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

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

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

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

The questionnaires are given in the appendix. The information summarized and compared includes: General system information. and Operation information. 11 . with respect to data collection and quality assurance. from 15 countries. 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. including structure types. or are doing. being used to manage approximately 900’000 objects. To fill this knowledge gap the bridge management committee of IABMAS decided in July of 2008 to compile a report on the bridge management systems of the world to be issued in conjunction with the 2010 IABMAS conference. what they are planning to do. Such knowledge can be used to help determine future development of their systems or allow identification of who to contact to investigate in detail how others have done. The main body of this report includes a summary of the information in the questionnaires and basic comparisons between the systems. IT system information. including the aspects being modeled. Inspection information. It provides a general overview of the bridge management systems and does not focus on the details of specific procedures used within the systems. Kong IABMAS 2010 ABSTRACT Even though infrastructure managers are increasingly using infrastructure management systems to support their decision making processes. It is expected that it will improve infrastructure management by reducing duplicate efforts in the integration of new functionality into management systems and by encouraging the development of ever better systems. Klatter. Prediction information. and numbers of structures per structure type Intervention information. Inventory information of the principal user.Adey. information on the assessment on the element level. information on the assessment on the structure level. including data collection level. The report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table 1).

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

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

wroc.dk MarjaKaarina.Bien@pwr . 1 Country Canada Owner Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Stantec Consulting Ltd. Ontario Bridge Management OBMS System Quebec Bridge QBMS Management System DANBRO Bridge DANBRO Management System The Finnish Bridge FBMS Management System Bauwerk Management GBMS System Eirspan APT-BMS BMS@RPI Korea Road Maintenance Business System Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP Bridge and Tunnel Management System Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS IABMAS 2010 Contact person* Name E-Mail Reed Ellis reed.it mackaneuji@k ajima.ramon.Adey.wroc. Park 10 11 12 13 14 Latvia Netherla nds Poland Poland Spain Ilmars Jurka Leo Klatter Jan Bien Jan Bien Joan R.com reed.ca sas@upc. Ilmars@lvceli. de lduffy@nra.k r.pl joan.fi Haardt@bast.H.ellis@sta ntec.es boe. Casas Bosse Eriksson Lennart Lindlad 15 Sweden Swedish Road Administration BaTMan *All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31. Quebec Ministry of Transportation System Name Abb.com paul@kict.Bien@pwr .lauridsen @vd. 14 .lindbla d@vv.pl Jan.l v leo.eriksson@vv .Soder qvist@liikenn evirasto.re.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.nl Jan.ellis@sta ntec. 2009.klatter@r ws. Kong Table 1.zonta @unitn. 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. Management Systems (1) No. Klatter.ie daniele.se lennart.com jorn.

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

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

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

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

Years of current 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 4 8 Country Lat Brutus DANBRO APTBMS BaTMan RPIBMS Eirspan KRBMS QBMS OBMS SMOK GBMS Name 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ABMS FBMS KUBA SZOK DISK SGP Total 19 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Table 5.Adey.

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

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

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

tunnels. traffic signal mast arms. tunnels. Kong IABMAS 2010 33276 35000 30000 Number of Objects 9200 12050 20000 15000 14685 5400 5631 5000 0 Eirspan DANBRO APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus BaTMan System Figure 6. and drainage structures. retaining walls.2 Number of bridges.Adey. high mast light poles. 8’290). 288). Number of objects per object type No. retaining walls and other objects The predominant use of the systems is for bridges. Pontis has approximately 250’000 culverts and 500’000 bridges. and BatMan has more tunnels than bridges (800 vs. no other object types were reported although it is known that at least some states use it for the management of sign structures. The total number of objects per object type can be seen for all systems in Table 7. and for all systems except Pontis in Figure 7. For Pontis. although SMOK has more culverts than bridges (24’189 vs. Klatter. culverts. The Pontis QBMS OBMS SMOK SGP GBMS ABMS FBMS SZOK DISK KUBA 750000 2800 1779 1011 0 750 0 1781 10000 4795 8340 15842 25000 22508 23 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Country Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherlands Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland USA USA Total Name OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis Bridges 2’800 8’700 6’000 11’487 0 2’800 1’011 750 5’317 934 4’000 8’290 0 13’252 288 5’000 9’728 500’000 580’357 Culverts 1’900 0 6’000 3’078 0 0 0 0 0 845 600 24’189 0 5’979 300 1’250 6’112 250’000 300’253 Tunnels 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 314 0 14 26 0 0 800 365 2 0 1’541 Retaining Walls 700 500 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 771 0 0 13 1’000 0 0 3’054 Other objects 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 3’277 380 725 0 0 4’643 Total 5’400 9’200 12’050 14’685 0 2’800 1’011 750 5’631 1’779 4’795 33’276 0 22’508 1’781 8’340 15’842 750’000 889’848 4. Total number of objects per principal user Table 7.

It can be seen that some systems are used to deal exclusively with bridges. Klatter. 24 . 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. It was assumed that if data could be entered into the system that reports could also be uploaded.Adey. 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. 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).3 Archived construction information Only five of the systems permit construction information to be archived in the system. such as APTBMS and Eirspan. such as BatMan and KUBA. Percentage of total number 4. Kong IABMAS 2010 percentage of total number of object type/ total number of objects can be seen in Figure 8 and Table 7.

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

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. There is. Type of information handled on element level. vulnerability or risk. safety. risk Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 No Load carrying capacity Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No No. Level of information storage The following inspection information is summarized in the report: All systems currently in operation allow the storing of inspection information at both the element and structure level (Table 9). and Type of information handled on project level. however. risk. 26 . 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. Collection of inspection data and ability to enter condition. some ambiguity in how respondents interpreted the field on safety. The only system where this was not reported was the GBMS. Kong IABMAS 2010 5 5.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. Table 9. vulnerability. Fourteen of the systems handle information related to safety. Type of information handled on structure level. Klatter.1 INSPECTION INFORMATION Level of information storage (element or structure). the prototype. vulnerability and risk. vulnerability.

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

For example. vulnerability. The other. The question was intended to determine whether information on the load carry capacity could be entered during an inspection. There is. though. the FBMS. some ambiguity in the answers provided. Number of condition states Number of condition states 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 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. Fourteen systems handle information from inspections on load carrying capacity. but enter the information into the system once it is calculated by an engineer. The same ambiguity exists on the structure level as on the element level.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. many state agencies in the USA commonly do not ask their inspectors to determine the load-carrying capacity of a structure. It is not clear that all respondents interpreted the question in this way. Thirteen of the systems handle information from inspections with respect to safety. 28 . generates a condition rating for the structure based on element level information. however. Kong Table 10. risk. Klatter.

risk Not given Load carrying capacity Yes 1 1 1 1 No Not given 1 3 2 2 2 6 6. and The type of costs information handled. safety. 29 .Adey. Thirteen of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies. Kong IABMAS 2010 Table 11. The type of interventions handled on the project level. Ability to enter condition. Country Name Yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Canada Canada Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latvia Netherla nds Poland Poland Spain Sweden Switzerla nd USA USA Total OBMS QBMS DANBRO FBMS GBMS Eirspan APTBMS RPIBMS KRBMS Lat Brutus DISK SMOK SZOK SGP BaTMan KUBA ABMS Pontis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 No Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 No Safety.1 INTERVENTION INFORMATION The type of interventions handled on the element level. and load carrying capacity information from inspections on the structure level Condition No. vulnerability. Sixteen of the systems allow user defined interventions. vulnerability and risk. Klatter. The type of interventions handled on the structure level. Information handled on the element level The following intervention information is summarized in the report: The following was reported that on the element level (Table 12): Twelve of the systems have predefined interventions.

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

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

risk. Five of these systems use probabilistic methods. Planning time frames. 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. 32 . Cost and prioritization information Cost information No. 7 7. including the use of condition. 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 12.1 PREDICTION INFORMATION Predictive capabilities of the systems. although there are seemingly large differences in how interventions are prioritized. Klatter. Kong Table 13. This information can be found in the questionnaires in the appendix.5 Prioritization Twelve of the systems prioritize interventions. Table 14): Nine of the systems can predict deterioration. cost benefit analysis. combined rating of multiple priority indices and using user defined ratings (Table 13).Adey.

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

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. i. the long time frame was taken to be identical to that of the short. Although the long time frame prediction periods. most likely due to the freedom agencies that license Pontis have in defining it. Planning time frames Not given 1-5 N/A 34 . Table 15. short time frame. In the analysis.Adey. to be any period from five years to 30 years to fit their budgeting processes. if only one predictive period was specified. The difference between the predictions may either be different methods of calculation or simply a recommendation of what may be viably considered and what not. Two time frames were considered: a short time frame – for the development of work programs. was not reported. and a long time frame – for the prediction of future budgets and the development of maintenance policies. Klatter. The short time frame prediction periods for Pontis were not given in the questionnaire. Table 16).e. A ten-year horizon is most common. seen the users of Pontis. most likely because the agencies that license Pontis are able to configure the work program horizon. Kong 7. it was possible in many cases to deduce the planning time frames (Figure 13.2 Planning time frames IABMAS 2010 Although not asked in the questionnaires.

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

Uses of prediction information Used for Setting of performance standards 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 the determination of matching funding sources 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 8 No. Kong 7.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 . Five of the systems are used to set performance standards. Uses of prediction information Table 17. Klatter.3 Uses of prediction information IABMAS 2010 The following was reported with respect to the use of prediction information (Figure 14. Table 17): 16 14 Fifteen of the systems are used to prepare budgets. Number of Systems 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Budget preparation Setting of performance standards Selected Uses Matching funding sources Figure 14. Eight of the systems are used to match funding sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure types No. 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 . Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0 Retaining Walls 50 Quays 0 Storm surge 0 Piers 0 barriers Support structures 0 Protection 0 structures description Archives are included in the system Inspection reports are uploaded (pdf) Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports.dk/wimpdoc.dk http://www. Klatter.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. graphical and tabular Yes Structure types No.vejsektoren.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.Roaddirectorate. References and Manuals (available at . 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.Adey.3 DANBRO Bridge Management System.dk www.

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

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

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

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

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

GBMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . Locks and sluices 0 Retaining Walls Storm surge 0 barriers Support structures Protection structures description Program “SIB-Bauwerke” Program “SIB-Bauwerke” Program “SIB-Bauwerke” Inventory information (of principal user) Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.Adey. 0 0 0 55 . Bored tunnels Bridges Culverts Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history IT information Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1.0) description no BMS under development.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Basic information Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No.5 Bauwerk Management System. Klatter.

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

www. for bearings and expansion joints) Measure catalogue implemented (different levels.vfib-ev. 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. reconstruction) Cost catalogue implemented 6 year planning period and 20 years “prediction period” description Yes (“financial scenario”) Yes (“quality scenario”) no On network level two scenarios (financial and quality scenario) data collecting group Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality.g.0) description Deterioration models (corrosion. chloride intrusion.Adey. plausibility test for construction and damage data in the BMS-Program Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality Meeting between federal ministry and federal states every 6 months description Further training courses (recommend not obligatory).de Testing and the end of further training courses Not yet No - Additional Operational information 57 . repair.g. repair. rehabilitation. carbonation) and service life model (e. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Klatter. KRMBS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at . Client Data is entered manually in a desk top computer Reports.re.fims.kr) User Manual KOROMBUS 2007 Administrator Manual KOROMBUS 2007 (in Korean) Ministry of Land. graphical and tabular Yes 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 . Java/Jsp Application & WEB Server. Bored tunnels 297 Bridges 5. Transport and Maritime Affairs / Regional Construction and Management Administration description Oracle 9i.317 Culverts 0 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history 17 0 Korea Road Maintenance Business System description Korea Road Maintenance Business System (http://www.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. Database. Structure types No.Facil Information Management System 2009/2003 Korea Institute of Construction Technology (http://www.kict.mine.Adey.nu) . Kong IABMAS 2010 11.9 Korea Road Maintenance Business System.

Other information can be stored.g. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety.Adey. e. test results. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Korea Road Maintenance Business System description Visual inspections containing damage descriptions are performed. photos Aggregated from element level description Elements have a condition rating (A . Klatter. plans.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 . vulnerability.

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

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

User can define custom interventions. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. Although not standard. vulnerability. Elements have a carrying capacity rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. Safety risk aggregated from element level can be assigned by the user. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures Inspection information Lat Brutus (3. Other information can be stored. description Composed by user from element level interventions.Adey. description Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined.g. photos. Condition can be assigned by user. plans. Intervention information 72 . No No description Yes No Composed by the user. They can be overruled by the user. Aggregated from element level. Elements have a safety rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. description Elements have a condition rating (1-4) based on visual inspection. e.1) description Visual inspections containing damage description are performed. Risk of insufficient load carrying capacity can be assigned by the user. Although not standard. They can be modified by the user. Reference strategies are available. description No Yes No No No description Interventions are characterized with risk level and optimal and ultimate intervention times. Klatter. test results. description Aggregated from all elements in a structure.

73 . No Inspectors: personal certificate based on minimal requirements.Adey. Manager (Latvian State Roads) description Training course at university developed with manager and university. rehabilitation. Inspectors from engineering companies. repair. Klatter. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.1) description No No No No description Yes No Yes data collecting group Manager (Latvian State Roads) can be assigned to engineering companies. User group (Latvian State Roads and engineers from private companies) discusses problems and solutions to improve quality. Personal certificate based on minimal requirements.g. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Prediction information Operational information Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional Lat Brutus (3.

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

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

Klatter. and a reference for actual planning. repair. rehabilitation. The system does not generate LCC itself.. – year +10 (later years are in the system. university and engineering companies. can be assigned to engineering companies Inspectors from engineering companies Owner (Rijkswaterstaat) N/A description Training course at university developed with owner. it is also an indicator for structures that do not comply with the target maintenance level No No data collecting group Owner (Rijkswaterstaat). Not mandatory for inspectors. year+ 1 . Intervals are assigned as input to all interventions in the system.g. This enables a partial LCC computation. Offline models are available to correspond with information in the system Improvements. are not modeled in the system. reconstruction) Cost DISK (2006) description Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Personal certificate based on minimal requirements No Inspectors: personal certificate based on minimal requirements User group (Rijkswaterstaat and inspectors from private companies) discusses problems and solutions to improve quality Prediction information Operational information Additional Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … 76 . due to interventions.Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. but not used for operational planning) description This information is used as advice for basic planning.

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

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

g. Klatter. can be assigned to engineering or consulting companies Certified inspectors (owner or consulting companies) Owner --description Mandatory 2-level training courses for inspectors Personal certification based on education level. rehabilitation. experience and results of the training courses ----- Operational information 79 . reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional SMOK 2000 description No Information collected in the system are used for planning of the interventions Information collected in the system are used for assessment of the intervention cost Information collected in the system are used for 1-10 years planning description Information collected in the system are used for budget planning No No --data collecting group Owner. repair.Adey. 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.

c. Klatter. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 11. 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.pl) Users Manual SZOK 2009 (in Polish) Local road administration in Poland description PC/Windows XP or later Desktop. Proprietary Database Manual entry Textual.13 SZOK Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Structure types No. (htpp://universal-systems.Adey. graphical & tabular reports No Structure types No.

plans. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Structure level Inspection information Assessment on element level Condition Safety. test results can be also stored in the system. defined by user. vulnerability. videos. 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. Photos. No No No description History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form Intervention information 81 . Klatter. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures SZOK (2009) description Inventory and inspection data are collected individually for basic elements General information about the whole structure and aggregated from element level description Condition rating of elements (scale 0-5) based on visual inspection and test results.Adey.

Can be used for deterioration process prediction. experience and results of the training courses ----- Operational information 82 . Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Prediction information Improvement (e. experience and results of the training courses Short introduction to the system based on the Users Manual Inspectors: personal certification based on education level.Adey. can be assigned to engineering or consulting companies Certified inspectors (owner or consulting companies) Owner --description Mandatory 2-level training courses for inspectors developed by two universities in Poland Personal certification based on education level. Information collected in the system are used for planning of the interventions Information collected in the system are used for assessment of the intervention cost Information collected in the system are used for 1-10 years planning description Information collected in the system are used for budget planning No No --data collecting group Owner. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Use For budget preparation For setting of performance standards For matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … Additional SZOK (2009) description History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form. rehabilitation. repair.g. Klatter.

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

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

Indirect user cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost. User can define what parts of the bridge needs repair regardless of the state.Adey. Klatter. and only evaluate the current damages (the present structure state). the application tells us how much money we need to repair the structures. Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions. No.0 description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database. for one structure or a set of structures. Then application prioritizes repairs according the elements state (damages state). Intervention information 85 . description The application can prioritize repairs according the elements state (damages state). Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategies Project level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures SGP 2. description There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database. The application calculates repair budgets and cost forecast. description No No. description No There are costs catalogues in the database. The application recommends intervention strategies (repairs) for each element. Traffic delay cost can be included in database and used to calculate the final cost. The application recommends interventions for one structure or a set of structures. Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions. No. They can be modified by inspector/user. Optimization algorithms exist.

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

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

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

No. description On structural level. the alternative with the lowest current value cost is chosen. (The actual action is determined when plans are drawn up for the whole bridge). No. No. The benefit of saving money is compared with the extra cost of postponing the project one year. As the main strategy. See structure level. Conflicts with existing performance standards will be considered. 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. Alternative action strategies are studied and current socio economic value calculated with a discount rate of 4 %. Klatter. the activities proposed in connection with the inspections are processed to an optimal strategy for the bridge concerned. A database of unit prices for technical solutions is available. No. Yes. Yes.2 (2009) . Within the object planning module of the BaTMan system. description No.Adey. 89 .[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. Allowance is made for the road user costs. The optimal strategy (see above) is calculated on a LCC-basis. description No. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Intervention information Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures BaTMan 3. No.

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

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

Adey. other information is considered indirectly. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level Inspection information Intervention information Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. 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. e. vulnerability. Plans. vulnerability. the remaining structures requiring interventions are listed with respect to the expected benefit of performing the intervention strategy 92 . Klatter.g. risk Load carrying capacity Other performance information Element level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures KUBA 4. risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety. Destructive and non-destructive test results. and is estimated on the element and project level Can be entered on the project level Can be entered on the project level Can be entered on the project level Yes description Structures with elements in condition state 5 (alarming) are suggested to receive interventions first to alleviate safety problems.0 description Visual inspection. but can be stored.

rehabilitation. repair. reconstruction) Cost Planning time-frame Prediction information Use Used of system results for budget preparation Used for setting performance standards Used for matching funding sources Additional Data collection Inventory Inspection/assessment Intervention/planning Additional Quality assurance Education for inspectors Certification of inspectors Education for users Certification for users Other … KUBA 4.0 description Probabilistic deterioration models based on the physical processes affecting the elements are used Probabilistic improvement models based on the impact of the interventions likely to be performed are used Optimal life cycle intervention strategies (based on condition evolution) on the element level and project level Interventions can be generated for up to 100 years but in general it is not suggested to use more than the first 5 years for planning on the operation al level. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e. description Yes No Yes None data collecting group Assigned to private companies Inspectors from engineering companies Owner (ASTRA) Assigned to private companies description Training courses given on demand Controlled through independent checking of samples Training courses given on demand No - Additional Operational information 93 .g.Adey. Klatter.

Counties and Cities description IBM Mainframe.state.state. CICS Data is entered manually using computer Standard reports. types Bored tunnels 2 Bridges 9728 Culverts 6112 Cut and cover tunnels Galleries Archives Construction data Inspection reports Intervention history ABIMS description Alabama Department of Transportation (www. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.us) Bridge Inspection Manual and ABIMS User Manual (http://www.al. Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Weirs Quays Piers Inventory information (of principal user) Protection structures description Stored in Document Management System Stored in Bridge Management System (ABIMS) Stored in ABIMS 94 . ASP.17 ABIMS Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Reporting capabilities Web access Basic information IT information Structure No. Klatter.al.Adey. Structure types No.Net DB2. Access for adhoc reports Web access is available to outside agencies to the mainframe through an Apache server Structure types No.dot.state.us/Docs/Bureaus/Maintenance/Bridge+Maintenance /Bridge+Inspection.dot.us) 1994 ALDOT(www.htm) ALDOT.al.dot.

Kong IABMAS 2010 Inspection information Name (version) ABIMS Data collection level Element level Structure level Assessment on element level Condition Safety. Posting recommendations begin for conditions of 4 or less See above description Based on condition from elements Same as element Determined by structure analysis or by conditions as listed above description Standard interventions are predefined Interventions can be user defined but not captured in system description No Posting recommendation begin when conditions are 4 or less No description No No No description Inspection costs stored by structure The intervention performed is stored by structure no no No description Intervention information 95 . risk Load carrying capacity Assessment on structure level Condition Safety Load carrying capacity Additional Element level Predefined standard User defined/custom Intervention strategy Structure level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Project level User defined/custom Predefined standard Intervention strategies Costs Inspection cost Intervention cost Traffic delay cost Indirect user cost Life-cycle costing Prioritization Performance measures description Visual inspections are performed on a set of agency defined elements Plans. vulnerability. 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.Adey. photos.

Klatter. rehabilitation.Adey. repair.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. 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 .

1995 ( http://pontis.5 Infomaker Pontis 5.1 yes Structure types Locks and sluices Retaining Walls Storm surge barriers Support structures Protection structures description Yes Yes Yes No.5. 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. Kong IABMAS 2010 11.000 About 250.transportation. reports Pontis 5.1 .com) (http://aashtoware.2009 Pontis 4.1 Oracle. photos.5 and 5. videos.camsys. Element. www.000 0 0 Inventory information (of principal user) 97 . Users Manual (English) 46 Transportation Agencies in the US (Two International Licenses Italy) description 4.5 Client Server PowerBuilder.com) Technical Manual.18 Pontis Name (version) Aspect Owner (webpage) Basic information Date implemented (current / first version) Developer(s) (webpage) References and Manuals (available at .0.2009 Pontis 2. Klatter.NET Bridge.Adey.bakerprojects. Technical Notes.org and www. Open database architecture and GUI allows for full customization and internationalization. Multi media. Sybase and SQL server compatible 4.aashtoware.1. 0 0 0 0 0 Structure types Weirs Quays Piers No. 5.1 Web Version) description American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO.1 Crystal Reports Pontis 4.languages) Users (Principal / Other) Aspect Platform Architecture Data collection capabilities Pontis (4.org Pontis 5. Inspection and Roadway levels.5 Client Server & 5. 0 About 500.

Adey. Kong IABMAS 2010 Name (version) Data collection level Element level 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 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 (4.1 Web Version) description Yes Yes description Yes 4.2 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 No .5 Client Server & 5. vulnerability.Future 5.

repair.Adey.g. 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. Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting NHI Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting No Additional 99 . 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 (4.5 Client Server & 5. rehabilitation. Kong IABMAS 2010 Operational information Name (version) Aspect Deterioration Improvement (e.