See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282704010

Bridge Management from Design to Maintenance

Conference Paper · July 1996

CITATIONS READS

6 420

2 authors:

Fernando A. Branco Jorge de Brito

Technical University of Lisbon University of Lisbon
277 PUBLICATIONS   2,730 CITATIONS    1,404 PUBLICATIONS   14,929 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Durability and Corrosion Resistance of Concrete View project

House Protection From Wildland Fire View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jorge de Brito on 10 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT
From Design to Maintenance

F. A. Branco and J. de Brito

Instituto da Construção
I. S. T. - Tech. Univ. of Lisboa
1096 Lisboa, Portugal

Summary

Structural deterioration and lack of functionality led to important investments in

bridge rehabilitation in the last years. Budgets for keeping or rehabilitate existing
bridges are always limited, and frequently only a selection of the problems detected can
be dealt with by the owners. To be aware of existing in service problems and to help in
rationalising maintenance decisions, bridge management systems have been developed
and implemented in several countries.

This paper considers bridge management within a global methodology to be

implemented by the authorities, considering also the design and the construction stages
where important measures to attain durability should be implemented. For the service
stage a bridge management system is presented, based on a knowledge-based system
that allows standardisation of inspections and assistance in maintenance/repair
decision-making, considering safety and economical analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION

The importance of bridge maintenance / rehabilitation versus new bridge

construction has become a great concern of bridge authorities in the last decades. This
is due to the high structural deterioration rates that have been observed in some
structures or to the lack of functionality that sometimes has occurred due to the
increasing traffic volumes. Causes for structural degradation can be found in poor
durability design, lack of quality control during construction, increasing levels of
pollution and the absence of regular inspection and maintenance actions.

The disruption of each particular bridge has very high costs for society. It stops
traffic passing over it and forces thousands of users to use alternative routes at extra
cost and time. Nevertheless, bridges are still frequently built according to the criteria
of the minimum initial cost to achieve the proposed level of functionality.
 This often results in building bridges that are difficult and expensive to inspect
and maintain or that are repaired quite frequently because the design was strictly
structural and not durability minded.

Due to lack of long-term planning, many bridges also become functionally

obsolete (with important traffic jams or with reduced traffic weight limits), many years
before the end of their structural life. This leads to very high functional failure costs
and / or extensive upgrading works.

The costs of rehabilitation of a disrupted bridge can be prohibitive, much bigger

than the costs of building a durable, stronger and larger structure from the very
beginning. Budgets for keeping or upgrading the existing bridges are always limited.
This means that usually, only a selection of the problems detected can be dealt with by
the authorities. To be aware of the existing problems and to help with rational
maintenance decisions, bridge management systems have been developed and are
being implemented all over the world [6].

The volume of constructions to be inspected and the increasing

maintenance/repair budgets led, in a first step, to a standardisation of the procedures,
namely with the development of inspection manuals and implementation of databases.
The experience acquired with these strategies is presently being used to develop new
management systems in which human criteria is progressively being replaced by expert
knowledge fed into computers. In these systems, the main module contains the
decision criteria, that will lead to the best repair decision considering safety, durability,
functionality and economy [8,9].

Bridge authorities also begin to understand that to obtain long service lives and to
reduce maintenance costs, correct actions must be implemented right from the design
and construction stages, besides the implementation of the bridge management systems
for the service stage.

In this paper a methodology is presented to analyse bridges from design to service

in terms of durability. First, it considers a design stage where a durability minded
design must be developed, followed by a construction stage where procedures are
adopted to implement that design.

During the structure life, the bridge management is performed with a knowledge-
based system that allows: storage of all the design, construction and in-field data;
standardisation of procedures and reports related to inspections; assistance in
maintenance/repair decision-making considering both safety and economical analysis.

2. DEFINING THE SERVICE LIFE AT THE PLANNING STAGE

The duration of the service life depends both on physical deterioration and
functional obsolescence of the bridge. If no important structural degradation problems
occur, service life ends when the benefits obtained from the operation are exceeded by
the functional, construction and maintenance costs.
 The life cycle of a bridge comprises the stages of planning, design, construction,
operation, maintenance, repair and demolition. During these stages, the bridge
authority, the designer, the contractor and the maintenance team will be responsible for
the durability and functional behaviour of the bridge, each one with specific tasks.

At the planning stage, the authorities should define the global service life that is
intended for the structure. This corresponds to the period of time, from its completion
up to the time when it is supposed to reach a specified state of degradation or
economic/functional obsolescence, with normal maintenance. Current bridges are
usually designed for lives of 50 - 60 years, and important bridges are frequently
analysed for 100 - 120 years periods. It is this period that justifies economically the
construction of a bridge, considering the associated functional benefits that will be
obtained from the bridge. This can be quantified in terms of tolls or simply in terms of
time saving for the traffic.

The estimation of the end of the functional life needs specific prediction studies,
that should be developed during the planning stage. For example, in bridges, the
functional obsolescence is mainly related with restrictions to traffic volume and
maximum axle weight, whose evolution can be estimated from statistical analysis.
Measures to delay obsolescence may be put into effect in the design phase, with a
flexible design which allows an upgrading of the construction functionality during its
life (possibility of increasing the traffic lanes, for example).

The estimation of the service life based on physical deterioration should be

analysed at the design phase, within the durability design.

3. DESIGN FOR DURABILITY

At the design stage studies have to be performed to guarantee the defined global
service life, in terms of physical deterioration. This should be included in the bridge
durability design whose main issues should be indicated in the construction technical
specifications.

The service life, defined at the planning stage, is expected to be achieved in most
of the construction elements, including the structural ones, with minor repair costs.
Nevertheless, each construction component will have a different service life, frequently
less than the global one, which will lead to repairs during the structure’s life. This
analysis of durability should also be performed at the design stage.

3.1 Estimation of the Service Life

The estimation of the service life based on physical deterioration is a complex

problem under significant research all over the world [1,3]. It includes the definition of
the reference states that are associated with the end of the service life, the environment
characterisation, the study of the degradation phenomena of the materials and
components and the definition of mathematical models for evaluation of the
degradation path.
 In concrete structures, the most important degradation mechanisms are associated
with the following situations:

- Carbonation;
- Chloride attack in saline environment;
- Icing / de-icing cycles;
- Chemically aggressive salts.

For current structures, with service lives of 50-60 years, the European standards
[3] define the environmental characteristics for each degradation mechanism, based on
which recommendations are performed in terms of concrete characteristics (minimum
cement content, w/c ratio, minimum strength) and reinforcement cover to achieve the
expected durability.

For important bridges, where greater service lives are specified (100-120 years)
there are no code recommendations. Here the study of the service life has to be
performed in terms of physical deterioration, based on local environment conditions
and on the limit conditions adopted for design and using mathematical models for
deterioration and/or available local experience [2]. These models have been mainly
developed for carbonation and chloride attack prevision.

The carbonation of concrete is caused by the reaction of CO2 in the atmosphere

with the Ca(OH)2 of the cement hydration products in the presence of water. The result
is loss in alkalinity in the concrete cover, approaching pH values of neutrality. The
penetration of CO2 in concrete pores tends to move as a front which proceeds at a rate
controlled mainly by CO2 diffusion coefficient [1,2]. The evolution of the depth of
carbonation "d" can be estimated by

d=K t (1)

where t is the time in years and K is a carbonation constant which depends on the
effective diffusion coefficient of CO2 through concrete and the surrounding and inside
concrete concentration of CO2. Based on experimental data, the parameter K has
values around 1,0 - 1,5 (mm/year0,5) for current situations, but can increase to 7,0 - 8,0
for poor concrete and industrial environment situations [2].

For chloride attack, its penetration into concrete can be reasonably predicted by
Fick's law of diffusion. The solution of this differential equation, taking into account
the time dependence of the chloride diffusion coefficient Dc (cm2/sec), leads to the
following equation, giving the chloride concentration C(x,t) inside the concrete at any
depth x (cm) and time t (sec)

C(x, t) = C0 1 - erf  
x
(2)
 2 Dc
(1-m)
  1-m t

where C0 is the equilibrium chloride concentration on the concrete surface (as % of the
weight of cement), "erf" is the error function and "m" an empirical constant (m = 0, 4)
[2].

The above equation can be used to estimate the time for the corrosion initiation,
for a reinforcement cover (x), considering the surface chloride concentration (Table 1),
using the concrete chloride diffusion coefficient (from experimental data) and
considering that corrosion initiation in reinforcement usually occurs for values around
C = 0,4 % (of weight of cement).

After initiation, the evolution of the bars diameter Dt (at time t) due to the
corrosion can be estimated by [2]

Dt = Di - 0,023 t Ic (3)

Where Di is the initial bar diameter, t is the time in years and Ic (µA/cm2)is the
corrosion rate with values varying from 1x10-1 to 1x102 µA/cm2. The great variation
in these values makes the estimation of the corrosion evolution difficult, without in situ
measurements.

Structure Environment C0
(%)
_________________________________________________
Bridge deck Air zone 1,6
Bridge columns Splash zone 2,5
Bridge column Tidal zone 5,0
Bridge deck De-icing salt 1,6
Bridge column De-icing salt 5,0

Table 1 - Typical chloride surface concentration [2]

With these models, a design estimation of the evolution of the degradation can be
achieved and design specifications can be obtained, basically in terms of concrete
characteristics and reinforcement cover. Usually several technical alternatives may be
used in the choice of the concrete components and bars cover, and a cost efficiency
analysis should be done to achieve a decision. It should be referred that for long service
lives the concrete strength to be adopted is usually controlled by durability minimum
standards.

In steel structures, the service life can be estimated based on corrosion rates. In
these structures, to achieve the expected life an additional thickness must be adopted to
consider the corrosion depth, lost during the service life. Table 2 presents typical
corrosion rates in maritime environment for unprotected construction steel.
 Location µm/year

Buried zone 0,01

Submerged mud zone 0,1
Fully submerged zone 0,08-0,12
Tidal zone 0,1 - 0,2
Splash zone 0,2 - 0,4
Air zone 0,1 - 0,2

Table 2 - Maritime environment, steel corrosion rates

3.2 Bridge Monitoring

For important bridges and because mathematical models, at the present stage of
knowledge, do not give yet sufficiently accurate results, a monitoring system should
also be defined at the design stage. Monitoring will periodically provide, for important
structural elements, the main parameters that control the deterioration mechanisms,
namely, the carbonation depth, the corrosion level, etc., and will allow the
confirmation of the deterioration rates assumed in design .

Besides the deterioration problems, important bridges should also be monitored

to follow their structural behaviour during their life. This will allow the prevention, in
time, of major accidents and the performance of a quick assessment of the structure
after an accident or when an abnormal environmental action (wind or earthquake)
occurs.

3.3 Flexibility

The global service life, defined at the planning stage, is expected to be achieved
in most of the structural elements, with minor repair costs. Nevertheless, each
construction component will have a different service life, frequently less than the
global service life, what will lead to repairs during the structure’s life (bearings, joints,
etc. are typically elements with shorter lives). The analysis of durability of these
elements should also be performed at the design stage, defining expected replacement
periods, and degradation monitoring parameters.

All these components that will need repair or replacement during the global
service life should be designed with flexibility, which means that their
replacement/repair will be performed with minor effects on the construction operation.
If a later upgrading of the structure functionality is foreseeable, this should also be
considered at the design stage in terms of flexibility.

3.4 Technical Specifications and Basic Maintenance Plan

The previous aspects of the durability design should be presented in a set of

technical specifications (durability specifications) for the materials and components,
including definition of durability tests to be adopted during construction and the
corresponding durability parameters that are expected for the materials. Based on the
design estimation of the service life of the components, a basic inspection and
maintenance plan for the structure should also be presented.

3.5 Re-use of materials

The choice of the materials should also consider the possibilities of their re-use at
the end of their service life. Guidelines for demolition operations at the end of service
life should also influence the options at the design stage.

4. CONSTRUCTION FOR DURABILITY

During the construction stage a good quality control is the best way to obtain the
planned service life. The construction quality control is typically performed by a
supervision team, in contact with the designer, and should have the following main
activities.

4.1 Initial Characterisation of Materials Properties

Before any concrete mixing begins, the contractor should study the concrete
compositions to achieve the durability parameters defined in design. This is specially
important because durability tests take time to provide results and if they are not
performed in advance, the construction may undergo some delays.

Besides this initial study, a control must also be implemented at the reception of
all the materials, and in particular the structural ones, whose composition needs to be
periodically checked with durability tests to guarantee their behaviour [3].

4.2 In-situ Control

Implementation of procedures for in-situ measurements of the behaviour of the

materials and characteristics of the structure is necessary to guarantee the durability
specifications. This quality control is one of the most important activities and must be
done in a systematic way during all the construction stage.

Knowledge-based systems are also being developed to perform quality control.

Besides the adoption of rationalised procedures for control, if anomalies are found, the
system suggests to the inspector the best procedures to overcome the problem [4].

4.3 Construction Procedures

Construction methods should be analysed and implemented to guarantee the best

procedures in terms of achieving good durability for the materials [3]. Activities
associated with curing , heat of hydration control, etc. are examples of procedures that
are important for concrete durability.
5. MANAGEMENT DURING SERVICE LIFE

To guarantee a good behaviour of the structure, during its service life, several
maintenance and repair measures will be needed. To be aware of existing problems and
to help in rationalising maintenance decisions (technically and in terms of costs),
management systems have been developed. Initially they considered essentially a
standardisation of the procedures, namely with the development of inspection manuals,
and implementation of databases. Recently this information together with expert
knowledge has been fed into computers leading to knowledge-based systems.

D AT A
S T O RAG E

M AN AG EM EN T PRO C ES S ES
S YS T EM S T AN D ARIZAT IO N

D EC IS IO N -
-M AK IN G

Fig. 1. Main functions of a typical management system

The global architecture of a management system of this type consists of 3 different

modules (Fig. 1 [5]):

I - Database ;
II - Inspection module;
III - Decision module.

The inspection module handles the data acquisition at the structure during its service
life, according to the inspection calendar. The decision module uses that data and
expert knowledge to help in all the options that must be made during that time
concerning the maintenance / repair activities. The decision system is divided in two
sub modules (Fig. 2 [5]):

III.1 - Maintenance;
III.2 - Repair .

The maintenance sub module concerns current maintenance work that is performed
almost continuously. The repair sub module is related to important structural repair
work. Its use allows the user to choose one of the several options (wait and see, repair,
build a new structure [6]), which is done using a long term present value economic
analysis.
 MAINTENANCE

DEC IS IO N
S YS TEM
INS PEC TIO N
S TRATEG Y
REPAIR

REPAIR W O RK
S ELEC TIO N

Fig. 2. Organisation of the decision system

6. THE INSPECTION MODULE

6.1 Methodology

The management system functionality is based on a standardised inspection

strategy. It consists of a periodic set of inspections with a fixed timetable, in which
some flexibility is allowed to take into account a plausible global allocation of the
inspection resources, complemented with special inspections when something serious
is detected or suspected.

Typically a periodic inspection framework consists of two types of inspections

[7]: current and detailed. The first one has a 15 month period and the second one
replaces a current inspection in 5 year intervals. In the current inspections, serious
defects are not supposed to be detected. For this reason, the inspection will be focused
mainly on visual observation of the most exposed areas and, usually, special means of
access and non-portable equipment will be dispensed with. The defects are registered,
with their location, and classified in terms of rehabilitation urgency. A report is
prepared and sent to the periodic maintenance division with all the defects that need
short or middle term action.

The detailed inspection differs from the current inspection in that all details that
are susceptible of raising future problems are investigated. Besides visual observation,
non-destructive in situ tests are performed and eventually laboratory tests. At a detailed
inspection, usually there is not a specific serious defect to be looked into, unless it has
been detected previously in the current inspections [6]. The detailed inspections should
also consider the design inspection plan defined according to the estimated service life
of the structure components.

Besides the periodic inspections, a bridge initial characterisation will also be

necessary, after the bridge is built and before it is put in service. Its main objectives are
to confirm the design analysis and to create a "reference state" for all the future
inspections [7].
6.2 The Inspection Interactive Module

To standardise the procedures at the inspection site and at the headquarters, a

defect classification system was developed to allow its implementation in a
knowledge-based system.

For this all the defects liable to be found in concrete structures (totalling 94
entrances) were classified according to a geographical / functional / materials criteria in
9 different groups [8].

All the possible causes (direct or indirect) of these defects (117 entrances) were
also classified according to a chronological criteria in 9 different groups. The in situ
diagnosis methods used to detect or analyse the defects (81 entrances) were also
classified according to the functioning principle and the type of results provided, in 14
different groups. The repair techniques used to eliminate or prevent the defects listed
above (69 entrances) were also classified in the same groups as the defects [8]. This
information was implemented in a prototype system, limited to the main reinforced
concrete corrosion related defects.

For each of these defects, a defect form [8] was prepared in order to be included
in the inspection manual, as a complement to the system. Each of the forms includes
the following information: short description of the defect, possible causes, possible
consequences, inspection parameters to investigate and a defect rating.

To help the inspector in making decisions at the structure, the system has
knowledge-based data introduced through correlation matrices relating defects x
causes, defects x diagnosis methods and defects x repair techniques [8]. Each of these
matrices is organised so that each line represents a defect and each column a possible
cause (or diagnosis method, or repair method). In the intersection of each line and
column, representing the correlation between each defect and the other element, a
classification was introduced representing the knowledge information.

To help the inspector in making decisions concerning the defects detected during
the inspection, the system is then used as a memo aid giving hints as to what should be
done. The inspector selects the defect that has just been detected and has access to the
following standard help [8] (Fig. 3):

1.- Diagnosis Methods;

2.- Probable Causes;
3.- Associated Defects;
4.- Related Repair Techniques.

Using the expert system, the inspector is also able to record the results of the
inspection in a Inspection Database as a Provisional Defect Report. This will then be
used to help in the preparation of the definitive inspection report done at the
headquarters.
 DEFECT: A_D05 Bar with reduced cross-section
CROSS-SECTION: deck A-2
TYPE OF INSPECTION: Current Inspection
Please select the Diagnosis Methods you used to conclude the defect:

M_A01 Unaided direct visual observation

M_C01 Galvanic cell test
M_K01 Phenolphthalein
M_A02 Using binoculars, micrometer, camera or video equipment
M_A04 Using special means of aerial access
M_A05 Underwater / on water
M_K02 Silver nitrate
M_K03 Rapid chloride test
i) Suggested diagnostic methods for the defect
DEFECT: A_D05 Bar with reduced cross-section
CROSS-SECTION: deck A-2
TYPE OF INSPECTION: Current Inspection
Please select the probable Causes of the defect:

C_A14 Insufficient reinforcement / pre-stressing design cover

C_A24 Drainage directly over concrete, joint, bearing or anchorage
C_B09 Deficient concrete compacting / curing
C_B11 Inaccurate reinforcement / pre-stressing positioning / detailing
C_F01 Water (wet / dry cycles)
C_F02 Natural carbon dioxide
C_F03 Salt / salty water (chlorides)
C_G01 Water (man-caused)
C_G02 Man-caused carbon dioxide
C_G03 Man-caused de-icing salts
C_A20 Excessive exposed areas in structural elements / faulty geometry
C_A23 No prevision of a minimum inclination in quasi-horizontal surfaces
C_A25 Other drainage design faults
C_A26 Lack of waterproofing membrane
C_A28 Incomplete / contradictory / over compact drawings
C_B01 Wrong interpretation of the drawings

More ↓
ii) Suggested causes of the defect
DEFECT: A_D05 Bar with reduced cross-section
CROSS-SECTION: deck A-2
TYPE OF INSPECTION: Current Inspection
The related repair techniques for the defect are:

(A) HIGH CORRELATION

1. R_D01 Concrete Patching (with reinforcement / pre-stressing cleaning)

2. R_D02 Concrete Patching (with reinforcement / pre-stressing splicing / replacement)

(B) LOW CORRELATION

not specified
iii) Suggested repair techniques for the defect

Fig. 3. Example of the use of the inspection interactive module applied to concrete
bridges
7. THE MAINTENANCE SUB-MODULE

In order to distinguish maintenance work from structural repair work, each of the
repair techniques included in the general classification mentioned before is classified
within one of the two categories, so that it is always assigned to the same sub module.
All the techniques considered as maintenance are associated with defects that do not
affect the structural reliability of the structure [6].

Every time a periodic inspection is performed and regardless of the possible need
for a structural assessment, maintenance works must be planned and performed at least
until the next periodic inspection [6]. Budget limitations are not of a paramount
importance as the yearly maintenance present value costs are more or less stable and
therefore are easy to predict and include in the next budget. However, some type of
criteria must be used in order to define which defects will have to be eliminated as
soon as possible and which can wait until the next inspection report.

The rating criteria implemented in the system takes into account three basic
aspects [6]:

- Rehabilitation urgency;
- Importance to the structure's stability;
- Functionality affected.

Each defect is classified by the inspector, according to the classification presented

in Table.3 [5] and the corresponding points are considered by the system to obtain a
global rating of the defect. The defects are then included in groups of priority of action
according to the number of points assigned to each one.

CRITERIA CLASSIFICATION
POINTS
Rehabilitation 0 immediate action required 30
Urgency 1 short-term (6 months) action required 25
2 medium-term (15 months) action required 15
3 long-term action required 5
_____________________________________________________________________
Importance to A structural defect in main structural elements 40
the Structure's B quasi-structural defect in main or secondary structural elements 25
Stability C non-structural defect 15
_____________________________________________________________________
Volume of a t.v. x d.l. x k ≥ 15.000 vehicle km / day 30
Traffic Affected b 15.000 vehicle km / day > t.v. x d.l. x k ≥ 3.000 vehicle km / day 20
by the Defect g t.v. x d.l. x k < 3.000 vehicle km / day 10
t.v. - average daily traffic volume over the bridge (in both directions) [vehicle / day]
d.l. - detour length caused by the total disruption of the bridge [km]
k - degree of obstruction to normal traffic caused by each defect
Table 3. Example of a maintenance rating criteria for concrete bridges

The defects rating allows the system to prepare a list of all the defects detected
according to its priority of action (number of points assigned). In theory, the defect
with the highest rating indicates the first place where to act. All maintenance work
related to defects of the same type detected in the same structure (even with a lower
rating) must also be performed as well as all the others that can be eliminated with the
same equipment and repair technique [6].

An example of the procedures of the inspector at the bridge site, is presented in

Fig. 4, associated to the rating of a defect (bar with reduced cross section).

DEFECT: A_D05 Bar with reduced cross-section

REHABILITATION URGENCY:

0. Mainly black rust in areas of maximum moments with a local loss over 3%
1. Mainly black rust in areas of maximum moments with a local loss under 3%
2. Predominantly black rust in intermediate areas
3. Predominantly reddish rust
___________________________
OPTION [0 TO 3]
___________________________

DEFECT: A_D05 Bar with reduced cross-section

IMPORTANCE TO THE STRUCTURE'S STABILITY:

A. Reinforcement in the deck, main beams, columns, abutments or foundations

C. Reinforcements in the auto-safes, parapets, sidewalks surface and approach
slabs
___________________________
OPTION [A TO C]
___________________________

DEFECT: A_D05 Bar with reduced cross-section

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC OVER THE BRIDGE: 20.000 vehicles
DETOUR LENGTH: 5,0 km

VOLUME OF TRAFFIC AFFECTED BY THE DEFECT:

k- degree of obstruction of normal traffic over the bridge caused by the defect

___________________________
k VALUE [0.0 TO 1.0]
___________________________

Fig. 4. Rating the anomalies for maintenance classification

8. COST FUNCTION

For decision-making concerning important repair work, it is necessary to be able

to quantify the total cost associated with the several stages of the structure life. A
global cost function [6,9] was developed, which includes the structural costs CST and
the functional costs and benefits CFU, during the structure life cycle.

C = C ST + C FU (4)

The structural costs include the initial costs (C0) (design and construction),
inspection (CI), current maintenance (CM), repair (CR) and structural failure costs
(CFSF).

C ST = C 0 + C I + C M + C R + C FSF (5)

The functional costs (CFFF) are associated with reductions in the operation
conditions of a structure, such as speed limitation in bridges, live load reduction in
buildings, etc. The benefits (B) correspond to negative functional costs as they are
associated with an improvement of the service level in the structure.

C FU = C FFF − B (6)

8.1 Structural Costs

These costs are mainly associated with the civil engineering works and can be
approximately predicted, based on the experience of the owners/authorities. The initial
costs (C0) are the ones involved in designing and building the structure. They can be
easily predicted for new structures, based on current construction costs.

An example of prediction of initial costs and its distribution in time is presented

in Fig. 5 [6]. The reference bridge (that will be used to illustrate the elements of the
cost function), is a three span reinforced concrete overpass, with a total deck area of
450 m2, to be opened to traffic in 1995. The economic analysis was performed in 1991
and present value costs were used.

The design costs (CODb) were the only ones in the first year, with a total value of
7.0 % of the construction costs of the bridge. The construction costs (COCb) were
predicted to be distributed evenly in the remaining years before the inauguration. The
testing costs (COT) were concentrated in the last year with a global value of 3.0 % of
the construction costs. The construction costs are the most important ones, typically
representing around 90% of the global initial costs.
 (x 5) ECU's
30000

20000
C0Db 2
Column
Column
C0Cb 3
C0T
Column 4
10000

0
1991 1992 1993 1994
YEAR

Fig.5. Example of initial costs

The inspection costs CI are involved in inspecting regularly the structure. They
can be estimated based on the structure dimensions and location, the authorities current
costs (labour and equipment) and a pre-fixed calendar of inspections [9].

The maintenance costs CM are the ones involved in keeping the structure at its
design level of service and exclude any main structural work. The yearly maintenance
costs can be predicted as a percentage of the construction cost. Typical average annual
values of these costs for bridges vary between 1 and 2% of the initial costs of the
structure [6].

The repair costs CR are the ones involved in doing main structural work (repair,
strengthening) and include the repair costs themselves and all the costs of the
corresponding structural assessment. In the long-term, these costs can be roughly
predicted using a percentage of the construction costs for each year that tends to grow
with the structure's age [9]. Typical average annual values for bridges of up to 5% of
the initial cost may be considered.

The structural failure costs (CFSF) include all the costs resulting from a structural
collapse of the structure. Even though collapse does not occur under normal
circumstances, these costs can still be considered in an economic analysis as insurance
costs. The cost associated with the structural failure can be obtained from the
probability of failure Pf and the cost of the actual collapse CFF:

C F S F = Pf C F F (7)

The cost CFF is mainly related to the construction of a new structure, but costs
associated with the time in which the existing structure is replaced and the
classification of the structure in terms of patrimony, can also be added by using
empirical coefficients [6].
8.2 Functional Failure Costs and Benefits

The functional failure costs (CFFF) are associated with a reduction of the
functionality of the construction. Benefits (B) are the values corresponding to an
enhancement of the structure in order to provide a better service (or be of a wider
utility) than the one provided at a certain standard situation (usually the design stage).
They are necessarily associated with functional failure costs (a benefit is equivalent to
a negative functional failure cost) and are therefore measured with the same
parameters. The functional failure costs have the following components:

a) The costs due to traffic delayed CFFFD that are the ones caused by the slowing
down of the traffic crossing the bridge, specially during rush hours. They are estimated
considering the average delay time and the average user's hour value;

b) The costs due to traffic detoured in terms of volume CFFFV that are the ones
caused by the traffic being detoured from one particular bridge to others nearby
because of the saturation of the bridge in terms of traffic flow. They are estimated in a
similar way considering the costs associated with the additional travel time, the vehicle
running expenditures and traffic accident rate increase [9];

c) The costs due to heavy traffic detoured in terms of load CFFFL that are the ones
caused only by a certain margin of exceptionally heavy traffic having to be detoured
from one particular bridge to others nearby because of its insufficient structural
capacity. They are estimated considering the additional total running costs (including
personnel) and traffic accident costs [9].

Each of these items can be divided in costs in terms of time wasted by the drivers,
fuel costs, vehicle maintenance costs and traffic accidents increase costs. For an
economic analysis, these costs have to be computed using several data, namely, traffic
surveys (yearly and daily), service design level of the road, future traffic estimates,
existing alternatives to each bridge, its traffic and structural capacity, energy and
vehicle maintenance average costs, etc.. A special analysis (computer routine
TRAFFIC) was developed to consider a numerical model to compute the average delay
times the volume of traffic delayed during rush hours [6]. It also allows the
consideration of a percentage of the expected traffic anticipating its journey in order to
minimise delays.

Fig. 6 [6] presents an example of the estimation of all functional failure costs
during the life time of the reference bridge example. The traffic delayed costs CFFFD
are nil until the year (2006) in which the traffic capacity of the bridge is reached, and
these costs start to grow at a rather fast rate. The traffic detoured costs CFFFV are nil
during the whole period of the economic analysis (until the year 2018) because no
repair works are planned and the bridge is never saturated in terms of traffic (even
though delays exist). Additionally, the detour length was too long to compensate for
the alternative delay. The exceptionally heavy traffic detoured costs CFFFL exist every
year because of the bridge structural capacity limitation to very high truck loads. The
fact that they decrease in time at present value prices shows that the discount rate is
higher than the detoured traffic annual increase rate.
(x 5) ECU's
200000
CFFFD (traffic delayed)
x 1000$
CFFFV (traffic detoured)
x 1000$
x 1000$(heavy traffic)
CFFFL

100000

0
1990 2000 2010 2020
YEAR

Fig.6. Example of evolution of functional failure costs

9. REPAIR SUB-MODULE

This sub module rules the decision of going forward with any of the repair
techniques from the global classification mentioned before classified as structural
repair work.

Whenever a structural assessment is performed, a decision concerning the option

to be chosen must be reached using this sub-module criteria. It is supposed that no
structural repair work will be performed unless a structural assessment provides the
necessary data to define and quantify it. Even if it is decided to do nothing for the
present to take care of structural defects that have been detected, this decision must be
achieved through rational criteria and be based on an economic analysis [6].

Every decision is made according to the cost effectiveness index (CEI) of each
option. The CEI coefficient indicates how well the proposed work-plan compares to
the no-action option. The bigger the coefficient for a particular option, the better
investment that option is. In the calculation of CEI, the repair costs (CR), the failure
costs (CF) and the benefits (B) are considered.

(CR + CF - B)repair
CEI = (C + C - B) (8)
R F no-action

The objective is to select the best repair technique to eliminate a particular

structural defect detected at the bridge. To do this, the system has expert knowledge (in
terms of flowcharts - Fig. 7 [10]) to eliminate the repair techniques that are
inappropriate for the defect found. The system will ask a set of parameters that
characterise the defect (for example, its location, the repair area and others) and, with
them, the possible repair methods will be pointed out. Some of these parameters,
defined by the inspector, will allow an estimation of the costs of the selected
technique. If more than one technique is considered possible, the system uses an
optimisation procedure based on the CEI coefficient. Each technique has an associated
costs and estimated service life.

A_D01 Exposed bar

A_D04 Corroded bar
A_D05 Bar with reduced cross-section

yes
Bar corroded ? Cross-section loss > 20% ?

no no unknown yes

R_C02 Concrete patching (with

deteriorated concrete removal)

R_D01 Concrete patching (with R_D02 Concrete patching (with

reinforcement cleaning) reinforcement splicing/
/ replacement)

Fig. 7. Example of a flow chart for repair selection

10. A COST ANALYSIS CASE STUDY

10.1 Bridge Characteristics

A long term bridge cost analysis will now be illustrated, considering a structure
with the characteristics presented in Table 4 [6].

The present value economic analysis, was performed in 1991, for a time span
from 1983 to 2030. The inflation and discount rates were considered constant over that
period and equal to 10% and 4%, respectively. As the bridge has already been in
service for 4 years, it is possible to predict every cost based solely in linear regression
techniques.
 Bridge Schedule:
- Beginning of design / construction: 1983
- End of construction: 1986
- Opening to traffic: 1987
- End of the service life (50 years): 2037

Bridge Characteristics:
- Deck area: 550 m2
- Structural type: Continuous beam and slab deck ( spans - 18 + 25 + 18 m)
- Road length of the "area of influence": 12.5 km
- Road type: total width of 9.0 m in quasi-rough country with a flexible pavement
- Road design speed: 90 km / h
- Total number of lanes in the bridge: 2
- Structural capacity ( design vehicle load): 600 kN
Table 4. Bridge Example

10.2 Evolution of Functional Costs

The rate of evolution of the traffic was predicted using data collected during the
bridge's years in service. It was estimated that, when delays occur (due to a repair
operation or at rush hours), 20% of the potential traffic volume delayed at the bridge
will choose other roads. This traffic prediction was then used to perform a present
value, long-term economic analysis whose results are presented in terms of functional
costs / benefits in Fig. 8 [6].

x 6 $ US O PT IO N 0

800000

CxF 1(functional
000$ failure costs)
Bx 1(benefits)
000$
600000

400000

200000

YEAR
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
 Fig.8. Evolution of functional costs

Near the end of the predicted structural service life of the bridge (2037), the
increase in the functional failure costs (CF) due to the delays in crossing it is so
significant that they exceed the global annual benefits. A preliminary sensitivity
analysis also showed that an increase in traffic (assumed as 15%) will lead to a sum of
benefits significantly less than the cumulative failure costs, at the end of the service
life.

Fig. 8 also gives an indication of the duration of the functional service life of the
bridge, if no funds are made available to increase its traffic capacity. In fact, to
maximise the net present value of the bridge, it should be replaced by a new bridge in
the year in which the total annual costs are equal to the total annual benefits (year
2017), assuming that the cost of opportunity of capital equals the discount rate.

10.3 Repair analysis

Based on these conclusions, it was decided to increase the bridge traffic capacity.
A preliminary structural analysis revealed that it was feasible to widen the deck from
two lanes to three lanes (the extra lane will be used alternatively, according to the rush
hours), as long as the infrastructure undergoes some strengthening. Four possible dates
to implement this solution were studied: 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 (options 1 to 4).
After the last one of these dates, it was considered that it would not be worth to
enhance significantly the bridge at a big cost, because the expected end of its service
life is too near (2030). These 4 options were compared with the no-action option
(option 0).

It was assumed that the capacity of the bridge in terms of maximum allowable
live load was not affected by the widening of the deck. Therefore, the costs CFFFL
(heavy traffic detoured) are the same for all the options. Nevertheless, if the
enhancement of the bridge was to include an increase in the bridge structural capacity,
it would have been easy to consider that in the analysis.

The structural failure costs CFSF are affected by the deck widening, because they
depend on the functional failure costs in the period during which the bridge is being
replaced, in case it collapses. However, to simplify the analysis, it was considered, that
the decrease in the probability of failure compensates for the increase in the costs of
reconstruction, and so the structural failures costs were almost the same for all the
options.

The direct costs of the deck widening were computed at 1991 present value costs
as 60,000$ (U.S.). As shown in Fig. 9, these costs will be different for each of the
options because they occur at different times. The deck widening works will be
analysed, considering also two types of functional costs:

- Costs due to traffic delayed CFFFD (during the period in which the works are
being performed and, under normal circumstances, due to the bridge
insufficient traffic capacity which is affected by the number of lanes);
 - Costs due to light traffic detoured in terms of volume CFFFV.

x 6$ DECK WIDENING COSTS

10000
option 0 (no action)
x 1000$
8000 option 1 (in 1995)
x 1000$
option 2 (in 2000)
x 1000$
6000 option 3 (in 2005)
x 1000$
option 4 (in 2010)
x 1000$
4000

2000

0
YEAR
-2000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Fig.9. Deck widening costs

The influence of the repair date in the traffic delayed is shown in Fig. 10, where it can
be seen that, the sooner the widening is performed, the better in terms of functional
costs. The peak values correspond to local delayed traffic costs during the construction
periods.

The influence of the repair date in the detoured light traffic is shown in Fig. 11,
where the peak values indicate the fraction of the total in excess traffic detoured during
the construction periods.

In this analysis, the only repair costs considered are the differential costs related
to option 0 (not performing the widening). The benefits will be the same as the number
of traffic lanes in working conditions is the same for all options.

INFLUENCE OF DECK WIDENING IN THE FUNCTIONAL

x 6$ FAILURE COSTS (TRAFFIC DELAYED)
400000 option 0 (no-action)
x 1000$
option
x 1000$(in 1995)
1
option 2 (in 2000)
x 1000$
200000 option 3 (in 2005)
x 1000$
option
x 1000$(in 2010)
4
0

-200000

-400000

YEAR
-600000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
 Fig. 10. Influence of deck widening in the functional failure costs (traffic delayed)

INFLUENCE OF DECK WIDENING IN THE FUNCTIONAL

x 6$ FAILURE COSTS (TRAFFIC DETOURED)
500000
option 0 (no action)
x 1000$
400000 option 1 (in 1995)
x 1000$
option 2
x 1000$(in 2000)
300000 option 3
x 1000$(in 2005)
option 4
x 1000$(in 2010)
200000

100000

0
YEAR
-100000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Fig. 11. Influence of deck widening in the functional failure costs

(light traffic detoured)

10.4 Repair Preliminary Decision

The main results of the economic analysis are presented in Table 5 [6], where it
can be seen that:

- Any of the options that considers widening the deck is preferable to the no-
action option;

- The best option is to widen the deck in 1995 or in a date between 1995 and
2000, as the two first options have very close results. A more localised
analysis would be necessary to reach a definite conclusion.

- The deck widening will significantly increase the functional service life, a
situation that is particularly interesting as the end of bridge structural life will
probably not occur in 2017.

OPTION ΣCR ΣCF ΣB CEI

0 0.0 59,607.9 110,200.4 1.0000
1 51.3 14,113.8 110,200.4 1.8982
2 42.2 14,328.2 110,200.4 1.8942
3 34.6 16,533.0 110,200.4 1.8507
4 28.5 21,376.1 110,200.4 1.7551
Table 5 - Comparison of repair options
11. CONCLUSIONS

Bridge management must be based on a design stage where a durability minded

design is developed and a construction stage where procedures are adopted to
implement that design.

During the structure's life, bridge management can be developed with knowledge-
based systems to perform and optimise structure inspection strategies and maintenance
/ repair policies. Both at the inspection level and at the decision level, expert technical
information supports the system's user in making a rational management of the limited
resources assigned to each structure. The use of a global economical analysis is an
important tool for repair decision making.

Acknowledgements

Part of the research work presented in this paper was developed, at Instituto
Superior Técnico. This paper also presents results of the EC supported research project
BRITE / EURAM P3091 "Assessment of Performance and Optimal Strategies for
Inspection and Maintenance of Concrete Structures Using Reliability Based Expert
Systems".

References

[1] Clifton, J.R. - "Predicting the Service Life of Concrete", ACI Materials Journal.
pp. 611-617, Nov.-Dec.1993.
[2] Mangat, P.S., Elgarf, M. S.- "The Effect of Reinforcement Corrosion on the
Performance of Concrete Structures", BREU P3091 Report T1.4-03, 1991,
Aberdeen.
[3] "Concrete - Performance, Production, Placing and Compliance Criteria",
European Pre-Standard ENV 206 , CEN, 7/95.
[4] Lopes, J.; Branco, F.; Bento, J., "Pre-cast Quality Control Software Manual",
CRAFT CT93-0764 Report T.13, 1995, Lisboa.
[5] F. Branco and J. de Brito, “Decision Criteria for Concrete Bridge Repair”,
Structural Engineering International, J. Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering, V. 5, No. 2, pp 92-95, May 1995, Zurich.
[6] J. de Brito, "Development of a Concrete Bridge Management System" (in
Portuguese), Ph.D.. Thesis in Civil Engineering, Technical University of
Lisboa, 1992, Lisboa.
[7] D. Andrey, "Maintenance des Ouvrages d'Art: Méthodologie de Surveillance",
Ph.D.. Thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1987, Lausanne.
[8] J. de Brito, F. Branco and M. Ibañez, "A Knowledge-Based System for
Concrete Bridge Inspection", Concrete International - Design & Construction,
American Concrete Institute, pp 59-63, Feb. 1994, Detroit.
[9] J. de Brito and F. Branco, "Bridge Management Policy Using Cost Analysis",
Civil Engineering, Structures and Buildings, J. The Institution of Civil
Engineers, No. 104, pp 431-439, 1994, London.
 [10] G. Luikens, "Quantification of and Parameters for Defects, Repairs and Repair
Costs for Implementation", BREU P3091 Report T4-3-21, 1993, Hellevoetsluis.

View publication stats