Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

An assessment model for identifying maintenance priorities

strategy for bridges
Dina Mahmoud Mohamed Mansour a,⇑, Ibrahim Mahdi Moustafa a, Ayman Hussein Khalil b,
Hisham Arafat Mahdi c
a
Structural Engineering & Construction Management Department, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Future University in Egypt, Egypt
b
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Egypt
c
Ministry of Transport, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main purpose of this paper is to develop a model which is capable of assessing the overall condition
Received 28 November 2018 of bridges as well as the condition of each element for the purpose of prioritizing maintenance strategies.
Revised 30 May 2019 The model will also be capable of ranking the bridges in a network according to their urgency of need for
Accepted 24 June 2019
repair based on specific parameters. This paper explains how to achieve reliable assessment of a bridge
Available online 23 August 2019
starting with visual inspection and proceeding with the collection of information and carrying out in-
depth investigations to achieve a reliable indication of the bridge’s repair needs and its priority in the
Keywords:
road network. The model is designed especially for bridges in Egypt as a typical example of a developing
Maintenance
Assessment
country. The methodology of the research was started by surveying the various inspection techniques of
Evaluation criteria bridges. Then all probable defects, their causes and the appropriate repair techniques are identified and
Sustainable bridges classified. After that, the experience and knowledge of bridge maintenance experts in Egypt were added
Performance to create evaluation criteria for reliable assessment model to prioritize maintenance strategy of bridges.
Parameters This is incorporated via conducting questionnaires and interviewing those experts. The final outcome is a
Egypt Bridge Overall Priority Indicator (BOPI) that ranks the bridges in a network according to their condition
and maintenance urgency. The model is designed to be applied to the bridges in Egypt as it is based on the
body of knowledge and expertise gained by maintenance and repair experts but it can easily be adjusted
to suit any other country. Also the model is designed to cover specific bridge elements which are of major
significance in bridge performance as described in this work while overlooking some, less important, ele-
ments. It has been observed that there is no effective bridge maintenance plan in most of the developing
countries and that in most cases maintenance is carried out after an event has occurred and resulted in
severe damage and caused a public outcry. Also developing countries have limited budgets for maintain-
ing their assets. Therefore, it is very important to have an assessment criterion as a development tool to
optimize the use of scarce maintenance budgets and get the most out of aging bridge networks.
Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction methods of bridge maintenance tend to be inefficient and imprac-

Bridges are usually subjected to harsh environments, high loads
and damage caused by traffic accidents. Most of the traditional
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dmohamed@fue.edu.eg (D.M. Mohamed Mansour), ibrahim.
mahdy@fue.edu.eg (I.M. Moustafa), ayman@adec-arabia.com (A.H. Khalil), hara-
fat@fue.edu.eg (H.A. Mahdi).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
tical and lacking long term planning which results in major wast-
ing of repair budgets in many situations repair work is initiated by
user complaints. So it is very important to set-up an economic plan
for the repair of bridges in order to extend their service life and use
available resources efficiently. It is required from asset managers
and bridge owners to manage a number of bridges in a governorate
or in a country. In order to make sound maintenance and repair
decisions of bridges, needs should be carefully considered at both
the local (project) level and the global (network) level.
Egypt currently maintains a road network of more than
64,000 km across the country, including more than 3,000 bridges.
Statistics of GARBLT [1] shows that nearly 98% of the country’s

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.06.003
2090-4479/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
696 D.M. Mohamed Mansour et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704
domestic cargo relies on this road network which means that this
road network plays a major role in Egypt’s national economy and
have a significant impact on the daily activities of citizens. Yet
those bridges and roads haven’t been properly maintained to pre-
vent their degradation and deterioration. It is a fact that about half
of Egypt’s bridges are 50 years old or older as reported by GARBLT’s
[1]. Referring to types of bridges in Egypt, reinforced concrete
bridges constitute about 90% and steel bridges are less than 10%
[1].
Due to all the aforementioned factors, it is very important to
develop an assessment model for bridges in Egypt taking into con-
sideration the limited financial resources of the country.
The maintenance cycle of any project is explained in Fig. 1[1].
Activities are drawn in their sequence: inspection, planning, repair
then evaluation. Each activity should be associated with a data-
base; these databases are managed by proper Bridge Management
System (BMS).
An effective bridge preservation plan should include the follow-
ing points [2]:

Utilize long-term network practices and strategies which aim to
maintain the condition of bridges and extend their useful life.

Secure adequate and sustainable funding sources.

Utilize the appropriate techniques at the appropriate time.
The deterioration of bridges is usually results from various
causes and it is considered to be a medium to long term process.
Numerous studies were conducted to categorize bridge defects,
their causes and the suitable repair methods. However, to conduct
a classification system for repairs is not a simple process. There-
fore, most of these studies were not specific for bridges and they
didn’t take into consideration the harsh conditions that bridges
are usually subjected to or the number of activities required to
keep bridges structurally and functionally adequate [3]. Consider-
ing the aforementioned facts, the maintenance work and repair
techniques should be analyzed carefully. Moreover, it must be
noted that it is preferable to extend an existing bridge’s service life
than to replace it as replacement has a major impact on traffic and
as a result the whole road network is affected in a negative way In
addition, it requires securing sufficient capital to do this
replacement.
2. Quantitative and qualitative methods in research
A quantitative method is for creating decision making models
which are only validated through implementation. As a result,
the acceptance of these models will be delayed. This is particularly
true in the field of project management as it has to be accepted by
both the professional and academic communities. In order to over-
come this issue, it has been recommended to merge the qualitative
and quantitative methods to provide a more reliable model [4]. The
Fig. 1. Maintenance management cycle of bridges.
same reference [4] reasoned that the quantitative methods involve
numerical measurements to establish relations between different
parameters while qualitative methods use data in the form of ideas
or text rather than numbers. Qualitative methods include records
of interviews, content analysis and previous cases and studies.
On the other hand, quantitative methods utilize questionnaires,
statistical analysis and structured evaluation [5].
Combining qualitative (descriptive) information and quantita-
tive (numeric) information ensures that all the relevant informa-
tion about the damage experienced by the structure is taken into
consideration. The qualitative data is considered to be the judg-
ment used with the engineering calculations to provide data out-
side a known range as well as compensate for insufficient data
[6]. Thus, the proposed model developed by combining qualitative
and quantitative methods will definitely enhance the credibility of
the results.
3. Inspection of bridges
Inspection is the most significant activity in the cycle of bridge
management as it specifies the condition of the bridge and points
to the necessary repairs to be performed. Careful monitoring and
inspection should be conducted to achieve a precise evaluation of
any bridge. Reference [3] states that in order to enhance the effi-
ciency and reduce the fixed costs, the system of inspection should
be arranged at the bridge network level not for a single bridge.
According to [7] there are five types of inspection.
3.1. Inventory inspection
It is the primal and initial inspection performed on the bridge
which records the main and basic information on the bridge and
its bearing capacity and identifying any element that is critical to
the integrity or performance of the bridge and warrant special
monitoring. It also records the condition of all the bridge elements
before putting the bridge into service. This inspection also identi-
fies records and reports any newly appearing defects that weren’t
picked-up during construction time. Also observes and records any
changes in the surrounding environment or the site [8].
3.2. Routine inspection
This level of inspection is carried out to identify any changes
that had occurred and will affect the functional performance and
to select the essential improvement recommendations, mainte-
nance needs and precise monitoring of the critical spots in a timely
fashion [9]. It should be repeated regularly at a maximum of
12 month intervals.
3.3. Condition inspection
Condition inspection (also known as condition survey) is a more
thorough inspection to assess the level of integrity of the bridge. It
focuses on suspected elements that had been reported before. Like
routine inspection, it is not conclusive. It is usually conducted after
natural disasters and major incidents involving the bridge. Condi-
tion inspection needs to be repeated depending on the degree of
element deterioration but generally it is repeated during the
12 month intervals of the routine inspections.
3.4. Detailed inspection
It is a close visual and manual inspection of elements to identify
and record any damage which is not easily noticeable in the rou-
tine inspection. It can be performed on specific elements or on
 D.M. Mohamed Mansour et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704
the entire bridge. Also it may be included with the routine inspec-
tion or done separately [10]. It should be performed by skilled
engineers and may involve non-destructive testing of the bridge
materials. The results should be recorded in details as they are
more reliable and useful than the routine inspection data. The
detailed inspection should be performed every six years for major
bridges crossing waterways and every ten years for other bridges.
Fig. 2 [1] shows a flow chart of the detailed inspection according to
GARBLT. It should be stated that few researchers stressed the need
for conducting a structural assessment as a consequence of major
structural defects identified by a detailed inspection and in cases
involving widening of the bridge deck.
3.5. Emergency inspection (inspection for damage)
This inspection is performed immediately after severe natural
incidents like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes . . .. etc. and also after
destructive accidents. It is a non-scheduled inspection intended to
identify and record the degree of damage that has occurred as a
result of these incidents.
4. Identifying the assessment and prioritizing criteria of bridges
While inspections identify the damage in bridge elements; they
don’t clearly specify the overall structural soundness of bridge.
Therefore, evaluation criteria need to be developed to judge the
bridge’s overall structural integrity. After conducting the required
inspections, the evaluation stage begins. A highly recommended
Fig. 2. Detailed inspection flowchart.
697
technique which was adopted by various agencies is to use perfor-
mance indicators to make a wide multi attribute system to be used
for fund allocation between assets [11]. This approach is very effi-
cient and convenient but the indices used need to accurately reflect
the repair needs and their degree of urgency. This paper makes an
attempt to overcome the difficulty involved by setting clear limits
for the factors affecting bridges. Most of the research that performs
bridge condition assessment is mainly based on structural aspects
only. In this article a multi-objective criterion is sought. The pro-
posed evaluation criteria for bridges is based on the assessment
of the various bridge performance measures such as Structural Per-
formance (SP) and Functional Performance (FP) in addition to other
parameters which fall under the title of External Factors (EF). These
include flow capacity, year of construction, degree of exposure,
inspection quality, historical importance and the surrounding envi-
ronment. These parameters are significant because they address
aspects that could have enormous influence on bridges. All the pro-
posed factors are listed in Fig. 3 and their relations. As a result of
accounting for the aforementioned indicators (SP, FP and EF), an
overall bridge indicator (Bridge Overall Priority Indicator (BOPI)
can be obtained. BOPI is a reliable indicator that could be used to
rank the priority of the work needed for each bridge in the bridge
network
4.1. Analysis of the questionnaire
In order to develop the proposed evaluation criteria, a question-
naire is designed to include all the performance parameters and to
698 D.M. Mohamed Mansour et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704

Fig. 3. Proposed evaluation criteria parameters.

assign a weight to each parameter in the criteria. This question-
naire is shown in Appendix (A). The responses had been collected
mostly through direct interviews in order to achieve clear under-
standing of the participants’ answers to the questionnaire. These
participants are selected from among the experts in the field of
repair and rehabilitation of bridges in Egypt. They work for differ-
ent agencies (contractors- consultants and owners) to provide a
wide range of knowledge. The appropriate sample size for this
study is calculated from the following equation [12]:
n0
n¼ 0 ð1Þ
1 þ nN
 D.M. Mohamed Mansour et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704 699

where; n: sample size, N: total population = 34, n’ = S2/V2, V: stan-

dard error of sampling distribution = 0.05 (at a confidence level of

of variation
Coefficient
95%), S: maximum standard deviation in the population elements,
S2 = P * (1–P) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25, P: proportion of population ele-

0.27
0.39
0.69
0.37
0.66
0.68
0.65
0.66
0.62
0.68

0.55
0.64
0.81
0.63
0.90
ments that belong to the defined class, the maximum value is cho-
sen at P = 0.5 [12].
Variance

213.18

127.25

121.78
187.11
105.37
180.86

137.40

399.90

240.53
After carrying out the necessary calculations, the required sam-

76.56

25.68
35.84

79.69

85.84
40.23
ple size is 25. In order to fulfill this requirement 29 questionnaires
were sent. The responses and the analysis of the data are presented
deviation
Standard

in Tables 1 and 2. The mean value of the results, the mode (the
13.45

11.72

11.28
15.51

13.68
14.60
10.27

11.04
20.00
number which is frequently repeated), the standard deviation
8.75

6.34

5.99

8.93

9.26
5.07
and the coefficient of variation are displayed in Tables 1 and 2.
Data with coefficient of variation less than one are considered to
Mode

15.00
15.00
60.00
30.00
20.00
20.00

10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00

10.00
10.00
5.00

5.00
be a low variance distribution [13,14]. The questionnaires’ results
are adopted to create the proposed evaluation criteria as explained
in the following sections.
Mean

26.56
19.38
23.75
17.81

32.19
16.56
17.19
16.25
17.19
16.88
14.69
54.06

9.38
7.81
9.06

4.2. Structural performance assessment (SP)

16

25

15
60
20
20
20
50
10

10

10
30
10
10
5
5

This work focuses on the element-level strategy by considering

15

60
30
10
20
20

10
40
10
10
30
30
10
10
5
5

the condition of each element rather than evaluating the complete

14

60
30
10
20
20
10
10
10
30
20
20
20
20
10
10

bridge in one step. The proposed criteria divide the bridge network
into a number of elements with different properties so that higher
13

15
15
15
15
40
40
20
20
20
20
10
10
20
30

10

accuracy is achieved. To obtain the Structural Performance Indica-

tor (SP), three parameters must be considered. These parameters
2.5
2.5
12

25

35

25
60
30
10
10
10

50

10
10

10
10

are discussed in the following sections.

11

25

15
70
10
20

70

20

60
5

5
0
0
0

0
0

4.2.1. Element structural State Indicator (ESSI)

25

65

15

15
10

10

50

10

40
20
10
10
10
10
5
5

According to GARBLT the condition of bridge elements can be

described from Table 3. This table contains accurate details to
35
15

15

15

15
15
50

20
20

10

20
10

20
20
20
9

eliminate most of the uncertainty of the results.

Therefore, the condition of each element (ci) should be deter-
15

15
15
60
20
20
20

50
10
10

20
30
8

5
5
5

mined as well as the quantity (qi) corresponding to each condition

75

35

15

25

15
20

10

10

10

20

20
30

number. The single bridge element may contain different condi-

7

tions, so the quantities can be listed for each condition and the ele-
40
30
30
20
30
10
10
20
10
10

20
30
30
6

ment Structural State Indicator (ESSI) is calculated from Eq. (2).

P
35
45

25
25

15

45

25
20

10
20

10

10

ðqi  ciÞ
5

5
5
5

ESSI ¼ P ð2Þ
qi
15

25

15
50
30
20

10
10
10
50
10

30

10
10
4

where: ci: the condition of element or sub-element which ranges

40
40
20
30

10
20
30
30
30
20
10
3

5
5

5
5

from 1 to 4.
7.5
7.5

qi: the elements’ quantity.

25

15
15
60
20
20

30
10

20

30
30
2

5
5

Not all the elements of a bridge will have the same significance
15

25
80

70
10
70

or the same durability. There are other factors that must be consid-
1

5
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

ered to achieve a judgment that can be trusted. These factors

Finishing Surface Condition

Surrounding Environment

include the Structural Importance Factor (SIF) and the Construction

Load Bearing Capacity

Material Factor (CMF). No specific data is available for these fac-

Historical Importance

Year of Construction
Degree of Exposure
Bearings Condition
Weights of factors assigned by experts through questionnaires.

tors. Some information has been reported in the literature but they
Inspection Quality
Vertical Clearance
Length of Barriers
Drainage System

were solely based on personal judgment. Because of that, the

Flow Capacity

results listed for these two factors were determined from the ques-
tionnaires filled by maintenance experts in Egypt as mentioned
earlier.
(SP)
(FP)
(EF)

4.2.2. Structural Importance factor (SIF)

Percentage for secondary parameters

In accordance with reference [15], the structural significance of

parameters (external factors)
Percentage for main parameters

any component of the bridges can be measured by its contribution

to the overall integrity and structural safety of the bridge. Based on
Percentage for secondary

this concept and the judgment of bridge experts, the results are
presented in Table 4. Higher numbers correspond to the most
Questions/responses

important elements.

4.2.3. Construction Material factor (CMF)

The bridge elements are made of different materials. Each mate-
Table 1

rial has its own properties such as strength and durability. In order
to consider the properties of different materials, they are catego-
700 D.M. Mohamed Mansour et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704

Table 2
Assigned weights for each element and construction material.

Questions/responses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Mean Mode Standard Variance Coefficient

deviation of
variation
Most important (5) to Bearings 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 2 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4.63 5.00 0.78 0.61 0.17
the least important Walls 5 3 4 3 2 4 3 3 1 2 5 5 3 2 2 3 3.13 3.00 1.17 1.36 0.37
(1) (wing-back)
Retaining 4 3 3 3 4 5 4 3 1 3 4 5 3 2 5 3 3.44 3.00 1.06 1.12 0.31
Walls
Piers 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.38 5.00 1.05 1.11 0.24
Slabs 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 1 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 4.06 4.00 1.03 1.06 0.25
Girders 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.50 5.00 1.06 1.13 0.24
Beams 3 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 1 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4.06 4.00 1.03 1.06 0.25
Wearing 2 3 5 2 1 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 3 1 2.63 3.00 1.11 1.23 0.42
Surface
Sidewalks 1 3 5 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2.19 1.00 1.13 1.28 0.52
Expansion 4 4 5 4 3 4 5 3 2 5 4 3 5 2 4 4 3.81 4.00 0.95 0.90 0.25
Joints
Barriers 1 4 4 3 5 4 5 1 3 3 4 1 3 2 3.07 4.00 1.33 1.78 0.43
Foundations 5 5 1 5 5 4 5 3 1 4 1 5 5 4 5 5 3.94 5.00 1.52 2.31 0.39
Lighting 1 4 5 2 3 4 3 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2.38 1.00 1.32 1.73 0.55
Poles
Drainage 2 3 5 2 2 3 2 2 5 3 2 4 4 1 4 1 2.81 2.00 1.24 1.53 0.44
System
The least (1) to the Steel 1 2 3 5 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 5 3 2.60 3.00 1.20 1.44 0.46
most susceptible Concrete 3 1 1 4 4 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2.06 2.00 0.97 0.93 0.47
to deterioration (5) (Cast in
Situ)
Concrete 2 2 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1.75 1.00 0.90 0.81 0.52
(Precast)
Prestressed 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 1.75 1.00 0.75 0.56 0.43
Painting 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4.63 5.00 0.70 0.48 0.15
Protective 4 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 4.00 4.00 0.89 0.80 0.22
Coating
Asphalt 4 4 5 2 5 4 4 3 5 5 4 3 5 1 5 4 3.94 4.00 1.14 1.31 0.29
Rubber 5 4 5 2 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 5 5 3.94 4.00 0.90 0.81 0.23
FRP 3 3 3 1 3 3 4 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 2.86 3.00 0.83 0.69 0.29

Table 3 Table 4
List of possible defects, their rating and condition number. Elements of bridges and their Structural Importance Factor (SIF).

Condition Rate Explanation Structural Importance Element

No. (ci) Factor (SIF)
1 Good
No deterioration 1 None
2 Fair
Fine cracks of max. 0.1 mm spacing at 0.5 m or 2 Sidewalks, Lighting Poles
wider in one direction 3 (wing- back) walls, Retaining Walls, Wearing

Rusted rebar Surface, Barriers, Drainage System
3 Poor
Moderate cracks of max. 0.2 mm spacing at about 4 Piers, Slabs, Beams, Expansion Joints,
0.5 m in one direction with fine cracks in right Foundations
angle direction 5 Bearings, Girders

Rebar exposure of max. 0.3 m
4 Bad
Rebar exposure of longer than 0.3 m

Corroded rebar

Visible deflection at girder n: number of elements.

Large cracks exceeding 0.2 mm forming grids
SP: dimensionless number representing a measure of the struc-

Leakage/free lime

Delamination/Spalls tural performance of a bridge. It will not exceed 4 and the
necessity of maintenance and repair are directly proportional
to the increase of this number.
rized with respect to their durability. The results in the following
table are obtained from the bridge experts in Egypt and the Con- Eq. (3) is developed and based on the data gathered from ques-
struction Material Factor (CMF) is listed below. It should be noted tionnaires and the results are listed in Tables 4 and 5. So the results
that the higher numbers represent the more vulnerable materials. will be changed if the assigned numbers of (SIF) and (CMF) are
Finally, the Structural Performance (SP) of a bridge can be esti- different.
mated as follows:
P
ðESSI i  SIF i  CMF iÞ 4.3. Functional performance assessment (FP)
SP ¼ ð3Þ
9n
Recently the functional performance is just as significant and
where:
critical as the structural performance; it was reported that the
functional life of a bridge can be estimated about 25–50 years
ESSIi: Element Structural State Indicator.
under high traffic conditions and about 50–100 years for structural
SIFi: Structural Importance Factor of an element.
life [16]. This reveals the impact of considering the functional per-
CMFi: Construction Material Factor of an element.
formance in the assessment model developed. The functional per-
 D.M. Mohamed Mansour et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704
Table 5
Materials of bridges’ elements and their Construction Material Factor (CMF).
Construction Material Material
Factor (CMF)
1 None
2 Concrete (cast in situ), concrete (precast),
prestressed concrete
3 Steel, FRP
4 Protective coating, asphalt, rubber
5 Painting
formance contains many parameters should be carefully consid-
ered such as the load bearing capacity, vertical clearance, length
of barriers, condition of the drainage system, finishing surface con-
dition (asphalt, expansion joints) and bearings’ condition. These
parameters had a great significance in the assessment of any defect
or damage incurred which are directly affect the serviceability and
accelerates the process of deterioration.
4.3.1. Load bearing capacity (LBC)
Loading tests are a basic part of any inspection process; they are
used to evaluate the overall integrity of bridges (not like other tests
which are specific for evaluating or testing one element) including
the inaccessible zones under repeated and dynamic loads. Load
Bearing Capacity factor (LBC) is calculated as the ratio of the actual
load bearing capacity to the design load bearing capacity. If the LBC
is greater than or equal to or greater than unity, the bridge is con-
sidered to be capable of bearing the design loads or higher loads,
respectively. If LBC is less than 1, the bridge is considered defective
and unsound.
4.3.2. Vertical clearance of bridge (VC)
It is essential to maintain the vertical clearance which was
designed according to specifications. Railway bridges, roadway
bridges and bridges crossing navigation channels require different
vertical clearances underneath each type of them. Also the height
above the bridge deck should be maintained, because it also is con-
sidered a safety issue. The vehicles that cross above or below the
bridge should have sufficient clearance to avoid hitting the bridge,
as specified by relevant authorities. The Vertical Clearance (VC)
factor in this study is obtained from:
 
Hd  H
VC ¼    100
Hd 
where Hd is the design vertical clearance and H is the actual one.
4.3.3. Length of barrier (LB)
The length of barriers is another indicator of the appropriate-
ness of the bridge design. They are considered to be an important
safety feature of the bridge and are usually designed according to
specifications. This element is selected such that no lateral deflec-
tion or deterioration occurs in the barriers. Length of barrier is
assessed by the factor (LB) as follows:
 
Ld  L
LB ¼    100
Ld 
where Ld is the design barrier length and L is the actual length.
4.3.4. Drainage System (DS)
One of the factors which directly affect the level of service of the
bridge and initiate deterioration in the bridge is the efficiency of
the wastewater drainage system of the bridge surface. Wastewater
accumulation can cause corrosion of steel reinforcement, deterio-
701
ration of the wearing surface and deterioration of expansion joints
thereby negatively affecting the safety, durability and serviceabil-
ity of the bridge. The Drainage System parameter (DS) is evaluated
in the inspection process and its condition is reported as (Good,
Fair, Poor or Bad).
4.3.5. Finishing surface condition (FSC)
Two items are evaluated to assess this parameter; the asphalt
surface finish and the condition of the expansion joints. Both items
have serious impact on the quality of the driving surface.
4.3.5.1. Asphalt. The element which is exposed directly to external
and at times severe irritation is the asphalt pavement. These irrita-
tions which may result from environmental effects, loads of traffic,
etc. can reduce the useful life and service quality of the bridge sur-
face in addition to requiring more frequent and costly mainte-
nance. The defects which can be reported in the pavement
condition according to GARBLT are pavement cracks and pavement
upheaval or rutting.
4.3.5.2. Expansion joints. Expansion joints are like asphalt, both are
used in harsh operational conditions. There are several types of
expansion joints which are used in Egypt, such rubber surface type
joint, buried type joint, steel finger type, steel tooth type joint, etc.
However, unfortunately, most of the expansion joints had been
damaged without performing appropriate maintenance. The type
of deterioration can be reported as break or cracking of steel fin-
gers, clogging of expansion gap, cracks on post cast concrete por-
tion, a missing faceplate, (bump, abnormal sound) etc. Reasons of
these damages should be investigated to prepare an adequate
repair plan and to prevent reoccurring of the damage after the
repair process. In addition, it should be stated that settlement of
substructure, inclination of substructure, lateral displacements or
dysfunction of bearing will lead to damage in expansion joints. In
this situation, repair of bearing and reinforcement of substructure
must be performed in parallel with the repair of expansion joints.
As a result of the inspection processes, the Finishing Surface Con-
dition (FSC) can be rated as (Good, Fair, Poor or Bad) considering
the aforementioned damages and defects.
4.3.6. Bearings condition (BC)
Bearings are considered among the most unique and critical ele-
ð4Þ
ments in bridges. Deterioration and damage of bridge bearings can
result in further unfavorable defects to other bridge elements. Due
to the dusty circumstance in Egypt, huge numbers of bridges’ bear-
ings are buried in accumulated sand that seeps through the expan-
sion joints. This directly increases the probability of damage like
rust, loss of mobility, deterioration of paint, etc. The accumulated
dust or sand makes it difficult to maintain the elements of the
bearings or spot and repair cracks in leveling mortar, cracks in
the body of the bearing and other hidden defects. Damage of bear-
ings may also be due to aging or bridge structural problems. It
should be highlighted that lateral displacements, settlement of
substructure, leaking water from expansion joints or tilting of sub-
ð5Þ
structure will cause damages to bridge bearings and results in
excessive displacement. Therefore repairing of the substructure,
such as realignment, is essential as part of the repairs of the bridge
bearings. Accounting for all possible types of damage or deteriora-
tion in bearings such as corrosion, loosening or missing lock nuts,
cracks, break of anchor bolts or side blocks, paint/coating deterio-
ration, sand accumulation, abnormal sound/vibration, abnormal
movement, failure, deformation or abnormality of transition, Bear-
ing Condition factor (BC) will be judged as (Good, Fair, Poor or Bad).
702 D.M. Mohamed Mansour et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704

In Conclusion, after considering the aforementioned parame-

ters, the Functional Performance Indicator (FP) can be obtained
from the following equation
FP ¼ :32LBC þ :09VC þ :08LB þ :09DS þ :18FSC þ :24BC ð6Þ

where:

LBC: Load Bearing Capacity factor of bridge.

VC: Vertical Clearance factor.
LB: Length of barrier factor.
DS: Drainage System condition.
FSC: Finishing Surface Condition.
BC: Bearings Condition.
FP: dimensionless number representing the functional perfor-
mance of a bridge. It will not exceed 4 and the requirement of
maintenance and repair are directly related to the increase of
this number. The weighting coefficients in Eq. (6) are based
on the bridge experts’ responses to the questionnaire discussed
earlier. The results are listed in the following Table 6.
Reference [3] reported that according to bridge experts in Aus-
tralia, if the load bearing capacity factor is less than 0.7, vertical
clearance and length of barrier factors are more than 20%, the
bridge is critically substandard. Therefore, in accordance with this
information, the different limits for this study are summarized in
Table 7. The values of the various factors are determined and the
Functional Performance indicator (FP) can be calculated from Eq.
(6).
4.4. External factors (EF)
Bridges deteriorate because of other factors besides those dis-
cussed so far. Factors such as the age of the bridge, flow capacity,
exposure to harmful materials and the surrounding environment
can have serious effects. These parameters are discussed in the
next section.
4.4.1. Year of Construction (YC)
According to reports clarified by GARBLT, only 40 bridges were
constructed before the Egyptian revolution at 1952, this was in the
period of the British occupation of Egypt about 1940. From 1952
till the 1960s, construction of bridges had been actively performed.
Half of the usable bridges currently were built in this period. In
other words, approximately half of bridges in Egypt are more than
50 years old as shown in Fig. 4 [1]. From the 1970s, on average
around 15 bridges were constructed each year. However, this is
widely varied from year to year—for example, more than 100
Fig. 4. Breakdown based on the Year of Construction of bridges in Egypt.
bridges had been built in one year, but in other years no bridges
were built at all. Many culverts were constructed in the 1980s,
which is due the road development history. The average age of
the currently managed bridges by GARBLT is around 40 years. As
a fact concrete bridges could remain serviceable for a long time
of preferably 100 years or more. Based on this, 100 years is
assumed to be the service life of a bridge in many cases. However,
this theory applies only to the recently built bridges. Judging from
the existing bridges’ general conditions in Egypt and based on the
previous two validations life span of a bridge of 80 years has been
determined. So the year of construction factor (YF) in this study
will be categorized into 4 intervals: Recently Built (0–20 years),
New (20–40 years), Old (40–60 years) and Very Old (60–80 years).
4.4.2. Flow capacity (FC)
Bridges can be classified by using road number classification and
road type classification. Number classification means that all the
bridges located on a specific road which have a specific number,
these bridges will be given the same road number. Meanwhile type
classification means that the importance and the usage of the
bridge must be determined. Also the flow capacity is an extremely
important factor and must be well considered. Therefore, four inter-
vals will be listed in order to determine the road type and the flow
capacity factor (FC) with respect to the annual average daily traffic
(AADT). The four intervals are: Minor (AADT  150), Local Access
(150 < AADT  1000), Collectors (1000 < AADT  3000) and Arteri-
als (AADT > 3000).

Table 6
Weights assigned to each parameter according to bridges’ experts.

Parameter LBC VC LB DS FSC BC

Weight % 32 9 8 9 18 24

Table 7
Limits of parameters of the functional performance and their ratings.

1 2 3 4
LBC LBC  1 0.9  LBC < 1.0 0.7  LBC < 0.9 LBC < 0.7
VC VC  5% 5% < VC  12% 12%< VC  20% VC > 20%
LB LB  5% 5%< LB  12% 12%< LB  20% LB > 20%
DS Good Fair Poor Bad
FSC Good Fair Poor Bad
BC Good Fair Poor Bad
 D.M. Mohamed Mansour et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704
4.4.3. Degree of exposure (DE)
The degree of exposure factor (DE) is one of the most important
factors. The rate of deterioration is directly proportional to the
degree of exposure, which is really making sense. The presence
of harmful elements can greatly affect the durability of the bridge.
Bridges exposed to chlorides, sulphates, wide climate changes,
chemically aggressive salts, freeze- thaw cycles or carbonation of
concrete are in great risk to have high rate of degradation [17].
4.4.4. Inspection quality (IQ)
Most of the data which is gathered to evaluate the condition of
bridges and to list the different defects are collected by inspectors.
As a result, there is a probability of having errors. These errors can
happen due to many reasons like lack of accessibility or visibility,
time constraints, heavy traffic, inappropriate checklists, climate
constraints, lack of equipment and insufficient inspection training.
Therefore, the inspection staff should be carefully monitored by
the asset managers and the bridges’ experts in the organization.
This will guarantee achieving high confidence level and obtaining
reliable inspection data. The quality of the inspection process will
be judged and the inspection quality factor (IQ) should be specified
using the following scale (Good, Fair, Poor or Bad).
4.4.5. Historical Importance (HI)
Egypt is globally known for having a lot of historical sites. Some
bridges may be related to these sites or they may represent the civ-
ilization of a significant era in the Egyptian history. Logically this
will affect the priority considerations in the scheduled mainte-
nance plan. This highlights the fact that the historical importance
factor (HI) must be considered in the very first planning steps.
4.4.6. Surrounding environment (SE)
The environment of the bridge can widely vary from case to
another. Bridges can be constructed in urban or rural area. Also
the nature of the crossing is different from a bridge to another. It
can cross roadway, railway or waterway. The aforementioned
parameters should be clearly identified as they directly affect the
surrounding environment factor (SE). Environment with severe
and risky influence on bridges will be rated as Very High surround-
ing environment factor and vice versa.
Each factor was previously discussed is listed in Table 8 and it
will be given a number that represents the severity rate of each
factor with respect to the four intervals stated before.
The experts of bridges were asked to assign weight which rep-
resents the significance of each factor and the next formula was
generated:
EF ¼ :15YC þ :17FC þ :17DE þ :17IQ þ :17HI þ :17SE
YC: Year of Construction factor
FC: Flow Capacity factor
DE: Degree of Exposure factor
IQ: Inspection Quality factor
HI: Historical Importance factor
SE: Surrounding Environment factor
Table 8
Limits of parameters of the external factors and their ratings.
1 2 3 4
YC Recently built New Old
FC Minor Local access Collectors
DE Low Medium High
IQ Good Fair Poor
HI Low Medium High
SE Low Medium High
703
EF: dimensionless number which contains all the previously
listed factors. It represents the effect of the different external
factors and its maximum value is 4 in this study.
4.5. Bridges’ ranking and prioritization
Most of the management systems use the benefit/cost ratio to
set their plan which gives priority to projects with more benefits
and require fewer funds. It was reported that using benefit/cost
ratio is not accurate when dealing with many projects in different
locations [18]. The selection process is a hard call to take especially
when it concerns vital and significant projects as bridges. As previ-
ously discussed in this paper, specifying the structural and func-
tional performance of a bridge along with other important
parameters is a method to estimate the remaining asset value of
a bridge. This asset value clearly is decreased as the bridge suffers
from more deterioration.
After gathering all the aforementioned parameters, the Bridge
Overall Priority Indicator (BOPI) is obtained. This index contains
all the important and affecting factors in bridges and can be used
as a judging tool to set bridges’ ranking in any network. Eventually
in order to calculate the Bridge Overall Priority Indicator (BOPI),
the experts of bridges were asked to assign weight for each primal
factor. The following results were recorded and visually explained
in Fig. 5.
The Bridge Overall Priority Indicator can be maintained from
the next equation:
BOPI ¼ :54SP þ :27FP þ :19EF ð8Þ
SP: structural performance measure of a bridge.
FP: functional performance measure of a bridge.
EF: external factors.
BOPI: Bridge Overall Priority Indicator which is a dimensionless
number will not exceed 4.
The bridges will be ranked according to this index which
bridges in critical condition and require maintenance the most will
have the higher BOPI. Justification of the criteria equations is avail-
able in Appendix B introducing cases with 100% and 0% defects. A
virtual case study is available in Appendix C along with a real net-
work of bridges as well in Appendix D. The results of the real net-
work are demonstrated in Table 9 and based on these results; the
bridges are ranked with respect to their maintenance urgency in
descending order as follow: Ashtoom El Gameel, Faraskour, Asyout,
Bani Sweef and Souhag New. The proposed evaluation criteria pro-
ð7Þ
vide assessment tool for the decision makers and warn the decision
makers toward any expected risks.
Very old
Arterials
Very high
Bad
Very high
Very high Fig. 5. Pie chart explains the assigned percentages for the main factors (SP, FP and
EF).
704 D.M. Mohamed Mansour et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 695–704

Table 9
Results of the bridges’ real network using the proposed evaluation criteria.

Faraskour Asyout Souhag New Ashtoom El Gameel Bani Sweef

SP 1.97 1.675 1.62 3.19 1.45
FP 1.45 1.5 1.27 1.93 1.59
EF 2.68 2.87 2.53 2.51 2.68
BOPI 1.96 1.855 1.7 2.72 1.72

5. Conclusion
Bridges are considered to be high asset value projects with lim-
ited available financial resources to keep them in an adequate
working and serviceability standards to extend their lifecycle.
Therefore, it is important to make considerable effort into the
assessment process in order to ensure that bridges are carefully
analyzed and any defects were recorded early, before it has a sig-
nificant impact in reducing bridge useful life. In this paper, a
methodology for bridges’ priority ranking is introduced. Following
a Bridge Overall Priority Indicator (BOPI) is generated for each
bridge. BOPI is a number which makes it possible for the decision
makers to compare the condition of bridges in a network. Due the
multi-objective nature of the methodology, various parameters are
included to obtain reliable assessment. Virtual and real network
case studies are introduced to demonstrate the reliability for the
proposed assessment criteria.
Appendix. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.06.003.
References
[18] Kulkami RB, Miller D, Ingram RM, Wong C, Lorenz J. Need-based project
prioritization: alternative to cost-benefit analysis. J Transp Eng 2004;130
(2):150–8.
Dina Mahmoud has been working in Future University
in Egypt (FUE) since she graduated from Ain Shams
University in 2007. She first worked as Teaching Assis-
tant until 2013 and then as Assistant Lecturer till 2019.
She received her M.SC. and PhD from Ain Shams
University, Faculty of Engineering. She is currently a
lecturer in the Structural Engineering & Construction
Management Department, Faculty of Engineering &
Technology, Future University in Egypt.
Ibrahim is Associate Professor in Structural Engineering
& Construction Management Department, Faculty of
Engineering & Technology, Future University in Egypt.
He was graduated from Zagazig University. He has a
very wide teaching experience as he worked in Kuwait
as a lecturer and consultant for Kuwait University as
well. He also is very active in research and reviewing
articles.

[1] General authority for roads, bridges and land transport (GARBLT), Arab
Republic of Egypt (July 2015). The project for improvement of the bridge
management capacity. Project completion report.
[2] Michigan transportation asset management council. Asset management guide
for local agency bridges in Michigan, TranSystems Corporation; 2011.
[3] Rashidi M. Decision support system for remediation of concrete bridges. Ayman was graduated from Faculty of Engineering, Ain
Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Department of Civil, Mining and Environmental Shams University. He is a Professor in Structural Engi-
(CME) Engineering, University of Wollongong; 2013. neering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams
[4] Yang Y, Kumaraswamy M, Pam H, Mahesh G. Integrated qualitative and University. He is a major bridges’ consultant in Egypt
quantitative methodology to assess validity and credibility of models for and supervised a huge number of dissertations.
bridge maintenance management system development. J Manage Eng 2011;27
(3).
[5] Mohajan H. Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related
subjects. J Econ Dev, Environ People 2018;7(1):23–48.
[6] Srinivas V, Sasmal S, Karusala R. Fuzzy based decision support system for
condition assessment and rating of bridges. Inst Eng J India 2016.
[7] Egyptian code for planning, designing & constructing bridges & upper
intersections. Maintenance & monitoring of Bridges, ECP 207, Part 10; 2014.
[8] Arizona department of transportation (ADOT). Bridge inspection guidelines;
2018.
[9] Washington state. ‘‘Bridge inspection manual” Chapter 3 inspections and
reports, January 2019; 2019. Hisham has a very wide experience in several branches
[10] Texas department of transportation. Bridge inspection manual. February 2018; of Engineering as bridges, foundations, engineering
2018.
geology and transport planning as he was the Minister
[11] Javed F. Integrated prioritization and optimization approach for pavement
of Transport in Egypt from 2017 till 2019. He is cur-
management. PhD thesis in the department of civil engineering, National
rently the CEO of Amer Group along being a Vice Pres-
University of Singapore; 2011.
[12] Shash A. Factors considered in tendering decisions by top UK contractors. J ident in Future University in Egypt (FUE).
Constr Manage Econ 1993:111–8.
[13] Sun P, Yu M, Freedman M, Rexford J. Identifying performance bottlenecks in
CDNs through TCP-level monitoring. WMUST conference; 2011.
[14] Troger P. Statistics 101. Software profiling seminar, Hasso Plattner Institute,
University of Potsdam; 2013.
[15] Abu Dabous S, Alkass S. A stochastic method for condition rating of concrete
bridges. ASCE Conf Proc 2010.
[16] Yanev B. Bridge management. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
[17] Raina VK. Concrete bridges: inspection, repair, strengthening, testing and load
capacity evaluation. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company; 2005.