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

Adey. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 4 .

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

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

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

...........................................35 TABLE 16.... YEARS OF CURRENT VERSIONS ............................................... Kong IABMAS 2010 TABLE OF TABLES TABLE 1........28 TABLE 11.........................................................................................38 TABLE 19..35 TABLE 17.29 TABLE 12............... COLLECTION OF INSPECTION DATA AND ABILITY TO ENTER CONDITION...... RIGHTS TO USE.......... MODE OF DATA ENTRY......33 TABLE 15............ AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY INFORMATION FROM INSPECTIONS ON THE STRUCTURE LEVEL ........................................................................................................................................................................... ARCHIVED CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION.......................................................................25 TABLE 9..........................Adey............14 TABLE 2.................. PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES ....................... COST AND PRIORITIZATION INFORMATION ............................................... INTERVENTION INFORMATION ON THE ELEMENT...........26 TABLE 10.......... SAFETY....................................................... YEARS OF FIRST VERSIONS ............................... WEB ACCESS .................................. Klatter................................... TIME FRAME FOR LONG-TERM PREDICTIONS ..........30 TABLE 13....................32 TABLE 14.15 TABLE 3.39 10 ........................................... TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE................ MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (1) ................23 TABLE 8..................................................................................16 TABLE 4.................................................................................................................... STRUCTURE AND PROJECT LEVEL. NUMBER OF CONDITION STATES.......................................... MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (1) .................................................. LEVEL OF OWNERSHIP AND NUMBER OF USERS ....................................................................................................................... TIME FRAME FOR SHORT-TERM PREDICTIONS.................................................................... NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER OBJECT TYPE...................21 TABLE 7.............................................................. VULNERABILITY AND RISK.....................................................................18 TABLE 5.................................................... EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATION .......................................... AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY INFORMATION FROM INSPECTIONS ON THE ELEMENT LEVEL...................................... ABILITY TO ENTER CONDITION.....36 TABLE 18........................................................................................................19 TABLE 6............... USES OF PREDICTION INFORMATION ............................... SAFETY.......... VULNERABILITY AND RISK..................................

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. Prediction information. what they are planning to do. and numbers of structures per structure type Intervention information. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 ABSTRACT Even though infrastructure managers are increasingly using infrastructure management systems to support their decision making processes. Inventory information of the principal user. 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 .Adey. 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 report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1). The questionnaires are given in the appendix. To fill this knowledge gap the bridge management committee of IABMAS decided in July of 2008 to compile a report on the bridge management systems of the world to be issued in conjunction with the 2010 IABMAS conference. including data collection level. information on the assessment on the element level. IT system information. The information summarized and compared includes: General system information. from 15 countries. being used to manage approximately 900’000 objects. and Operation information. Klatter. information on the assessment on the structure level. It is expected that it will improve infrastructure management by reducing duplicate efforts in the integration of new functionality into management systems and by encouraging the development of ever better systems. with respect to data collection and quality assurance. Inspection information. including the aspects being modeled.

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

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

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

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

Country Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 6 *USA – United States of America 2. indicated as either single or multiple. 12/18 of the systems are used by multiple users indicating 16 . gives an indication of the extent of use of the systems (Figure 2). Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 14 12 Number of Systems 10 8 6 4 2 0 Country Province/ State/ Canton/ Prefecture Level of ownership County/ Municipality Figure 1.Adey. Level of ownership and number of users Level of ownership Province/ State/ County/ Country Canton/ Municipality Prefecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 5 1 Number of users Single Multiple 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 No. Level of ownership Table 3.2 Number of users The number of users of each system (Table 3).

it can be inferred that systems. Cross-border users are rare. Since the majority of systems (14/17) have new versions released in the last five year period and one. Klatter. Since the first release dates of systems are relatively evenly distributed over time. is scheduled for release in the near future. 16 14 Number of Systems 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 Year First version Current version Figure 3. it can be inferred that there are steadily more administrations using management systems to support their decision making. PONTIS is the only system that reports foreign users. Kong IABMAS 2010 that many bridge managers use the systems of others instead of developing their own. 14 12 Number of Systems 10 8 6 4 2 0 Single Number of users Multiple Figure 2. the GBMS.Adey. Table 4. Years of first and current versions 17 . in general.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. starting in 1985 with DISK. are actively being developed. Table 5). Number of users 2.

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

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

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

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

4 4. culverts. As the GBMS is a prototype this information was not given. Total number of objects The following inventory information is summarized in the report: The inventory information reported is that of the principal user. 3. This was possible for all systems except for Pontis. for the GBMS which is still a prototype and for SZOK where the numbers were not given. For Pontis. tunnels. 22 . As Pontis is owned by a private company (at the country level) it is used on principally on the the state level. 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. The total number of objects per system range from zero.3 Reporting capabilities All systems have reporting capabilities.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. in the system The archived construction information in the system. to 750’000 for Pontis (Figure 6 ). and therefore has no single principal user. and The archived inspection and intervention information in the system.Adey. retaining walls and other objects. Klatter. The number of bridges. Mode of data entry 3.1 INVENTORY INFORMATION The total number of objects in the system. the approximate numbers of objects given are those in all of the States in the USA.

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

It was assumed that if data could be entered into the system that reports could also be uploaded. Kong IABMAS 2010 percentage of total number of object type/ total number of objects can be seen in Figure 8 and Table 7. 24 . such as BatMan and KUBA. Klatter. whereas others are used to deal with a wide range of infrastructure objects.Adey. although the majority of systems allow the information to be either stored in some way or referenced (Figure 9). such as APTBMS and Eirspan. 35000 30000 Number of Objects 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 APTBMS QBMS Eirspan DANBRO RPIBMS Lat Brutus KRBMS BaTMan Pontis OBMS SMOK SGP GBMS ABMS FBMS SZOK DISK KUBA Other objects Retaining Walls Tunnels Culverts Bridges System Figure 7. Total number of objects per object type per principal user Percentage of total number of objects 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% APTBMS Eirspan DANBRO RPIBMS Lat Brutus KRBMS BaTMan Pontis OBMS QBMS SMOK SGP GBMS ABMS FBMS SZOK DISK KUBA Other objects Retaining Walls Tunnels Culverts Bridges System Figure 8. Percentage of total number 4. It can be seen that some systems are used to deal exclusively with bridges.3 Archived construction information Only five of the systems permit construction information to be archived in the system.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis References No or not given 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 4. uploaded reports References No or not given Type of archived construction information Figure 9. 25 .Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 6 Number of Systems 5 4 3 2 1 0 Basic data Uploaded reports entered. Klatter. Archived construction information Table 8. Archived construction information Basic data entered. uploaded reports 1 1 Uploaded reports No.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.

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

In Pontis the number of condition states used depends on the organization that licenses it. The range of condition states currently being used is three to five.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.Adey. 6 5 Number of Systems 4 3 2 1 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 Not given Number of condition states Figure 10. It was intended that there was at least some explicit consideration of the probability of failure of the element and the consequences of the element failing. Although not specifically requested in the questionnaire. with four being the most common. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 at the element level. Table 10). Eight of the systems handle information on load carrying capacity. Number of condition states 27 . information was provided on the number of condition states used in each system for 16 systems (Figure 10.

many state agencies in the USA commonly do not ask their inspectors to determine the load-carrying capacity of a structure.Adey. The question was intended to determine whether information on the load carry capacity could be entered during an inspection. risk. 28 . the FBMS. Kong Table 10. 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. generates a condition rating for the structure based on element level information. some ambiguity in the answers provided. The same ambiguity exists on the structure level as on the element level. The other. Fourteen systems handle information from inspections on load carrying capacity. however. Number of condition states Number of condition states No. vulnerability. For example. though. but enter the information into the system once it is calculated by an engineer.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. Klatter. Thirteen of the systems handle information from inspections with respect to safety. There is. It is not clear that all respondents interpreted the question in this way.

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

3 Information handled on the project level The following was reported on the project level (Table 12): Two of the systems have predefined interventions. Kong Table 12. Klatter. Eight of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies. There is. Intervention information on the element.2 Information handled on the structure level The following was reported on the structure level (Table 12): Eight of the systems have predefined interventions. 6. Some respondents stated that the predefined interventions on the structure level were built from the predefined interventions on the element level where it is expected that others may not have indicated this even if it was true. Fourteen of the systems allow user defined intervention. however. some ambiguity in the answers. 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.Adey. 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. 30 .

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

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

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

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

Adey. Time frame for short-term predictions Short term IABMAS 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherland s Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 Table 16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherland s Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Not given 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Not given 6-10 N/A 1-5 No. Kong Table 15. 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 . Klatter. Time frame for long-term predictions Long term 96-100 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 6-10 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 1 1 1-5 No.

3 Uses of prediction information IABMAS 2010 The following was reported with respect to the use of prediction information (Figure 14. Five of the systems are used to set performance standards. 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Budget preparation 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 15 36 . Uses of prediction information Used for Setting of performance standards 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 the determination of matching funding sources 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 8 No. Table 17): 16 14 Fifteen of the systems are used to prepare budgets. Klatter. Kong 7.Adey. Eight of the systems are used to match funding sources.

Adey. 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.1 OPERATION INFORMATION Data collection information. Klatter. 14 12 Number of Systems 10 8 6 4 2 0 Owner Owner and Companies Rights to use Companies Inventory Inspection/ Assessment Intervention/ Planning Figure 15. Rights to use 37 . and The education and qualification information of those that use the system Data collection The following operation information is summarized in the report: It was reported that in the majority of system (Figure 15. The planning of interventions using the system is normally only done by the owner. Table 18).

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

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

analysis results.mto. Structure types No. municipal agencies in Ontario.gov.0.on. rehabilitation. replacement contract cost information. and Tablet Computers (eg.mto. Kong IABMAS 2010 11 QUESTIONNAIRES 11. other Canadian Provinces description Oracle and Microsoft Access Client Server.on. (www.gov. inventory.1 (2008) Stantec Consulting Ltd. No. . replacement contract cost information. OBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Ontario Bridge Management System . in field) Crystal Reports. inspection.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. and Local Database (eg in field) Desktop computer.Adey.1 Ontario Bridge Management System. rehabilitation.0 (2002) Current Version 2.900 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 42 .stantec.pdf reports optional.800 Culverts* 1.stantec. Bridge historical maintenance. http://www.com ) Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) http://www.com Version 1. Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . Klatter.OBMS description Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Stantec Consulting Ltd. Structure types No. Stored in system.ca/english/ and www. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 700 Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures * > 3m span Protection structures description Bridge historical maintenance. Bored tunnels Bridges 2.ca/english/ (English) Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO).

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

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

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

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

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

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

asp?page=document&objno=1000 54 Available in Danish Road Directorate (National roads /railways/municipality roads) description Windows XP/Delphi 7 Client / Server Data is entered manually in a desktop computer Reports. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. Klatter.Roaddirectorate.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Structure types No. Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 50 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Archives are included in the system Inspection reports are uploaded (pdf) Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports.dk http://www.dk www. References and Manuals (available at .Adey. Bored tunnels 0 Bridges 6000 Culverts 6000 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 49 .vejsektoren.3 DANBRO Bridge Management System. DANBRO Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information DANBRO description Road Directorate 2009/1988 Road Directorate vd@vd.dk/wimpdoc.

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

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

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

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

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

Klatter.5 Bauwerk Management System.Adey. Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. prototype will be available and end of 2009 none Not yet (expected in 2010) Federal ministry of traffic building and urban affairs an and Federal states description No Structure types No. 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.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Basic information Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.0) description no BMS under development. GBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . 0 0 0 55 .

Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety.Adey. Klatter. vulnerability. 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 .0) description yes yes description yes Stability. 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.0) description Deterioration models (corrosion. chloride intrusion. reconstruction) Cost catalogue implemented 6 year planning period and 20 years “prediction period” description Yes (“financial scenario”) Yes (“quality scenario”) no On network level two scenarios (financial and quality scenario) data collecting group Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality. repair.de Testing and the end of further training courses Not yet No - Additional Operational information 57 . carbonation) and service life model (e.Adey. rehabilitation. for bearings and expansion joints) Measure catalogue implemented (different levels.g. www.g.vfib-ev. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1. plausibility test for construction and damage data in the BMS-Program Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality Meeting between federal ministry and federal states every 6 months description Further training courses (recommend not obligatory). repair.

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

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

Guidelines exist. which may be used to predict annual inspection costs. description Information entered for archive only Information entered for archive only Information entered for archive only description Not stored on the database. No Intervention strategy for each structure is heavily influenced by information provided at element level. Guidelines exist. description Advanced prioritization methods are not used. Guidelines exist. Estimate of repair cost is entered during inspection. or can enter customized intervention strategy if required. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Intervention information Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Eirspan (2008 version) description A list of standard intervention types for each element is included in the Principal Inspection manual Inspector can define custom interventions if the standard list does not adequately address the damage in question. The system does provide a list of inspections required per year. Prioritization of structural interventions is heavily influenced by condition ratings from inspection reports combined with traffic volumes and route importance. but may be considered at a structure level when comparing repair strategies for major schemes. 60 . Inspector chooses the appropriate strategy from the list of standard intervention types. but may be considered when comparing repair strategies for major schemes.Adey. description Comprises information provided at element level. LCC not considered at network level. Costs not stored on the BMS. but may be considered when comparing repair strategies for major schemes. Costs not stored on the BMS. Costs not stored on the BMS. Facility exists for entering actual intervention costs after work is complete. Klatter.

Must also attend 4-day bridge inspection workshop in order to be an inspection Team Leader. Klatter. repair. Note: National Roads Authority responsible for national road bridges only. but are inaccurate given the associated uncertainties. reconstruction) Cost Eirspan (2008 version) description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Non-national bridges are managed by local authorities. Annual intervention costs based on repairs stated in inspection reports and unit rates of repair can be provided for up to 6 years. 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 . description A facility exists but it is inaccurate (see ‘cost’ above) No No None data collecting group National Roads Authority and engineering consultancy firms National Roads Authority and engineering consultancy firms National Roads Authority only description Minimum qualification degree in civil engineering or equivalent Minimum experience 4 years bridgeworks including 1 year bridge inspections.0m span or greater. Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. rehabilitation. Bridge is categorized as 2. Regional bridge managers must have degree in civil engineering or equivalent.Adey. Improvements are not modeled in the system. years 1 to 6. Regional bridge managers must have 7 years satisfactory engineering experience. Inspections only. There is no effective way of using the system to provide intervention costs to reasonable accuracy.g.

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

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. based on formal safety evaluation procedures. vulnerability. which are specified in terms of quantity and Condition State. typology. description Automatic evaluation of two priority indices for replacement and repair scenarios. In addition.Adey. Intervention information Inspection information 63 . the bridge is broken down into Structural Units (SU). Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. abutments. Klatter. which are defined as conceptual entities characterized by common attributes (such as length. spatial location…). material. description Different condition indices (overall CS. 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. No description User can define the effect of interventions Effect of standard interventions are predefined. piles. On-demand cumulative-time risk and cost analysis of specific MR&M scenarios. Safety evaluated at the structural unit level. such as deck. apparent age) computed from the condition of the single elements. Risk computed from unit level Recorded into the database when formally assessed for sub-standard bridges. The spatial arrangement of SUs is defined through logical entities labeled connections (C). Inspection report and summary. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures APT-BMS (2008) description Each SU and C (see below) includes a set of Standard Elements (SE).

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

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

none description Standard intervention for each type of element and deterioration is pre-determined. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level BMS@RPI description The element level visual inspection are performed and damage description. Assessment of safety is not performed on structure level. vulnerability. the element which needs prompt action for the safety reason are designated based on the visual inspection. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures 66 .Adey. Replacement of the structure is predefined for particular type of damage of the element and the structure. Several intervention strategies are implemented. According to the level of damage. description Different interventions are predetermined according to the Inspection information Intervention information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. Klatter. but the safety of the structure can be assessed if there is any heavily damaged unit in the structure. No description Each element is divided into unit. They can be modified by the users. description User can choose replacement of the structure. description No No No description Not included in the BMS. Cathodic protection can be chosen as a structure level intervention against salt damage of the concrete. type of deterioration with the degree of deterioration progress can be recorded at the bridge inspection site using tablet PC. 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. Yes No Yes LCC are obtained for the structure level as well as unit or element level. Load carrying capacity is not assessed on structure level. and the inspection is performed on unit basis. User can define the intervention. The condition of the structure can be assessed as an aggregation of unit.

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

Bored tunnels 297 Bridges 5. 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 . graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No.kict. Java/Jsp Application & WEB Server. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.317 Culverts 0 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 17 0 Korea Road Maintenance Business System description Korea Road Maintenance Business System (http://www.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Client Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports. Structure types No.9 Korea Road Maintenance Business System.mine.Facil Information Management System 2009/2003 Korea Institute of Construction Technology (http://www. Klatter.fims.kr) User Manual KOROMBUS 2007 Administrator Manual KOROMBUS 2007 (in Korean) Ministry of Land. Transport and Maritime Affairs / Regional Construction and Management Administration description Oracle 9i. KRMBS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .Adey. Database.nu) .re.

vulnerability. photos Aggregated from element level description Elements have a condition rating (A .g. Other information can be stored.E) based on visual inspection Safety assessment is performed in case of important bridges or need Load test is performed in case of important bridges or need description Aggregated from all elements in a structure Safety assessment is performed in case of important bridges or need Load test is performed in case of important bridges or need description No No No description No No No description No No No description Generally on the structure level No No No No description No Intervention information 69 . risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Korea Road Maintenance Business System description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions are performed. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety.Adey. e. Klatter. plans. test results.

reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Prediction information Operational information Korea Road Maintenance Business System description No No No No description No No No data collecting group Regional Construction and Management Administration Generally inspectors of Regional Construction and Management Administration In case of detailed inspection and assessment. Klatter. rehabilitation. repair. inspectors of engineering companies Regional Construction and Management Administration description No No Once a year(about two days) No - Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional 70 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.Adey.g.

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

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

Adey. Manager (Latvian State Roads) description Training course at university developed with manager and university. Inspectors from engineering companies. Personal certificate based on minimal requirements. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Prediction information Operational information Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional Lat Brutus (3.1) description No No No No description Yes No Yes data collecting group Manager (Latvian State Roads) can be assigned to engineering companies. Klatter. No Inspectors: personal certificate based on minimal requirements.g. rehabilitation. User group (Latvian State Roads and engineers from private companies) discusses problems and solutions to improve quality. repair. 73 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.

cgi?site=13) 2006 / 1985 Rijkswaterstaat (www.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgibin/index.rijkswaterstaat. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.rijkswaterstaat. Application Server.rijkswaterstaat. Administration manual (www.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information Inventory information (of principal user) No. 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 . graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No. Structure types No. Database Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports. Klatter. 1 4000 600 13 0 74 .11 DISK Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information DISK (2006) description Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport) (www. National highways and water network / None description Microsoft SQL 2000 Client.Adey.cgi?site=13 – in Dutch) Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport).nl) Users manual DISK 2006.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgibin/index.

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

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

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

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

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

(htpp://universal-systems. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. Bored tunnels user depended Bridges Inventory information (of principal user) user depended user depended user depended user depended SZOK (2009) description Local road administration in Poland (individual users on regional levels) 2009/1998 Universal Systems s. Proprietary Database Manual entry Textual. 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. graphical & tabular reports No Structure types No.pl) Users Manual SZOK 2009 (in Polish) Local road administration in Poland description PC/Windows XP or later Desktop. 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 .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.Adey. Klatter.c.

Adey. vulnerability. test results can be also stored in the system. No No No description History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form Intervention information 81 . videos. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures SZOK (2009) description Inventory and inspection data are collected individually for basic elements General information about the whole structure and aggregated from element level description Condition rating of elements (scale 0-5) based on visual inspection and test results. Photos. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety. plans. defined by user. 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. 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.Adey. Can be used for deterioration process prediction. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e.g. rehabilitation. Information collected in the system are used for planning of the interventions Information collected in the system are used for assessment of the intervention cost Information collected in the system are used for 1-10 years planning description Information collected in the system are used for budget planning No No --data collecting group Owner. 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. experience and results of the training courses ----- Operational information 82 .

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

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

for one structure or a set of structures.0 description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database. Traffic delay cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost. description The application can prioritize repairs according the elements state (damages state). description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database. Then application prioritizes repairs according the elements state (damages state). Intervention information 85 . The application recommends interventions for one structure or a set of structures. The application recommends intervention strategies (repairs) for each element. Optimization algorithms exist. Indirect user cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost. 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. description No No. User can define what parts of the bridge needs repair regardless of the state. They can be modified by inspector/user. The application calculates repair budgets and cost forecast. Klatter. No.Adey. and only evaluate the current damages (the present structure state). the application tells us how much money we need to repair the structures. description No There are costs catalogues in the database. Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions. Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions. 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.bmp. No. 86 . Evolution models are not implemented.. ..xls. No. Rehabilitation and construction companies. Inspectors have to pass a test. The developer company solves issues by phone and email.dwg. Inspector of engineering companies. Photographs (. rehabilitation..Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.dwf.. repair...g... GIS (GEOGRAPHYC INFORMATION SYSTEM) is included.pdf. Through manuals. . Klatter. .doc. description No. formats) can be shown. --description Through training courses. No. No.jpg. formats) Queries can be customize by the user Statistical graphics Special inspections module.. No. Documents are opened automatically (. --data collecting group The owner (Ministerio de Fomento) selects engineering companies.0 description No.formats) AND drawings (. No..

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

concrete.Adey. All based on visual inspection. Additional 1) All tunnels.[Bridge and Tunnel Management] description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions. stone 2) The BaTMan system covers bridges with a theoretic span length > 2.3).0 m. Safety Risk analyses for the structures are to be implemented in the system. Structure level Aggregated from element level. 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 . 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. drawings etc. test results. Inspection information Name (version) Data collection level Element level 88 . Physical condition is described using the measurement variable defined for each method of measurement.2 (2009) . Assessment on structure level description Condition Element level condition is the basis for the structural condition. Load carrying capacity Yes – for bridges. risk See structural level. Used for planning remedial activities. vulnerability. Other information can be stored – photos. Safety. Kong IABMAS 2010 BaTMan 3.

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

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

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

Klatter. vulnerability. but can be stored. Photos Aggregated from element level description 5 state condition rating (1-5) based on visual inspection Deduced from condition rating Not on element level description 5 state condition rating (1-5) based on visual inspection Deduced from condition rating Estimated from simplified models of resistance and loads description User can define custom interventions No All possible condition based intervention strategies are evaluated description Yes No Built from the element level interventions description No No No description Can be entered on the element and project level. risk Load carrying capacity Other performance information Element level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures KUBA 4.0 description Visual inspection. and is estimated on the element and project level Can be entered on the project level Can be entered on the project level Can be entered on the project level Yes description Structures with elements in condition state 5 (alarming) are suggested to receive interventions first to alleviate safety problems. vulnerability. Destructive and non-destructive test results. Plans.g. other information is considered indirectly. e. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Intervention information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. the remaining structures requiring interventions are listed with respect to the expected benefit of performing the intervention strategy 92 .Adey.

rehabilitation.g. 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. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. description Yes No Yes None data collecting group Assigned to private companies Inspectors from engineering companies Owner (ASTRA) Assigned to private companies description Training courses given on demand Controlled through independent checking of samples Training courses given on demand No - Additional Operational information 93 .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. repair.

Structure types No. CICS Data is entered manually using computer Standard reports. types Bored tunnels 2 Bridges 9728 Culverts 6112 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history ABIMS description Alabama Department of Transportation (www.state.us/Docs/Bureaus/Maintenance/Bridge+Maintenance /Bridge+Inspection.dot. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.htm) ALDOT.al. Klatter. 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 .Net DB2.us) Bridge Inspection Manual and ABIMS User Manual (http://www.al.dot.state.Adey. Counties and Cities description IBM Mainframe. ASP.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.dot.us) 1994 ALDOT(www.state. Access for adhoc reports Web access is available to outside agencies to the mainframe through an Apache server Structure types No.al.

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 . vulnerability. 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. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures description Visual inspections are performed on a set of agency defined elements Plans. photos.

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

5 and 5.000 About 250.1995 ( http://pontis.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Pontis (4. videos.com) Technical Manual.camsys. www. Open database architecture and GUI allows for full customization and internationalization. Users Manual (English) 46 Transportation Agencies in the US (Two International Licenses Italy) description 4. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. 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.18 Pontis Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . 5.0. Klatter. 0 About 500.1 . Technical Notes.aashtoware.Adey.1. Multi media. Inspection and Roadway levels.5 Infomaker Pontis 5.transportation.1 Crystal Reports Pontis 4.000 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) 97 .com) (http://aashtoware.5.5 Client Server & 5.NET Bridge. photos.org Pontis 5.org and www.1 Oracle. Element.5 Client Server PowerBuilder.2009 Pontis 2.bakerprojects. 0 0 0 0 0 Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No. Sybase and SQL server compatible 4.1 Web Version) description American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO.2009 Pontis 4. reports Pontis 5.1 yes Structure types Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures description Yes Yes Yes No.

5 Client Server & 5.5 No . Klatter. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Inspection information Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Pontis (4. vulnerability.1 Web Version) description Yes Yes description Yes 4.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 .Future 5.

Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting NHI Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting No Additional 99 .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. Kong IABMAS 2010 Operational information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Prediction information Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Pontis (4. repair. Klatter.g.5 Client Server & 5.Adey. rehabilitation.