection is performed on unit basis. The condition of the structure can be assessed as an aggregation of unit. Assessment of safety is not performed on structure level, but the safety of the structure can be assessed if there is any heavily damaged unit in the structure. Load carrying capacity is not assessed on structure level. none description Standard intervention for each type of element and deterioration is pre-determined. They can be modified by the users. User can define the intervention. Several intervention strategies are implemented. description User can choose replacement of the structure. Replacement of the structure is predefined for particular type of damage of the element and the structure. Cathodic protection can be chosen as a structure level intervention against salt damage of the concrete. description No No No description Not included in the BMS. Yes No Yes LCC are obtained for the structure level as well as unit or element level. description Different interventions are predetermined according to the
Inspection information Intervention information
Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk
Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition
Safety
Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard
User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
66
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
performance target levels. BMS@RPI description The deterioration model curves are established with four deterioration speeds for each type of element and deteriorations. The level of improvement after repair, rehabilitation and replacement for each type of element and deterioration are provided together with the deterioration model curve after the interventions. Cost is not variant according time. Up to 100 years. description Yes. Our BMS has budget simulation function. User can set performance standard for each bridge by selecting appropriate Maintenance Scenarios which indicate performance level of element. Yes. By using the budget simulation function, user can easily find the best suitable intervention strategy for multi bridges which matches funding resources. No data collecting group Owner. Can be assigned to engineering companies. Owner. Can be assigned to engineering companies. Owner. Can be assigned to engineering companies. No description Training course is provided for users by RPI. RPI will provide the certificate of finishing standard BMS inspection course. Training course is provided for users by RPI. RPI will provide the certificate of finishing standard BMS education course User can share information through user meeting of BMS@RPI.
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration
Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Prediction information Operational information Additional Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources
Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
67
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.9 Korea Road Maintenance Business System, KRMBS

Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels 297 Bridges 5,317 Culverts 0 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 17 0 Korea Road Maintenance Business System description Korea Road Maintenance Business System (http://www.fims.mine.nu) - Facil Information Management System 2009/2003 Korea Institute of Construction Technology (http://www.kict.re.kr) User Manual KOROMBUS 2007 Administrator Manual KOROMBUS 2007 (in Korean) Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs / Regional Construction and Management Administration description Oracle 9i, Java/Jsp Application & WEB Server, Database, Client Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports, graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 0 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Reference to archives is included in the system Inspection reports are uploaded (pdf) Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports (history is not complete)
IT information
68
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
Korea Road Maintenance Business System description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions are performed. Other information can be stored, e.g. test results, plans, photos Aggregated from element level description Elements have a condition rating (A - E) based on visual inspection Safety assessment is performed in case of important bridges or need Load test is performed in case of important bridges or need description Aggregated from all elements in a structure Safety assessment is performed in case of important bridges or need Load test is performed in case of important bridges or need description No No No description No No No description No No No description Generally on the structure level No No No No description No
69
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Prediction information Operational information
Korea Road Maintenance Business System description No No No No description No No No data collecting group Regional Construction and Management Administration Generally inspectors of Regional Construction and Management Administration In case of detailed inspection and assessment, inspectors of engineering companies Regional Construction and Management Administration description No No Once a year(about two days) No -
Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
Additional
70
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.10 Lat Brutus

Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history No. 0 934 845 0 0 Lat Brutus (3.1) description State Joint Company LATVIAN STATE ROADS (www.lvceli.lv) 2004/2002 Norwegian Public Road Administration (www.vegvesen.no) and Latvian Road Administration (www.lvceli.lv) Users manual Lat Brutus in English () State Joint Company LATVIAN STATE ROADS () description Oracle 8i Client, Application server, Database. Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports and tabular. No Structure types No. Structure types Locks and sluices 0 Weirs Retaining Walls 0 Quays Storm surge 0 Piers barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Reference to archives is included in the system. Inspection reports originally are archives. Intervention is contained in uploaded reports. No. 0 0 0
IT information
71
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
Lat Brutus (3.1) description Visual inspections containing damage description are performed. Other information can be stored, e.g. test results, plans, photos. Aggregated from element level. description Elements have a condition rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. Elements have a safety rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. Elements have a carrying capacity rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. description Aggregated from all elements in a structure. Condition can be assigned by user. Although not standard. Safety risk aggregated from element level can be assigned by the user. Although not standard. Risk of insufficient load carrying capacity can be assigned by the user. description Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined. They can be modified by the user. User can define custom interventions. Reference strategies are available. They can be overruled by the user. description Composed by user from element level interventions. No No description Yes No Composed by the user. description No Yes No No No description Interventions are characterized with risk level and optimal and ultimate intervention times.
72
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Prediction information Operational information Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other Additional
Lat Brutus (3.1) description No No No No description Yes No Yes data collecting group Manager (Latvian State Roads) can be assigned to engineering companies. Inspectors from engineering companies. Manager (Latvian State Roads) description Training course at university developed with manager and university. Personal certificate based on minimal requirements. No Inspectors: personal certificate based on minimal requirements. User group (Latvian State Roads and engineers from private companies) discusses problems and solutions to improve quality.
73
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.11 DISK
Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information DISK (2006) description Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport) (www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgibin/index.cgi?site=13) 2006 / 1985 Rijkswaterstaat (www.rijkswaterstaat.nl) Users manual DISK 2006, Administration manual (www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgibin/index.cgi?site=13 in Dutch) Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport), National highways and water network / None description Microsoft SQL 2000 Client, Application Server, Database Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports, graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices 145 Weirs 10 Retaining Walls 20 Quays 0 Storm surge 6 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Reference to archives is included in the system Inspection reports are uploaded (pdf) Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports (history is not complete)
Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
IT information
No. 1 4000 600 13 0
74
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing
DISK (2006) description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions are performed. Other information can be stored, e.g. test results, plans, photos Aggregated from element level (see next section) description Elements have a condition rating (1 - 6) based on visual inspection, Safety risk assessed from damage, i.e. a risk (RAMS) level based on the condition ranking is assigned No description Aggregated from all elements in a structure; worst condition is default. It can be overruled by user Although not standard; safety risk aggregated from element level can be assigned by the user Although not standard; risk of insufficient load carrying capacity can be assigned by user description Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined. They can be modified by the user. User can define custom interventions Reference strategies are available. They can be overruled by the user. description Composed by user from element level interventions No No description No No No description Generally on the structure level although the cost of detailed inspections can be included on element level Yes No No Partly; all interventions are considered to be cyclic, and LCC is used to estimate the long term costs of the intervention strategies. Replacement costs of the structures are, however, not included. description Interventions are characterized with risk type (RAMS), risk level and optimal and ultimate intervention times.
75
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
DISK (2006) description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Offline models are available to correspond with information in the system Improvements, due to interventions, are not modeled in the system. Intervals are assigned as input to all interventions in the system. This enables a partial LCC computation. The system does not generate LCC itself. year+ 1 .. year +10 (later years are in the system, but not used for operational planning) description This information is used as advice for basic planning, and a reference for actual planning; it is also an indicator for structures that do not comply with the target maintenance level No No data collecting group Owner (Rijkswaterstaat), can be assigned to engineering companies Inspectors from engineering companies Owner (Rijkswaterstaat) N/A description Training course at university developed with owner, university and engineering companies. Not mandatory for inspectors. Personal certificate based on minimal requirements No Inspectors: personal certificate based on minimal requirements User group (Rijkswaterstaat and inspectors from private companies) discusses problems and solutions to improve quality
Prediction information Operational information Additional
Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation
For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
76
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.12 SMOK
Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels 26 Bridges 7 902 Culverts 24 189 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 0 0 SMOK 2000 description PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. (Polish Railway Lines) (http://www.plk-sa.pl) 2000/1997 Wroclaw University of Technology (www.pwr.wroc.pl ) Computer Inventory of Bridge Structures (Users Manual), 1997 (in Polish) PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. (Polish Railway Lines) description PC/Windows 95 or later Desktop, Proprietary Database Manual entry Textual, graphical & tabular reports No Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 771 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Underpasses 388 Protection 0 structures description Reference to archives is included in the system Various levels of inspection reports are generated by the system on the basis of inspection type and data Intervention history data are collected in the system
IT information
77
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition
SMOK 2000 description Inventory and inspection data are collected individually for basic elements General information about the whole structure and aggregated from element level description Condition rating of elements (scale 0-5) based on visual inspection and test results. Photos, plans, test results can be also stored in the system. Condition rating is supported by the expert system BEEF (Bridge Evaluation Expert System) based on hybrid network technology. No No description Aggregated from all elements by means of the predefined formula No Defined by bridge inspector on the basis of inspection results --description No User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions Defined by the user description User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions Based on the ranking list (ranking priorities are defined by the user) description User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions Based on the ranking list (ranking priorities are defined by the user) description No Yes, defined by user. No No No description Prioritization is based on the ranking list generated by the system (ranking priorities are defined by the user)
78
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other Additional
SMOK 2000 description No Information collected in the system are used for planning of the interventions Information collected in the system are used for assessment of the intervention cost Information collected in the system are used for 1-10 years planning description Information collected in the system are used for budget planning No No --data collecting group Owner, can be assigned to engineering or consulting companies Certified inspectors (owner or consulting companies) Owner --description Mandatory 2-level training courses for inspectors Personal certification based on education level, experience and results of the training courses Training courses and certification system for users Inspectors & users: personal certification based on education level, experience and results of the training courses -----
79
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.13 SZOK
Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels user depended Bridges Inventory information (of principal user) user depended user depended user depended user depended SZOK (2009) description Local road administration in Poland (individual users on regional levels) 2009/1998 Universal Systems s.c. (htpp://universal-systems.pl) Users Manual SZOK 2009 (in Polish) Local road administration in Poland description PC/Windows XP or later Desktop, Proprietary Database Manual entry Textual, graphical & tabular reports No Structure types No. Structure types Locks and sluices user Weirs depended Retaining Walls user depended user depended user depended user depended Quays
IT information
Culverts
Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures
Piers
Cut and cover tunnels
Galleries
No. user depend ed user depend ed user depend ed user depend ed user depend ed
Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
description Reference to archives is included in the system Various levels of inspection reports are generated by the system on the basis of inspection type and data Intervention history data are collected in the system
80
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition
SZOK (2009) description Inventory and inspection data are collected individually for basic elements General information about the whole structure and aggregated from element level description Condition rating of elements (scale 0-5) based on visual inspection and test results. Photos, videos, plans, test results can be also stored in the system. No No description Aggregated from all elements by means of the predefined formula No Defined by bridge inspector on the basis of inspection results --description No User can define interventions Defined by the user description Composed by user from element level interventions No No description No No No description No Yes, defined by user. No No No description History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form
81
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other Additional
