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

Photo’s cover © Rijkswaterstaat, the Netherlands

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

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

July, 2010

Bryan T. Adey Institute for Construction and Infrastructure Management, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland E-mail: bryan.adey@ibb.baug.ethz.ch

Leo Klatter Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Center for Public Works, The Netherlands E-mail: leo.klatter@rws.nl

Jung S. Kong School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Korea University, Address: Seoul, Korea E-mail: jskong@korea.ac.kr

3

Kong IABMAS 2010 4 . Klatter.Adey.

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

Members of the IABMAS Bridge Management Committee 2010 Adams, Teresa, USA Adey, Bryan T., Switzerland Aldayuz, Jose, USA Bien, Jan, Poland Bleiziffer, Jelena, Croatia Branco, Fernando, Portugal Bruehwiler, Eugen, Switzerland Ellis, Reed, Canada Furuta, Hitoshi, Japan Hajdin, Rade, Switzerland Hawk, Hugh, Canada Jensen, Jens Sandager, Denmark Kerley, Malcolm, USA Klatter, Leo, the Netherlands Kong, Jung Sik, South Korea McCarten, Peter, New Zealand Messervey, Tom, Italy Neves, Luis, Portugal Pardi, Livia, Italy Shepard, Richard, USA Shirole, Arun, USA Söderqvist, Marja-Kaarina, Finland Thompson, Paul, USA Zandonini, Riccardo, Italy

5

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

6

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 12 GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 15 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 Level of ownership......................................................................................................................................15 Number of users .........................................................................................................................................16 Years of first and current versions..............................................................................................................17

IT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................. 20 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Type of architecture ...................................................................................................................................20 Mode of data entry ....................................................................................................................................21 Reporting capabilities.................................................................................................................................22 Web access.................................................................................................................................................22

4

INVENTORY INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 22 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Total number of objects .............................................................................................................................22 Number of bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls and other objects ...................................................23 Archived construction information.............................................................................................................24 Archived inspection and intervention information.....................................................................................25

5

INSPECTION INFORMATION................................................................................................................... 26 5.1 5.2 5.3 Level of information storage ......................................................................................................................26 Information handled on the element level .................................................................................................26 Information handled on the structure level................................................................................................28

6

INTERVENTION INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 29 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Information handled on the element level .................................................................................................29 Information handled on the structure level................................................................................................30 Information handled on the project level...................................................................................................30 Intervention costs.......................................................................................................................................31 Prioritization...............................................................................................................................................32

7

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

8

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

7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Level of ownership The level of ownership indicates the level. The name and the web page address of the developers of the system.com José Aldayuz 2 - GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION The level of system ownership.com Eric Christie christiee@dot . even if they are used by an organization on the provincial level. if a system is listed as being on the country level than when a new version of the system is released by AASHTO.e.state. Pontis 5. a private organization) on a specific level. This characterization includes systems owned by a government organization (e. KUBA is owned by the Federal Roads Authority of Switzerland) or a private organization (e. e. Management Systems (1) Abb. Table 3). The number of users of the system. replaces all licensed version of the system. i.hajdin@i Rade Hajdin mc-ch.us jaldayuz@mb akercorp. or country or municipality level. and The years of the first and current version of the systems.2 to replace Pontis 5. Klatter.g.g. and only one (SZOK) was owned at a municipality level. and how to access. and The names of. Switzer16 Swiss Federal Roads Authority KUBA KUBA land United Alabama Department of 17 ABIMS ABIMS States of Transportation America United American Association of State 18 Pontis Pontis States of Highway and Transportation America Officials *All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31.al. 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. at which system changes are coordinated (Figure 1. 2009. Kong Table 2. For example. Country Owner System Name IABMAS 2010 Contact person* Name E-Mail rade. 15 . The majority of systems are owned at the country level (12/18).1.Adey. No.1 The name and the web page address of the owner of the system. the references and manuals related to the system. state canton or prefecture level. Pontis is owned by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. country level.g. province.

Kong IABMAS 2010 14 12 Number of Systems 10 8 6 4 2 0 Country Province/ State/ Canton/ Prefecture Level of ownership County/ Municipality Figure 1. gives an indication of the extent of use of the systems (Figure 2). 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 2.2 Number of users The number of users of each system (Table 3). 12/18 of the systems are used by multiple users indicating 16 . indicated as either single or multiple. Level of ownership Table 3.Adey. Klatter. Level of ownership and number of users Level of ownership Province/ State/ County/ Country Canton/ Municipality Prefecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 5 1 Number of users Single Multiple 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 No.

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

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

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

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

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

1 INVENTORY INFORMATION The total number of objects in the system.4 Web access Ten of the systems allow access to information in the system over the internet (Table 6). being licensed to 44 of the States in the USA. 22 . The number of bridges. 4 4. Total number of objects The following inventory information is summarized in the report: The inventory information reported is that of the principal user. Mode of data entry 3. the approximate numbers of objects given are those in all of the States in the USA. and therefore has no single principal user. in the system The archived construction information in the system. As the GBMS is a prototype this information was not given. This was possible for all systems except for Pontis. For Pontis. retaining walls and other objects. culverts. Klatter. As Pontis is owned by a private company (at the country level) it is used on principally on the the state level. The total number of objects per system range from zero. tunnels. Kong IABMAS 2010 14 12 Number of Systems 10 8 6 4 2 0 Only desktop computer Desktop and portable computers Mode of data entry Unclear Figure 5. to 750’000 for Pontis (Figure 6 ). 3. and The archived inspection and intervention information in the system. for the GBMS which is still a prototype and for SZOK where the numbers were not given.3 Reporting capabilities All systems have reporting capabilities.Adey.

although SMOK has more culverts than bridges (24’189 vs. retaining walls. 288). high mast light poles. Pontis has approximately 250’000 culverts and 500’000 bridges. Kong IABMAS 2010 33276 35000 30000 Number of Objects 9200 12050 20000 15000 14685 5400 5631 5000 0 Eirspan DANBRO APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus BaTMan System Figure 6. tunnels. traffic signal mast arms. and for all systems except Pontis in Figure 7. retaining walls and other objects The predominant use of the systems is for bridges. 8’290).Adey. Number of objects per object type No. tunnels. The total number of objects per object type can be seen for all systems in Table 7. For Pontis. and drainage structures. Klatter. Total number of objects per principal user Table 7. and BatMan has more tunnels than bridges (800 vs. 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 .2 Number of bridges. no other object types were reported although it is known that at least some states use it for the management of sign structures. culverts. 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.

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

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlan ds Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerlan d USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 0 4 10 5. Type of information handled on structure level. and Type of information handled on project level. safety. 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). Collection of inspection data and ability to enter condition. risk Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 No Load carrying capacity Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No No. 26 . The only system where this was not reported was the GBMS. Klatter. Fourteen of the systems handle information related to safety. risk.Adey. Table 9. however. Type of information handled on element level. Kong IABMAS 2010 5 5. some ambiguity in how respondents interpreted the field on safety. vulnerability. the prototype. vulnerability or risk.1 INSPECTION INFORMATION Level of information storage (element or structure). There is. vulnerability. vulnerability and risk. and load carrying capacity information from inspections on the element level Inspection data on element level Not Yes given 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 Condition Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 No Safety.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.

Although not specifically requested in the questionnaire. Eight of the systems handle information on load carrying capacity. The range of condition states currently being used is three to five. Number of condition states 27 . 6 5 Number of Systems 4 3 2 1 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 Not given Number of condition states Figure 10. Kong IABMAS 2010 at the element level. Table 10).The majority of systems use ratings of six condition states or fewer. Although noted in the questionnaire as “not given” it is known that Pontis can handle up to five condition states. In Pontis the number of condition states used depends on the organization that licenses it. Klatter. information was provided on the number of condition states used in each system for 16 systems (Figure 10. with four being the most common.Adey. 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.

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

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

Intervention information on the element. 6. Eight of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies. Klatter. There is.2 Information handled on the structure level The following was reported on the structure level (Table 12): Eight of the systems have predefined interventions. Kong Table 12.3 Information handled on the project level The following was reported on the project level (Table 12): Two of the systems have predefined interventions. Fourteen of the systems allow user defined intervention. 30 . structure and project level Element level User defined/ custom Intervention strategy Predefined standard Structure level User defined/ custom Intervention strategy Predefined standard Predefined standard IABMAS 2010 Project level User defined/ custom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Intervention strategy 1 1 1 1 1 5 No. Some 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. however. some ambiguity in the answers.Adey. Country Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Canada OBMS Canada QBMS Denmark DANBRO Finland FBMS Germany GBMS Ireland Eirspan Italy APTBMS Japan RPIBMS Korea KRBMS Latvia Lat Brutus Netherlan DISK ds Poland SMOK Poland SZOK Spain SGP Sweden BaTMan Switzerlan KUBA d USA ABMS USA Pontis Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 8 1 13 1 1 14 1 8 1 2 6.

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

cost benefit analysis.5 Prioritization Twelve of the systems prioritize interventions. Five of these systems use probabilistic methods. 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. Kong Table 13.1 PREDICTION INFORMATION Predictive capabilities of the systems. This information can be found in the questionnaires in the appendix. combined rating of multiple priority indices and using user defined ratings (Table 13). Klatter. 32 . risk.Adey. 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. although there are seemingly large differences in how interventions are prioritized. including the use of condition. Planning time frames. Table 14): Nine of the systems can predict deterioration. Cost and prioritization information Cost information No. 7 7.

Thirteen of the systems are reported to predict costs. Predictive capabilities Table 14. it is assumed that the additional four systems that predict costs do so only on an operational basis. Predictive capabilities No.Adey. Det. 1 1 Improvement Yes Prob. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlan ds Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerlan d USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Deterioration Yes Prob. 1 1 Cost No Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 4 1 9 1 9 1 2 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 No Yes 1 1 1 1 No Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 33 . Kong - IABMAS 2010 Nine of the systems are reported to predict improvement.e. Klatter. the improvement due to future interventions. 18 16 Number of Systems 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Deterioration Improvement Predictive capability Cost Figure 12. i. As there are only nine systems that predict future deterioration and improvements due to future interventions. of which two are reported to use probabilistic methods. Det.e. i. taking into consideration only the existing condition state and likely intervention costs for the objects in those condition states.

most likely due to the freedom agencies that license Pontis have in defining it. the long time frame was taken to be identical to that of the short. In the analysis. A ten-year horizon is most common. i. Table 15. Table 16). Kong 7. and a long time frame – for the prediction of future budgets and the development of maintenance policies. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Number of Systems Short term Long term 96-100 6-10 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 11-15 16-20 21-25 46-50 51-55 56-60 Years Figure 13. to be any period from five years to 30 years to fit their budgeting processes.e. seen the users of Pontis. was not reported. it was possible in many cases to deduce the planning time frames (Figure 13.Adey. if only one predictive period was specified. short time frame. Klatter. The short time frame prediction periods for Pontis were not given in the questionnaire. 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. Two time frames were considered: a short time frame – for the development of work programs. Planning time frames Not given 1-5 N/A 34 .2 Planning time frames IABMAS 2010 Although not asked in the questionnaires. Although the long time frame prediction periods. most likely because the agencies that license Pontis are able to configure the work program horizon.

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. 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. 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.Adey.

Number of Systems 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Budget preparation Setting of performance standards Selected Uses Matching funding sources Figure 14. Uses of prediction information Table 17. Klatter.Adey. 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. Kong 7. Table 17): 16 14 Fifteen of the systems are used to prepare budgets. Eight of the systems are used to match funding sources.3 Uses of prediction information IABMAS 2010 The following was reported with respect to the use of prediction information (Figure 14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia 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 . Five of the systems are used to set performance standards.

Klatter. The planning of interventions using the system is normally only done by the owner. Rights to use 37 .Adey. 14 12 Number of Systems 10 8 6 4 2 0 Owner Owner and Companies Rights to use Companies Inventory Inspection/ Assessment Intervention/ Planning Figure 15. and The education and qualification information of those that use the system Data collection The following operation information is summarized in the report: It was reported that in the majority of system (Figure 15.1 OPERATION INFORMATION Data collection information. Kong IABMAS 2010 8 8. that: Inventory information is normally collected and entered by both the infrastructure owner and private companies Inspection and assessment information is normally collected and entered by the infrastructure owners and private companies. and Intervention information is normally entered by the infrastructure owner. Table 18).

2 Education and qualification The following was reported (Figure 16. 38 . Table 19) with respect to the education and qualification of those that use the systems: For seventeen of the systems there is education for inspectors that entered data into the system.Adey. Kong Table 18. Rights to use Inventory Owner and Companies Companies Owner Owner No. For fourteen of the systems there is certification of inspectors that enter data into the system. Klatter. Country Name Inspection/ Assessment Owner and Companies Companies Owner IABMAS 2010 Intervention/ Planning Owner and Companies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 4 1 Companies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 12 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 4 8. For eleven of the systems there is education provided for users of the system. For three of the systems there is a certification of the user of the system.

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

18 16

Number of Systems

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Yes Existence No Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users

Figure 16. Education and qualification

Table 19. Education and qualification No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Education for inspectors Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 Certification of inspectors Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 4 Education for users Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 7 Certification for users Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 15

39

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

9

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Infrastructure managers increasingly use management systems to support their decision-making processes with respect to the infrastructure objects for which they are responsible. These systems are being either developed internally by the managing organization itself (with or without the help of private companies) or are being bought off-the-shelf and modified to suit their needs. At least partially due the active development of these systems and the many different sources from which this development is taking place, most owners and developers of these systems lack an up-todate view of the capabilities of the most advanced of these systems and how their system compares to others. Such knowledge could be used to help determine future development of their systems or allow identification of who to contact to investigate in detail how others have done, or are doing, what they are planning to do. This report, which is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1), from 15 countries, being used to manage approximately 900’000 objects, helps to fill this gap by providing a general overview of the surveyed management systems. It is expected that this report will improve infrastructure management by reducing duplicate efforts in the integration of new functionality into management systems and by encouraging the development of ever better systems. Some specific conclusions emerging from the synthesis of the questionnaires are included in the following three subsections. 9.1 on the BMSs in the report

A majority of the systems included in this report are used by multiple users, 12/18 (paragraph 2.2), and with the exception of PONTIS all systems are used within one country. This is most likely due to the differences in bridge management practices between countries. It also indicates that when off the shelf systems are adopted by an agency that they are significantly modified, resulting in a new system and hence a new name (e.g. Eirspan that was developed using DANBRO as a starting point). Based on this observation, it is suggested that the need for standardization in the field of bridge (or infrastructure) management be investigated. It is the authors’ opinion that a certain level of standardization could potentially enhance the exchange of knowledge and experience between managing agents, and improve the usefulness of management systems. 9.2 on the type of information gathered

The information gathered for this report provides a good overview of features of many of the most advanced bridge management systems currently used in the world. For the next edition of this report it is intended to improve the questionnaire: to increase the value of the report for the end users, to include more bridge management systems, and to reduce the effort for respondents.

40

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

The feedback from the members of the IABMAS BMC and from those who filled out the questionnaires will be used to make the improvements. 9.3 on the process of compiling this report

The process of sending out questionnaires, responding and compiling the report did not include a feedback loop to check the completeness of this information and the interpretation of the answers provided in the questionnaires with the respondents. Such a feedback loop will enhance the quality of the report in terms of consistency and synchronisation of information in the main part of the report and questionnaires in the appendices. A feedback loop will be included in the compilation of the next edition.

10 REFERENCES
1. BRIME report BRIME: BRIdge Management in Europe, Final report, 2001, European Commission DG VII, 4th Framework Programme (www.trl.co.uk/brime/index.htm) 2. Arches, Assessment and Rehabilitation of Central European Highway Structures, Recommendation on Systematic Decision Making Processes Associated with Maintenance and Reconstruction of Bridges, Deliverable D09 (ARCHES-02-DE09), August 2009 (http://arches.fehrl.org/)

41

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

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

Rehabilitation or Replacement. Defined Treatments are applied to element condition states. and unlimited user defined treatments for maintenance. Default is none. description Cost and Benefit adjustment factors can be applied at the Project Level. and on Bridge Condition Index (BCI) at the Network Level.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention information Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Ontario Bridge Management System . Repair. consistent with Element Level Recommended actions. or Replacement. evaluated using lifecycle cost analysis. see above. Budgets can be specified or Target BCI can be specified. Intervention costs are specified at element level for specific treatments Yes. timing and costs developed from Element Level and selected based on lifecycle cost analysis. included in user defined project cost factors Element and Project Level based on lifecycle cost analysis.OBMS description Default treatments. Maintenance. Yes. description Yes at Element Level. 44 . included in user defined project cost factors Yes. Rehabilitation. description Prioritization is based on lifecycle (Benefit/Cost). repair. and provided to Project Level. Repair. Maintenance. rehabilitation and replacement. Klatter. including unit costs and effectiveness. Analysis is based on lifecycle cost analysis framework description Cost of inspection is not included.

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

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

Defined Treatments are applied to element condition states. Historic Structure. strengthening) Recommended actions. 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 .MPS description Detailed Visual Inspection of all bridge elements (condition state. seismic Detailed Live load rating factors and calculation information description Bridge Condition Index (BCI) out of 100. rehabilitation and replacement.Adey. description Four (4) condition states. description Prioritization is based on lifecycle (Benefit/Cost). based on element level condition Performance Rating for Barriers/Railings /Curbs and other elements Rating for Live Load Capacity (tonnes). defects identified and quantified by Detailed Visual Inspection Load capacity. severity and extent of defects). description Cost and Benefit adjustment factors can be applied at the Project Level. Klatter. and Performance Rating Live Load Capacity Rating. see above. and Functional Improvements (widening. Repair. and on Bridge Condition Index (BCI) at the Network Level. Yes. evaluated using lifecycle cost analysis. description Yes at Element Level. and Posted Load Limits Historic Structure Index. and provided to Project Level. Rehabilitation or Replacement. and unlimited user defined treatments for repair. Budgets can be specified or Target BCI can be specified. Functionality. Functionality Index description Default treatments. or Replacement . Intervention costs are specified at element level for specific treatments Yes. vulnerability. Analysis is based on lifecycle cost analysis framework description Cost of inspection is not included. timing and costs developed from Element Level and selected based on lifecycle cost analysis. Indices for Seismic Vulnerability. included in user defined project cost factors Yes. including unit costs and effectiveness. Repair. consistent with Element Level. 47 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety. Rehabilitation. included in user defined project cost factors Element and Project Level based on lifecycle cost analysis.

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

Structure types No. DANBRO Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information DANBRO description Road Directorate 2009/1988 Road Directorate vd@vd.vejsektoren. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No.dk www.dk/wimpdoc. References and Manuals (available at .languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.Adey.Roaddirectorate.asp?page=document&objno=1000 54 Available in Danish Road Directorate (National roads /railways/municipality roads) description Windows XP/Delphi 7 Client / Server Data is entered manually in a desktop computer Reports. Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 50 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Archives are included in the system Inspection reports are uploaded (pdf) Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports.3 DANBRO Bridge Management System. Klatter.dk http://www. 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 .

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

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

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

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

rehabilitation. A new design competitive bidding is going on. The results lead to "inspector's quality points". If someone does not participate. Bridge Register basic course 2 days. repair. engineering companies' inspection consultants possibly input the data. Engineering companies' inspection consultants Planning is made by bridge engineers. BMS basic course 2 days The Bridge Register course (no examination demanding) Yearly training day for bridge inspectors is obligatory. Both the Bridge Register and the Project Level BMS (Hanke-Siha) are totally renewed. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. which are used when comparing the inspection offers in competitive biddings. the quality points from the earlier year are reduced according special rules. by the Central Administration of Finnra Yes. Statistical measures of divergence are calculated. The new programs should be in use in early 2011. 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. This means "calibration" of inspectors. data is inputted into the Bridge Register. by the Central Administration of Finnra data collecting group Road regions have the responsibility of basic data collection. 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. Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Operational information Additional Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Bridge Inspector Qualifications Inspection Quality Report 54 . The programs are old. everyone inspects the same bridge. too. by the bridge engineer in the road region Yes. no inspections without it. Klatter.Adey. This means that new features and possibilities for new data will be added.g. The design work starts in the end of September this year. 3-4 days theory. consultant companies can be involved in some cases description Inspection training course.

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

0) description yes yes description yes Stability.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. traffic safety and durability description Yes (calculated with information from element level) Yes (calculated with information from element level) For the whole bridge Guideline RI-EBW-PRÜF for the assessment of the damages/defects is basis for calculation of condition index description Warning and threshold values for damages/defects description Threshold values Cost-benefit-analysis description Threshold values Cost-benefit-analysis (object level) and prioritization with knapsackalgorithms (network level) description no yes yes yes partly description no Intervention information 56 . risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Inspection information Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1. Klatter. vulnerability.

repair. for bearings and expansion joints) Measure catalogue implemented (different levels.de Testing and the end of further training courses Not yet No - Additional Operational information 57 . carbonation) and service life model (e.0) description Deterioration models (corrosion. chloride intrusion.g. www. 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. rehabilitation. repair. Klatter.vfib-ev. 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.g.Adey. plausibility test for construction and damage data in the BMS-Program Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality Meeting between federal ministry and federal states every 6 months description Further training courses (recommend not obligatory). Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e.

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

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

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

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

reference to hard paper archives is also included Current and past inspection report are generated on demand Past intervention are listed. Application Server. Data Anlysis Server 800 Gb (can be expanded) Reports. design document can be uploaded References and Manuals (available at .guest access: user: guest. 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 . passwd: dims425) 2008 / 2004 University of Trento.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.heidi. 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. 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.7 APT-BMS. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.it/dims) 3 User manuals and 11 procedures (http://bms.unitn. Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering (http://www.it/ .it/ – available at the front page.ing.heidi.Adey. graphical. Klatter. tabular. GIS Yes Structure types No. Database. Structure types No.

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

data collecting group Assigned to professional engineers. Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional 64 . including earthquake and natural disasters. rehabilitation. Yes For performing risk analysis under specific scenarios. Owner (APT) description Mandatory training course offered by university. description Yes Available. On-site support at the first inspection.g. Owner (APT) for 1-year routine inspection. Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.year time span for strategic planning. Klatter. but not exploited so far. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Operational information APT-BMS (2008) description Based on Markovian models Based on Markovian models LCC evaluated based on intervention scenario and maintenance strategy. 5-year time span for short term intervention scenarios and 50. Assigned to professional engineers for 3-year principal inspections and formal safety evaluation.Adey. repair. No Yes No Posterior quality control of inspectors activity.

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

vulnerability. description Different interventions are predetermined according to the Inspection information Intervention information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. They can be modified by the users. 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. Assessment of safety is not performed on structure level. 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 66 . Yes No Yes LCC are obtained for the structure level as well as unit or element level.Adey. No description Each element is divided into unit. 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. and the inspection is performed on unit basis. type of deterioration with the degree of deterioration progress can be recorded at the bridge inspection site using tablet PC. none description Standard intervention for each type of element and deterioration is pre-determined. The condition of the structure can be assessed as an aggregation of unit. Load carrying capacity is not assessed on structure level. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level BMS@RPI description The element level visual inspection are performed and damage description. According to the level of damage. description User can choose replacement of the structure. Several intervention strategies are implemented. Replacement of the structure is predefined for particular type of damage of the element and the structure. User can define the intervention. Cathodic protection can be chosen as a structure level intervention against salt damage of the concrete. description No No No description Not included in the BMS.

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

9 Korea Road Maintenance Business System. Java/Jsp Application & WEB Server.kr) User Manual KOROMBUS 2007 Administrator Manual KOROMBUS 2007 (in Korean) Ministry of Land.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.fims.Facil Information Management System 2009/2003 Korea Institute of Construction Technology (http://www. 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 .nu) . 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 .mine. Klatter.re. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.kict.Adey.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. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. Structure types No. Bored tunnels 297 Bridges 5. Database. Transport and Maritime Affairs / Regional Construction and Management Administration description Oracle 9i.

Other information can be stored. vulnerability. plans. photos Aggregated from element level description Elements have a condition rating (A . test results. Klatter.g.Adey. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Korea Road Maintenance Business System description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions are performed.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 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. 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 Prediction information Operational information Korea Road Maintenance Business System description No No No No description No No No data collecting group Regional Construction and Management Administration Generally inspectors of Regional Construction and Management Administration In case of detailed inspection and assessment. rehabilitation.g. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. repair.Adey. 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 .

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

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

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

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

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

can be assigned to engineering companies Inspectors from engineering companies Owner (Rijkswaterstaat) N/A description Training course at university developed with owner. – year +10 (later years are 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). university and engineering companies. This enables a partial LCC computation. repair.Adey. Intervals are assigned as input to all interventions in the system.g. Offline models are available to correspond with information in the system Improvements. but not used for operational planning) description This information is used as advice for basic planning. reconstruction) Cost DISK (2006) description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. due to interventions.. The system does not generate LCC itself. are not modeled in the system. 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 . Klatter. year+ 1 . and a reference for actual planning. Not mandatory for inspectors. rehabilitation. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.

languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.pl ) Computer Inventory of Bridge Structures (Users Manual). 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. Klatter. Structure types No. Proprietary Database Manual entry Textual. (Polish Railway Lines) (http://www.wroc. (Polish Railway Lines) description PC/Windows 95 or later Desktop.A. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.plk-sa. graphical & tabular reports No Structure types No. 1997 (in Polish) PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.12 SMOK Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .pl) 2000/1997 Wroclaw University of Technology (www.A. Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 771 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Underpasses 388 Protection 0 structures description Reference to archives is included in the system Various levels of inspection reports are generated by the system on the basis of inspection type and data Intervention history data are collected in the system Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 77 .Adey.pwr.

plans. defined by user. test results can be also stored in the system. No No description Aggregated from all elements by means of the predefined formula No Defined by bridge inspector on the basis of inspection results --description No User can define interventions 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. Photos.Adey. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures 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. Klatter. Condition rating is supported by the expert system BEEF (Bridge Evaluation Expert System) based on hybrid network technology. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Intervention information Safety. No No No description Prioritization is based on the ranking list generated by the system (ranking priorities are defined by the user) 78 . vulnerability.

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

Klatter.pl) Users Manual SZOK 2009 (in Polish) Local road administration in Poland description PC/Windows XP or later Desktop. Proprietary Database Manual entry Textual.c. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.Adey.13 SZOK Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. (htpp://universal-systems. graphical & tabular reports No Structure types No. Bored tunnels user depended Bridges Inventory information (of principal user) user depended user depended user depended user depended SZOK (2009) description Local road administration in Poland (individual users on regional levels) 2009/1998 Universal Systems s. user depend ed user depend ed user depend ed user depend ed user depend ed Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history description Reference to archives is included in the system Various levels of inspection reports are generated by the system on the basis of inspection type and data Intervention history data are collected in the system 80 . Structure types Locks and sluices user Weirs depended Retaining Walls user depended user depended user depended user depended Quays IT information Culverts Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures Piers Cut and cover tunnels Galleries No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Swedish Road Administration [SRA] ( http://www. Swedish Rail Administration. Stockholm Transport. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. drawings etc.15 Bridge and Tunnel Management System. In the system and in physical archives.vv. Applicationserver. BaTMan Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . 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. length. Structure types No. State-subsidized private Roads and Port of Göteborg. Consultants and Contractors. type of construction.se ) SRA.Adey.800 300 - Inspection reports Intervention history 87 .2 (2009) .se ) Available in the system BaTMan [Bridge and Tunnel Management system] in Swedish ( http://batman. Swedish Association of Local Authorities (about 60 out of 290). Kong IABMAS 2010 11. Database Data is entered manually in computers Reports.vv. 800 28. More data is available in physical archives as original drawings etc.vv.se and http://batman. reports.languages) Users (Principal / Other) BaTMan 3. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 1. Documents as photo. City of Stockholm.300 Quays etc 380 Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures Others 3.000 Protection structures description In the system . description MS SQL 2005 Webclient. elements.vv.se ) 2004 / 1987 SRA ( http://www. Inspection data is entered manually. material. Klatter. drawings etc.Basic data.

Other information can be stored – photos.0 m. risk See structural level. vulnerability.Adey. Additional 1) All tunnels. stone 2) The BaTMan system covers bridges with a theoretic span length > 2.2 (2009) . test results. Structure level Aggregated from element level. Assessment on structure level description Condition Element level condition is the basis for the structural condition. concrete. drawings etc. Safety. Used for planning remedial activities. Physical condition is described using the measurement variable defined for each method of measurement. Load carrying capacity The effects of damage on elements load carrying capacity is taken in consideration – among other demands on the element. Functional condition for the elements have a condition rating (0 . Kong IABMAS 2010 BaTMan 3. Load carrying capacity Yes – for bridges.3). Safety Risk analyses for the structures are to be implemented in the system. Inspection information Name (version) Data collection level Element level 88 .[Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions. All based on visual inspection. Klatter. 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.

(The actual action is determined when plans are drawn up for the whole bridge). description (Under implementation in the system): The prioritization between projects (necessary when the funds are insufficient) is principally based on the marginal socio-economic cost-benefit method. No. Yes. 89 . the alternative with the lowest current value cost is chosen. No. description On structural level.Adey. Conflicts with existing performance standards will be considered.2 (2009) .[Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Activity relates to the notional action for the damage found at the time of inspection and is given with a code according to a separate code schedule. The optimal strategy (see above) is calculated on a LCC-basis. description No. Yes. No. the activities proposed in connection with the inspections are processed to an optimal strategy for the bridge concerned. As the main strategy. description No. Alternative action strategies are studied and current socio economic value calculated with a discount rate of 4 %. No. 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. The benefit of saving money is compared with the extra cost of postponing the project one year. No. See structure level. A database of unit prices for technical solutions is available. Klatter. Within the object planning module of the BaTMan system. Allowance is made for the road user costs.

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

CAD Rechenzentrum (www. KUBA-RP. PDF formulars Reports. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. KUBAST.languages) KUBA 4. ASTRA (www.0 description Swiss Federal Roads Authority.imc-ch. KUBA-Mobile. 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.admin.cadrz. on-site with mobile computers. Klatter.astra.5 SP1 3 tier – Client.16 KUBA Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information References and Manuals (available at . KUBA-DB.admin.com) Users handbook KUBA-ADM. drawings. Database Entered in desk top computer.ch – in German. can be generated in paper form Intervention information is recorded and reports can be generated Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information Inventory information (of principal user) No. KUBA-Web. Structure types No.Adey. Implementation handbook. Application Server. Maintenance concept (www. 115 5000 1250 250 125 91 .com). Microsoft. Operator handbook.astra. design calculations Entered electronically. graphical and tabular Yes (read only) Structure types No. French and Italian) Swiss Federal Roads Authority / Multiple cantons in Switzerland description Oracle 11g.ch 2008 / 1991 Infrastructure management consultants (IMC) (www.Net Framework 3. KUBA-MS.

but can be stored. vulnerability. Destructive and non-destructive test results. vulnerability. e. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety. and is estimated on the element and project level Can be entered on the project level Can be entered on the project level Can be entered on the project level Yes description Structures with elements in condition state 5 (alarming) are suggested to receive interventions first to alleviate safety problems. the remaining structures requiring interventions are listed with respect to the expected benefit of performing the intervention strategy 92 .Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Intervention information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety.0 description Visual inspection. Plans.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. 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. other information is considered indirectly. Klatter.

Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. repair. 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 .g. rehabilitation. Klatter. 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 4.0 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.Adey.

state.al.Adey.al. Counties and Cities description IBM Mainframe. Klatter.Net DB2.htm) ALDOT.17 ABIMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Basic information IT information Structure No. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.dot. ASP.us) Bridge Inspection Manual and ABIMS User Manual (http://www.state. Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Weirs Quays Piers Inventory information (of principal user) Protection structures description Stored in Document Management System Stored in Bridge Management System (ABIMS) Stored in ABIMS 94 .state. Structure types No.us/Docs/Bureaus/Maintenance/Bridge+Maintenance /Bridge+Inspection. 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.al. CICS Data is entered manually using computer Standard reports.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.dot.dot.

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

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

5 Infomaker Pontis 5.1 .org and www.1 Crystal Reports Pontis 4. Multi media.1995 ( http://pontis. 0 0 0 0 0 Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No.1.5. Sybase and SQL server compatible 4. photos. videos. 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.camsys. 0 About 500.000 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) 97 .2009 Pontis 4. Users Manual (English) 46 Transportation Agencies in the US (Two International Licenses Italy) description 4.1 Oracle.0.1 yes Structure types Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures description Yes Yes Yes No.transportation.org Pontis 5. Element.2009 Pontis 2. www.000 About 250. reports Pontis 5.NET Bridge. Technical Notes.com) Technical Manual.aashtoware.1 Web Version) description American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO.5 Client Server PowerBuilder.18 Pontis Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .com) (http://aashtoware. 5.5 and 5. Open database architecture and GUI allows for full customization and internationalization.5 Client Server & 5.bakerprojects. Inspection and Roadway levels. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.Adey. Klatter.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Pontis (4.

1 Web Version) description Yes Yes description Yes 4. Klatter. vulnerability.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety.2 yes Yes description Yes Yes Yes 116 NBI Items required by the FHWA are collected description yes yes It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows for recommendation from inspectors description Yes Yes It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows for recommendation from inspectors description Yes Yes It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows for recommendation from inspectors description No Yes Yes Yes Yes description Yes Intervention information 98 .5 Client Server & 5.Future 5.5 No . risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Inspection information Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Pontis (4.

rehabilitation. repair.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. Kong IABMAS 2010 Operational information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.1 Web Version) description Yes Yes Yes Yes description Yes It was designed to set policies No data collecting group Bridge Maintenance Engineers Bridge Inspectors Bridge Maintenance Engineers Planners description National Highway Institute (NHI) training. Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting NHI Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting No Additional 99 . Klatter.g.Adey.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful