Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Idge Inspection Practices and Bridge Management Programs in China Japan Korea and U S
Idge Inspection Practices and Bridge Management Programs in China Japan Korea and U S
To cite this article: Yoseok Jeong, WooSeok Kim, Ilkeun Lee & Jaeha Lee (2018) Bridge
inspection practices and bridge management programs in China, Japan, Korea, and U.S., Journal
of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 3:2, 126-135, DOI: 10.1080/24705314.2018.1461548
ABSTRACT
The present study reviews bridge inspection practices and bridge management programs in China, KEYWORDS
Japan, Korea, and U.S. Bridges play an essential role in transportation systems and in the economic Bridge; maintenance;
production process. Transportation agencies should maintain bridges in acceptable conditions to provide inspection; serviceability;
a desirable level of service to the public within limited budgets. In addition, a number of bridges are management
aging rapidly in these four countries. Fortunately, since several countries have experienced deteriorated
bridges due to aging, the countries considered in this study have already developed comprehensive
bridge management system (BMS) and bridge inspection practices. Therefore, the goal of this paper
is to search for and synthesize useful knowledge on BMSs and bridge inspection practices of the four
countries. Finally, recommendations that will serve as guidance to transportation agencies for potential
enhancements to BMS and bridge inspections are presented.
Table 1. Bridge management systems (BMSs) of four countries: U.S., Japan, China, and Korea (Mirzaei et al., 2012; MOT, 2007b).
expressway bridges and inspection practices of four countries, network-level analyses, agencies can evaluate the
China, Japan, Korea, and the U.S., and presents differences and impacts of implementing or deferring repairs in the
similarities. Finally, recommendations drawn from these studies future.
are presented to be applied to optimize the current BMS and (4) Updating function: The BMS generates reports and
bridge inspection practices. It should be noted that this paper summaries for planning and programming processes,
refers to “NCHRP synthesis 375: Bridge Inspection Practices” in and uses the information from actions taken to update
many parts (Hearn, 2007). the deterioration and cost models.
in the establishment of JH (Kimura & Maeda, 2005). The JH required for bridge maintenance, management, design, and
managed all expressways until it was split into three private construction. The staff leader must have five or more years of
enterprises, East Nippon Expressway Co., Ltd., Central Nippon experience in bridge engineering for periodic inspections at
Expressway Co., Ltd., and West Nippon Expressway Co., Ltd. in the structural level (MOHURD, 2003).
2005 (Mizutani & Uranishi, 2006). These three private companies According to the manual for bridge periodic inspection
are responsible for planning, construction, and inspection of (MLIT, 2014) in Japan, bridge inspections are executed by a
bridges in all toll expressways throughout Japan. bridge inspection unit consisting of a bridge inspector, a bridge
In 1969, the KEC, which is a government-controlled enter- inspector assistant, a bridge inspection technician, and a bridge
prise, was founded for expressway construction, expansion, inspection helper. The bridge inspector must have field expe-
repair, and maintenance. The KEC has performed operation rience and fundamental knowledge of bridge design and con-
and maintenance of expressway bridges in Korea since 1969. struction. The manual does not impose specific requirements
In the U.S. the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is for education or qualification for other inspectors. However, the
concerned with the infrastructure of public roads throughout manual ensures that all staff for bridge inspection work should
the nation. The FHWA performs bridge inspection programs have enough knowledge and expertise in bridge inspection
for federal-owned bridges on public roads and regulates the (MLIT, 2014). The bridge database is maintained by a bridge
inspection practices of bridges on these roads. The U.S. state inspection manager based on bridge inspection data obtained
Departments of Transportations (DOTs) execute bridge inspec- from field work. Bridge condition ratings and the bridge data-
tion programs for state-owned bridges, and regulate and review base are responsibilities of the bridge inspection manager. The
inspection programs for bridges owned by others within each manual for bridge periodic inspection requires that the bridge
state. inspection manager be either registered as a professional
Based on the bridge inspection manuals of transportation engineer (PE) or equivalent field experience to PE license. In
agencies in four countries, there are three administrative levels: addition, the manager should have expertise in bridge design,
(1) government-controlled companies; (2) government agen- construction, and management (MLIT, 2014).
cies; and private companies (3). A government-controlled com- In Korea, the inspection program manager must complete
pany in Korea performs expressway bridge inspections with toll more than 70-h training course on bridge inspection programs
revenues and government funds. In China and the U.S., govern- (MOLIT, 2012c). The inspection program manager’s role in
ment agencies (MOT in China and FHWA and the DOTs in the bridge inspection programs includes responsibilities of com-
U.S.) manage national bridges with local and national funds. The prehensive inspection works such as planning, scheduling,
transportation agencies in Japan (NEXCO Central, NEXCO East, execution, repair/rehabilitation, and reporting. The manager
NEXCO West) are private companies that manage all expressway therefore must have comprehensive knowledge of bridge
bridges with toll revenues. engineering and technology. The bridge inspector is responsi-
ble for the administration of inspection work both in the office
and at field under control of the inspection program manager.
Inspection program personnel
The bridge inspector must also complete a 70 h training course
This section reviews the inspector title, responsibilities, and on bridge inspections (MOLIT, 2012c). The inspection program
qualifications of personnel in bridge inspection programs. For manager and bridge inspector must routinely take a refresher
the bridge inspection procedure in China, leading bridge engi- course on bridge inspections every three years (Ministry of
neers are responsible for bridge inspection, maintenance, and Land, Infrastructure, & Transport, 2012a).
management. These engineers should complete the specific In the U.S., the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)
training program approved by the Ministry of Transportation identify four staff positions for bridge inspection practices: pro-
(Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China’s, gram manager, team leader, load rater, and underwater bridge
2007a). The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development inspection diver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA],
(MOHURD) also specifies the qualifications for bridge inspection 2004). The responsibilities and qualifications of staff involved
managers at each inspection level (MOHURD, 2003). Qualified in bridge inspections program in U.S. are summarized in Table 2.
management technicians can perform routine and periodic Much of the bridge inspection work for these countries is
inspections only. Fracture critical and structural inspections done by qualified inspectors who have expertise and experi-
are conducted by an agency possessing the proper license ence in bridge inspections. Since most bridge inspections are
with enough staff members who have completed the training done by visually examining the bridge members, the success
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 129
Table 3. Standard manuals and guides used in four countries (China, Japan, Korea, and U.S.).
Country Publisher Document
China MOHURD 1 • Technical Code of Maintenance for City Bridge, CJJ99–2003, 2003
MOT 2 • The Guidance for Road and Bridge Maintenance, 2007
• Manual for China Bridge Management System v. WEB20 (MCBMS), 2007
• Standards for Technical Condition Evaluation of Highway Bridges, JTG/T-H21–2011, 2011
• Specifications for Inspection and Evaluation of Load-bearing Capacity of Highway Bridges, JTG/T-J21–2011, 2011
Japan MLIT3 • Manual for Bridge Periodic Inspection, 2014
Korea MOLIT4 • Guidelines and Commentary for Safety Inspection and In-depth Safety Inspection for Structures-Bridge, 2012
U.S. AASHTO5 • Manual for Bridge Element Inspection, 1st Edition, 2013
• Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation, and Maintenance Manual, 1st Edition, 1998
FHWA6 • Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual, FHWA-NHI-12–049, 2012
• Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridge, FHWA-PD-96–001, 1995
• Underwater Bridge Inspection Manual, FHWA-NHI-10–027, Pre-Publication Edition
• Underwater Bridge Repair, Rehabilitation, and Countermeasures Manual, FHWA-NHI-10–029, Pre-Publication Edition
Notes: In the second column,1MOHURD: Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China.
2
MOT: The Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China.
3
MLIT: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
4
MOLIT: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport.
5
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
6
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration.
of the bridge inspection is largely dependent on the qualifica- Japan defines only routine bridge inspection. According
tions of bridge inspectors. Transportation agencies therefore to the Manual for Bridge Periodic Inspection (MBPI) protocol
need to recruit qualified bridge inspectors and continuously (2014), the initial inspection should be performed less than
improve the training/refresher programs and regulations for 2 years after being opened to the public and routine inspec-
bridge inspectors in order to guarantee quality and reliability tion is performed every 5 years (MLIT, 2014). The MBPI protocol
of bridge inspectors and inspection reports. does not define any inspections periodically executed except
the routine bridge inspection. However, further detailed inspec-
tions are needed depending on deterioration types, severity,
Inspection manual
and extent (MLIT, 2014).
Transportation agencies in most countries inspect bridge In Korea, the inspection manual defines one routine inspec-
conditions and safety according to their own bridge inspec- tion conducted every 6 months. Other inspections such as
tion manuals. Standard manuals and guides in four countries in-depth, emergency, and in-depth safety inspections can be
(China, Japan, Korea, and U.S.) used in bridge inspections are scheduled independently of a routine inspection, although
summarized in Table 3. generally at a longer interval, or it may be a follow-up for other
inspection types. Figure 1 presents a flow chart of bridge inspec-
tion performed in Korea.
Inspection types and intervals
In the U.S., there are various types of bridge inspections
Regulations and inspection manuals of countries define inspec- to reflect the intensity of inspection required at the time of
tion types and intervals to maintain bridge conditions at desir- inspection. The AASHTO manual defines seven types of bridge
able levels of services efficiently. Generally, bridge inspection inspections, which allows a bridge owner or state DOTs to
types are categorized into routine inspection, in-depth inspec- establish their own appropriate inspection levels consistent
tion, and special inspection. Intervals also vary with transpor- with AASHTO- and FHWA-defined inspection frequency and
tation agencies or inspection types range from 6 months to type of structure (AASHTO, 2013; FHWA, 2004; FHWA, 2012).
5 years. In this section, inspection types and inspection intervals Table 4 lists inspection types and brief descriptions defined in
of four countries are reviewed. the AASHTO manual (AASHTO, 2013).
China identified three types of bridge inspections: routine,
periodic, and special (Ministry of Transport of the People’s
Condition rating system
Republic of China’s, 2011b). The routine inspection is a visual
inspection performed every month. In a routine inspection, This section reviews bridge condition measures and indices used
bridge structural elements, coating, joints, drainage systems, by transportation agencies for bridge maintenance. Condition
retaining walls, etc., defined in the manual are visually inspected measures are essential for a successful BMS. The condition rat-
for unusual changes. Periodic inspections are scheduled to be ing system allows transportation agencies to assess and to pre-
executed once in at least three years. Tools for visual aid are dict bridge conditions as well as to diagnose the deterioration
used to quantify bridge conditions in detail. The manual sug- mechanism and to determine maintenance and preservation
gests that continuous monitoring of long-span bridges be con- treatments accordingly. The optimal treatments corresponding
ducted using sensing technology to measure records of bridge to the problem originate from an accurate bridge condition
characteristics under routine traffic conditions, during and after rating by proper condition measurement (Patidar et al., 2007;
extreme events (Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic Shim, 2004).
of China, 2011b). In addition, bridge inspections are conducted In China, the bridge condition rating Dr is derived from the
depending on the importance of the bridges, (e.g. 1 to 2-year weighted condition measures of bridge components, as shown
intervals for Class I bridges, 6- to 10-year interval for Class II in the following equation (Ministry of Transport of the People’s
bridges) (MOHURD, 2003). Republic of China, 2011b).
130 Y. JEONG ET AL.
Table 4. U.S. inspection types and intervals (AASHTO, 2013; FHWA, 2004).
Inspection Description Interval
Initial • First inspection of a bridge as it becomes a part of the bridge inventory to provide all subsequent inspections with At bridge open
relevant data to determine baseline structural conditions.
Routine (Periodic) • Regularly scheduled inspection consisting of observations and/or measurements needed to determine the physical ≤24 months
and functional conditions of the bridge.
Damage • An unscheduled inspection to assess structural damage resulting from environmental factors or human actions. Various*
In-depth • A close-up inspection of bridge to identify any deficiencies not readily detectable using routine inspection proce- Various
dures.
Fracture-critical • A hands-on inspection of a fracture-critical member or member components that may include visual and other ≤24 months
nondestructive evaluation.
Underwater • Inspection of the underwater portion of a bridge substructure and the surrounding channel. ≤60 months
Special • An inspection scheduled at the discretion of the bridge owner, used to monitor a particular known or suspected Various
deficiency.
*Various: A bridge owner or state DOTs can determine intervals for damage, in-depth, and special inspection.
where BCId is the deck condition index, ωd is the scale factor for
Dr = BDCI × WD + SPCI × WSP + SBCI × WSB (1) the bridge deck, BCIsp is the superstructure condition index, ωsp
where Dr is the bridge condition rating, BDCI is the bridge deck is the scale factor for the superstructure, BCIsb is the substructure
condition index, WD is the weighting factor for bridge deck, condition index, and ωsb is the scale factor for the substructure.
SPCI is the bridge superstructure condition index, WSP is the A bridge condition can fall into a category from A to E and the
weighting index for the superstructure, SBCI is the bridge sub- corresponding recommendation depending on the bridge con-
structure condition index, and WSB is the weighting factor for dition index (BCI), as shown in Table 5. Dr was developed by the
the substructure. In addition, another rating system is based on MOT in China, and therefore, it is expected to be used to eval-
a weighted bridge condition index (BCI), which is calculated by uate the conditions of bridges located in the national highway
the following equation (MOHURD, 2003). network. On the other hand, BCI is a rating formula issued by
MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development
BCI = BCId × 𝜔d + BCIsp × 𝜔sp + BCIsb × 𝜔sb (2) of the People’s Republic of China) for city bridge inspections.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 131
Table 5. Bridge condition ratings in China, Dr and BCI (MOHURD, 2003; MOT, 2011b).
JTG/T-H21–20111 CJJ99–20032
State Rating Descriptions State Rating Descriptions
1 95 ≤ Dr < 100 Perfect A 90 ≤ BCI Perfect, routine maintenance
2 80 ≤ Dr < 95 Minor damage, no effects on its function B 80 ≤ BCI < 90 Good, routine maintenance or small
repair
3 60 ≤ Dr < 80 Mediate damage, but still functional C 66 ≤ BCI < 80 ‘Pass’, small repair
4 40 ≤ Dr < 60 Great damage, affecting bridge functions D 50 ≤ BCI < 66 ‘Unqualified’, major repairs
5 0 < Dr < 40 Major loss of bridge’s main member, E BCI < 50 Dangerous, rehabilitation/rebuilding
dangerous state
1
Standards for Technical Condition Evaluation of Highway Bridges, JTG/T-H21-2011, 2011 (MOT, 2011b).
2
Technical Code of Maintenance for City Bridge, CJJ99-2003, 2003 (MOHURD, 2003).
Table 6. Maintenance urgency rating for the bridge element (MLIT, 2014).
n
State Descriptions 1 ∑
DI = CR × WFi (3)
A No repair needed 100 i=1 i
B No immediate repairs needed
C1 Immediate repairs needed from standpoint of preventative main-
tenance n
C2 Immediate repairs needed from standpoint of structural safety
∑
WFi = 100 (4)
E1 Immediate actions needed from standpoint of structural safety
i=1
E2 Immediate actions needed in tandem with other factors
M Repairs needed during regular maintenance work
S1 In-depth investigations needed where DI is the bridge damage index, CRi is the average con-
S2 Follow-up investigations needed dition rating of the elements, and WFi is the weighting factor
of elements. Descriptions for each condition rating are given
in Table 8.
Table 7. Bridge soundness (MLIT, 2014). Caltrans (California DOT) developed the Bridge Health Index
Sate Condition Descriptions
(BHI) from an element-level inspection as a ratio of the current
I Good No problems in bridge’s functions to the initial value of all elements on the bridge. The BHI pro-
II Preventative maintenance No problems in bridge’s functions but vides a mean to compare a bridge in its best possible condition
maintenance required from stand- with its current condition. The BHI may range from 0%,
point of preventive maintenance
III Early action Possibility of problems in bridge’s corresponding to the worst health, to 100% for the best health
functions, need for early action (Shepard & Johnson, 2001). The BHI is estimated by the f ollowing
IV Emergency action Possibility of problems or existing equation:
problems in bridge’s functions,
need for emergency actions
�∑ �
CEV
BHI = ∑ × 100 (5)
TEV
In Japan, bridge condition data collected from bridge inspec- TEV = TEQ × FC (6)
tors are evaluated into one of the maintenance urgency rat-
ings in Table 6. Maintenance urgency ratings are determined
∑( )
CEV = QCSi × WFi × FC (7)
by experienced bridge inspectors in a subjective manner,
recommending to bridge owners the needs for actions to be where CEV is the current element value, TEV is the total element
completed by the next inspection. No numerical criteria such value, TEQ is the total element quantity, FC is the failure cost
as crack width and length are defined for maintenance urgency of element, QCS is the quantity in a condition state, and WF
ratings. Using the maintenance urgency ratings of individual is the weighting factor for the condition state. The BHI is used
bridge elements, the condition rating of the entire bridge is for measuring performance, allocating resources, budget deci-
determined as one of the states of bridge soundness shown sion-making, and measuring improvement (Shepard & Johnson,
in Table 7. 2001).
In Korea, transportation agencies use a Damage Index, which In the U.S., the state DOTs report the National Bridge
is the normalized sum of the weighted condition rating of indi- Inventory (NBI) data as required by the National Bridge
vidual elements, as delineated in the following equation. The Inspection Standards (NBIS) and describe the nation’s bridges.
damage index of an entire bridge is evaluated based on condi- The NBI conditions reflect the range of the physical conditions
tion data of elements collected by bridge inspectors to provide of major bridge components such as the deck, superstruc-
an overall rating for the bridge. ture, substructure, culvert, and sub-elements. The NBI defines
Table 10. Appraisal rating guidelines (FHWA, 2012). Table 11. Condition ratings of structural deficiency (SD) and functional obsoles-
cence (FO) (FHWA, 2012).
State Descriptions
N Not applicable Structurally Deficient (SD) Functionally Obsolete (FO)
9 Superior to present desirable criteria A condition rating of 4 or less for A condition rating of 3 or less for
8 Equal to present desirable criteria • Deck; or • Deck geometry; or
7 Better than present minimum criteria • Superstructure; or • Underclearances; or
6 Equal to present minimum criteria • Substructure; or • Approach roadway alignment.
5 Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left • Culvert and retaining walls.
in place as is A appraisal rating of 2 or less for A appraisal rating of 3 or less for
4 Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is • Structural evaluation; or • Structural evaluation; or
3 Basically intolerable, requiring high priority of corrective action • Waterway adequacy. • Waterway adequacy.
2 Basically intolerable, requiring high priority of replacement
1 This value of rating code not used
0 Bridge closed
that implies the bridge’s sufficiency to remain in service. The SR
is calculated as follows (FHWA, 2012):
condition states ranging from 0 to 9 (see Table 9) (FHWA, 2012).
The NBI condition rating does not represent the overall condi-
SR = S1 + S2 + S3 − S4 (8)
tion of the entire bridge. The condition rating, however, shows where S1 has a maximum 55% weighting factor on structural
the localized condition of the primary elements of the bridge. adequacy and safety (i.e. superstructure, substructure or cul-
In other words, the NBI condition rating indicates how well the ver condition and load capacity) and S2 has a maximum 30%
major elements of a bridge function, but not how well the entire weighting factor that deals with serviceability and functional
bridge functions. obsolescence of items such as the deck condition, structural
In addition, an appraisal rating is also defined by the FHWA evaluation, deck geometry, underclearances, waterway ade-
to evaluate a bridge in relation to the level of service of the quacy, and approach road alignment. S3 has a maximum 15%
transportation system. The level of service for a bridge describes weighting factor that concerns essentiality for public use such
the function that the bridge provides for the transportation sys- as detour length, average daily traffic, and highway designa-
tem carried by the bridge (FHWA, 2012). The following general tion. S4 has a maximum 13% weighting factor that is a special
appraisal rating guidelines (see Table 10) are used to evaluate reduction based on detour length, traffic safety features, and
structural evaluation, deck geometry, underclearances, water- structure type. SR is a hybrid measure based on both function
way adequacy, and approach roadway alignment. and condition. The FHWA uses the SR for allocating budget
In the U.S., the NBI condition rating shows only how well for bridge repairs/rehabilitation and replacement (Shepard &
the major elements of a bridge function, not how the entire Johnson, 2001). When a bridge’s SR is less than 50, the bridge
bridge performs. However, based on the NBI condition rating, is eligible for replacement. When the SR is within 50 and 80, the
bridges can be classified as either “structurally deficient (SD)” or bridge is eligible for rehabilitation.
“functionally obsolete (FO)”. “Structurally deficient (SD)” means A comparison of the condition ratings of four countries
that the condition of the bridge includes a significant defect (China, Japan, Korea, and U.S.) is presented in Table 12. It is
due to deterioration and/or damage. “Functionally obsolete noted that the ratings in the same row do not necessarily rep-
(FO)” means that the design of a bridge no longer meets crite- resent the same rating, but exhibit comparable ratings of four
ria for the system for which the bridge is a part such as a lack of countries. Since the NBI ratings of U.S. are categorized in greater
safety shoulders or the inability to handle current traffic volume, detail compared to other countries into nine corresponding to
speed, size, or weight (FHWA, 2012). The FHWA (2012) classified each condition, the NBI rating system was determined as the
a bridge for “structurally deficient (SD)” or “functionally obsolete reference for condition ratings of other countries for compar-
(FO)” based on the results of NBI condition ratings and appraisal ison. For the sake of clarity, the NBI ratings only reflects the
ratings (see Table 11). range of the physical conditions of the major bridge compo-
The state DOTs in U.S. generally use an agency-custom- nents such as the deck, superstructures, and substructure, not
ized inventory computer program that includes a procedure the overall bridge condition. Condition rating systems of other
to calculate a bridge’s Sufficiency Rating (SR) based upon the countries presented in Table 12 are applied to the overall bridge
inventory data obtained from the bridge inspector. The SR is level. However, it is worth using the NBI ratings the reference
evaluated by combining four factors to obtain a numerical value for comparison of the condition ratings of the four countries
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 133
Table 12. Comparison of condition ratings of four countries: China, Japan, Korea, and U.S (FHWA, 2012; MLIT, 2014; MOHURD, 2003; MOLIT, 2012b; MOT, 2011b).
because the overall condition rating of bridge components may Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges (FHWA Coding
be directly related to physical deficiencies of a bridge. Guide) is used for defining the bridge inventory and the items
In the bridge condition ratings of the four countries, the con- to be used to collect information on the overall condition of
dition ratings of these countries can fall into three categories in the deck, superstructure, substructure, and channel. The FHWA
terms of main considerations: (1) physical conditions of bridge Coding Guide is the basis of the U.S. BMS. All state DOTs are
elements; (2) feasible actions (follow-up actions); and (3) soci- required to submit bridge inspection results to the FHWA in
oeconomic factors. The Dr (China), BCI (China), DI (Korea), and accordance with the FHWA Coding Guide, even if they are able
NBI rating (U.S.) reflect only the range of the physical conditions to customize the generic guide (FHWA, 2012). On the other
of the bridge components such as the deck, superstructure, hand, bridge inspection manuals in Japan, China, and Korea
and substructures. Therefore, these condition ratings can be specify that all data obtained and found from bridge inspec-
used to allow decision makers to plan and schedule repair/ tions should be recorded and kept in an appropriate manner
rehabilitation of deteriorated bridges. In Japan, soundness and (MLIT, 2014; MOHURD, 2003; MOLIT, 2012c). A summary sheet of
maintenance urgency ratings take into account feasible actions bridge data is used to effectively record and report data. Using
(follow-up actions) corresponding to deterioration. This type of the recording sheet, bridge records are kept as cumulative and
condition rating system is suitable for quick repair/rehabilita- up-to-date information on each structure. Bridge inspection
tion without a decision-making process. However, the condi- manuals require records to be kept about individual bridge
tion ratings have problems predicting the future condition of construction, maintenance, inspection, testing, and technical
a bridge due to a lack of information on explicit severity and specifications in electronic databases. A thorough study of the
extent of deterioration. In the U.S., the BHI and SR are used as available historical information would be valuable in identify-
performance measures and indices for managing bridges. These ing possible damage or deterioration and in planning repair/
rating systems consider asset values, serviceability, or essenti- rehabilitation.
ality for public use. It is useful for decision makers to use the
SR or BHI for allocating funds for bridge repair/rehabilitation
Quality programs
or replacement (Shepard & Johnson, 2001). The SR is intended
as a combined performance measure based on both function Quality of current BMS is dependent upon the accuracy and pre-
and condition. The SR rating emphasizes the functional and cision of bridge inspection. Generally, the BMS relies on visual
geometric characteristics of a bridge and is not meant for deter- assessment, which is the primary method of bridge inspection.
mining a bridge’s overall condition or for maintenance decisions In this section, four countries’ quality programs to improve the
(Wolfgram, 2005). Therefore, when combined with deterioration quality of visual assessments are presented.
rates, these rating systems can be useful to predict the health In China, new methods such as structural health monitoring
of an inventory in the future and to quantify benefits of bridge (SHM) and nondestructive testing (NDT) techniques are being
intervention actions (Robert, Marshall, Lin, Shepard, & Aldayuz, integrated into current BMS (Dai et al., 2014). When the process
2002). of integrating new techniques of SHM and NDT into the BMS
is completed, SHM and NDT techniques can be a major part of
transportation agencies’ efforts to prevent human error from
Inspection recording and reporting
visual inspection (Dai et al., 2014; Kim, 2001; Lee & Kim, 2016;
A good bridge inspection reporting system is essential to ensure Shim & Hearn, 2007; Soga & Luo, 2018). Japan uses standard
the public’s safety with minimum cost with respect to bridge inspection forms and the existing bridge record to guide inspec-
structures. Therefore, bridge inspection data should be well tors and ensure that all required inspection tasks are com-
documented in a clear, accurate, and complete manner. In the pleted. There is no independent review of inspection reports
U.S., the FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure (MLIT, 2014). In Korea, quality control (QC) verifies that reports
134 Y. JEONG ET AL.
of in-depth and in-depth safety inspection are accurate and (SHM) and nondestructive testing (NDT) techniques can reduce
complete (Korea Infrastructure Safety Corporation [KISC], 2013); human errors and ultimately improve the reliability of bridge
that there are sufficient notes of photographs of conditions; inspections.
and that recommendations for maintenance are appropriate.
QC is performed by the Evaluation Committee of In-depth and
Disclosure statement
In-depth Safety Inspection (KISC, 2013). At most state DOTs in
the U.S., the inspection program manager guides quality control No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
(QC) policies and execution. U.S. state DOTs make QC reviews of
inspection reports (Hearn, 2007). Most state DOTs use peer team Funding
leaders for reviewing inspection reports. Generally, the QC pro-
This work was supported by the Korea Expressway Corporation.
gram includes field activities such as peer reviews by peer team
leaders, joint audit of the current inspection report by a peer
team and the inspector of record, site visits by an inspection References
manager of inspection team work, and inspection of control
Akgul, F. (2013). Development of a bridge management system incorporating
bridges as part of periodic workshops or training (Hearn, 2007). a newly developed model for element condition evaluation based on
damage effects. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(12), 1206–
1224.
Summary and recommendations American Association of State Highway Officials. (1993). Guidelines for bridge
management systems. Washington, DC: Author.
This paper reviewed bridge inspection practices and bridge American Association of State Highway Officials. (2013). Manual for bridge
management programs in China, Japan, Korea, and U.S. The key element inspection. Washington, DC: Author.
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). 2017 Report card for American’s
finding is that the bridge inspections and management pro-
infrastructure. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
gram in four countries are similar to each other and are different bridges/
in some regards. The review findings are summarized below: Dai, K., Smith, B.H., Chen, S.-E., & Sun, L. (2014). Comparative study of bridge
management programmes and practices in the USA and China. Structure
(1) The four countries show similarities in the overall pro- and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(5), 577–588.
cess of bridge inspection practices and bridge man- Federal Highway Administration. (2004). National bridge inspection standards
agement programs such as the use of a BMS in quality (NBIS). Washington, DC: Author.
control programs. However, differences are shown in Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Bridge Inspector’s reference manual
(BIRM), FHWA-NHI-12-049. Washington, DC: Author.
each section in terms of detailed aspects. Hanley, C., Matos, J.C., Kelliher, D., & Pakrashi, V. (2017). Integrating
(2) In all four countries, the bridge inspection process, multivariate techniques in bridge management systems. Journal of
which comprises inspection types and intervals, Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 2(3), 143–151.
inspection personnel, inspection data recording and Hearn, G. (2007). NCHRP synthesis 375: Bridge inspection practices.
reporting, and a quality program, is well organized. Washington, DC
Kim, S. (2001). Intelligent health monitoring system for a cable-stayed
(3) The BMSs of most countries have the capability of per- bridge. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 5(1), 35–41.
forming essential functions (e.g. data storage, deteri- Kimura, F., & Maeda, M. (2005, November 21–22). Transport infrastructure
oration model/cost information, optimization model, development in Japan and Korea: Drawing lessons for the Philippines.
and updating function) but the BMSs of some countries Regional Conference on Investment Climate and Competitiveness in
East Asia: From Diagnostics to Action, Kuala Lumpur.
have not yet prepared for all features. For instance, the
Korea Expressway Corporation. (2013). Improvement of bride inspection
KHBMS, which is the BMS in Korea, does not include system by the damage analysis. Gimcheon: Author.
information on bridge safety or a risk optimization Korea Infrastructure Safety Corporation. (2013). Evaluation Manual for
model dealing with the optimal strategies for least- reports of in-depth and in-depth safety inspection. Jinju: Author.
cost maintenance. Lee, J.H., & Kim, S.-C. (2016). Mobile technology in the field data collection
and management. Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 1(3),
(4) The administrative levels of transportation agencies are
140–145.
different: government agencies in China and the U.S., a Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. (2003). Technical code
government-controlled company in Korea, and private of maintenance for city bridges, CJJ99-2003. Beijing: Author.
companies in Japan. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. (2012a). Construction
Technology Promotion Act. Sejong: Author.
In light of the findings of the present study, with regard to Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. (2012c). Guideline of safety
BMS, future BMS should include features of better life-cycle inspection and in-depth safety inspection for structures. Sejong: Author.
models and tools to quantify risks, and optimization models Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. (2015). Status of the Nation’s
bridges and tunnels in republic of Korea. Sejong: Author.
of cost/benefit associated with bridges, which would help in
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Tourism. (2013). White
decision-making of transportation administrators. In addition, paper on land, infrastructure, transportation, and tourism in Japan, 2013.
the BMS has become easily accessible for bridge inspectors Tokyo: Author.
and decision makers because of IT (Information Technology) Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Tourism (2014). Manual
and NT (Networking Technology) advances. A BMS featuring for Bridge Periodic Inspection. Tokyo: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transportation, and Tourism.
these factors is required for decision makers to identify prob-
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (2007a). The Guidance
lems, prioritize repair/rehabilitation work, allocate budget, for Road and Bridge Maintenance. Beijing: Author.
and program bridge preservation, improvement, and replace- Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (2007b). Manual for
ment work. In order to improve the accuracy and precision of China Bridge Management System. Beijing: Author.
bridge inspection, a quality control (QC) program should be Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (2011a). Public statics
data about road and water transportation in 2010. Beijing: Author.
emphasized because bridge inspection is dependent upon
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China. (2011b). Standards
visual observation by bridge inspectors. For example, peer for Technical Condition Evaluation of Highway Bridges, JTG/T H21–2011.
reviews/joint audits and uses of structural health monitoring Beijing: Author.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE 135
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. (2012b). Guideline and Saydam, D., Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013). Time-dependent risk
Commentary of Safety Inspection and In-depth Safety Inspection for associated with deterioration of highway bridge networks. Engineering
Structures-Bridge. Sejong: Author. Structures, 54, 221–233.
Mirzaei, Z., Adey, B. T., Klatter, L., & Kong, J. S. (2012). Overview of existing Shepard, R.W. (2005). Bridge management issues in a large agency. Structure
bridge management systems. The IABMAS Bridge Management and Infrastructure Engineering, 1(2), 159–164.
Committee. Shepard, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (2001). California bridge health index: A
Mizutani, F., & Uranishi, S. (2006, August). Privatization of the Japan Highway diagnostic tool to maximize bridge longevity, investment. TR News (215),
Public Corporation: Policy assessment. 46th Congress for the European pp. 6–11.
Regional Science Association, Volos. Shim, H. (2004). Condition assessment of bridge elements using field tests.
Orcesi, A.D., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011). A stakeholder probability-based KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 8(3), 307–312.
optimization approach for cost-effective bridge management under Shim, H., & Hearn, G. (2007). Bridge management system with NDE. KSCE
financial constraints. Engineering Structures, 33(5), 1439–1449. Journal of Civil Engineering, 11(5), 253–259.
Patidar, V., Labi, S., Sinha, K.C., Thompson, P.D., Shirolé, A., & Hyman, W. Soga, K., & Luo, L. (2018). Distributed fiber optics sensors for civil engineering
(2007). Performance measures for enhanced bridge management. infrastructure sensing. Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance,
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research 3(1), 1–21.
Board, 1991(1), 43–53. Wolfgram, L. (2005). Optimization of bridge management and inspection
Robert, W.E., Marshall, A.R., Lin, S.S., Shepard, R.W., & Aldayuz, J. (2002). procedures (National Science Foundation Grant # EEC 0139017), Newark,
Integration of agency rules with the preservation optimization model in DE: University of Delaware
the pontis bridge management system. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1795(1), 74–81.