SZOK (2009) description History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form. Can be used for deterioration process prediction. Information collected in the system are used for planning of the interventions Information collected in the system are used for assessment of the intervention cost Information collected in the system are used for 1-10 years planning description Information collected in the system are used for budget planning No No --data collecting group Owner, can be assigned to engineering or consulting companies Certified inspectors (owner or consulting companies) Owner --description Mandatory 2-level training courses for inspectors developed by two universities in Poland Personal certification based on education level, experience and results of the training courses Short introduction to the system based on the Users Manual Inspectors: personal certification based on education level, experience and results of the training courses -----
82
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.14 SGP
Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information SGP 2.0 description Ministerio de Fomento http://www.fomento.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/DIRECCION ES_GENERALES/CARRETERAS/ 2009 / 2005 GEOCISA (www.geocisa.com ) Inventory Manual, Maintenance Manual Main Inspections and Basic Inspections , User Manual, Installation Manual (Spanish) Ministerio de Fomento, Road Demarcations, Road Maintenance Areas. description Microsoft Visual FoxPro 7.0 MapObjects (GIS) Client / Server Application. Data is entered manually in a desk top computer. Its not necessary that the computer is connected to the network. After that, there is a program that uploads data to the database. You can also enter data directly into the database. Alphanumeric and graphic reports. Yes, web access to the same data. Structure types No. Structure types No. Footbridges 332 Pedestrian underpass 53
Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities
IT information
Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bridges Large dimensions structures Culverts Pipes Pontoon bridges Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
No. 7321 858 5979 2419 5546
description The application allows the introduction of construction documents. The application allows the introduction of inspection reports. The application allows the introduction of intervention documents.
83
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Inspection information
Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition
Safety Load carrying capacity Additional
SGP 2.0 description Damage indexes, damage measurements, damage descriptions, plans, graphical information, Inspection data are used by a decision algorithm to generate a bridge state index (structure index). description Elements have an index (0 - 100) based on all their damages (element index). Each damage is evaluated by three factors (extension, intensity and evolution), there are a fixed criteria in order to avoid subjectivity. The inspector may change this index. Safety risk assessed from damage depends on the element index. There are criteria for the index ranges. Only in inventory module is load carrying capacity information. description Structure also has an index (0 100) based on all the structure damages. The application use a decision algorithm. The inspector may change this index. Safety risk assessed from damage depends on structure index. There are criteria for the index ranges. Worst recommends urgent action. Only in inventory module is load carrying capacity information. Principal inspections planning. It makes possible to follow the maintenance evolution of each structure using graphs.
84
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategies
Project level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing
SGP 2.0 description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database. Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions. The application recommends intervention strategies (repairs) for each element. They can be modified by inspector/user. description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database. Optimization algorithms exist. Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions. The application recommends interventions for one structure or a set of structures. Then application prioritizes repairs according the elements state (damages state). User can define what parts of the bridge needs repair regardless of the state. description No No. No. description No There are costs catalogues in the database. The application calculates repair budgets and cost forecast. Traffic delay cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost. Indirect user cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost. No, the application tells us how much money we need to repair the structures, and only evaluate the current damages (the present structure state). description The application can prioritize repairs according the elements state (damages state), for one structure or a set of structures.
85
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other Prediction information Additional Operational information
SGP 2.0 description No. Evolution models are not implemented. No. No. No. description No. No. No. --data collecting group The owner (Ministerio de Fomento) selects engineering companies. Inspector of engineering companies. Rehabilitation and construction companies. --description Through training courses. Inspectors have to pass a test. Through manuals. No. The developer company solves issues by phone and email. GIS (GEOGRAPHYC INFORMATION SYSTEM) is included. Photographs (.bmp,.jpg,...formats) AND drawings (.dwg, .dwf,... formats) can be shown. Documents are opened automatically (.doc, .xls, .pdf,... formats) Queries can be customize by the user Statistical graphics Special inspections module.
86
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.15 Bridge and Tunnel Management System, BaTMan

Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) BaTMan 3.2 (2009) - [Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Swedish Road Administration [SRA] ( http://www.vv.se and http://batman.vv.se ) 2004 / 1987 SRA ( http://www.vv.se ) Available in the system BaTMan [Bridge and Tunnel Management system] in Swedish ( http://batman.vv.se ) SRA, Swedish Rail Administration, Swedish Association of Local Authorities (about 60 out of 290), City of Stockholm, Stockholm Transport, State-subsidized private Roads and Port of Gteborg, Consultants and Contractors. description MS SQL 2005 Webclient, Applicationserver, Database Data is entered manually in computers Reports, graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 1.300 Quays etc 380 Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures Others 3.000 Protection structures description In the system - Basic data, type of construction, material, length, elements, drawings etc. More data is available in physical archives as original drawings etc. Inspection data is entered manually. Documents as photo, reports, drawings etc. In the system and in physical archives.
Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types 1 Bored tunnels ) 2 Bridges ) Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data
IT information
No. 800 28.800 300 -
Inspection reports Intervention history
87
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
BaTMan 3.2 (2009) - [Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions. Other information can be stored photos, test results, drawings etc. Structure level Aggregated from element level. Assessment on element level description Condition The inspections shall reveal the physical and functional condition of the bridges and shall provide the basis for the planning and implementation of measures required to comply with the specified requirements in both the short and long term. Physical condition is described using the measurement variable defined for each method of measurement. Functional condition for the elements have a condition rating (0 - 3). All based on visual inspection. Safety, vulnerability, risk See structural level. Load carrying capacity The effects of damage on elements load carrying capacity is taken in consideration among other demands on the element. Assessment on structure level description Condition Element level condition is the basis for the structural condition. Used for planning remedial activities. Safety Risk analyses for the structures are to be implemented in the system. Load carrying capacity Yes for bridges. Additional 1) All tunnels, concrete, stone 2) The BaTMan system covers bridges with a theoretic span length > 2,0 m. Inspection information
88
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Element level Predefined standard
User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Intervention information
Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
BaTMan 3.2 (2009) - [Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Activity relates to the notional action for the damage found at the time of inspection and is given with a code according to a separate code schedule. (The actual action is determined when plans are drawn up for the whole bridge). No. See structure level. description No. No. Within the object planning module of the BaTMan system, the activities proposed in connection with the inspections are processed to an optimal strategy for the bridge concerned. Alternative action strategies are studied and current socio economic value calculated with a discount rate of 4 %. Allowance is made for the road user costs. As the main strategy, the alternative with the lowest current value cost is chosen. description No. No. No. description On structural level. Yes. A database of unit prices for technical solutions is available. Yes. No. The optimal strategy (see above) is calculated on a LCC-basis. description (Under implementation in the system): The prioritization between projects (necessary when the funds are insufficient) is principally based on the marginal socio-economic cost-benefit method. The benefit of saving money is compared with the extra cost of postponing the project one year. Conflicts with existing performance standards will be considered.
89
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
BaTMan 3.2 (2009) - [Bridge and Tunnel Management] description - The description below refers to a strategic prediction (simulation) tool of the BaTMan system. A (simple) deterioration model exists. A (simple) maintenance policy model exists. A (simple) cost model exists. 1-20 years. description Estimation of total needs and the distribution among organizational regions. Not yet directly, but under discussion. But indirectly already, by supporting the setting of the durability standards, i.e. long term performance standards. Estimation of the consequences of various fund levels. data collecting group Owner of structures and consultants, contractors etc. Inspectors from engineering companies, consultants and owners. Owners and in a small extent consultants. description Theoretical course at SRA. Mandatory for SRA constructions. Practical, on the field course provided by SRA, not mandatory. Non. Although there is a demand for an examination for the theoretical SRA course. Courses on using the BaTMan system is arranged by SRA. Non. There are groups, with person who represents owners of structures in the BaTMan system, for discussion of the use and development of the system.
Additional
90
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.16 KUBA
Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information References and Manuals (available at - languages) KUBA 4.0 description Swiss Federal Roads Authority, ASTRA (www.astra.admin.ch 2008 / 1991 Infrastructure management consultants (IMC) (www.imc-ch.com); CAD Rechenzentrum (www.cadrz.com) Users handbook KUBA-ADM, KUBA-DB, KUBA-MS, KUBA-RP, KUBAST, KUBA-Web, KUBA-Mobile, Operator handbook, Implementation handbook, Maintenance concept (www.astra.admin.ch in German, French and Italian) Swiss Federal Roads Authority / Multiple cantons in Switzerland description Oracle 11g, Microsoft.Net Framework 3.5 SP1 3 tier Client, Application Server, Database Entered in desk top computer, on-site with mobile computers, PDF formulars Reports, graphical and tabular Yes (read only) Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 1000 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 50 Protection 550 structures description As built; drawings, design calculations Entered electronically, can be generated in paper form Intervention information is recorded and reports can be generated
Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history
IT information
No. 115 5000 1250 250 125
91
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information
Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Other performance information Element level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
KUBA 4.0 description Visual inspection, other information is considered indirectly, but can be stored, e.g. Destructive and non-destructive test results, Plans, Photos Aggregated from element level description 5 state condition rating (1-5) based on visual inspection Deduced from condition rating Not on element level description 5 state condition rating (1-5) based on visual inspection Deduced from condition rating Estimated from simplified models of resistance and loads description User can define custom interventions No All possible condition based intervention strategies are evaluated description Yes No Built from the element level interventions description No No No description Can be entered on the element and project level, and is estimated on the element and project level Can be entered on the project level Can be entered on the project level Can be entered on the project level Yes description Structures with elements in condition state 5 (alarming) are suggested to receive interventions first to alleviate safety problems, the remaining structures requiring interventions are listed with respect to the expected benefit of performing the intervention strategy
92
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame
Use Used of system results for budget preparation Used for setting performance standards Used for matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
KUBA 4.0 description Probabilistic deterioration models based on the physical processes affecting the elements are used Probabilistic improvement models based on the impact of the interventions likely to be performed are used Optimal life cycle intervention strategies (based on condition evolution) on the element level and project level Interventions can be generated for up to 100 years but in general it is not suggested to use more than the first 5 years for planning on the operation al level. description Yes No Yes None data collecting group Assigned to private companies Inspectors from engineering companies Owner (ASTRA) Assigned to private companies description Training courses given on demand Controlled through independent checking of samples Training courses given on demand No -
Additional
93
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.17 ABIMS
Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Basic information IT information Structure No. types Bored tunnels 2 Bridges 9728 Culverts 6112 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history ABIMS description Alabama Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.al.us) 1994 ALDOT(www.dot.state.al.us) Bridge Inspection Manual and ABIMS User Manual (http://www.dot.state.al.us/Docs/Bureaus/Maintenance/Bridge+Maintenance /Bridge+Inspection.htm) ALDOT, Counties and Cities description IBM Mainframe, ASP.Net DB2, CICS Data is entered manually using computer Standard reports, Access for adhoc reports Web access is available to outside agencies to the mainframe through an Apache server Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Weirs Quays Piers
Protection structures description Stored in Document Management System Stored in Bridge Management System (ABIMS) Stored in ABIMS
94
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) ABIMS Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
description Visual inspections are performed on a set of agency defined elements Plans, photos, maintenance needed is stored by structure description Elements have a condition rating (1-9) based on visual inspection Safety requirements are based on conditions. Posting recommendations begin for conditions of 4 or less See above description Based on condition from elements Same as element Determined by structure analysis or by conditions as listed above description Standard interventions are predefined Interventions can be user defined but not captured in system description No Posting recommendation begin when conditions are 4 or less No description No No No description Inspection costs stored by structure The intervention performed is stored by structure no no No description
95
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
ABIMS description No Repair needed is captured in the system for each structure Cost are estimated by activity and stored for each structure Planning for maintenance is yearly, replacement done on 5 year plan but later years are stored description Information is used for budget and project planning no no data collecting group Owner Owner can be consultant Owner description NHI 2-week Safety inspection of In-Service Bridges and ALDOT 2-day Annual Bridge Inspection Refresher Course Minimum qualifications must be meet and must attend 2-day school at least every 2 years to keep certification ALDOT 2-day Annual Bridge Inspection Refresher Course Must be certified to enter inspection data
Additional
96
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
11.18 Pontis
Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at - languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Pontis (4.5 Client Server & 5.1 Web Version) description American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO, www.aashtoware.org and www.transportation.org Pontis 5.1- 2009 Pontis 4.5- 2009 Pontis 2.0- 1995 ( http://pontis.bakerprojects.com) (http://aashtoware.camsys.com) Technical Manual, Technical Notes, Users Manual (English) 46 Transportation Agencies in the US (Two International Licenses Italy) description 4.5 and 5.1 Oracle, Sybase and SQL server compatible 4.5 Client Server PowerBuilder, 5.1 .NET Bridge, Element, Inspection and Roadway levels. Open database architecture and GUI allows for full customization and internationalization. Multi media, photos, videos, reports Pontis 5.1 Crystal Reports Pontis 4.5 Infomaker Pontis 5.1 yes Structure types Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures description Yes Yes Yes No. 0 0 0 0 0 Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No. 0 0 yes
IT information
Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history No. 0 About 500,000 About 250,000 0 0
97
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety, vulnerability, risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Inspection information Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures
Pontis (4.5 Client Server & 5.1 Web Version) description Yes Yes description Yes 4.5 No - Future 5.2 yes Yes description Yes Yes Yes 116 NBI Items required by the FHWA are collected description yes yes It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows for recommendation from inspectors description Yes Yes It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows for recommendation from inspectors description Yes Yes It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows for recommendation from inspectors description No Yes Yes Yes Yes description Yes
98
Adey, Klatter, Kong
IABMAS 2010
Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Prediction information Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other
Pontis (4.5 Client Server & 5.1 Web Version) description Yes Yes Yes Yes description Yes It was designed to set policies No data collecting group Bridge Maintenance Engineers Bridge Inspectors Bridge Maintenance Engineers Planners description National Highway Institute (NHI) training, Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting NHI Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting No
Additional
99

IABMAS BMC BMS Report 20100806 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IABMAS BMC BMS Report 20100806 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE IABMAS BRIDGE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OVERVIEW OF EXISTING BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 2010

Photos cover Rijkswaterstaat, the Netherlands

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Education and qualification .......................................................................................................................38

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong

The questionnaires are given in the appendix.

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong -

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Danish Road Directorate

Finnish Transport Agency

Germany Ireland Italy Japan

KRMBS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP

Latvia Netherla nds Poland Poland Spain

Swedish Road Administration

Adey, Klatter, Kong

GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION

The following general system information is summarized in the report:

Adey, Klatter, Kong

10 8 6 4 2 0 Country Province/ State/ Canton/ Prefecture Level of ownership County/ Municipality

Figure 1. Level of ownership

*USA United States of America 2.2 Number of users

Adey, Klatter, Kong

10 8 6 4 2 0 Single Number of users Multiple

Figure 2. Number of users

Years of first and current versions

Figure 3. Years of first and current versions

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Adey, Klatter, Kong

The following IT information is summarized in the report:

8 6 4 2 0 1 Tier 2 Tier Architecture 3 Tier

Figure 4. Type of Architecture

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Web Access Yes No 1

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Figure 5. Mode of data entry

The following inventory information is summarized in the report:

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Figure 6. Total number of objects per principal user

Number of bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls and other objects

Adey, Klatter, Kong

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

Other objects Retaining Walls Tunnels Culverts Bridges

Percentage of total number of objects

Other objects Retaining Walls Tunnels Culverts Bridges

Figure 8. Percentage of total number

Archived construction information

Adey, Klatter, Kong

Type of archived construction information

Figure 9. Archived construction information

Archived inspection and intervention information

Adey, Klatter, Kong

The following inspection information is summarized in the report:

Information handled on the element level

Adey, Klatter, Kong