IABMAS-BMC-BMS-Report-20100806[1].pdf | Prediction | Information

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

Kong IABMAS 2010 4 . Klatter.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

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

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

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

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

numbers of structures per structure type. no information is given on how cost calculations are made. IT information (i. being used to manage approximately 900’000 objects. This type of information can be found in other reports. and the significant impact on society if they do not function as intended. bridge. complexity. The report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1). from 15 countries. for even moderately sized networks. what they are planning to do. e. the current state of the art is the development and implementation of management systems that ‘best match’ current practice and decision making. 2]. general information about the information technology aspects of the management system).e. even though many of these systems are often used to handle many other objet types.e. The information summarized and compared includes: General system information (i. Klatter. and hence the use of the terminology bridge management system.g. Inventory information (i. Bridges. 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. a road sign or a culvert.e. Kong IABMAS 2010 1 INTRODUCTION Well functioning infrastructure. In order to handle the amount of information required to do this. An infrastructure object is an item in a network that is often considered as a single unit. e.Adey. including structure types. Although ultimately it is expected that management systems will include all infrastructure objects1 and their roles within their respective networks in an integrated manner. only whether or not they are made. 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. an increasing number of infrastructure owners are supporting their decision making process with increasingly sophisticated computerized management systems. due to their individuality. is vital to the prosperity and well-being of the people of a country. retaining wall.g. 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. For example. It should be managed to maximize its benefit to society. The main body of this report includes a summary of the information in the questionnaires and basic comparisons between the systems. information on the infrastructure objects owned or managed by the principal user of the management system. general information on the management system). for example [1. It provides a general overview of the bridge management systems and does not focus on the details of specific procedures used within the systems. have often been the starting point for the development of these systems. road section. 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. requiring the implementation and systematic following of appropriate procedures and practices to ensure that optimal intervention strategies are determined and followed. or are doing. and archives). 1 12 . 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.

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

ca sas@upc.wroc. Casas Bosse Eriksson Lennart Lindlad 15 Sweden Swedish Road Administration BaTMan *All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31.l v leo.Bien@pwr .nl Jan. 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.zonta @unitn.fi Haardt@bast.wroc.eriksson@vv . Management Systems (1) No.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.H. Park 10 11 12 13 14 Latvia Netherla nds Poland Poland Spain Ilmars Jurka Leo Klatter Jan Bien Jan Bien Joan R.Bien@pwr .es boe.re. Klatter.se lennart.com reed.dk MarjaKaarina.Soder qvist@liikenn evirasto.pl Jan. Kong Table 1.pl joan. 14 .com jorn.Adey. de lduffy@nra. Quebec Ministry of Transportation System Name Abb.ie daniele.it mackaneuji@k ajima.ellis@sta ntec. Ilmars@lvceli. 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.klatter@r ws.com paul@kict.ellis@sta ntec.k r.lindbla d@vv.lauridsen @vd.ramon. 1 Country Canada Owner Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2009.

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

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

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

Years of first versions No. 1 Canada 2 Canada 3 Denmark 4 Finland 5 Germany 6 Ireland 7 Italy 8 Japan 9 Korea 10 Latvia 11 12 Netherlands Poland 13 Poland 14 15 Sweden Spain 16 17 18 Switzerland USA USA Pontis 1 1 IABMAS 2010 Country Lat Brutus DANBRO APTBMS BaTMan RPIBMS Eirspan KRBMS QBMS OBMS GBMS SMOK Name 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1 1 1 1 1 ABMS FBMS KUBA SZOK DISK SGP 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Total 18 . Kong Table 4. Klatter.Adey.

Klatter.Adey. Years of current versions No. 1 Canada 2 Canada 3 Denmark 4 Finland 5 Germany 6 Ireland 7 Italy 8 Japan 9 Korea 10 Latvia 11 12 Netherlands Poland 13 Poland 14 15 Sweden Spain 16 17 18 Switzerland USA USA Pontis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 4 8 Country Lat Brutus DANBRO APTBMS BaTMan RPIBMS Eirspan KRBMS QBMS OBMS SMOK GBMS Name 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ABMS FBMS KUBA SZOK DISK SGP Total 19 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Table 5.

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

web access Type of system architecture No.2 Mode of data entry The majority (12/18) systems have the capability to enter data at a desk top computer. 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. whereas 4 systems have the ability to enter data both at a desk top computer and through mobile computers (Figure 5.Adey. mode of data entry. Type of architecture. Table 6). 3. 21 . Kong Table 6. Klatter.

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

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. retaining walls. retaining walls and other objects The predominant use of the systems is for bridges. tunnels. Pontis has approximately 250’000 culverts and 500’000 bridges. tunnels.2 Number of bridges. traffic signal mast arms. and for all systems except Pontis in Figure 7. high mast light poles. 8’290).Adey. culverts. no other object types were reported although it is known that at least some states use it for the management of sign structures. although SMOK has more culverts than bridges (24’189 vs. Total number of objects per principal user Table 7. 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 . 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. The total number of objects per object type can be seen for all systems in Table 7. Klatter. and drainage structures. 288). and BatMan has more tunnels than bridges (800 vs. For Pontis. Number of objects per object type No.

such as BatMan and KUBA. 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 8.3 Archived construction information Only five of the systems permit construction information to be archived in the system. although the majority of systems allow the information to be either stored in some way or referenced (Figure 9).Adey. 24 . such as APTBMS and Eirspan. It can be seen that some systems are used to deal exclusively with bridges. Klatter. whereas others are used to deal with a wide range of infrastructure objects. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 percentage of total number of object type/ total number of objects can be seen in Figure 8 and Table 7. Percentage of total number 4. It was assumed that if data could be entered into the system that reports could also be uploaded.

Archived construction information Table 8. Information for the GBMS was not given. 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 9.4 Archived inspection and intervention information All systems currently in operation allow archiving of inspection and intervention information.Adey. Klatter. Archived construction information Basic data entered. 25 . Kong IABMAS 2010 6 Number of Systems 5 4 3 2 1 0 Basic data Uploaded reports entered. uploaded reports 1 1 Uploaded reports No.

Level of information storage The following inspection information is summarized in the report: All systems currently in operation allow the storing of inspection information at both the element and structure level (Table 9). the prototype. risk. Table 9.Adey. The only system where this was not reported was the GBMS. Kong IABMAS 2010 5 5.2 Information handled on the element level The following was reported on the element level (Table 9): All 18 of the systems handle information on condition. 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. There is. some ambiguity in how respondents interpreted the field on safety. Klatter. 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. vulnerability and risk. Fourteen of the systems handle information related to safety. safety. however.1 INSPECTION INFORMATION Level of information storage (element or structure). vulnerability. Type of information handled on structure level. 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. Type of information handled on element level. and Type of information handled on project level. Collection of inspection data and ability to enter condition. 26 . vulnerability.

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

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

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

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

Nine of the systems handle indirect user costs. 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay Indirect user cost cost Cost information Life-cycle costing Figure 11. Klatter. 6.4 Intervention costs The following was reported with respect to intervention costs (Figure 11. Only a minority of systems (6/18) handle inspection costs. These systems either calculate or allow entry of the costs of traffic delay. or allow entry of. Two of the systems either calculate. Nine of the systems handle traffic delay costs. intervention strategies. that the question was not commonly understood. It was meant to mean that multiple objects could be taken into consideration. Eleven of the systems consider life-cycle costing at least partly. These systems either calculate or allow entry of the indirect costs. The exception is the KRSBM. IABMAS 2010 It is believed. Cost information 31 .Adey. however. Kong Nine of the systems allow user defined intervention. Table 13): 18 16 Number of Systems Seventeen of the systems can handle intervention cost information.

Adey. 32 . and Uses of prediction information Predictive capabilities The following prediction information is summarized in the report: The following was reported with respect to predictive capabilities (Figure 12. Table 14): Nine of the systems can predict deterioration. combined rating of multiple priority indices and using user defined ratings (Table 13). although there are seemingly large differences in how interventions are prioritized. Klatter. Five of these systems use probabilistic methods. Kong Table 13. including the use of condition. Cost and prioritization information Cost information No.1 PREDICTION INFORMATION Predictive capabilities of the systems. risk.5 Prioritization Twelve of the systems prioritize interventions. 7 7. Planning time frames. 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. cost benefit analysis.

Predictive capabilities No. i. As there are only nine systems that predict future deterioration and improvements due to future interventions. Det. 1 1 Cost No Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 4 1 9 1 9 1 2 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 No Yes 1 1 1 1 No Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 33 . Kong - IABMAS 2010 Nine of the systems are reported to predict improvement. Predictive capabilities Table 14. Klatter. 18 16 Number of Systems 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Deterioration Improvement Predictive capability Cost Figure 12. i. the improvement due to future interventions. 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. it is assumed that the additional four systems that predict costs do so only on an operational basis. 1 1 Improvement Yes Prob. Det. of which two are reported to use probabilistic methods. taking into consideration only the existing condition state and likely intervention costs for the objects in those condition states. Thirteen of the systems are reported to predict costs.e.e.Adey.

Kong 7. it was possible in many cases to deduce the planning time frames (Figure 13. Although the long time frame prediction periods. Two time frames were considered: a short time frame – for the development of work programs. seen the users of Pontis. The short time frame prediction periods for Pontis were not given in the questionnaire. was not reported. 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. 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. to be any period from five years to 30 years to fit their budgeting processes. short time frame. Planning time frames Not given 1-5 N/A 34 . Klatter. Table 15.2 Planning time frames IABMAS 2010 Although not asked in the questionnaires. Table 16). A ten-year horizon is most common. In the analysis. most likely because the agencies that license Pontis are able to configure the work program horizon.e. and a long time frame – for the prediction of future budgets and the development of maintenance policies. the long time frame was taken to be identical to that of the short. i. if only one predictive period was specified. most likely due to the freedom agencies that license Pontis have in defining it.Adey.

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. 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. 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. 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. Kong Table 15.

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

Kong IABMAS 2010 8 8. 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 15.1 OPERATION INFORMATION Data collection information. Klatter. The planning of interventions using the system is normally only done by the owner. and Intervention information is normally entered by the infrastructure owner. Rights to use 37 . and The education and qualification information of those that use the system Data collection The following operation information is summarized in the report: It was reported that in the majority of system (Figure 15. Table 18). that: Inventory information is normally collected and entered by both the infrastructure owner and private companies Inspection and assessment information is normally collected and entered by the infrastructure owners and private companies.Adey.

2 Education and qualification The following was reported (Figure 16.Adey. 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. For eleven of the systems there is education provided for users of the system. For fourteen of the systems there is certification of inspectors that enter data into the system. For three of the systems there is a certification of the user of the system. 38 . Rights to use Inventory Owner and Companies Companies Owner Owner No. Klatter. 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. Kong Table 18.

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

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

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

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

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

Structure types No.ca/portal/page/portal/accueil_en Version 1.0 (2009) (MPS) Stantec Consulting Ltd.MPS description Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) http://www. inspection.mtq. Transportation Association of Canada.ca/en/pub_ligne/index.Adey.stantec. Bridge historical maintenance. rehabilitation. Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) description Oracle. Inventory information (of principal user) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.qc. Structure types No.asp (French) a) Design and Implementation of a New Bridge Management System for the Ministry of Transport of Québec. Toronto 2008. .700 Culverts* Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information 46 .mtq.com ) Quebec Structure Inspection Manuals http://www1. IABMAS ’08 Korea b) The Québec Ministry of Transport’s Bridge Project Tactical Planning Dashboard. replacement contract cost information.2 Quebec Bridge Management System. QBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . Bored tunnels Bridges 8.pdf reports optional. and Local Database Desktop computer Crystal Reports. Stored in system. and Microsoft SQL Express Client Server. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 500 Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures * > 3m span Protection structures description Bridge historical maintenance. Kong 11. inventory.gouv.0 (2008) Current Version 1. rehabilitation.qc.gouv.languages) IABMAS 2010 Basic information Quebec Bridge Management System . Microsoft SQL Server. replacement contract cost information. analysis results. Klatter. Yes inventory and inspection. (www.

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

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

dk http://www. Structure types No.Roaddirectorate. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. 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. Klatter.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. 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. 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 .Adey.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.3 DANBRO Bridge Management System. References and Manuals (available at .vejsektoren. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.dk/wimpdoc.dk www.

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

Klatter. The system does not generate LCC itself. This enables a partial LCC computation. Year + 10 and used for operational planning. and a reference for actual planning. description This information is used as advice for basic planning. Offline models are available to correspond with information in the system.g. Intervals are assigned as input to all interventions in the system.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. No Yes data collecting group Owner. repair. reconstruction) Cost DANBRO description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Mandatory for inspectors. Training course by Road Directorate Inspectors personal certificate based on requirements User groups discuss problems and solutions to improve quality. Prediction information Operational information Additional Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … 51 . rehabilitation. It is also an indicator for structures that do no comply with the target maintenance level. Improvements stored in the system. can be assigned to engineering companies Owners and inspectors from engineering companies Owner description Training course at Road Directorate developed with engineering companies. Personal certificate based on above training.

tiehallinto.fi ) User handbooks for Bridge Register and the Project Level BMS (Hanke-Siha) (in Finnish) Inspection quidelines and handbook (in Finnish) Tiehallinto / cities and communities. construction papers Special inspection reports and research results are preserved in manual archives and bridge folders (basic inputs to Bridge Register) Yes. design.Adey. Oracle Reports .languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities The Finnish BMS (Bridge Register & Project Level BMS) description Tiehallinto (The Finnish Road Administration FINNRA) www.tiehallinto. Excel and Word format Add hoc reports with SQL*Plus.Server Data entered manually 70 ready to use -reports with Visual Basic. 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. Klatter.4 The Finnish Bridge Management System. FBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .fi 2009 / 1990 & 1995 Tiehallinto ( www. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. running in CitrixClient.format No. Oracle Forms 5. Structure types No. 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. older repair data (before 1985) not complete 52 . calculations. a special web-portal from outside Finnra to Citrix server Structure types No. printed in Ascii and Excel . can be printed in PDF.

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

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

5 Bauwerk Management System. GBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . 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. Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Basic information Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.Adey. 0 0 0 55 . Klatter. 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.0) description no BMS under development.

0) description yes yes description yes Stability. vulnerability. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. 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 . 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.

chloride intrusion. reconstruction) Cost catalogue implemented 6 year planning period and 20 years “prediction period” description Yes (“financial scenario”) Yes (“quality scenario”) no On network level two scenarios (financial and quality scenario) data collecting group Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality. plausibility test for construction and damage data in the BMS-Program Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality Meeting between federal ministry and federal states every 6 months description Further training courses (recommend not obligatory).de Testing and the end of further training courses Not yet No - Additional Operational information 57 .vfib-ev. repair.g. repair. carbonation) and service life model (e.g. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1.0) description Deterioration models (corrosion. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e. rehabilitation. Klatter. for bearings and expansion joints) Measure catalogue implemented (different levels.Adey. www.

6 Eirspan Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Eirspan (2008 version) description National Roads Authority.Adey. etc.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.vejdirektoratet. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. Manuals not made available on web. Ireland (www.ie) Individual manual produced for each module (inventory. National Roads Authority description Interbase Client.ie) 2008/2001 Original version developed by Danish Roads Directorate (www.) Manuals in English only. Ireland (www. routine maintenance. photographs & drawings Yes Structure types No.nra. Structure types No. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures Protection structures description Archive module contains electronic links to documents Historical condition ratings and photos are stored digitally Description can be stored in archive module Basic information Inventory information (of principal user) IT information References and Manuals (available at .dk) Since 2004 developments made by National Roads Authority. Application server. Klatter. database Data is entered manually on a desktop computer Printed reports with text.nra. principal inspection. Bored tunnels Bridges 2800 Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 58 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 . plans. e. 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. Klatter.g. vulnerability. Other information can be stored. test results. 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.Adey.

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

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

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

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

1 4000 600 13 0 74 .rijkswaterstaat. Klatter.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.rijkswaterstaat.cgi?site=13 – in Dutch) Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport).cgi?site=13) 2006 / 1985 Rijkswaterstaat (www.nl) Users manual DISK 2006. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No.rijkswaterstaat. Administration manual (www.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgibin/index. Database Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports. National highways and water network / None description Microsoft SQL 2000 Client.11 DISK Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information DISK (2006) description Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport) (www.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgibin/index. Structure types No. Locks and sluices 145 Weirs 10 Retaining Walls 20 Quays 0 Storm surge 6 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Reference to archives is included in the system Inspection reports are uploaded (pdf) Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports (history is not complete) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . Application Server.

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

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

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

plans.Adey. Condition rating is supported by the expert system BEEF (Bridge Evaluation Expert System) based on hybrid network technology. No No No description Prioritization is based on the ranking list generated by the system (ranking priorities are defined by the user) 78 . vulnerability. Photos. 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. No No description Aggregated from all elements by means of the predefined formula No Defined by bridge inspector on the basis of inspection results --description No User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions Defined by the user description User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions Based on the ranking list (ranking priorities are defined by the user) description User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions Based on the ranking list (ranking priorities are defined by the user) description No Yes. defined by user. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Intervention information Safety. Klatter. test results can be also stored in the system.

experience and results of the training courses ----- Operational information 79 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. rehabilitation. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional SMOK 2000 description No Information collected in the system are used for planning of the interventions Information collected in the system are used for assessment of the intervention cost Information collected in the system are used for 1-10 years planning description Information collected in the system are used for budget planning No No --data collecting group Owner. repair.g. experience and results of the training courses Training courses and certification system for users Inspectors & users: personal certification based on education level. 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. Klatter.Adey.

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

Klatter.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 SZOK (2009) description Inventory and inspection data are collected individually for basic elements General information about the whole structure and aggregated from element level description Condition rating of elements (scale 0-5) based on visual inspection and test results. Photos. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety. defined by user. No No No description History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form Intervention information 81 . test results can be also stored in the system. 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. vulnerability. videos.

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

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

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

description No There are costs catalogues in the database. description The application can prioritize repairs according the elements state (damages state). Traffic delay cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost.Adey.0 description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database. The application recommends interventions for one structure or a set of structures. description No No. Then application prioritizes repairs according the elements state (damages state). The application recommends intervention strategies (repairs) for each element. and only evaluate the current damages (the present structure state). the application tells us how much money we need to repair the structures. They can be modified by inspector/user. Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions. Intervention information 85 . description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database. User can define what parts of the bridge needs repair regardless of the state. No. for one structure or a set of structures. Klatter. Indirect user cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost. Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions. No. The application calculates repair budgets and cost forecast. Optimization algorithms exist. 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.

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

description MS SQL 2005 Webclient. Applicationserver.15 Bridge and Tunnel Management System.Basic data.vv. length.se and http://batman. Consultants and Contractors. State-subsidized private Roads and Port of Göteborg. Inspection data is entered manually.se ) SRA. Structure types No. Swedish Association of Local Authorities (about 60 out of 290). elements.languages) Users (Principal / Other) BaTMan 3. material. More data is available in physical archives as original drawings etc.se ) Available in the system BaTMan [Bridge and Tunnel Management system] in Swedish ( http://batman. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No.vv.Adey. In the system and in physical archives. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.2 (2009) .000 Protection structures description In the system .800 300 - Inspection reports Intervention history 87 . drawings etc.300 Quays etc 380 Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures Others 3. 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. Documents as photo. drawings etc. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 1. Swedish Rail Administration. City of Stockholm. 800 28. BaTMan Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . Stockholm Transport. reports.se ) 2004 / 1987 SRA ( http://www. type of construction.[Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Swedish Road Administration [SRA] ( http://www.vv.vv. Database Data is entered manually in computers Reports.

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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 . rehabilitation.g. Klatter.

Access for adhoc reports Web access is available to outside agencies to the mainframe through an Apache server Structure types No.us/Docs/Bureaus/Maintenance/Bridge+Maintenance /Bridge+Inspection.htm) ALDOT. Structure types No.Adey. Klatter.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. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. Counties and Cities description IBM Mainframe. CICS Data is entered manually using computer Standard reports. 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.state.dot.dot.us) 1994 ALDOT(www.Net DB2. 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 .state.dot.us) Bridge Inspection Manual and ABIMS User Manual (http://www.al. ASP.al.state.al.

Klatter. 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 .Adey. vulnerability. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures description Visual inspections are performed on a set of agency defined elements Plans. Kong IABMAS 2010 Inspection information Name (version) ABIMS Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. photos. maintenance needed is stored by structure description Elements have a condition rating (1-9) based on visual inspection Safety requirements are based on conditions.

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

Users Manual (English) 46 Transportation Agencies in the US (Two International Licenses Italy) description 4.bakerprojects.5 Infomaker Pontis 5. Element. photos.1 .org Pontis 5.aashtoware.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Pontis (4. 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. Klatter. Inspection and Roadway levels.5 Client Server & 5.1 Oracle. reports Pontis 5.2009 Pontis 4. 0 0 0 0 0 Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No. Multi media.0. 5. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.1995 ( http://pontis.5 and 5.000 About 250.2009 Pontis 2. 0 About 500.5.000 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) 97 . Sybase and SQL server compatible 4. videos.1 Web Version) description American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO.com) (http://aashtoware.NET Bridge.18 Pontis Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .transportation.1 Crystal Reports Pontis 4.1 yes Structure types Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures description Yes Yes Yes No.com) Technical Manual.camsys. Technical Notes.Adey.1. Open database architecture and GUI allows for full customization and internationalization.5 Client Server PowerBuilder.org and www. www.

Future 5.5 No .1 Web Version) description Yes Yes description Yes 4. 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. vulnerability.5 Client Server & 5.Adey. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety.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 .

rehabilitation.5 Client Server & 5. repair.g.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Operational information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (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 Prediction information Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Pontis (4.1 Web Version) description Yes Yes Yes Yes description Yes It was designed to set policies No data collecting group Bridge Maintenance Engineers Bridge Inspectors Bridge Maintenance Engineers Planners description National Highway Institute (NHI) training. Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting NHI Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting No Additional 99 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful