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 .Adey. Klatter.

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

.....................................1 9.18 Ontario Bridge Management System................................................................................................................................................................................ Kong 8......................... OBMS ................... QBMS .....................................................................................58 APT-BMS...............................................................................................................2 9 IABMAS 2010 Education and qualification ................................................................................3 11.......2 9...........................................................................83 Bridge and Tunnel Management System...........................................................................5 11.........4 11..................................................................15 11............ 42 11..........................................................................62 BMS@RPI.....................................71 DISK....... BaTMan ......Adey.....................................................................................................................................................................3 on the BMSs in the report.........................................................................97 10 11 8 ................................................................16 11....6 11...................................................11 11.40 on the type of information gathered....... RPIBMS ...........................................................................................................91 ABIMS...... FBMS ..............................................................................................................................94 Pontis ...................................................................................................................................................................2 11...............68 Lat Brutus...13 11.........................1 11.............49 The Finnish Bridge Management System......................................................................................14 11................42 Quebec Bridge Management System...........................12 11...................................................................................................... DANBRO.........................................................................................................................10 11...................................................................................................................7 11.......................................... 40 9.............17 11.............................................................................................................................. 41 QUESTIONNAIRES ........52 Bauwerk Management System................................................ APTBMS ...........40 on the process of compiling this report...........74 SMOK ....................................................65 Korea Road Maintenance Business System.38 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................8 11............................................................................55 Eirspan............................................................80 SGP..................................................................................................................... KRMBS .. GBMS ........77 SZOK.........9 11.............41 REFERENCES........................87 KUBA ..................46 DANBRO Bridge Management System....................................................................................... Klatter.................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kong Table 2. even if they are used by an organization on the provincial level. a private organization) on a specific level.Adey.g. For example. The number of users of the system. The name and the web page address of the developers of the system. province.2 to replace Pontis 5. 15 .com Eric Christie christiee@dot . 2009. and only one (SZOK) was owned at a municipality level. and how to access. The majority of systems are owned at the country level (12/18). 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. or country or municipality level. state canton or prefecture level. Klatter. KUBA is owned by the Federal Roads Authority of Switzerland) or a private organization (e. Management Systems (1) Abb. Table 3). the references and manuals related to the system. and The years of the first and current version of the systems.us jaldayuz@mb akercorp. Country Owner System Name IABMAS 2010 Contact person* Name E-Mail rade. if a system is listed as being on the country level than when a new version of the system is released by AASHTO.al.1 The name and the web page address of the owner of the system. This characterization includes systems owned by a government organization (e.state. No.e.g. Pontis 5. replaces all licensed version of the system. Level of ownership The level of ownership indicates the level.g.com José Aldayuz 2 - GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION The level of system ownership. and The names of. Pontis is owned by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. at which system changes are coordinated (Figure 1. country level. e. 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 31.1.hajdin@i Rade Hajdin mc-ch. i.

2 Number of users The number of users of each system (Table 3). indicated as either single or multiple. 12/18 of the systems are used by multiple users indicating 16 . Level of ownership Table 3. Level of ownership and number of users Level of ownership Province/ State/ County/ Country Canton/ Municipality Prefecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 5 1 Number of users Single Multiple 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 No. gives an indication of the extent of use of the systems (Figure 2). 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. 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. Klatter.Adey.

are actively being developed. Kong IABMAS 2010 that many bridge managers use the systems of others instead of developing their own. starting in 1985 with DISK. Table 4. Since the majority of systems (14/17) have new versions released in the last five year period and one. in general. the GBMS. PONTIS is the only system that reports foreign users.Adey.3 Years of first and current versions The years of the first and current versions of the systems give an indication of the use of systems and how actively systems are being modified (Figure 3. Table 5). Cross-border users are rare. Number of users 2. Years of first and current versions 17 . Klatter. Since the first release dates of systems are relatively evenly distributed over time. 14 12 Number of Systems 10 8 6 4 2 0 Single Number of users Multiple Figure 2. is scheduled for release in the near future. 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. it can be inferred that there are steadily more administrations using management systems to support their decision making. it can be inferred that systems.

Kong Table 4. Klatter. Years of first versions No.Adey. 1 Canada 2 Canada 3 Denmark 4 Finland 5 Germany 6 Ireland 7 Italy 8 Japan 9 Korea 10 Latvia 11 12 Netherlands Poland 13 Poland 14 15 Sweden Spain 16 17 18 Switzerland USA USA Pontis 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 .

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

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

Type of architecture.2 Mode of data entry The majority (12/18) systems have the capability to enter data at a desk top computer. Klatter. Country Name 1 Tier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 2 Tier 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 6 1 5 11 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Tier Mode of data entry* Desktop and portable computer 1 1 Only desktop computer Unclear IABMAS 2010 Web Access Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 7 *How data is entered into the system. Table 6). Kong Table 6. 3. whereas 4 systems have the ability to enter data both at a desk top computer and through mobile computers (Figure 5. web access Type of system architecture No. mode of data entry. 21 .Adey.

in the system The archived construction information in the system. The number of bridges.1 INVENTORY INFORMATION The total number of objects in the system. tunnels. For Pontis. Mode of data entry 3. 3.3 Reporting capabilities All systems have reporting capabilities. Total number of objects The following inventory information is summarized in the report: The inventory information reported is that of the principal user. Klatter. The total number of objects per system range from zero.4 Web access Ten of the systems allow access to information in the system over the internet (Table 6). 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. being licensed to 44 of the States in the USA. 22 . retaining walls and other objects. and The archived inspection and intervention information in the system. As Pontis is owned by a private company (at the country level) it is used on principally on the the state level. This was possible for all systems except for Pontis. to 750’000 for Pontis (Figure 6 ).Adey. As the GBMS is a prototype this information was not given. culverts. and therefore has no single principal user. for the GBMS which is still a prototype and for SZOK where the numbers were not given. 4 4. the approximate numbers of objects given are those in all of the States in the USA.

The total number of objects per object type can be seen for all systems in Table 7.2 Number of bridges. Pontis has approximately 250’000 culverts and 500’000 bridges. although SMOK has more culverts than bridges (24’189 vs. Number of objects per object type No. culverts. tunnels. 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.Adey. no other object types were reported although it is known that at least some states use it for the management of sign structures. and drainage structures. traffic signal mast arms. 288). and for all systems except Pontis in Figure 7. retaining walls and other objects The predominant use of the systems is for bridges. and BatMan has more tunnels than bridges (800 vs. tunnels. Total number of objects per principal user Table 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Bridges 2’800 8’700 6’000 11’487 0 2’800 1’011 750 5’317 934 4’000 8’290 0 13’252 288 5’000 9’728 500’000 580’357 Culverts 1’900 0 6’000 3’078 0 0 0 0 0 845 600 24’189 0 5’979 300 1’250 6’112 250’000 300’253 Tunnels 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 314 0 14 26 0 0 800 365 2 0 1’541 Retaining Walls 700 500 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 771 0 0 13 1’000 0 0 3’054 Other objects 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 3’277 380 725 0 0 4’643 Total 5’400 9’200 12’050 14’685 0 2’800 1’011 750 5’631 1’779 4’795 33’276 0 22’508 1’781 8’340 15’842 750’000 889’848 4. For Pontis. 8’290). high mast light poles. Klatter. 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 . retaining walls.

Klatter. 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. although the majority of systems allow the information to be either stored in some way or referenced (Figure 9).3 Archived construction information Only five of the systems permit construction information to be archived in the system. such as BatMan and KUBA. 24 . Total number of objects per object type per principal user Percentage of total number of objects 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% APTBMS Eirspan DANBRO RPIBMS Lat Brutus KRBMS BaTMan Pontis OBMS QBMS SMOK SGP GBMS ABMS FBMS SZOK DISK KUBA Other objects Retaining Walls Tunnels Culverts Bridges System Figure 8. Percentage of total number 4. whereas others are used to deal with a wide range of infrastructure objects. Kong IABMAS 2010 percentage of total number of object type/ total number of objects can be seen in Figure 8 and Table 7. such as APTBMS and Eirspan. It was assumed that if data could be entered into the system that reports could also be uploaded.Adey. It can be seen that some systems are used to deal exclusively with bridges.

Archived construction information Basic data entered. 25 . Archived construction information Table 8.4 Archived inspection and intervention information All systems currently in operation allow archiving of inspection and intervention information.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 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 1 1 Uploaded reports No. Information for the GBMS was not given. Kong IABMAS 2010 6 Number of Systems 5 4 3 2 1 0 Basic data Uploaded reports entered. uploaded reports References No or not given Type of archived construction information Figure 9. Klatter.

The only system where this was not reported was the GBMS. Collection of inspection data and ability to enter condition. Type of information handled on element 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. There is. some ambiguity in how respondents interpreted the field on safety. 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. Table 9.1 INSPECTION INFORMATION Level of information storage (element or structure). however. and Type of information handled on project level. Type of information handled on structure level. safety. the prototype. risk. vulnerability. vulnerability or risk. Kong IABMAS 2010 5 5.Adey. vulnerability. 26 . 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). 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 and risk.2 Information handled on the element level The following was reported on the element level (Table 9): All 18 of the systems handle information on condition. Fourteen of the systems handle information related to safety. Klatter.

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

Thirteen of the systems handle information from inspections with respect to safety. but enter the information into the system once it is calculated by an engineer. however. generates a condition rating for the structure based on element level information. 28 . Fourteen systems handle information from inspections on load carrying capacity. It is not clear that all respondents interpreted the question in this way. There is. The other. risk. Kong Table 10. the FBMS. some ambiguity in the answers provided. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 3 4 1 1 1 1 5 6 7 8 9 IABMAS 2010 100 Not given 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 4 0 0 1 1 1 2 5. For example.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. vulnerability.Adey. many state agencies in the USA commonly do not ask their inspectors to determine the load-carrying capacity of a structure. Number of condition states Number of condition states No. The question was intended to determine whether information on the load carry capacity could be entered during an inspection. Klatter. The same ambiguity exists on the structure level as on the element level. though.

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

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

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

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. 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. combined rating of multiple priority indices and using user defined ratings (Table 13). risk. This information can be found in the questionnaires in the appendix.Adey.1 PREDICTION INFORMATION Predictive capabilities of the systems. Kong Table 13. cost benefit analysis. Cost and prioritization information Cost information No. 7 7.5 Prioritization Twelve of the systems prioritize interventions. Table 14): Nine of the systems can predict deterioration. 32 . including the use of condition. Five of these systems use probabilistic methods. Klatter. although there are seemingly large differences in how interventions are prioritized. Planning time frames.

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

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

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. 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 . Kong Table 15. 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.Adey. Klatter. 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.

Five of the systems are used to set performance standards. Eight of the systems are used to match funding sources. Uses of prediction information Used for Setting of performance standards 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 the determination of matching funding sources 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 8 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total 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. Table 17): 16 14 Fifteen of the systems are used to prepare budgets. Klatter. 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 14.3 Uses of prediction information IABMAS 2010 The following was reported with respect to the use of prediction information (Figure 14. Kong 7.

Klatter. 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. 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. The planning of interventions using the system is normally only done by the owner.Adey. and Intervention information is normally entered by the infrastructure owner. Kong IABMAS 2010 8 8.1 OPERATION INFORMATION Data collection information. Table 18). and The education and qualification information of those that use the system Data collection The following operation information is summarized in the report: It was reported that in the majority of system (Figure 15. Rights to use 37 .

Adey. Klatter. Kong Table 18. Table 19) with respect to the education and qualification of those that use the systems: For seventeen of the systems there is education for inspectors that entered data into the system. For fourteen of the systems there is certification of inspectors that enter data into the system. 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 three of the systems there is a certification of the user of the system. For eleven of the systems there is education provided for users of the system. 38 . Rights to use Inventory Owner and Companies Companies Owner Owner No.2 Education and qualification The following was reported (Figure 16.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

plans. test results. by description Yes Yes description Generally on the structure level. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. Yes (Bridge level) description Aggregated from all elements in a structure.Adey. Other information can be stored. although the cost of detailed inspections can be included on element level Yes Yes Yes Partly. e. Can be assigned by the user. No Reference strategies are available. They can be modified by the user. Klatter. vulnerability. They can be overruled by the user. description No Yes Yes description Yes.g. and LCC is used to estimate the long term costs of the intervention strategies. Is assigned and based on the condition ranking. description Based on condition marks. User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Intervention information 50 . Can be assigned by the user. description Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined. worst condition is default. photos. all interventions are considered to be cyclic. It can be overruled by user. Aggregated from element level (see next section) description Elements have a condition rating (0-5) based on visual inspection.

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

design. Oracle Reports .Adey.format No.fi 2009 / 1990 & 1995 Tiehallinto ( www.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. Oracle Forms 5. printed in Ascii and Excel .tiehallinto. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. running in CitrixClient. construction papers Special inspection reports and research results are preserved in manual archives and bridge folders (basic inputs to Bridge Register) Yes.tiehallinto. 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.4 The Finnish Bridge Management System.Server Data entered manually 70 ready to use -reports with Visual Basic. calculations. on-going data collection (about 20) 11487 3078 0 0 Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures 0 0 0 Quays Piers about 100 together Protection 0 structures description Manual bridge folders for planning. a special web-portal from outside Finnra to Citrix server Structure types No. Structure types No.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. FBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . consultants companies description Oracle 8 database. Excel and Word format Add hoc reports with SQL*Plus. older repair data (before 1985) not complete 52 . Klatter. can be printed in PDF.

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

rehabilitation. 3-4 days theory. repair. This means "calibration" of inspectors. This means that new features and possibilities for new data will be added. Both the Bridge Register and the Project Level BMS (Hanke-Siha) are totally renewed. data is inputted into the Bridge Register. A new design competitive bidding is going on. everyone inspects the same bridge. The design work starts in the end of September this year. by the bridge engineer in the road region Yes. Bridge Register basic course 2 days. Engineering companies' inspection consultants Planning is made by bridge engineers. consultant companies can be involved in some cases description Inspection training course. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. engineering companies' inspection consultants possibly input the data.Adey. 1 day in situ training. A report of inspection quality is produced yearly to follow the data quality. 1 day examination (theory and in situ inspection) Inspection course examination. Klatter. If someone does not participate. no inspections without it. Statistical measures of divergence are calculated. The results lead to "inspector's quality points". reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Prediction information The Finnish BMS (Bridge Register & Project Level BMS) description Age behavior models for structural elements' deterioration Repair measure models LCA and LCC analyses Repair programs for coming 6 years description Yes. by the Central Administration of Finnra Yes. by the Central Administration of Finnra data collecting group Road regions have the responsibility of basic data collection. 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 . BMS basic course 2 days The Bridge Register course (no examination demanding) Yearly training day for bridge inspectors is obligatory. The new programs should be in use in early 2011. which are used when comparing the inspection offers in competitive biddings. too. the quality points from the earlier year are reduced according special rules.g. The programs are old.

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

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

de Testing and the end of further training courses Not yet No - Additional Operational information 57 . repair. rehabilitation. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information 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 Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1. 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).g. for bearings and expansion joints) Measure catalogue implemented (different levels. carbonation) and service life model (e. www. chloride intrusion.g. 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. Klatter. repair.Adey.0) description Deterioration models (corrosion.vfib-ev.

6 Eirspan Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Eirspan (2008 version) description National Roads Authority.Adey.nra.nra. Manuals not made available on web. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.vejdirektoratet. database Data is entered manually on a desktop computer Printed reports with text.) Manuals in English only. Bored tunnels Bridges 2800 Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 58 . photographs & drawings Yes Structure types No. Ireland (www. etc. National Roads Authority description Interbase Client. Application server. 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 . principal inspection. Ireland (www. Klatter.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Structure types No. routine maintenance.dk) Since 2004 developments made by National Roads Authority.ie) Individual manual produced for each module (inventory.ie) 2008/2001 Original version developed by Danish Roads Directorate (www.

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

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

Annual intervention costs based on repairs stated in inspection reports and unit rates of repair can be provided for up to 6 years. reconstruction) Cost Eirspan (2008 version) description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. but are inaccurate given the associated uncertainties. Bridge is categorized as 2. 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.0m span or greater.Adey. rehabilitation. Inspections only. There is no effective way of using the system to provide intervention costs to reasonable accuracy. Non-national bridges are managed by local authorities. Must also attend 4-day bridge inspection workshop in order to be an inspection Team Leader. Note: National Roads Authority responsible for national road bridges only. repair. Klatter.g. Regional bridge managers must have 7 years satisfactory engineering experience. years 1 to 6. Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. Regional bridge managers must have degree in civil engineering or equivalent. Operational information Additional Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … 61 . Improvements are not modeled in the system.

Kong IABMAS 2010 11. passwd: dims425) 2008 / 2004 University of Trento. Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering (http://www.it/ . Klatter. 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.it/dims) 3 User manuals and 11 procedures (http://bms. design document can be uploaded References and Manuals (available at . reference to hard paper archives is also included Current and past inspection report are generated on demand Past intervention are listed.Adey. Structure types No. Database.7 APT-BMS.heidi.it/ – available at the front page.ing.unitn.guest access: user: guest. GIS Yes Structure types No. in Italian) Provincia Autonoma di Trento (Autonomous Province of Trento) / None description Microsoft SQL Client. 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. tabular.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Bored tunnels Bridges 1011 Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 62 . graphical.heidi. Data Anlysis Server 800 Gb (can be expanded) Reports. Application Server.

The spatial arrangement of SUs is defined through logical entities labeled connections (C). Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. such as deck. based on formal safety evaluation procedures. material. Klatter. apparent age) computed from the condition of the single elements. 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. abutments. Intervention information Inspection information 63 . No description User can define the effect of interventions Effect of standard interventions are predefined. description Automatic evaluation of two priority indices for replacement and repair scenarios. which are specified in terms of quantity and Condition State. spatial location…). which are defined as conceptual entities characterized by common attributes (such as length. piles. Inspection report and summary. In addition. 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).Adey. the bridge is broken down into Structural Units (SU). 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. typology. Risk computed from unit level Recorded into the database when formally assessed for sub-standard bridges. Recorded at the structure level. vulnerability. description Different condition indices (overall CS. On-demand cumulative-time risk and cost analysis of specific MR&M scenarios. Safety evaluated at the structural unit 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 Operational information APT-BMS (2008) description Based on Markovian models Based on Markovian models LCC evaluated based on intervention scenario and maintenance strategy.g. description Yes Available. including earthquake and natural disasters. data collecting group Assigned to professional engineers. Assigned to professional engineers for 3-year principal inspections and formal safety evaluation. 5-year time span for short term intervention scenarios and 50. Owner (APT) for 1-year routine inspection. Klatter. but not exploited so far. No Yes No Posterior quality control of inspectors activity. Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional 64 . Yes For performing risk analysis under specific scenarios. repair. rehabilitation. Owner (APT) description Mandatory training course offered by university.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.year time span for strategic planning. On-site support at the first inspection.

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

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

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

nu) . 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 .9 Korea Road Maintenance Business System.mine. Klatter.re. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.317 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. Transport and Maritime Affairs / Regional Construction and Management Administration description Oracle 9i.kict. Java/Jsp Application & WEB Server.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.Adey. Client Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports. KRMBS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .Facil Information Management System 2009/2003 Korea Institute of Construction Technology (http://www. Structure types No.kr) User Manual KOROMBUS 2007 Administrator Manual KOROMBUS 2007 (in Korean) Ministry of Land.fims. Database. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. Bored tunnels 297 Bridges 5.

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

Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 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 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. Klatter.g. repair. 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 .

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

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

rehabilitation. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. 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. Manager (Latvian State Roads) description Training course at university developed with manager and university. 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. repair. Personal certificate based on minimal requirements. 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. Klatter. 73 .Adey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. defined by user. 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. Photos. videos.Adey. Klatter. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety.

reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional SZOK (2009) description History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form. rehabilitation.g. repair.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e. experience and results of the training courses ----- Operational information 82 . experience and results of the training courses Short introduction to the system based on the Users Manual Inspectors: personal certification based on education level. Can be used for deterioration process prediction. Klatter. 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. 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.

geocisa. web access to the same data. Structure types No. Structure types No.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. It’s not necessary that the computer is connected to the network. Road Demarcations. The application allows the introduction of inspection reports. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. Installation Manual (Spanish) Ministerio de Fomento. description Microsoft Visual FoxPro 7.fomento. You can also enter data directly into the database. The application allows the introduction of intervention documents.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/DIRECCION ES_GENERALES/CARRETERAS/ 2009 / 2005 GEOCISA (www. Alphanumeric and graphic reports. 83 .0 – MapObjects (GIS) Client / Server Application. Maintenance Manual – Main Inspections and Basic Inspections –.com ) Inventory Manual. Data is entered manually in a desk top computer.0 description Ministerio de Fomento http://www. Road Maintenance Areas. Klatter. 7321 858 5979 2419 5546 description The application allows the introduction of construction documents.14 SGP Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information SGP 2. After that. Footbridges 332 Pedestrian underpass 53 Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . Yes. there is a program that uploads data to the database.Adey. User Manual.

