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

Photo’s cover © Rijkswaterstaat, the Netherlands

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

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

July, 2010

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

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

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

3

Kong IABMAS 2010 4 . Klatter.Adey.

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

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

5

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

6

Adey, Klatter, Kong

IABMAS 2010

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

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

7

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

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

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

what they are planning to do. Prediction information. 11 . Kong IABMAS 2010 ABSTRACT Even though infrastructure managers are increasingly using infrastructure management systems to support their decision making processes. 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. The report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1). or are doing. from 15 countries. Klatter. including data collection level. information on the assessment on the structure level. To fill this knowledge gap the bridge management committee of IABMAS decided in July of 2008 to compile a report on the bridge management systems of the world to be issued in conjunction with the 2010 IABMAS conference. It provides a general overview of the bridge management systems and does not focus on the details of specific procedures used within the systems.Adey. 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. Inventory information of the principal user. with respect to data collection and quality assurance. The main body of this report includes a summary of the information in the questionnaires and basic comparisons between the systems. and Operation information. information on the assessment on the element 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. IT system information. and numbers of structures per structure type Intervention information. The questionnaires are given in the appendix. including the aspects being modeled. being used to manage approximately 900’000 objects. The information summarized and compared includes: General system information. including structure types. Inspection information.

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

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

wroc.l v leo.Bien@pwr . Klatter. 1 Country Canada Owner Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Stantec Consulting Ltd.eriksson@vv .it mackaneuji@k ajima.es boe. Management Systems (1) No.com reed. Transport and Maritime Affairs Latvian State Road Administration Dutch ministry of transport Polish Railway Lines Local Polish Road Administrations Spanish Ministry of Public Works 9 Korea KRMBS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP K.ellis@sta ntec.com paul@kict.se 2 Canada Reed Ellis 3 Denmark Danish Road Directorate Jørn Lauridsen MarjaKaarina Söderqvist Peter Haardt Liam Duffy Daniele Zonto Makoto Kaneuji 4 Finland Finnish Transport Agency 5 6 7 8 Germany Ireland Italy Japan German Federal Highway Research Institute Irish National Road Association Autonomous Province of Trento Kajima Corporation and Regional Planning Institute of Osaka Korean Ministry of Land. de lduffy@nra.wroc. 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.H.se lennart.pl Jan. 14 .Soder qvist@liikenn evirasto. Casas Bosse Eriksson Lennart Lindlad 15 Sweden Swedish Road Administration BaTMan *All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31. Park 10 11 12 13 14 Latvia Netherla nds Poland Poland Spain Ilmars Jurka Leo Klatter Jan Bien Jan Bien Joan R.Bien@pwr .lauridsen @vd.fi Haardt@bast.re.ellis@sta ntec. 2009.k r.nl Jan.zonta @unitn.ie daniele.ca sas@upc.ramon.dk MarjaKaarina.com jorn. Quebec Ministry of Transportation System Name Abb.pl joan.Adey.lindbla d@vv. Kong Table 1. Ilmars@lvceli.klatter@r ws.

state. Kong Table 2. and how to access. province.1.g. a private organization) on a specific level. Table 3). The name and the web page address of the developers of the system. i. Level of ownership The level of ownership indicates the level.Adey. KUBA is owned by the Federal Roads Authority of Switzerland) or a private organization (e. if a system is listed as being on the country level than when a new version of the system is released by AASHTO. and only one (SZOK) was owned at a municipality level. e. and The names of.2 to replace Pontis 5.1 The name and the web page address of the owner of the system. replaces all licensed version of the system. Country Owner System Name IABMAS 2010 Contact person* Name E-Mail rade. Klatter.g. The number of users of the system.com José Aldayuz 2 - GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION The level of system ownership.g. and The years of the first and current version of the systems. state canton or prefecture level. 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. Pontis 5.com Eric Christie christiee@dot . This characterization includes systems owned by a government organization (e. The majority of systems are owned at the country level (12/18).e. Switzer16 Swiss Federal Roads Authority KUBA KUBA land United Alabama Department of 17 ABIMS ABIMS States of Transportation America United American Association of State 18 Pontis Pontis States of Highway and Transportation America Officials *All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31. Management Systems (1) Abb. For example. 15 .us jaldayuz@mb akercorp. or country or municipality level. Pontis is owned by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. country level.hajdin@i Rade Hajdin mc-ch. even if they are used by an organization on the provincial level. the references and manuals related to the system.al. 2009. No. at which system changes are coordinated (Figure 1.

indicated as either single or multiple. Klatter. Country Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 6 *USA – United States of America 2. Level of ownership Table 3. 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.Adey. 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). 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 1.2 Number of users The number of users of each system (Table 3).

Since the majority of systems (14/17) have new versions released in the last five year period and one. Since the first release dates of systems are relatively evenly distributed over time. starting in 1985 with DISK. Kong IABMAS 2010 that many bridge managers use the systems of others instead of developing their own. is scheduled for release in the near future. it can be inferred that there are steadily more administrations using management systems to support their decision making. Cross-border users are rare. Number of users 2. the GBMS. 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. 14 12 Number of Systems 10 8 6 4 2 0 Single Number of users Multiple Figure 2. in general. Years of first and current versions 17 .Adey. Klatter. it can be inferred that systems. PONTIS is the only system that reports foreign users. Table 5). Table 4.3 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. are actively being developed.

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

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

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

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. Type of architecture. web access Type of system architecture No. Kong Table 6.2 Mode of data entry The majority (12/18) systems have the capability to enter data at a desk top computer.Adey. Table 6). 3. whereas 4 systems have the ability to enter data both at a desk top computer and through mobile computers (Figure 5. Klatter. 21 . mode of data entry.

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

traffic signal mast arms. retaining walls. retaining walls and other objects The predominant use of the systems is for bridges. 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 . tunnels. and drainage structures. high mast light poles. The total number of objects per object type can be seen for all systems in Table 7.2 Number of bridges. Klatter. For Pontis. and BatMan has more tunnels than bridges (800 vs. although SMOK has more culverts than bridges (24’189 vs. and for all systems except Pontis in Figure 7. 8’290).Adey. 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. no other object types were reported although it is known that at least some states use it for the management of sign structures. 288). culverts. Total number of objects per principal user Table 7. tunnels. 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. Pontis has approximately 250’000 culverts and 500’000 bridges.

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

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

vulnerability. risk. vulnerability and risk. Collection of inspection data and ability to enter condition. There is. safety. the prototype. Fourteen of the systems handle information related to safety. Type of information handled on element level. Table 9. 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). however. and Type of information handled on project level.1 INSPECTION INFORMATION Level of information storage (element or structure). some ambiguity in how respondents interpreted the field on safety. 26 . Kong IABMAS 2010 5 5. vulnerability or risk. The only system where this was not reported was the GBMS.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. Klatter. vulnerability. Type of information handled on structure level.Adey. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia 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. 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. 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.

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

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

and load carrying capacity information from inspections on the structure level Condition No. and The type of costs information handled.Adey.1 INTERVENTION INFORMATION The type of interventions handled on the element level. Kong IABMAS 2010 Table 11. Klatter. safety. Sixteen of the systems allow user defined interventions. The type of interventions handled on the structure level. vulnerability. Ability to enter condition. Information handled on the element level The following intervention information is summarized in the report: The following was reported that on the element level (Table 12): Twelve of the systems have predefined interventions. The type of interventions handled on the 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. risk Not given Load carrying capacity Yes 1 1 1 1 No Not given 1 3 2 2 2 6 6. Thirteen of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies. vulnerability and risk. 29 .

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

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

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

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

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

Adey. Kong Table 15. 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. Time frame for long-term predictions Long term 96-100 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 6-10 N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 1 1 1-5 No. Country Name 96-100 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 35 . 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. Klatter.

Uses of prediction information Table 17.3 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. Eight of the systems are used to match funding sources. Table 17): 16 14 Fifteen of the systems are used to prepare budgets. Klatter. Kong 7. Number of Systems 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Budget preparation Setting of performance standards Selected Uses Matching funding sources Figure 14. Uses of prediction information Used for Setting of performance standards 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 the determination of matching funding sources 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 8 No.Adey. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Budget preparation 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 15 36 .

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

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

Bridge historical maintenance. Stored in system. municipal agencies in Ontario. inventory. Structure types No. in field) Crystal Reports.gov.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.stantec.on.ca/english/ (English) Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO).gov. Bored tunnels Bridges 2. and Local Database (eg in field) Desktop computer. Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .mto. replacement contract cost information.900 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 42 .OBMS description Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Stantec Consulting Ltd. Klatter.1 (2008) Stantec Consulting Ltd. rehabilitation. replacement contract cost information. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 700 Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures * > 3m span Protection structures description Bridge historical maintenance.on.com Version 1.1 Ontario Bridge Management System.ca/english/ and www.mto.stantec. Kong IABMAS 2010 11 QUESTIONNAIRES 11. rehabilitation. http://www. (www.Adey.800 Culverts* 1.com ) Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) http://www.0. Structure types No. OBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Ontario Bridge Management System . and Tablet Computers (eg. . inspection.pdf reports optional. No.0 (2002) Current Version 2. other Canadian Provinces description Oracle and Microsoft Access Client Server. analysis results.

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

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

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

Kong 11. Locks and sluices Weirs Retaining Walls 500 Quays Storm surge Piers barriers Support structures * > 3m span Protection structures description Bridge historical maintenance.languages) IABMAS 2010 Basic information Quebec Bridge Management System . IABMAS ’08 Korea b) The Québec Ministry of Transport’s Bridge Project Tactical Planning Dashboard.ca/en/pub_ligne/index. inventory.mtq.0 (2009) (MPS) Stantec Consulting Ltd.0 (2008) Current Version 1.gouv. Microsoft SQL Server. rehabilitation.Adey. and Microsoft SQL Express Client Server.qc. Bored tunnels Bridges 8. QBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . Structure types No.2 Quebec Bridge Management System.MPS description Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) http://www. Bridge historical maintenance. Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) description Oracle.asp (French) a) Design and Implementation of a New Bridge Management System for the Ministry of Transport of Québec. (www. .mtq.gouv.stantec. and Local Database Desktop computer Crystal Reports.pdf reports optional.com ) Quebec Structure Inspection Manuals http://www1. Yes inventory and inspection. replacement contract cost information. Inventory information (of principal user) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Transportation Association of Canada.qc. Klatter.ca/portal/page/portal/accueil_en Version 1. Toronto 2008.700 Culverts* Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information 46 . analysis results. Stored in system. rehabilitation. inspection. Structure types No. replacement contract cost information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Operational information Additional Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Bridge Inspector Qualifications Inspection Quality Report 54 . The programs are old. The new programs should be in use in early 2011. Klatter. which are used when comparing the inspection offers in competitive biddings. repair.g. engineering companies' inspection consultants possibly input the data. 1 day in situ training. Bridge Register basic course 2 days. Statistical measures of divergence are calculated. Both the Bridge Register and the Project Level BMS (Hanke-Siha) are totally renewed. A new design competitive bidding is going on. the quality points from the earlier year are reduced according special rules. data is inputted into the Bridge Register. A report of inspection quality is produced yearly to follow the data quality. by the Central Administration of Finnra Yes. The design work starts in the end of September this year. consultant companies can be involved in some cases description Inspection training course. This means "calibration" of inspectors. 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. too. by the bridge engineer in the road region Yes. rehabilitation. 1 day examination (theory and in situ inspection) Inspection course examination. 3-4 days theory. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. The results lead to "inspector's quality points". Engineering companies' inspection consultants Planning is made by bridge engineers. by the Central Administration of Finnra data collecting group Road regions have the responsibility of basic data collection. This means that new features and possibilities for new data will be added. If someone does not participate. no inspections without it. BMS basic course 2 days The Bridge Register course (no examination demanding) Yearly training day for bridge inspectors is obligatory. everyone inspects the same bridge.Adey.

languages) Users (Principal / Other) Basic information Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.Adey. 0 0 0 55 . Klatter.0) description no BMS under development. Locks and sluices 0 Retaining Walls Storm surge 0 barriers Support structures Protection structures description Program “SIB-Bauwerke” Program “SIB-Bauwerke” Program “SIB-Bauwerke” Inventory information (of principal user) Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No. 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. 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 11.5 Bauwerk Management System. GBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .

traffic safety and durability description Yes (calculated with information from element level) Yes (calculated with information from element level) For the whole bridge Guideline RI-EBW-PRÜF for the assessment of the damages/defects is basis for calculation of condition index description Warning and threshold values for damages/defects description Threshold values Cost-benefit-analysis description Threshold values Cost-benefit-analysis (object level) and prioritization with knapsackalgorithms (network level) description no yes yes yes partly description no Intervention information 56 . vulnerability. Klatter.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Inspection information Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1.0) description yes yes description yes Stability.

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

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

Can be overruled by inspector in exceptional circumstances. Assessment for load-carrying capacity can be requested as a ‘Special Inspection’ based on visual inspection. description Condition ratings 0 (best) to 5 (worst) given for each of 13 structural elements Whilst formal risk assessments are not undertaken during inspections. bearings. Repair costs are stored for damaged components. Klatter. description Condition rating (0 to 5) given for fourteenth structural element ‘structure in general’. Safety may be considered within the condition rating.Adey. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Eirspan (2008 version) description Visual structural inspections recording damage & repair details for each element are stored along with photos & sketches Comprises a summary of element level descriptions. based on worst condition rating for deck. vulnerability. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Inspection information Safety. Assessment for load-carrying capacity can be requested as a ‘Special Inspection’ based on visual inspection. 59 . Inspecting engineer to contact NRA if condition rating = 4 or 5. piers. safety and risk are considered in the condition rating. abutments or beams/girders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damage drawing and the place of photo taken can be also recorded at the bridge site using tablet PC description Condition state criteria (1-5) based on visual inspection are established on 35 different type of element and deterioration. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level BMS@RPI description The element level visual inspection are performed and damage description. description No No No description Not included in the BMS. Klatter. Replacement of the structure is predefined for particular type of damage of the element and the structure. and the inspection is performed on unit basis. No description Each element is divided into unit. vulnerability. but the safety of the structure can be assessed if there is any heavily damaged unit in the structure. type of deterioration with the degree of deterioration progress can be recorded at the bridge inspection site using tablet PC. description Different interventions are predetermined according to the Inspection information Intervention information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. description User can choose replacement of the structure.Adey. User can define the intervention. the element which needs prompt action for the safety reason are designated based on the visual inspection. According to the level of damage. The condition of the structure can be assessed as an aggregation of unit. Yes No Yes LCC are obtained for the structure level as well as unit or element level. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures 66 . Load carrying capacity is not assessed on structure level. Cathodic protection can be chosen as a structure level intervention against salt damage of the concrete. Assessment of safety is not performed on structure level. They can be modified by the users. none description Standard intervention for each type of element and deterioration is pre-determined. Several intervention strategies are implemented.

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

Kong IABMAS 2010 11.nu) .mine.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access 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 Reference to archives is included in the system Inspection reports are uploaded (pdf) Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports (history is not complete) Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 68 . KRMBS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .kr) User Manual KOROMBUS 2007 Administrator Manual KOROMBUS 2007 (in Korean) Ministry of Land.fims.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. Bored tunnels 297 Bridges 5. Client Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports. Klatter.Adey. Transport and Maritime Affairs / Regional Construction and Management Administration description Oracle 9i.re.9 Korea Road Maintenance Business System.Facil Information Management System 2009/2003 Korea Institute of Construction Technology (http://www. Structure types No. Java/Jsp Application & WEB Server. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No.kict. Database.

photos Aggregated from element level description Elements have a condition rating (A . vulnerability. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. 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 Korea Road Maintenance Business System description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions are performed.E) based on visual inspection Safety assessment is performed in case of important bridges or need Load test is performed in case of important bridges or need description Aggregated from all elements in a structure Safety assessment is performed in case of important bridges or need Load test is performed in case of important bridges or need description No No No description No No No description No No No description Generally on the structure level No No No No description No Intervention information 69 . test results.g. Other information can be stored. e.Adey. plans.

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.Adey. inspectors of engineering companies Regional Construction and Management Administration description No No Once a year(about two days) No - Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional 70 . repair. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.g. Klatter. rehabilitation.

lv) Users manual Lat Brutus – in English () State Joint Company LATVIAN STATE ROADS () description Oracle 8i Client.lv) 2004/2002 Norwegian Public Road Administration (www. Intervention is contained in uploaded reports. Inspection reports originally are archives. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.1) description State Joint Company LATVIAN STATE ROADS (www. No. Database.no) and Latvian Road Administration (www.Adey. Application server.10 Lat Brutus Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information References and Manuals (available at .lvceli.vegvesen. Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports and tabular. 0 934 845 0 0 Lat Brutus (3.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history No. Klatter. 0 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) IT information 71 . No Structure types No.lvceli. Structure types Locks and sluices 0 Weirs Retaining Walls 0 Quays Storm surge 0 Piers barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Reference to archives is included in the system.

No No description Yes No Composed by the user. Elements have a safety rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. description Aggregated from all elements in a structure.Adey. description Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined. User can define custom interventions. vulnerability. description Composed by user from element level interventions. Klatter. e.g. description No Yes No No No description Interventions are characterized with risk level and optimal and ultimate intervention times. Aggregated from element level. Other information can be stored. They can be overruled by the user. Elements have a carrying capacity rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. Although not standard. They can be modified by the user. Intervention information 72 . Risk of insufficient load carrying capacity can be assigned by the user. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Inspection information Lat Brutus (3.1) description Visual inspections containing damage description are performed. plans. Reference strategies are available. Although not standard. test results. photos. description Elements have a condition rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. Condition can be assigned by user. Safety risk aggregated from element level can be assigned by the user. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety.

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

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

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

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

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

Photos. vulnerability. test results can be also stored in the system. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Intervention information Safety. plans.Adey. Condition rating is supported by the expert system BEEF (Bridge Evaluation Expert System) based on hybrid network technology. No No No description Prioritization is based on the ranking list generated by the system (ranking priorities are defined by the user) 78 . risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures SMOK 2000 description Inventory and inspection data are collected individually for basic elements General information about the whole structure and aggregated from element level description Condition rating of elements (scale 0-5) based on visual inspection and test results. No No description Aggregated from all elements by means of the predefined formula No Defined by bridge inspector on the basis of inspection results --description No User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions Defined by the user description User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions Based on the ranking list (ranking priorities are defined by the user) description User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions Based on the ranking list (ranking priorities are defined by the user) description No Yes. Klatter. defined by user.

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

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 . 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. 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. Structure types Locks and sluices user Weirs depended Retaining Walls user depended user depended user depended user depended Quays IT information Culverts Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures Piers Cut and cover tunnels Galleries No. Proprietary Database Manual entry Textual. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.Adey. Klatter.13 SZOK Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.c. (htpp://universal-systems.

vulnerability.Adey. defined by user. Photos. videos. plans. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition 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 Defined by the user description Composed by user from element level interventions No No description No No No description No 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 strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures SZOK (2009) description Inventory and inspection data are collected individually for basic elements General information about the whole structure and aggregated from element level description Condition rating of elements (scale 0-5) based on visual inspection and test results. Klatter. 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 .

repair. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information 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 developed by two universities in Poland Personal certification based on education level. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional SZOK (2009) description History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form. Information collected in the system are used for planning of the interventions Information collected in the system are used for assessment of the intervention cost Information collected in the system are used for 1-10 years planning description Information collected in the system are used for budget planning No No --data collecting group Owner.g. rehabilitation.Adey. experience and results of the training courses Short introduction to the system based on the Users Manual Inspectors: personal certification based on education level. Klatter. experience and results of the training courses ----- Operational information 82 . Can be used for deterioration process prediction.

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

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

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

.g. The developer company solves issues by phone and email.Adey. Rehabilitation and construction companies. --data collecting group The owner (Ministerio de Fomento) selects engineering companies..pdf. rehabilitation..xls.. . Documents are opened automatically (.bmp.. No..formats) AND drawings (. Evolution models are not implemented. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. . Through manuals. No.. repair.jpg. No. No.. Inspectors have to pass a test. No. formats) Queries can be customize by the user Statistical graphics Special inspections module.dwg. Photographs (. No. --description Through training courses.dwf... formats) can be shown..0 description No.doc. GIS (GEOGRAPHYC INFORMATION SYSTEM) is included. description No. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Prediction information Additional Operational information SGP 2. 86 . Inspector of engineering companies.

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

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

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

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

Adey. CAD Rechenzentrum (www.com) Users handbook KUBA-ADM. 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. French and Italian) Swiss Federal Roads Authority / Multiple cantons in Switzerland description Oracle 11g.16 KUBA Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) Basic information References and Manuals (available at . graphical and tabular Yes (read only) Structure types No. design calculations Entered electronically. PDF formulars Reports. KUBA-Mobile. KUBA-MS.Net Framework 3.ch – in German. Implementation handbook. ASTRA (www. Maintenance concept (www.astra. Application Server. on-site with mobile computers.cadrz. Database Entered in desk top computer. KUBA-RP.0 description Swiss Federal Roads Authority. 115 5000 1250 250 125 91 .imc-ch. Operator handbook.admin. KUBA-Web.5 SP1 3 tier – Client. KUBAST. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.admin. drawings. Microsoft. Structure types No.ch 2008 / 1991 Infrastructure management consultants (IMC) (www.languages) KUBA 4. Klatter.astra. KUBA-DB.com). Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 1000 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 50 Protection 550 structures description As built.

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

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 . repair.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. Klatter. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Prediction information Use Used of system results for budget preparation Used for setting performance standards Used for matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … KUBA 4. rehabilitation.g.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.

state.Net DB2.us/Docs/Bureaus/Maintenance/Bridge+Maintenance /Bridge+Inspection. Access for adhoc reports Web access is available to outside agencies to the mainframe through an Apache server Structure types No.us) 1994 ALDOT(www.al.dot.htm) ALDOT.al.state. Structure types No. Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Weirs Quays Piers Inventory information (of principal user) Protection structures description Stored in Document Management System Stored in Bridge Management System (ABIMS) Stored in ABIMS 94 .17 ABIMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Basic information IT information Structure No.state. CICS Data is entered manually using computer Standard reports.dot.dot.al. ASP.us) Bridge Inspection Manual and ABIMS User Manual (http://www.Adey. 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. Klatter. Counties and Cities description IBM Mainframe. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.

Adey. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 Inspection information Name (version) ABIMS Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. vulnerability. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures description Visual inspections are performed on a set of agency defined elements Plans. 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 . photos.

g. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … ABIMS description No Repair needed is captured in the system for each structure Cost are estimated by activity and stored for each structure Planning for maintenance is yearly. rehabilitation. repair.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Prediction information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. 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 . Klatter.

aashtoware. Klatter. www. Sybase and SQL server compatible 4.1 Web Version) description American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO.18 Pontis Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .0. Element. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.1995 ( http://pontis. photos.000 About 250.2009 Pontis 2.org Pontis 5. Multi media.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Pontis (4.5 Infomaker Pontis 5. Inspection and Roadway levels.000 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) 97 .bakerprojects.1 yes Structure types Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures description Yes Yes Yes No.Adey.1 . videos. Users Manual (English) 46 Transportation Agencies in the US (Two International Licenses Italy) description 4.1 Crystal Reports Pontis 4. 0 0 0 0 0 Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No.5 and 5. Technical Notes.5 Client Server PowerBuilder. 5. 0 About 500.NET Bridge. Open database architecture and GUI allows for full customization and internationalization.5.1 Oracle.1.transportation.camsys.org and www. 0 0 yes IT information Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history No.com) Technical Manual. reports Pontis 5.2009 Pontis 4.com) (http://aashtoware.5 Client Server & 5.

5 No . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety.Future 5. 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.2 yes Yes description Yes Yes Yes 116 NBI Items required by the FHWA are collected description yes yes It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows for recommendation from inspectors description Yes Yes It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows for recommendation from inspectors description Yes Yes It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows for recommendation from inspectors description No Yes Yes Yes Yes description Yes Intervention information 98 .5 Client Server & 5.1 Web Version) description Yes Yes description Yes 4.Adey.

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful