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

Photo’s 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, Zürich, 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

3

Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 4 .Adey.

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 Söderqvist, Marja-Kaarina, Finland Thompson, Paul, USA Zandonini, Riccardo, Italy

5

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

6

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

PREDICTION INFORMATION................................................................................................................... 32 7.1 7.2 7.3 Predictive capabilities.................................................................................................................................32 Planning time frames .................................................................................................................................34 Uses of prediction information...................................................................................................................36

8

OPERATION INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 37 8.1 Data collection ...........................................................................................................................................37

7

...............................................................12 11................................................................................................... OBMS ...........80 SGP.....................2 9...................................................................................62 BMS@RPI.........................................................................................................................................................................................55 Eirspan............3 on the BMSs in the report.................................... GBMS ..............................................10 11............9 11.............. DANBRO.................16 11............3 11.....................71 DISK........................................ 41 QUESTIONNAIRES ......................68 Lat Brutus.......18 Ontario Bridge Management System.....................................................................................................94 Pontis ...............................................................................2 11.....................................40 on the type of information gathered..........................................................................................................41 REFERENCES........................................................................................ QBMS ..............................................................................................58 APT-BMS.....83 Bridge and Tunnel Management System................2 9 IABMAS 2010 Education and qualification ....11 11........87 KUBA ....42 Quebec Bridge Management System............................................................................................................................................................ Kong 8..........91 ABIMS........................................................5 11........................77 SZOK............................................................................................................................ 42 11..............................................1 9........................... APTBMS ................................................................ KRMBS ...................................... FBMS ..............................................................................97 10 11 8 ..................................................................................................................................................................1 11...........52 Bauwerk Management System.................................................8 11.......................17 11..............................................................................................................................Adey......................................38 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................49 The Finnish Bridge Management System............................4 11.........................65 Korea Road Maintenance Business System........................46 DANBRO Bridge Management System................74 SMOK ................15 11....................................................................7 11......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 9............. Klatter.........................................14 11......................40 on the process of compiling this report................................................................................... RPIBMS .......................................................................................................................................6 11............................................................................. BaTMan ................13 11...........................

................................................................... LEVEL OF OWNERSHIP .....................................................22 FIGURE 6.................. YEARS OF FIRST AND CURRENT VERSIONS .................................................................................................................................20 FIGURE 5..... USES OF PREDICTION INFORMATION ...............................37 FIGURE 16..................................................................................................................................Adey.......................................... NUMBER OF USERS .....................................................................................25 FIGURE 10............. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NUMBER ................17 FIGURE 3..................................................... TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE ...............................23 FIGURE 7............... Klatter...............17 FIGURE 4................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. NUMBER OF CONDITION STATES........................................................................................................................................ EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATION ............ MODE OF DATA ENTRY ..........34 FIGURE 14............................................... Kong IABMAS 2010 TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1..................39 9 .................27 FIGURE 11................................................ COST INFORMATION...........36 FIGURE 15........................................................33 FIGURE 13..........................24 FIGURE 9........................................................................................... ARCHIVED CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION................................. RIGHTS TO USE...... TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER OBJECT TYPE PER PRINCIPAL USER ............................................................................................... TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER PRINCIPAL USER......24 FIGURE 8... PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES ............................................................... PLANNING TIME FRAMES ...........16 FIGURE 2.........................................................................................................................................................31 FIGURE 12..................

................... WEB ACCESS .........23 TABLE 8........................................................................................................................................ MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (1) ....................... Klatter...........35 TABLE 17................... INTERVENTION INFORMATION ON THE ELEMENT....... YEARS OF FIRST VERSIONS ..............................................18 TABLE 5........................... USES OF PREDICTION INFORMATION .........................................................................................14 TABLE 2................................................................................... ARCHIVED CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION............39 10 ......................................................30 TABLE 13.......................... ABILITY TO ENTER CONDITION. STRUCTURE AND PROJECT LEVEL........................ SAFETY.............33 TABLE 15.............................................. VULNERABILITY AND RISK............................................ YEARS OF CURRENT VERSIONS ...................................................25 TABLE 9....................................... COST AND PRIORITIZATION INFORMATION ..... AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY INFORMATION FROM INSPECTIONS ON THE ELEMENT LEVEL............................................19 TABLE 6.............................................................................................................. TIME FRAME FOR SHORT-TERM PREDICTIONS............................................ PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES ......21 TABLE 7......................................................38 TABLE 19............................................................................ MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (1) .................32 TABLE 14.....16 TABLE 4............35 TABLE 16..........................Adey............. MODE OF DATA ENTRY............................................................................................................................26 TABLE 10................... COLLECTION OF INSPECTION DATA AND ABILITY TO ENTER CONDITION.......................... NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER OBJECT TYPE....28 TABLE 11............................................ TIME FRAME FOR LONG-TERM PREDICTIONS .................................................................................................. SAFETY.................................... NUMBER OF CONDITION STATES...........36 TABLE 18.... RIGHTS TO USE........... EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATION ...................29 TABLE 12....................................................................................................... VULNERABILITY AND RISK.......... LEVEL OF OWNERSHIP AND NUMBER OF USERS ... TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE............................................................................. AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY INFORMATION FROM INSPECTIONS ON THE STRUCTURE LEVEL ................... Kong IABMAS 2010 TABLE OF TABLES TABLE 1.....................................15 TABLE 3.................

The report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1). including the aspects being modeled. Prediction information. with respect to data collection and quality assurance. The questionnaires are given in the appendix. 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. It provides a general overview of the bridge management systems and does not focus on the details of specific procedures used within the systems. or are doing. The main body of this report includes a summary of the information in the questionnaires and basic comparisons between the systems. including data collection level. 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. including structure types. being used to manage approximately 900’000 objects. The information summarized and compared includes: General system information. IT system information. from 15 countries. information on the assessment on the structure level. Inventory information of the principal user. Klatter.Adey. what they are planning to do. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 ABSTRACT Even though infrastructure managers are increasingly using infrastructure management systems to support their decision making processes. 11 . Inspection information. information on the assessment on the element level. and Operation information. 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. and numbers of structures per structure type Intervention information.

Adey.g. For example. IT information (i. 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. retaining wall. e. and hence the use of the terminology bridge management system.e. being used to manage approximately 900’000 objects. This type of information can be found in other reports. or are doing. In order to handle the amount of information required to do this. 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. 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. what they are planning to do. 1 12 . even though many of these systems are often used to handle many other objet types. The report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1). and the significant impact on society if they do not function as intended. Inventory information (i. Klatter. 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 main body of this report includes a summary of the information in the questionnaires and basic comparisons between the systems. bridge. general information about the information technology aspects of the management system).g. only whether or not they are made. 2]. It provides a general overview of the bridge management systems and does not focus on the details of specific procedures used within the systems. complexity. general information on the management system).e. Bridges. the current state of the art is the development and implementation of management systems that ‘best match’ current practice and decision making. Kong IABMAS 2010 1 INTRODUCTION Well functioning infrastructure. and archives). have often been the starting point for the development of these systems. e. 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. a road sign or a culvert. due to their individuality. The information summarized and compared includes: General system information (i. from 15 countries.e. 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. road section. requiring the implementation and systematic following of appropriate procedures and practices to ensure that optimal intervention strategies are determined and followed. is vital to the prosperity and well-being of the people of a country. 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. no information is given on how cost calculations are made. An infrastructure object is an item in a network that is often considered as a single unit. It should be managed to maximize its benefit to society. for even moderately sized networks. for example [1. an increasing number of infrastructure owners are supporting their decision making process with increasingly sophisticated computerized management systems.

Operational information (i. Table 1 contains. the abbreviation used for the system in this report. a blank field for the entry of additional information if desired). information with respect to how data entered into the management system is collected and how its quality is assured). These ambiguities often resulted from a misunderstanding of the question. the name of the system. - - This report summarizes the information included in the questionnaires and provides basic comparisons between systems. for each system investigated. 13 . the name of the owner. the aspects being predicted by the management system. Klatter.e. information on the assessment on the element level. Due to ambiguity in some of the answers provided in the questionnaires there may be some errors in the synthesis of the results. and Additional information (i. as well as how these predictions are made. Intervention information (i. such as the information collected and how it is collected).e. that is either entered into or used by the management system.e. and the contact person for more information about the system and their e-mail address. including data collection level.e. where applicable). the country of ownership. including the types of algorithms used. Kong - IABMAS 2010 Inspection information (i. Prediction information (i. information on the assessment on the structure level). information about maintenance and preservation activities such as repair. rehabilitation and reconstruction activities. information about inspections where the information obtained is either entered into or used by the management system.Adey.e.

wroc.ca sas@upc. Casas Bosse Eriksson Lennart Lindlad 15 Sweden Swedish Road Administration BaTMan *All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31.lindbla d@vv. Transport and Maritime Affairs Latvian State Road Administration Dutch ministry of transport Polish Railway Lines Local Polish Road Administrations Spanish Ministry of Public Works 9 Korea KRMBS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP K.ellis@sta ntec.Adey.ellis@sta ntec.fi Haardt@bast.Soder qvist@liikenn evirasto.H. Park 10 11 12 13 14 Latvia Netherla nds Poland Poland Spain Ilmars Jurka Leo Klatter Jan Bien Jan Bien Joan R.com jorn. Quebec Ministry of Transportation System Name Abb. Ilmars@lvceli.l v leo.k r. 14 .eriksson@vv . 1 Country Canada Owner Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Stantec Consulting Ltd.es boe.com reed.re. Management Systems (1) No. 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.it mackaneuji@k ajima.lauridsen @vd.klatter@r ws.pl joan.pl Jan.zonta @unitn.Bien@pwr .se lennart.ie daniele. Klatter.nl Jan. Kong Table 1.wroc.com paul@kict.Bien@pwr .se 2 Canada Reed Ellis 3 Denmark Danish Road Directorate Jørn Lauridsen MarjaKaarina Söderqvist Peter Haardt Liam Duffy Daniele Zonto Makoto Kaneuji 4 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. de lduffy@nra.ramon. 2009.dk MarjaKaarina.

1. Level of ownership The level of ownership indicates the level.g. Country Owner System Name IABMAS 2010 Contact person* Name E-Mail rade.1 The name and the web page address of the owner of the system.com Eric Christie christiee@dot . e. Pontis is owned by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. No. For example. and how to access. and only one (SZOK) was owned at a municipality level. and The names of. Table 3). KUBA is owned by the Federal Roads Authority of Switzerland) or a private organization (e. or country or municipality level. even if they are used by an organization on the provincial level. The majority of systems are owned at the country level (12/18).g.al. state canton or prefecture level. The number of users of the system. the references and manuals related to the system.Adey. 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. replaces all licensed version of the system.e. Management Systems (1) Abb. country level.com José Aldayuz 2 - GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION The level of system ownership. This characterization includes systems owned by a government organization (e. 15 . 2009. province. if a system is listed as being on the country level than when a new version of the system is released by AASHTO.us jaldayuz@mb akercorp. 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.state. at which system changes are coordinated (Figure 1. Klatter. and The years of the first and current version of the systems. Pontis 5. The name and the web page address of the developers of the system. Kong Table 2. i. a private organization) on a specific level.2 to replace Pontis 5.g.hajdin@i Rade Hajdin mc-ch.

2 Number of users The number of users of each system (Table 3). 12/18 of the systems are used by multiple users indicating 16 . 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 6 *USA – United States of America 2. indicated as either single or multiple. Klatter.Adey. 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. gives an indication of the extent of use of the systems (Figure 2). Level of ownership Table 3.

Number of users 2. in general. Cross-border users are rare. it can be inferred that there are steadily more administrations using management systems to support their decision making.Adey. 14 12 Number of Systems 10 8 6 4 2 0 Single Number of users Multiple Figure 2. are actively being developed. starting in 1985 with DISK. Klatter. Table 4. Since the first release dates of systems are relatively evenly distributed over time. Table 5). Kong IABMAS 2010 that many bridge managers use the systems of others instead of developing their own. it can be inferred that systems. the GBMS. is scheduled for release in the near future. Years of first and current versions 17 .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. PONTIS is the only system that reports foreign users. Since the majority of systems (14/17) have new versions released in the last five year period and one. 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.

Kong Table 4. Klatter. 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. Years of first versions No.

Kong IABMAS 2010 Table 5.Adey. 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 . Years of current versions No. Klatter.

Reporting capabilities. Klatter. More information with respect to the architecture can be found in the questionnaires in the appendix. Mode of data entry. 12 10 Number of Systems 8 6 4 2 0 1 Tier 2 Tier Architecture 3 Tier Figure 4.Adey. Type of Architecture 20 .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). 3. The following IT information is summarized in the report: Information on the system platform is only provided in the questionnaires in the appendix. Much of this information is not easily reducible. and Web access. Kong IABMAS 2010 3 - IT INFORMATION Type of architecture.

21 . mode of data entry. Type of architecture.Adey. Kong Table 6. web access Type of system architecture No. 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. 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 1 7 *How data is entered into the system. Table 6). Klatter.

the approximate numbers of objects given are those in all of the States in the USA. Klatter. For Pontis. As Pontis is owned by a private company (at the country level) it is used on principally on the the state level. in the system The archived construction information in the system. tunnels. 22 . As the GBMS is a prototype this information was not given. and The archived inspection and intervention information in the system.Adey. Total number of objects The following inventory information is summarized in the report: The inventory information reported is that of the principal user.3 Reporting capabilities All systems have reporting capabilities. The total number of objects per system range from zero.1 INVENTORY INFORMATION The total number of objects in the system. being licensed to 44 of the States in the USA. This was possible for all systems except for Pontis. to 750’000 for Pontis (Figure 6 ). The number of bridges. culverts. and therefore has no single principal user. 4 4. 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 5.4 Web access Ten of the systems allow access to information in the system over the internet (Table 6). 3. retaining walls and other objects. for the GBMS which is still a prototype and for SZOK where the numbers were not given. Mode of data entry 3.

Pontis has approximately 250’000 culverts and 500’000 bridges. Number of objects per object type No. 8’290). retaining walls and other objects The predominant use of the systems is for bridges. tunnels. The total number of objects per object type can be seen for all systems in Table 7. 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 2’800 8’700 6’000 11’487 0 2’800 1’011 750 5’317 934 4’000 8’290 0 13’252 288 5’000 9’728 500’000 580’357 Culverts 1’900 0 6’000 3’078 0 0 0 0 0 845 600 24’189 0 5’979 300 1’250 6’112 250’000 300’253 Tunnels 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 314 0 14 26 0 0 800 365 2 0 1’541 Retaining Walls 700 500 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 771 0 0 13 1’000 0 0 3’054 Other objects 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 3’277 380 725 0 0 4’643 Total 5’400 9’200 12’050 14’685 0 2’800 1’011 750 5’631 1’779 4’795 33’276 0 22’508 1’781 8’340 15’842 750’000 889’848 4. although SMOK has more culverts than bridges (24’189 vs. culverts. and drainage structures. high mast light poles. and BatMan has more tunnels than bridges (800 vs.2 Number of bridges. and for all systems except Pontis in Figure 7. retaining walls. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 33276 35000 30000 Number of Objects 9200 12050 20000 15000 14685 5400 5631 5000 0 Eirspan DANBRO APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus BaTMan System Figure 6. The Pontis QBMS OBMS SMOK SGP GBMS ABMS FBMS SZOK DISK KUBA 750000 2800 1779 1011 0 750 0 1781 10000 4795 8340 15842 25000 22508 23 . Total number of objects per principal user Table 7. no other object types were reported although it is known that at least some states use it for the management of sign structures. For Pontis. tunnels. 288). traffic signal mast arms.Adey.

3 Archived construction information Only five of the systems permit construction information to be archived in the system.Adey. whereas others are used to deal with a wide range of infrastructure objects. 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. although the majority of systems allow the information to be either stored in some way or referenced (Figure 9). Percentage of total number 4. Kong IABMAS 2010 percentage of total number of object type/ total number of objects can be seen in Figure 8 and Table 7. 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. 24 . such as APTBMS and Eirspan. Klatter. It can be seen that some systems are used to deal exclusively with bridges. It was assumed that if data could be entered into the system that reports could also be uploaded.

Archived construction information Basic data entered. 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. uploaded reports References No or not given Type of archived construction information Figure 9. Archived construction information Table 8. uploaded reports 1 1 Uploaded reports No. 25 .4 Archived inspection and intervention information All systems currently in operation allow archiving of inspection and intervention information.Adey. Information for the GBMS was not given. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 6 Number of Systems 5 4 3 2 1 0 Basic data Uploaded reports entered.

Kong IABMAS 2010 5 5. 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 or risk. The only system where this was not reported was the GBMS. 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).Adey. Table 9. vulnerability. Fourteen of the systems handle information related to safety. Klatter. vulnerability. safety. risk. Collection of inspection data and ability to enter condition. the prototype.1 INSPECTION INFORMATION Level of information storage (element or structure). and Type of information handled on project level. Type of information handled on element level. however. There is. vulnerability and risk. Type of information handled on structure level. some ambiguity in how respondents interpreted the field on safety. 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 0 4 10 5. 26 .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. 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.

Klatter. information was provided on the number of condition states used in each system for 16 systems (Figure 10.The majority of systems use ratings of six condition states or fewer. Number of condition states 27 .Adey. Although noted in the questionnaire as “not given” it is known that Pontis can handle up to five condition states. Eight of the systems handle information on load carrying capacity. In Pontis the number of condition states used depends on the organization that licenses it. Although not specifically requested in the questionnaire. Kong IABMAS 2010 at the element level. The range of condition states currently being used is three to five. Table 10). 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. 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.

The question was intended to determine whether information on the load carry capacity could be entered during an inspection. The other. though. generates a condition rating for the structure based on element level information. the FBMS. Thirteen of the systems handle information from inspections with respect to safety. It is not clear that all respondents interpreted the question in this way. risk. Kong Table 10.3 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. many state agencies in the USA commonly do not ask their inspectors to determine the load-carrying capacity of a structure. Klatter. vulnerability. 28 . 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. For example. The same ambiguity exists on the structure level as on the element level. however. some ambiguity in the answers provided. There is. Fourteen systems handle information from inspections on load carrying capacity.Adey. but enter the information into the system once it is calculated by an engineer. Number of condition states Number of condition states No.

Sixteen of the systems allow user defined interventions. Ability to enter condition.1 INTERVENTION INFORMATION The type of interventions handled on the element level. Thirteen of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies. and The type of costs information handled.Adey. safety. vulnerability and risk. Kong IABMAS 2010 Table 11. 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. 29 . risk Not given Load carrying capacity Yes 1 1 1 1 No Not given 1 3 2 2 2 6 6. vulnerability. and load carrying capacity information from inspections on the structure level Condition No. The type of interventions handled on the project level. Klatter. 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. The type of interventions handled on the structure level.

Eight of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies. 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. Fourteen of the systems allow user defined intervention. some ambiguity in the answers. however. Kong Table 12. 6. Intervention information on the element. There is.2 Information handled on the structure level The following was reported on the structure level (Table 12): Eight of the systems have predefined interventions.3 Information handled on the project level The following was reported on the project level (Table 12): Two of the systems have predefined interventions. 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 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 8 1 13 1 1 14 1 8 1 2 6. 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. Klatter. 30 .Adey.

Nine of the systems handle traffic delay costs. or allow entry of. It was meant to mean that multiple objects could be taken into consideration. IABMAS 2010 It is believed. Klatter. intervention strategies. These systems either calculate or allow entry of the indirect costs. These systems either calculate or allow entry of the costs of traffic delay. that the question was not commonly understood. Nine of the systems handle indirect user costs. Cost information 31 . 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. however. Two of the systems either calculate.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.Adey. 6. Only a minority of systems (6/18) handle inspection costs. Eleven of the systems consider life-cycle costing at least partly. Kong Nine of the systems allow user defined intervention.

including the use of condition.Adey. This information can be found in the questionnaires in the appendix. 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 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 1 1 1 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. Five of these systems use probabilistic methods.5 Prioritization Twelve of the systems prioritize interventions. Planning time frames. Kong Table 13. combined rating of multiple priority indices and using user defined ratings (Table 13). Klatter. although there are seemingly large differences in how interventions are prioritized. 32 . Table 14): Nine of the systems can predict deterioration. 7 7. risk. cost benefit analysis. Cost and prioritization information Cost information No. 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 12.1 PREDICTION INFORMATION Predictive capabilities of the systems.

i. 1 1 Improvement Yes Prob. 18 16 Number of Systems 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Deterioration Improvement Predictive capability Cost Figure 12. Klatter. Kong - IABMAS 2010 Nine of the systems are reported to predict improvement. the improvement due to future interventions. taking into consideration only the existing condition state and likely intervention costs for the objects in those condition states. As there are only nine systems that predict future deterioration and improvements due to future interventions. i.e. Thirteen of the systems are reported to predict costs. Predictive capabilities No.Adey. it is assumed that the additional four systems that predict costs do so only on an operational basis. Det. Det.e. of which two are reported to use probabilistic methods. Predictive capabilities Table 14. 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. 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 1 1 5 33 .

it was possible in many cases to deduce the planning time frames (Figure 13. seen the users of Pontis. Although the long time frame prediction periods. most likely due to the freedom agencies that license Pontis have in defining it. 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. short time frame. if only one predictive period was specified.2 Planning time frames IABMAS 2010 Although not asked in the questionnaires. most likely because the agencies that license Pontis are able to configure the work program horizon. 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.e. Table 16).Adey. Planning time frames Not given 1-5 N/A 34 . The short time frame prediction periods for Pontis were not given in the questionnaire. and a long time frame – for the prediction of future budgets and the development of maintenance policies. i. Two time frames were considered: a short time frame – for the development of work programs. Table 15. A ten-year horizon is most common. was not reported. In the analysis. Klatter. Kong 7. to be any period from five years to 30 years to fit their budgeting processes. the long time frame was taken to be identical to that of the short.

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 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 3 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 Table 16. 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. Kong Table 15. Klatter. 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 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 Budget preparation 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 15 36 . Uses of prediction information Table 17. 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 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.3 Uses of prediction information IABMAS 2010 The following was reported with respect to the use of prediction information (Figure 14. Kong 7. Five of the systems are used to set performance standards. Klatter. Eight of the systems are used to match funding sources. Table 17): 16 14 Fifteen of the systems are used to prepare budgets.Adey.

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. and Intervention information is normally entered by the infrastructure owner. Table 18). 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 15.1 OPERATION INFORMATION Data collection information. Klatter. 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. Rights to use 37 .Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 8 8.

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 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 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 4 8. 38 .2 Education and qualification The following was reported (Figure 16.Adey. Klatter. For three of the systems there is a certification of the user of the system. For eleven of the systems there is education provided for users of the system. Kong Table 18. For fourteen of the systems there is certification of inspectors that enter data into the system. 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.

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

9

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 900’000 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

ca/english/ (English) Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). replacement contract cost information.mto.OBMS description Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Stantec Consulting Ltd. rehabilitation. Structure types No. and Local Database (eg in field) Desktop computer.Adey.800 Culverts* 1. Klatter. rehabilitation. inspection.on.on. OBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Ontario Bridge Management System . . and Tablet Computers (eg.ca/english/ and www.900 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 42 .com Version 1. replacement contract cost information.gov.gov. municipal agencies in Ontario. Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . Stored in system.1 Ontario Bridge Management System. other Canadian Provinces description Oracle and Microsoft Access Client Server.0 (2002) Current Version 2. inventory.mto. Bored tunnels Bridges 2.stantec.stantec. Kong IABMAS 2010 11 QUESTIONNAIRES 11. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 700 Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures * > 3m span Protection structures description Bridge historical maintenance. Structure types No. in field) Crystal Reports.com ) Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) http://www.pdf reports optional.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bridge historical maintenance. analysis results. No.1 (2008) Stantec Consulting Ltd. (www. http://www.0.

and Posted Load Limits Appraisal Rating for Fatigue. and Performance Deficiencies (eg safety or load carrying capacity) Appraisals for Live Load Capacity. Live Load Capacity (tones). Klatter.OBMS description Detailed Visual Inspection of all bridge elements (condition state. Scour. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety. severity and extent of defects). and Appraisal Rating for Curbs Appraisal Rating for Load Capacity. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Ontario Bridge Management System . Appraisal Rating for Seismic. defects identified and quantified by Detailed Visual Inspection Performance Measures (load capacity. vulnerability. performance) Performance Measures (load capacity) description Bridge Condition Index (BCI) out of 100. Seismic. based on element level condition Appraisal Rating for Barriers/Railings and Code Performance Level.Adey. Barriers / Railings/ Curbs description Four (4) condition states. safety. Fatigue. Appraisal Rating for Scour/Flood 43 .

timing and costs developed from Element Level and selected based on lifecycle cost analysis. see above. Analysis is based on lifecycle cost analysis framework description Cost of inspection is not included.OBMS description Default treatments. included in user defined project cost factors Yes. Repair. 44 . description Cost and Benefit adjustment factors can be applied at the Project Level. Rehabilitation. Intervention costs are specified at element level for specific treatments Yes. 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 . description Yes at Element Level. or Replacement. and on Bridge Condition Index (BCI) at the Network Level. repair. Maintenance. Repair. Yes. description Prioritization is based on lifecycle (Benefit/Cost). including unit costs and effectiveness. and provided to Project Level. Default is none. Maintenance. and unlimited user defined treatments for maintenance. Defined Treatments are applied to element condition states. Rehabilitation or Replacement. included in user defined project cost factors Element and Project Level based on lifecycle cost analysis. evaluated using lifecycle cost analysis.Adey. consistent with Element Level Recommended actions. rehabilitation and replacement. Budgets can be specified or Target BCI can be specified. Klatter.

for current condition and also forecasted to future timing using deterioration models. Klatter. instead of the Provincial total budget. Ten year budgets (Years 1-5.OBMS description Default and User Defined Markovian deterioration models for each element/material type are specified. rehabilitation. repair. resulting in a different set of projects than calculated using a global Provincial budget. and 6-10) with prioritized projects and resulting network performance measure (BCI) are provided based on the detailed lifecycle cost analysis. Full BMS is available in Tablet Computer version.g.Adey. Also complete structure replacement. or can be assigned to engineering consultants. but can also be performed by Owner (MTO or municipality). Owner Stantec performs budgeting and prioritization service for municipalities for a fee. generally inspectors and engineers. Repair. Detailed lifecycle cost analysis 10 years followed by long term lifecycle cost analysis for an additional50 years. description Yes Yes No. No. No. data collecting group Owner (MTO or municipality). Internal User Group (MTO). Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. and regular MTO update inspection courses. 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 prepares checkout/check-in database for selected structures to provide to consultants. rehabilitation and replacement of elements. A feature in the Network Analysis enables budget setting for predefined Regions. Project costs are calculated from element treatment unit costs. 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 . Projects are prioritized to suit these budget constraints and distributed to the Regions accordingly. All inspectors required to complete basis training course. description Inspections performed by or under direct supervision of Professional Engineer with background in bridge inspection. OBMS prepares check-out/check-in database for selected structures to provide to consultants. Generally assigned to engineering consultants.

0 (2008) Current Version 1. Transportation Association of Canada. Kong 11. Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) description Oracle. . replacement contract cost information.mtq.0 (2009) (MPS) Stantec Consulting Ltd.ca/portal/page/portal/accueil_en Version 1.Adey.languages) IABMAS 2010 Basic information Quebec Bridge Management System . Structure types No. Toronto 2008.stantec. Yes inventory and inspection. inventory. Structure types No.700 Culverts* Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information 46 . rehabilitation. Bored tunnels Bridges 8. (www. Stored in system.com ) Quebec Structure Inspection Manuals http://www1.qc.qc. inspection. and Microsoft SQL Express Client Server.gouv. rehabilitation. Klatter.MPS description Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) http://www. analysis results.ca/en/pub_ligne/index.asp (French) a) Design and Implementation of a New Bridge Management System for the Ministry of Transport of Québec. IABMAS ’08 Korea b) The Québec Ministry of Transport’s Bridge Project Tactical Planning Dashboard. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 500 Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures * > 3m span Protection structures description Bridge historical maintenance.gouv. Inventory information (of principal user) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bridge historical maintenance.pdf reports optional. and Local Database Desktop computer Crystal Reports. replacement contract cost information.mtq. Microsoft SQL Server. QBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .2 Quebec Bridge Management System.

and Performance Rating Live Load Capacity Rating. Rehabilitation. severity and extent of defects). included in user defined project cost factors Element and Project Level based on lifecycle cost analysis. and Functional Improvements (widening.MPS description Detailed Visual Inspection of all bridge elements (condition state. Functionality. see above. and Posted Load Limits Historic Structure Index. vulnerability. and unlimited user defined treatments for repair. evaluated using lifecycle cost analysis. included in user defined project cost factors Yes. Analysis is based on lifecycle cost analysis framework description Cost of inspection is not included.Adey. description Yes at Element Level. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety. Default is none. 47 . strengthening) Recommended actions. Defined Treatments are applied to element condition states. Functionality Index description Default treatments. seismic Detailed Live load rating factors and calculation information description Bridge Condition Index (BCI) out of 100. Historic Structure. Budgets can be specified or Target BCI can be specified. Intervention costs are specified at element level for specific treatments Yes. Repair. Klatter. consistent with Element Level. description Cost and Benefit adjustment factors can be applied at the Project Level. 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 . Indices for Seismic Vulnerability. and on Bridge Condition Index (BCI) at the Network Level. and provided to Project Level. description Prioritization is based on lifecycle (Benefit/Cost). Rehabilitation or Replacement. based on element level condition Performance Rating for Barriers/Railings /Curbs and other elements Rating for Live Load Capacity (tonnes). or Replacement . rehabilitation and replacement. Yes. including unit costs and effectiveness. description Four (4) condition states. timing and costs developed from Element Level and selected based on lifecycle cost analysis. Repair. defects identified and quantified by Detailed Visual Inspection Load capacity.

Also complete structure replacement. Internal training. Repair. A feature in the Network Analysis enables budget setting for predefined Regions. repair. Detailed lifecycle cost analysis 10 years followed by long term lifecycle cost analysis for an additional 50 years. See reference b). description Yes Yes No. 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 . rehabilitation. Owner description Inspections performed by or under direct supervision of Professional Engineer with background in bridge inspection.Adey. All inspectors required to complete basis training course. Projects are prioritized to suit these budget constraints and distributed to the Regions accordingly. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. or can be assigned to engineering consultants.g. No. Ten year budgets (Years 1-5. Powerful project level electronic dashboard available.MPS description Default and User Defined Markovian deterioration models for each element/material type are specified. instead of the Provincial total budget. and also be performed by Owner (MTQ) using check-out/check-in database for selected structures to provide to consultants. and 6-10) with prioritized projects and resulting network performance measure (BCI) are provided based on the detailed lifecycle cost analysis. and regular MTQ update inspection courses. data collecting group Owner (MTQ). 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 . rehabilitation and replacement of elements. resulting in a different set of projects than calculated using a global Provincial budget. Assigned to engineering consultants. Prepares check-out/check-in database for selected structures to provide to consultants. for current condition and also forecasted to future timing using deterioration models. Klatter. Project costs are calculated from element treatment unit costs.

3 DANBRO Bridge Management System.Roaddirectorate. 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. 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 http://www. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.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. Klatter.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Structure types No.vejsektoren.Adey. Bored tunnels 0 Bridges 6000 Culverts 6000 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 49 . graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. References and Manuals (available at .dk/wimpdoc.dk www.

Can be assigned by the user. plans. by description Yes Yes description Generally on the structure level. photos. Other information can be stored.g. They can be overruled by the user. Yes (Bridge level) description Aggregated from all elements in a structure. 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 . worst condition is default. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. Is assigned and based on the condition ranking. all interventions are considered to be cyclic. It can be overruled by user. and LCC is used to estimate the long term costs of the intervention strategies. vulnerability. description Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined. They can be modified by the user. Can be assigned by the user. description No Yes Yes description Yes. Klatter. description Based on condition marks. 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.Adey. Aggregated from element level (see next section) description Elements have a condition rating (0-5) based on visual inspection. e. test results. although the cost of detailed inspections can be included on element level Yes Yes Yes Partly. No Reference strategies are available.

repair.g. rehabilitation.Adey. It is also an indicator for structures that do no comply with the target maintenance level. Mandatory for inspectors. Intervals are assigned as input to all interventions in the system. 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 . reconstruction) Cost DANBRO description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Year + 10 and used for operational planning. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. Offline models are available to correspond with information in the system. This enables a partial LCC computation. Training course by Road Directorate Inspectors personal certificate based on requirements User groups discuss problems and solutions to improve quality. Improvements stored in the system. Personal certificate based on above training. and a reference for actual planning. No Yes data collecting group Owner. Klatter. description This information is used as advice for basic planning. The system does not generate LCC itself. can be assigned to engineering companies Owners and inspectors from engineering companies Owner description Training course at Road Directorate developed with engineering companies.

Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 IT information Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Inventory information (of principal user) Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history No. calculations. Structure types No. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. design. Klatter.tiehallinto. construction papers Special inspection reports and research results are preserved in manual archives and bridge folders (basic inputs to Bridge Register) Yes.tiehallinto. Oracle Forms 5.Adey. consultants companies description Oracle 8 database. 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. a special web-portal from outside Finnra to Citrix server Structure types No.fi 2009 / 1990 & 1995 Tiehallinto ( www.format No. Excel and Word format Add hoc reports with SQL*Plus.Server Data entered manually 70 ready to use -reports with Visual Basic. running in CitrixClient. Oracle Reports . can be printed in PDF.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.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.4 The Finnish Bridge Management System. older repair data (before 1985) not complete 52 . printed in Ascii and Excel . FBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .

in 2 years. calculated from the damage information given by the inspector. no repair) Estimated condition with age behavior curves can be predicted. drawings. drawings. Reconstruction index. 1) Bridges in "bad condition". in 4 years. 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 . Inspection handbook gives rules for actions according to structure and damages (Bridge Register and BMS) In BMS yes Repair urgency class (immediate. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Inspection information Safety. very poor to very good) is calculated from the condition and damage information given by the inspector. evaluation of the need of load limitations. Bad condition means the classes 1 and 2. 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. later. written recommendations by the inspector. 2) Sum of damage points. vulnerability. Damage Index Intervention information 53 . in 4 years. description Lists of parameters.very poor) Is taken into consideration by giving the "repair urgency" grade (immediate. test results Visual inspections with damage description and estimated repair measures and costs with photos.very poor) Conclusions can be drawn from the element level Loading tests. the measure "official condition class" (15. the next year of inspection by the inspector description Yes SILKO Bridge Repair Manual Repair index. Klatter. later.Adey. Reconstruction index. optimal repair policy in BMS description No Yes No No No description Repair index. Inspection handbook gives rules for actions according to structure and damages (Bridge Register and BMS) Repair urgency. test results description The nine main structural parts' condition is evaluated by the inspector. no repair) for every recorded damage description In BMS yes Lists of parameters. rates 0-4 (very good . Calculations for special heavy transports. in 2 years.

A report of inspection quality is produced yearly to follow the data quality. 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 . The design work starts in the end of September this year. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. by the Central Administration of Finnra Yes.g.Adey. consultant companies can be involved in some cases description Inspection training course. everyone inspects the same bridge. The results lead to "inspector's quality points". The new programs should be in use in early 2011. Klatter. Statistical measures of divergence are calculated. The programs are old. Engineering companies' inspection consultants Planning is made by bridge engineers. by the bridge engineer in the road region Yes. A new design competitive bidding is going on. This means that new features and possibilities for new data will be added. 1 day examination (theory and in situ inspection) Inspection course examination. no inspections without it. 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. This means "calibration" of inspectors. Bridge Register basic course 2 days. Both the Bridge Register and the Project Level BMS (Hanke-Siha) are totally renewed. rehabilitation. the quality points from the earlier year are reduced according special rules. by the Central Administration of Finnra data collecting group Road regions have the responsibility of basic data collection. too. engineering companies' inspection consultants possibly input the data. 1 day in situ training. repair. If someone does not participate. data is inputted into the Bridge Register. BMS basic course 2 days The Bridge Register course (no examination demanding) Yearly training day for bridge inspectors is obligatory. which are used when comparing the inspection offers in competitive biddings. 3-4 days theory.

GBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .0) description no BMS under development. Klatter. 0 0 0 55 . Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1. Locks and sluices 0 Retaining Walls Storm surge 0 barriers Support structures Protection structures description Program “SIB-Bauwerke” Program “SIB-Bauwerke” Program “SIB-Bauwerke” Inventory information (of principal user) Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. 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.5 Bauwerk Management System.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Basic information Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.Adey.

Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. 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. Klatter.Adey. 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-PRÜF 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 Intervention information 56 . vulnerability.

www. repair. 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). Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e.0) description Deterioration models (corrosion. for bearings and expansion joints) Measure catalogue implemented (different levels.de Testing and the end of further training courses Not yet No - Additional Operational information 57 .g. carbonation) and service life model (e. Klatter. 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.vfib-ev.g. chloride intrusion. repair.Adey. 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. rehabilitation.

principal inspection. Application server.) Manuals in English only.vejdirektoratet. photographs & drawings Yes Structure types No. 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. etc. Manuals not made available on web.ie) 2008/2001 Original version developed by Danish Roads Directorate (www. Bored tunnels Bridges 2800 Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 58 . Ireland (www. routine maintenance. 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 . Klatter.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.dk) Since 2004 developments made by National Roads Authority. Structure types No.nra. database Data is entered manually on a desktop computer Printed reports with text. National Roads Authority description Interbase Client.Adey.ie) Individual manual produced for each module (inventory.

Klatter. Can be overruled by inspector in exceptional circumstances. Repair costs are stored for damaged components. description Condition rating (0 to 5) given for fourteenth structural element ‘structure in general’. vulnerability. Inspecting engineer to contact NRA if condition rating = 4 or 5. Safety may be considered within the condition rating. description Condition ratings 0 (best) to 5 (worst) given for each of 13 structural elements Whilst formal risk assessments are not undertaken during inspections. Assessment for load-carrying capacity can be requested as a ‘Special Inspection’ based on visual inspection. 59 . abutments or beams/girders. piers. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Inspection information Safety. based on worst condition rating for deck.Adey. 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. bearings.

but may be considered when comparing repair strategies for major schemes. 60 . No Intervention strategy for each structure is heavily influenced by information provided at element level. Inspector chooses the appropriate strategy from the list of standard intervention types. Prioritization of structural interventions is heavily influenced by condition ratings from inspection reports combined with traffic volumes and route importance. Guidelines exist. which may be used to predict annual inspection costs. but may be considered when comparing repair strategies for major schemes. Facility exists for entering actual intervention costs after work is complete. Estimate of repair cost is entered during inspection. The system does provide a list of inspections required per year. description Advanced prioritization methods are not used. description Comprises information provided at element level. 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. Guidelines exist. Guidelines exist. Costs not stored on the BMS. Costs not stored on the BMS. or can enter customized intervention strategy if required. LCC not considered at network level. but may be considered at a structure level when comparing repair strategies for major schemes. Costs not stored on the BMS. description Information entered for archive only Information entered for archive only Information entered for archive only description Not stored on the database. Klatter.Adey.

Regional bridge managers must have degree in civil engineering or equivalent. 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 . Improvements are not modeled in the system. Annual intervention costs based on repairs stated in inspection reports and unit rates of repair can be provided for up to 6 years. repair. Note: National Roads Authority responsible for national road bridges only. Klatter.g. Bridge is categorized as 2. There is no effective way of using the system to provide intervention costs to reasonable accuracy. Inspections only. Non-national bridges are managed by local authorities. years 1 to 6. Must also attend 4-day bridge inspection workshop in order to be an inspection Team Leader.0m span or greater. rehabilitation. Regional bridge managers must have 7 years satisfactory engineering experience. 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. reconstruction) Cost Eirspan (2008 version) description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.Adey. but are inaccurate given the associated uncertainties.

it/dims) 3 User manuals and 11 procedures (http://bms. GIS Yes Structure types No. 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.Adey. Application Server.heidi.7 APT-BMS. reference to hard paper archives is also included Current and past inspection report are generated on demand Past intervention are listed.unitn. passwd: dims425) 2008 / 2004 University of Trento. design document can be uploaded References and Manuals (available at . Structure types No. graphical. tabular. Data Anlysis Server 800 Gb (can be expanded) Reports. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. 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.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 Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 62 . Klatter.ing. Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering (http://www.heidi. in Italian) Provincia Autonoma di Trento (Autonomous Province of Trento) / None description Microsoft SQL Client. Database.guest access: user: guest.it/ .it/ – available at the front page.

No description User can define the effect of interventions Effect of standard interventions are predefined. piles.Adey. spatial location…). Risk computed from unit level Recorded into the database when formally assessed for sub-standard bridges. which are specified in terms of quantity and Condition State. description Automatic evaluation of two priority indices for replacement and repair scenarios. typology. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. such as deck. based on formal safety evaluation procedures. Klatter. Intervention information Inspection information 63 . 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). material. abutments. vulnerability. 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. Inspection report and summary. Safety evaluated at the structural unit level. which are defined as conceptual entities characterized by common attributes (such as length. Recorded at the structure level. In addition. the bridge is broken down into Structural Units (SU). The spatial arrangement of SUs is defined through logical entities labeled connections (C). description Different condition indices (overall CS. apparent age) computed from the condition of the single elements. 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. On-demand cumulative-time risk and cost analysis of specific MR&M scenarios.

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. Assigned to professional engineers for 3-year principal inspections and formal safety evaluation. description Yes Available. repair. rehabilitation.Adey. Klatter. Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional 64 . Owner (APT) description Mandatory training course offered by university. Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. including earthquake and natural disasters. Owner (APT) for 1-year routine inspection. On-site support at the first inspection. No Yes No Posterior quality control of inspectors activity.year time span for strategic planning. data collecting group Assigned to professional engineers. Yes For performing risk analysis under specific scenarios. 5-year time span for short term intervention scenarios and 50. but not exploited so far.g.

0 750 0 0 0 65 . Klatter. IT information Inventory information (of principal user) No.com) Regional Planning Institute of Osaka(http://www. Inspection data after the intervention can be recorded.kajima.com Users manual and administration manual are available in Japanese language. Digital Camera Graphical inspection report N/A Structure types No.or.kajima.Adey. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. Inspection data are updated periodically.jp/) ( ) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . RPIBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information BMS@RPI description Kajima Corporation (http://www.8 BMS@RPI.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. Ibaraki Prefectural Government/ other cities description Microsoft Windows XP/Vista. Microsoft Access Desktop application Pen tablet PC.rpi. Structure types No. Aomori Prefectural Government .

description Different interventions are predetermined according to the Inspection information Intervention information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. Yes No Yes LCC are obtained for the structure level as well as unit or element level. the element which needs prompt action for the safety reason are designated based on the visual inspection. but the safety of the structure can be assessed if there is any heavily damaged unit in the structure. They can be modified by the users. According to the level of damage. 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. No description Each element is divided into unit. description User can choose replacement of the structure. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level BMS@RPI description The element level visual inspection are performed and damage description. 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 . vulnerability. Cathodic protection can be chosen as a structure level intervention against salt damage of the concrete. and the inspection is performed on unit basis. none description Standard intervention for each type of element and deterioration is pre-determined. Klatter. description No No No description Not included in the BMS. Load carrying capacity is not assessed on structure level. type of deterioration with the degree of deterioration progress can be recorded at the bridge inspection site using tablet PC. The condition of the structure can be assessed as an aggregation of unit. User can define the intervention. Replacement of the structure is predefined for particular type of damage of the element and the structure.Adey. Assessment of safety is not performed on structure level. Several intervention strategies are implemented.

Yes. rehabilitation and replacement for each type of element and deterioration are provided together with the deterioration model curve after the interventions. Can be assigned to engineering companies. Klatter. No description Training course is provided for users by RPI. repair. User can set performance standard for each bridge by selecting appropriate Maintenance Scenarios which indicate performance level of element. No data collecting group Owner.g. RPI will provide the certificate of finishing standard BMS inspection course. RPI will provide the certificate of finishing standard BMS education course User can share information through user meeting of BMS@RPI. Can be assigned to engineering companies. Owner. Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. user can easily find the best suitable intervention strategy for multi bridges which matches funding resources. 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 . Cost is not variant according time. Owner. The level of improvement after repair. Kong IABMAS 2010 performance target levels. Our BMS has budget simulation function. BMS@RPI description The deterioration model curves are established with four deterioration speeds for each type of element and deteriorations. rehabilitation. Can be assigned to engineering companies. Training course is provided for users by RPI. Up to 100 years. description Yes.Adey. By using the budget simulation function.

Java/Jsp Application & WEB Server. Database.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. 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) Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 68 . KRMBS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .9 Korea Road Maintenance Business System.re.kict. Klatter. Structure types No. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.mine.Adey. Transport and Maritime Affairs / Regional Construction and Management Administration description Oracle 9i. Client Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports.kr) User Manual KOROMBUS 2007 Administrator Manual KOROMBUS 2007 (in Korean) Ministry of Land. Bored tunnels 297 Bridges 5.nu) . graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.fims.Facil Information Management System 2009/2003 Korea Institute of Construction Technology (http://www.

vulnerability.g.Adey. Klatter. photos Aggregated from element level description Elements have a condition rating (A . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. e. test results.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 Intervention information 69 . 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. plans.

repair. 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. rehabilitation.g.Adey. Klatter. 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 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.

lvceli.vegvesen.1) description State Joint Company LATVIAN STATE ROADS (www. 0 934 845 0 0 Lat Brutus (3. 0 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 71 . No Structure types No. Klatter.10 Lat Brutus Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information References and Manuals (available at . No. Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports and tabular.no) and Latvian Road Administration (www. 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.Adey.lvceli. Database.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.lv) Users manual Lat Brutus – in English () State Joint Company LATVIAN STATE ROADS () description Oracle 8i Client. Inspection reports originally are archives. Intervention is contained in uploaded reports.lv) 2004/2002 Norwegian Public Road Administration (www. Application server. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.

plans. Reference strategies are available. Although not standard. description Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined. Elements have a carrying capacity rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. Aggregated from element level. No No description Yes No Composed by the user. test results. description Elements have a condition rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. Elements have a safety rating (1-4) based on visual inspection.g.Adey. description Aggregated from all elements in a structure. They can be modified by the user. Other information can be stored. photos. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. Intervention information 72 . Safety risk aggregated from element level can be assigned by the user. description Composed by user from element level interventions. e. vulnerability. Klatter. Although not standard. User can define custom interventions. Condition can be assigned by user. They can be overruled by the user. Risk of insufficient load carrying capacity can be assigned by the user.1) description Visual inspections containing damage description are performed. 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 Inspection information Lat Brutus (3. description No Yes No No No description Interventions are characterized with risk level and optimal and ultimate intervention times.

Klatter.Adey. 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. rehabilitation. No Inspectors: personal certificate based on minimal requirements.g. Manager (Latvian State Roads) description Training course at university developed with manager and university. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. Personal certificate based on minimal requirements. Inspectors from engineering companies. User group (Latvian State Roads and engineers from private companies) discusses problems and solutions to improve quality. repair. 73 .1) description No No No No description Yes No Yes data collecting group Manager (Latvian State Roads) can be assigned to engineering companies.

Administration manual (www.nl) Users manual DISK 2006.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgibin/index.rijkswaterstaat. Klatter.Adey. Database Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports.cgi?site=13) 2006 / 1985 Rijkswaterstaat (www. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgibin/index. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No.cgi?site=13 – in Dutch) Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport).rijkswaterstaat. Structure types No.11 DISK Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information DISK (2006) description Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport) (www. Application Server. 1 4000 600 13 0 74 .rijkswaterstaat. 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 . National highways and water network / None description Microsoft SQL 2000 Client.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 Inventory information (of principal user) No.

Safety risk assessed from damage.e. risk level and optimal and ultimate intervention times. They can be modified by the user. They can be overruled by the user.g. vulnerability. not included. User can define custom interventions Reference strategies are available. Other information can be stored. It can be overruled by user Although not standard. e. 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 DISK (2006) description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions are performed. photos Aggregated from element level (see next section) description Elements have a condition rating (1 . Replacement costs of the structures are. risk of insufficient load carrying capacity can be assigned by user description Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined. Intervention information Inspection information 75 . safety risk aggregated from element level can be assigned by the user Although not standard. however. plans. i. 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. a risk (RAMS) level based on the condition ranking is assigned No description Aggregated from all elements in a structure.Adey. Klatter. worst condition is default. all interventions are considered to be cyclic. test results.6) based on visual inspection. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. and LCC is used to estimate the long term costs of the intervention strategies. description Interventions are characterized with risk type (RAMS).

Klatter. rehabilitation. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. repair. due to interventions. Intervals are assigned as input to all interventions in the system. – year +10 (later years are in the system. university and engineering companies. can be assigned to engineering companies Inspectors from engineering companies Owner (Rijkswaterstaat) N/A description Training course at university developed with owner. reconstruction) Cost DISK (2006) description Deterioration is not modeled in the system.. it is also an indicator for structures that do not comply with the target maintenance level No No data collecting group Owner (Rijkswaterstaat). year+ 1 . are not modeled in the system. Not mandatory for inspectors. and a reference for actual planning. Offline models are available to correspond with information in the system Improvements. The system does not generate LCC itself. This enables a partial LCC computation. 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 .g.Adey. but not used for operational planning) description This information is used as advice for basic planning.

(Polish Railway Lines) (http://www. Structure types No. Klatter.pwr. (Polish Railway Lines) description PC/Windows 95 or later Desktop.A. 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 Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 77 . Kong IABMAS 2010 11.plk-sa.wroc.12 SMOK Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . 1997 (in Polish) PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S. Proprietary Database Manual entry Textual. graphical & tabular reports No Structure types No.A.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.pl ) Computer Inventory of Bridge Structures (Users Manual).Adey. 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.pl) 2000/1997 Wroclaw University of Technology (www.

Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Intervention information Safety. defined by user. Photos. Klatter. Condition rating is supported by the expert system BEEF (Bridge Evaluation Expert System) based on hybrid network technology. vulnerability. 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. test results can be also stored in the system. 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 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.Adey. No No No description Prioritization is based on the ranking list generated by the system (ranking priorities are defined by the user) 78 . plans.

Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. experience and results of the training courses ----- Operational information 79 . repair.Adey. 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.g. experience and results of the training courses Training courses and certification system for users Inspectors & users: personal certification based on education level. rehabilitation. Klatter. 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.

Proprietary Database Manual entry Textual. 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 . 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.Adey.pl) Users Manual SZOK 2009 (in Polish) Local road administration in Poland description PC/Windows XP or later Desktop.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. (htpp://universal-systems. graphical & tabular reports No Structure types No. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.c. 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.

test results can be also stored in the system. 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 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. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety.Adey. No No No description History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form Intervention information 81 . defined by user. Photos. videos. vulnerability. plans. 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.

g. repair. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e. Klatter.Adey. 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. rehabilitation. 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 used for deterioration process prediction. 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 ----- Operational information 82 . experience and results of the training courses Short introduction to the system based on the Users Manual Inspectors: personal certification based on education level.

The application allows the introduction of intervention documents.com ) Inventory Manual. Structure types No. Road Maintenance Areas. Road Demarcations.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/DIRECCION ES_GENERALES/CARRETERAS/ 2009 / 2005 GEOCISA (www. User Manual.0 – MapObjects (GIS) Client / Server Application. Data is entered manually in a desk top computer. description Microsoft Visual FoxPro 7. web access to the same data.0 description Ministerio de Fomento http://www. The application allows the introduction of inspection reports. Maintenance Manual – Main Inspections and Basic Inspections –. there is a program that uploads data to the database. Klatter.Adey. You can also enter data directly into the database. 83 . Installation Manual (Spanish) Ministerio de Fomento.fomento. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.14 SGP Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information SGP 2. After that.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 Inventory information (of principal user) No. Footbridges 332 Pedestrian underpass 53 Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . 7321 858 5979 2419 5546 description The application allows the introduction of construction documents. Yes. Structure types No.geocisa. It’s not necessary that the computer is connected to the network. Alphanumeric and graphic reports.

damage descriptions. Safety risk assessed from damage depends on structure index. 84 . Principal inspections planning. Safety risk assessed from damage depends on the element index. intensity and evolution). description Structure also has an index (0 – 100) based on all the structure damages. vulnerability. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional SGP 2. There are criteria for the index ranges. There are criteria for the index ranges. damage measurements. … Inspection data are used by a decision algorithm to generate a bridge state index (structure index). Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Inspection information Safety. Worst recommends urgent action. The inspector may change this index. Each damage is evaluated by three factors (extension.Adey. The inspector may change this index. graphical information. Klatter. It makes possible to follow the maintenance evolution of each structure using graphs. description Elements have an index (0 . Only in inventory module is load carrying capacity information. plans.0 description Damage indexes. Only in inventory module is load carrying capacity information. The application use a decision algorithm. there are a fixed criteria in order to avoid subjectivity.100) based on all their damages (element index).

The application calculates repair budgets and cost forecast. Traffic delay cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost. The application recommends intervention strategies (repairs) for each element. Intervention information 85 . Klatter. No. Indirect user cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost. The application recommends interventions for one structure or a set of structures. description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database. for one structure or a set of structures. No. the application tells us how much money we need to repair the structures. and only evaluate the current damages (the present structure state). User can define what parts of the bridge needs repair regardless of the state. Optimization algorithms exist. Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions. description No No. description The application can prioritize repairs according the elements state (damages state). Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions.Adey. Then application prioritizes repairs according the elements state (damages state). They can be modified by inspector/user. description No There are costs catalogues in the database. 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 Prioritization Performance measures SGP 2.0 description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database.

--description Through training courses. .dwg.. Documents are opened automatically (. 86 .jpg. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. .g.. No. No.0 description No. Photographs (. Rehabilitation and construction companies. Through manuals... description No. GIS (GEOGRAPHYC INFORMATION SYSTEM) is included. formats) can be shown. repair. No.doc.. Klatter. The developer company solves issues by phone and email. No.dwf.formats) AND drawings (.pdf. Evolution models are not implemented. --data collecting group The owner (Ministerio de Fomento) selects engineering companies..Adey. No. No. formats) Queries can be customize by the user Statistical graphics Special inspections module..bmp. . Inspectors have to pass a test. Inspector of engineering companies.... rehabilitation.xls.

BaTMan Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . type of construction. Documents as photo. In the system and in physical archives. Consultants and Contractors. Applicationserver.vv.300 Quays etc 380 Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures Others 3.se ) SRA. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No.vv.vv.000 Protection structures description In the system . elements. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.Adey.2 (2009) . Database Data is entered manually in computers Reports. More data is available in physical archives as original drawings etc. Stockholm Transport. drawings etc.vv. Swedish Rail Administration. material.se ) Available in the system BaTMan [Bridge and Tunnel Management system] in Swedish ( http://batman.Basic data. Structure types No. Klatter. Inventory information (of principal user) 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.se ) 2004 / 1987 SRA ( http://www. 800 28.languages) Users (Principal / Other) BaTMan 3. State-subsidized private Roads and Port of Göteborg. reports.[Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Swedish Road Administration [SRA] ( http://www. length.15 Bridge and Tunnel Management System. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 1. Inspection data is entered manually. drawings etc. description MS SQL 2005 Webclient.800 300 - Inspection reports Intervention history 87 .se and http://batman. City of Stockholm. Swedish Association of Local Authorities (about 60 out of 290).

Structure level Aggregated from element level. Functional condition for the elements have a condition rating (0 . Klatter. stone 2) The BaTMan system covers bridges with a theoretic span length > 2. 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. test results. Inspection information Name (version) Data collection level Element level 88 . vulnerability. Kong IABMAS 2010 BaTMan 3. concrete.Adey.[Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions. Additional 1) All tunnels. risk See structural level. Used for planning remedial activities.3). Physical condition is described using the measurement variable defined for each method of measurement. Load carrying capacity The effects of damage on elements load carrying capacity is taken in consideration – among other demands on the element. Safety. drawings etc. Safety Risk analyses for the structures are to be implemented in the system. Load carrying capacity Yes – for bridges. Assessment on structure level description Condition Element level condition is the basis for the structural condition. All based on visual inspection. Other information can be stored – photos.0 m.2 (2009) .

A database of unit prices for technical solutions is available. No. As the main strategy. the alternative with the lowest current value cost is chosen. No. Yes. 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. description On structural level.Adey. Conflicts with existing performance standards will be considered. the activities proposed in connection with the inspections are processed to an optimal strategy for the bridge concerned. No. See structure level. 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. Klatter. 89 .[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 benefit of saving money is compared with the extra cost of postponing the project one year. No. The optimal strategy (see above) is calculated on a LCC-basis. No. Yes. description No. description No. Alternative action strategies are studied and current socio economic value calculated with a discount rate of 4 %. Within the object planning module of the BaTMan system. (The actual action is determined when plans are drawn up for the whole bridge). Allowance is made for the road user costs.2 (2009) .

Non. with person who represents owners of structures in the BaTMan system.Adey. by supporting the setting of the durability standards. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. Additional Operational information 90 . There are groups. A (simple) deterioration model exists. Mandatory for SRA constructions.2 (2009) . long term performance standards. rehabilitation. 1-20 years. Klatter. i. but under discussion. contractors etc. consultants and owners. not mandatory. description Estimation of total needs and the distribution among organizational regions. Practical. data collecting group Owner of structures and consultants. for discussion of the use and development of the system. A (simple) maintenance policy model exists. on the field course provided by SRA. description Theoretical course at SRA. Although there is a demand for an examination for the theoretical SRA course. 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 BaTMan 3. Inspectors from engineering companies. Owners and in a small extent consultants.[Bridge and Tunnel Management] description . Estimation of the consequences of various fund levels.e.The description below refers to a strategic prediction (simulation) tool of the BaTMan system. But indirectly already. A (simple) cost model exists. Non. Courses on using the BaTMan system is arranged by SRA. repair. Not yet directly.

KUBA-DB.imc-ch. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. Microsoft.languages) KUBA 4.cadrz. CAD Rechenzentrum (www. 115 5000 1250 250 125 91 .admin. French and Italian) Swiss Federal Roads Authority / Multiple cantons in Switzerland description Oracle 11g. KUBA-MS. Implementation handbook. PDF formulars Reports. drawings.ch – in German. 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 Inventory information (of principal user) No. KUBA-Web.astra. ASTRA (www.ch 2008 / 1991 Infrastructure management consultants (IMC) (www. Operator handbook. KUBA-RP. Application Server. KUBA-Mobile.5 SP1 3 tier – Client. on-site with mobile computers.Net Framework 3. Maintenance concept (www.com). 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. Database Entered in desk top computer. design calculations Entered electronically.0 description Swiss Federal Roads Authority.com) Users handbook KUBA-ADM.astra. KUBAST. Klatter.admin. Structure types No.16 KUBA Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information References and Manuals (available at . graphical and tabular Yes (read only) Structure types No.Adey.

other information is considered indirectly. 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. 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. vulnerability. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety.g. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Intervention information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. vulnerability.0 description Visual inspection. but can be stored. the remaining structures requiring interventions are listed with respect to the expected benefit of performing the intervention strategy 92 . Destructive and non-destructive test results. 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.Adey. e. Plans.

rehabilitation.Adey.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. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Prediction information 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. repair.g. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. 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 Operational information 93 . Klatter.

Net DB2. Counties and Cities description IBM Mainframe.us) Bridge Inspection Manual and ABIMS User Manual (http://www.us/Docs/Bureaus/Maintenance/Bridge+Maintenance /Bridge+Inspection. Structure types No.htm) ALDOT.state.dot. Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Weirs Quays Piers Inventory information (of principal user) Protection structures description Stored in Document Management System Stored in Bridge Management System (ABIMS) Stored in ABIMS 94 .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.al. 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. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. Access for adhoc reports Web access is available to outside agencies to the mainframe through an Apache server Structure types No.al.us) 1994 ALDOT(www.al. CICS Data is entered manually using computer Standard reports.state.state.dot. ASP.Adey.

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. vulnerability. 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 Intervention information 95 . Klatter. maintenance needed is stored by structure description Elements have a condition rating (1-9) based on visual inspection Safety requirements are based on conditions. Kong IABMAS 2010 Inspection information Name (version) ABIMS Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. photos.Adey.

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. rehabilitation.g. Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. Klatter. repair.Adey. 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 Operational information 96 .

videos.NET Bridge.5 Client Server PowerBuilder.5 Infomaker Pontis 5. Users Manual (English) 46 Transportation Agencies in the US (Two International Licenses Italy) description 4.2009 Pontis 2.1 Oracle. Multi media. photos. Technical Notes.1 .org Pontis 5.5 Client Server & 5.Adey.1 Web Version) description American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO.com) Technical Manual.1995 ( http://pontis. reports Pontis 5.aashtoware.5 and 5. 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.com) (http://aashtoware.camsys.000 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) 97 . 0 0 0 0 0 Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.2009 Pontis 4. 5.0. Klatter.transportation.bakerprojects. Element. Inspection and Roadway levels.5. Open database architecture and GUI allows for full customization and internationalization.18 Pontis Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .org and www.1 yes Structure types Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures description Yes Yes Yes No.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Pontis (4. Sybase and SQL server compatible 4.1.1 Crystal Reports Pontis 4. 0 About 500.000 About 250. www.

5 No . 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 (4.2 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 Intervention information 98 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. vulnerability.1 Web Version) description Yes Yes description Yes 4.Adey.Future 5. Klatter.5 Client Server & 5.

rehabilitation.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. Klatter. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 Operational information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting NHI Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting No Additional 99 .Adey. repair.