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

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

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

Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 1. State-subsidized private Roads and Port of Göteborg. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. Klatter. drawings etc.se ) 2004 / 1987 SRA ( http://www. Swedish Association of Local Authorities (about 60 out of 290).languages) Users (Principal / Other) BaTMan 3.Adey.se and http://batman.800 300 - Inspection reports Intervention history 87 . 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.2 (2009) . Structure types No. Applicationserver.000 Protection structures description In the system .[Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Swedish Road Administration [SRA] ( http://www. elements.se ) SRA. BaTMan Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .vv. reports. In the system and in physical archives.vv. Documents as photo. material. description MS SQL 2005 Webclient. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.300 Quays etc 380 Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures Others 3.15 Bridge and Tunnel Management System. drawings etc. 800 28.Basic data.se ) Available in the system BaTMan [Bridge and Tunnel Management system] in Swedish ( http://batman. Stockholm Transport. Inspection data is entered manually. City of Stockholm. Swedish Rail Administration. Consultants and Contractors. Database Data is entered manually in computers Reports. type of construction. More data is available in physical archives as original drawings etc. length.vv.vv.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. maintenance needed is stored by structure description Elements have a condition rating (1-9) based on visual inspection Safety requirements are based on conditions. photos. Posting recommendations begin for conditions of 4 or less See above description Based on condition from elements Same as element Determined by structure analysis or by conditions as listed above description Standard interventions are predefined Interventions can be user defined but not captured in system description No Posting recommendation begin when conditions are 4 or less No description No No No description Inspection costs stored by structure The intervention performed is stored by structure no no No description Intervention information 95 . Klatter. vulnerability.Adey.

replacement done on 5 year plan but later years are stored description Information is used for budget and project planning no no data collecting group Owner Owner – can be consultant Owner description NHI 2-week Safety inspection of In-Service Bridges and ALDOT 2-day Annual Bridge Inspection Refresher Course Minimum qualifications must be meet and must attend 2-day school at least every 2 years to keep certification ALDOT 2-day Annual Bridge Inspection Refresher Course Must be certified to enter inspection data Additional Operational information 96 . reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … ABIMS description No Repair needed is captured in the system for each structure Cost are estimated by activity and stored for each structure Planning for maintenance is yearly. rehabilitation. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. repair.g.Adey.

www. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. 0 0 0 0 0 Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No.NET Bridge.Adey. Sybase and SQL server compatible 4.1. videos.1995 ( http://pontis.1 Oracle.1 Web Version) description American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO. photos.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Pontis (4.org and www. Open database architecture and GUI allows for full customization and internationalization.1 Crystal Reports Pontis 4.com) (http://aashtoware. Users Manual (English) 46 Transportation Agencies in the US (Two International Licenses Italy) description 4. Multi media.org Pontis 5.aashtoware.2009 Pontis 2.0.000 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) 97 .1 yes Structure types Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures description Yes Yes Yes No.bakerprojects. Element.5 Infomaker Pontis 5.5 Client Server & 5. Klatter.5.transportation.5 and 5. Technical Notes.camsys. 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.2009 Pontis 4.com) Technical Manual. reports Pontis 5. 5. Inspection and Roadway levels.5 Client Server PowerBuilder. 0 About 500.18 Pontis Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .1 .000 About 250.

vulnerability.5 Client Server & 5.1 Web Version) description Yes Yes description Yes 4.Future 5. Klatter.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 . risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Inspection information Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Pontis (4.5 No . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety.Adey.

g. Kong IABMAS 2010 Operational information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. rehabilitation. Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting NHI Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting No Additional 99 .5 Client Server & 5. 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.Adey. Klatter. repair.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful