Australian Journal of Civil Engineering

ISSN: 1448-8353 (Print) 2204-2245 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcen20

Identifying and evaluating the effective

parameters in prioritization of urban roadway
bridges for maintenance operations

Amin Amini, Navid Nikraz & Ali Fathizadeh

To cite this article: Amin Amini, Navid Nikraz & Ali Fathizadeh (2015): Identifying and
evaluating the effective parameters in prioritization of urban roadway bridges for maintenance
operations, Australian Journal of Civil Engineering

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2015.1092640

Published online: 14 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcen20

Download by: [Florida International University] Date: 27 December 2015, At: 18:10
 Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2015.1092640

Identifying and evaluating the effective parameters in prioritization of urban

roadway bridges for maintenance operations
Amin Aminia , Navid Nikraza and Ali Fathizadehb
a
Faculty of Civil and Science Engineering, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley WA 6102, Australia; bConstruction Management Engineering,
Technical Faculty of Science and Research Branch of Azad University, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Bridges are considered one of the most important traffic arteries, particularly in metropolises. Received 14 May 2014
In accordance with big cities traffic, severe structural damages, or damages caused by the Accepted 20 April 2015
destruction of a roadway bridge, have harmful effects on metropolis management and make KEYWORDS
appropriate repair operations very difficult. Different bridge management and maintenance Bridge maintenance;
systems in various countries have included efforts to resolve these problems. Encountering with
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015

prioritization parameters;
the limitations in funds allocated to the maintenance operation and facing various deteriorating bridge management
in the current urban bridge conditions, we need a proper and effective model to prioritize system
bridges for repairing and maintenance. An appropriate model for this prioritizing needs a proper
database and a supportive decision-making system to process the data, which is based on
several parameters. These parameters should not be such little that raise the prioritizing errors
and should not be such numerous that encounter analysis process with complexity. In this paper,
the parameters of prioritizing the urban roadway bridges to repair and maintenance operation
are identified and classified through investigation of codes, regulations, guidelines and applied
research carried out in various countries; then, through analysing the experts’ judgements using
the classical statistical tests, a comprehensive evaluation and ranking of these parameters is
presented.

1. Introduction One of the functional objectives of this research is

applying the analysis results of the investigated param-
The constructed bridges on urban roads and sub-urban
eters in BMS database and decision support bridge
roads are considered inseparable parts of transportation
maintenance systems. Systems based on multi-attribute
network that in addition to the safety issues their minor
rating techniques, analytical hierarchy process (AHP) or
or major failure cause inefficiency of the network. This
fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making models are kinds
inefficiency may lead to significant economic conse-
of these systems.
quences, including the cost of repair and reconstruction
In the second part of this paper, we present a brief
and users’ costs. Therefore, maintenance of bridges to
description of bridge management functions and BMS.
keep their satisfactory performance in their useful life,
Then, we discuss some models and parameters used by
separately or as a part of network is necessary; bridge
researchers in various countries for prioritizing bridges
management systems (BMS) help decision-makers to
for maintenance operation. We introduce 45 of these
keep bridges in an acceptable level of public services
effective parameters classified in 4 groups in the fourth
in the highway network. These systems inform main-
section. These parameters obtained from research studies
tenance managers of bridge conditions at any time and
carried out in several countries and Bridge Management
help them in the decision-making process by collecting
Standard in Europe (BRIME). In the next section, the
and updating data based on specific parameters.
research methodology like data-collecting method and
The main objectives of this research are extracting
surveyed population are presented and, finally, we discuss
the parameters, which can influence the urban roadway
the results of data analysis in the last part of this paper.
bridge prioritizing for maintenance operation; then, we
categorize and evaluate these parameters to identify the
most effective of them. As another output result of this 2.  Bridge management
research, we determine the most effective parameter of
After completion of construction and start of opera-
each main category of parameters for each enquired
tion, moreover, the heavy loads of traffic, environmen-
expert group of clients, contractors, consultants and
tal factors like wind, water, temperature changes, the
researchers separately.

CONTACT  Amin Amini  amin.amini@postgrad.curtin.edu.au   

© 2015 Engineers Australia
 2    A. Amini et al.

Judgment and
Data Input Data Analysis
Decision making

Figure 1. BMS outline.

earthquake and chemical factors affect the bridge. Over • Understanding the maintenance needs of a specific
time, fatigue and destruction occur in bridge elements bridge considering some maintenance operation
because of the influence of these factors. strategies for optimizing the costs to the benefits.
Bridge management is a solution for optimizing the • Performing and controlling the proposed mainte-
use of resources for inspection, maintenance, repair and nance methods.
replacing the bridges. In other words, bridge management
BMS is more than creating an info database for
is a tool that takes care of the bridge since the construc-
bridges. In fact, it is a procedure, which analyses and
tion plan stage to the end of its useful life. (Ryall 2001)
processes the stored information in the bridge database
To choose a bridge among several bridges for per-
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015

to help managers in decision-making. In other words,

forming the maintenance procedure, we need to prior-
BMS can tell the bridge manager where, when and how
itize bridges in a BMS database according to factors such
to spend the available budget with the highest efficiency.
as cost of repair, type of damage, level of bridge com-
Figure 1 shows a BMS outline. The most important
ponent destruction and strategic considerations. Thus,
part of a BMS is its database. A bridge database includes
identifying the parameters that affect bridges’ prioriti-
information about bridge location, bridge age, bridge
zation to use a specific allocated fund for maintenance
designer, bridge contractors, bridge dimensions, bridge
operation is considered a fundamental issue of the urban
structure type, bridge functionality, bridge importance
management system.
degree in the transportation network, bridge condition
Regular inspection and maintenance of bridges in
based on performed inspections, information related to
their useful longevity need forward planning at the pre-
the repairs and maintenance and bridge history (Ryall
liminary stages of conception and design to utilize the
2001). The volume of input data is directly related to
basic principles, which guarantee the bridges’ strength
the system degree of complexity and the expected anal-
and durability in the long term. These principles are
ysis results. In data analysis section of a BMS, all the
contrary to the reactive maintenance strategies, which
input data is analysed qualitatively and quantitatively
in many cases are used only to postpone the occurrence
to provide a clear image of current bridge status for the
of an inevitable event.
management. Judgement and decision-making of man-
To create harmony and to take care of the bridges,
agement leads to the output of a BMS as follows (Ryall
bridge management does the following functions (Ryall
2001):
2001):
• Defining, planning, management and controlling
• Collecting data and certificate information of
the inspections.
bridges (year of construction, dimensions, etc.).
• Planning, management and controlling the bridge
• Regular inspection of bridges.
maintenance process.
• Assessing the conditions and resistance of bridge
• Prioritizing bridges to repair and maintenance
elements with local inspections and based on the
operations.
defined indexes.
• Allocation appropriate budget to repair and main-
• Providing proposal for the repair, strengthening or
tenance of bridges.
replacing the bridges.
• Presenting an appropriate method for repairing the
• Budget assignment prioritizing.
destruction observed on a bridge.
• Providing safety and maintaining bridge load-
• Saving the bridge data at all levels and related fields.
bearing capacity.
A mechanism, which produces coordination and
operations of bridge management, is called BMS. 3.  Bridges prioritization for maintenance
According to bridge management functions, making the operations
BMS executive includes the following items (Ryall 2001): As previously mentioned, one of the BMS outcomes
• Reflecting the existing condition of all managed is prioritizing bridges for maintenance operations.
bridges in order to have a clear image of all of them. Decision-making to allocate funds for maintenance
• Assessing the bridge’s condition during the peri- needs prioritization of existing bridges in a BMS data-
odic inspections regard to executive indexes. base. In accordance with the limitation of resources and

decision-making complexity in the emergencies, this
issue needs an accurate and efficient prioritizing system.
Bridges prioritizing simply can be explained that
using optimal and proper models, which the status of
each bridge is being rated by them and then based on
that rating, maintenance operations for the bridge will
be prioritized (Ryall 2001).
The suitable models for this prioritizing need a suit-
able database for data processing. These models can
rank the existing bridges numerically and compare
their situations with each other more accurately. In most
countries, the bridge prioritizing for maintenance oper-
ation is based on the highest simple additive weighting
method of some specific parameters that in calculating
the weight of these parameters, different numeral, sta-
tistical, probabilistic and comparative methods are used.
In different countries, depending on the specific weather
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015
and environmental conditions, geographical situation,
the design codes and other factors, experts and special-
ists considered some parameters as the most effective
parameters in prioritizing the bridges.
In Australia, Rashidi et al. (October 2013) proposed a
model for bridge infrastructure management. This model
includes two phases. The first phase focuses on calcu-
lating an integrated priority index (PI) that addresses
different factors. The highest value for this index deter-
mines the first priority of bridges for maintenance. In
the second phase, a multi-criteria decision-making
technique is introduced for selecting the best remedi-
ation strategy at both projects and network level. The
proposed PI is simple additive weighting of three main
factors and presented by Equation (1).
PI = 0.6 (SE) + 0.2 (FE) + 0.2 (CIF) (1)
where SE is structural efficiency, FE is functional effi-
ciency and CIF addresses the client impact factor.
Each of these main factors addresses a variety of
sub-factors. The dimensionless relative factor of SE that
varies from one to four is calculated using Equation (2).
∑n
CF i=1 (Mi⋅ Si ⋅ ECSIi )
SE = (2)
16n
Moreover, some pre-existing factors such as design and
construction, there are some post-existing factors that
affect the SE factor. These factors that include the struc-
ture service length time or age of structure (A), envi-
ronmental aggressive factor of structure location (E),
road class (R) and inspection quality (I), form the casual
factor (CF) that affect bridge SE and can be calculated
using Equation (3).
CF = 0.411 (A) + 0.12 (E) + 0.107 (R) + 0.362 (I)
(3)
The weights of involved sub-criteria have been estimated
using AHP and defined ratings based on classifications
presented in Table 1. According to Equation (2), Mi
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering   3
represents the material factor for considering different
contribution of different materials in SE.
In some cases, a minor bridge element with a worse
destruction condition may cause some inaccuracy in
structural assessment by raising the rating value of ele-
ment under which the component is grouped. To resolve
this problem, the significance factor (Si) was introduced
(See Table 1).
The element structural condition index (ESCI) that
is introduced by Equation (4) describes the overall con-
dition of bridge structure elements.
∑n
i=1 (qi ⋅ ci )
ESCI = (4)
∑n
i=1 qi
where qi is the quantity of elements reported by bridge
inspectors in condition ci, and ci is the condition of
sub-element “i” after dividing the bridge to elements
generally made of a similar material.
According to Equation (1), another main factor is
bridge FE. The overall FE factor can be estimated using
Equation (5).
FE = 0.7 (Lc ) + 0.1 (Vc ) + 0.1 (Wb ) + 0.05 (Bb ) + 0.05 (Ds )
(5)
where Lc is the bridge load-bearing capacity, Vc is the
bridge vertical clearance, Wb is the width of bridge, Bb is
the bridge barrier and Ds. is the bridge drainage system.
The last main factor of Equation (1) is CIF. This
factor ranks the importance level of bridge in terms of
socioeconomic, political and historical considerations
as shown in Table 1 to reduce negative feedbacks from
road users and their political representatives. The pro-
posed method for calculating the bridge PI will sort all
the bridges in descending order, starting with the bridge
with the highest PI.
In Chile, Valenzuela et al. (2010) proposed an index
called the integrated bridge index (IBI) estimated by
Equation (6). This index consists of variables of strategic
importance (SI), hydraulic vulnerability (HV), seismic
risk (SR) and bridge condition index (BCI).
IBI was calibrated using visual inspection, survey to
experts and regression analysis. The lowest of integrated
bridge index value is 1, indicating that the bridge is in
critical condition and its highest value is 10, indicating
that the bridge is in very good condition. According to
the value obtained from this equation for each bridge, the
bridges can be prioritized for maintenance operations.
IBI = −1.411 + 1.299 (BCI) + 0.754 (HV) + 0.458 (SR) − 0.387 (SI)
(6)
Some of these variables like BCI are dependent on some
other sub-criteria and result from linear algebraic equa-
tions of those sub-criteria (Equation (7)).
∑n
W ⋅ Mi ⋅ (ECI)i
BCI = i=1∑n i
(7)
i=1 Wi ⋅ Mi
 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015

4 
  A. Amini et al.

Table 1. Ratings of all the contributed parameters in condition rating and prioritization (Rashidi et al. October 2013).
Structural efficiency (SE)
Casual factor (CF) Functional efficiency (FE)
Environment
Structural signifi- Material vulnerabil- aggressive Inspection Load-bearing Vertical clear- Bridge Drainage Client impact
Rating cance factor (Si) ity factor(Mi) Age(A) factor(E) Road class (R) quality (I) capacity (Lc) ance (Vc) Width (Wb) barrier (Bb) system (Ds) factor (CIF)
1 Barriers, Footway, Steel Recently Built Low Minor Very High Lc ≥ 1 Vc ≤ 5 Wb ≤ 5 Bb ≤ 5 Very good Low
Kerb, Joints
2 Foundation, Abut- Reinforced Concrete New Medium Local access High 0.9 ≤ Lc < 1.0 5 < Vc ≤ 12 5 < Wb ≤ 12 5 <  Bb ≤ 12 Good Medium
ment, Wing walls
3 Deck, Bearings Precast Concrete Old High Collectors Medium 0.7 ≤ Lc < 0.9 12 < Vc ≤ 20 12 < Wbc ≤ 20 12 < Bb ≤ 20 Fair High
4 Beams, Headstocks, Prestressed Concrete Very Old Very High Arterials Low Lc < 0.7 Vc ≥ 20 Wb ≥ 20 Bb ≥ 20 Poor Very High
Piers

Table 2. Values of the ECI.
ECI Description of element condition
1 Dangerous Advanced distresses and effective section lost; it is not possible to ensure the integrity of the structure, collapse risk
2 Poor Advanced distresses in the element; there is a risk for the structure and its users
3 Regular Distresses can affect the capacity and serviceability of the element; first signs of risk for the users
4 Good Minor distresses; superficial damage with no section lost and minimum resistance lost; no consequences on serviceability
5 As new Little or no distresses; superficial cracking that does not affect the serviceability and resistance of the element
where (ECI)i is element condition index of the element
(i); Wi is weight of the element (i) with respect to the
whole structure and Mi is material factor of each ele-
ment. A number between (1) for the worst condition to
(5) for the best condition is allocated to these sub-criteria
based on explanations of defined tables. Finally, all the
calculated sub-criteria are placed in the Equation (6)
and IBI is obtained.
For example, element condition index is obtained
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015
from Table 2 (See (Valenzuela et al. 2010) for more
detail).
In the UK Ryall (2001), another index called main-
tenance priority number (MPN) is proposed. The index
is used to determine the MPN of each bridge in which
the structure is divided into its constituent members and
using three indexes of condition factor (CF), location
factor (LF) and route factor (RF), MPN of each bridge is
calculated using the Equation (8). A number is assigned
to each of the variables according to tables in which there
is a numerical value for each specific condition and then
placed in the equation. To prioritize between multiple
bridges, the bridge with the highest MPN is placed in
first priority.
MPN = CF × LF × RF/14
In Thailand, Rashid and Herabat (2008) proposed four
main elements for a highway management system. These
elements are pavements, bridges, roadside elements and
traffic control devices. Among these elements, he con-
sidered pavement and bridge as main factors and road-
side elements and traffic control devices as peripheral
elements of this management system.
Since the prioritization of bridges for fund alloca-
tion is part of maintenance management, this researcher
proposed a model called total prioritization utility for
bridges, which is consisted of six effective main param-
eters. The total utility function for bridge is presented by
Equation (9). The objective functions of this prioritiza-
tion model are to maximize the following expressions:
Ub total = 0.206 (Use ) + 0.283 (Uc ) + 0.20 (Usa )
+ 0.183 (Uco ) + 0.083 (Uso ) + 0.044 (Ue )
(9)
where
Use: the utility value of service, which is a function of
traffic volume and traffic speed.
Uc: the utility value of condition, which is a function
of load-bearing capacity, remaining service life in year,
bridge structure inventory and condition appraisal.
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering   5
Usa: the utility value of safety, which is a function of is
load-bearing capacity, clear deck width in metres, num-
ber of accidents per year.
Uco: the utility value of cost, which is a function of
agency cost and vehicle operating cost.
Uso: the utility value of socioeconomic, which is a
function of travel time savings after maintenance in min-
utes, visibility distance in metres and savings in accident
costs after maintenance.
Ue: the utility value of fuel consumption, which is a
function of fuel consumption in terms of using a longer
alternative detour.
Finally, according to Equation (9), among several
bridges, the bridge with the highest total weight (Ub
total) places on the top priority for maintenance.
4.  Bridge maintenance prioritization
parameters
Through the study of codes, regulations, guidelines
and applied research carried out in different countries
(some of them mentioned in the previous section) and
the Europe Bridge Management code (BRIME), the
parameters that are used to priority the bridges were
(8) extracted as shown in Table 3.
We identified 45 parameters by considering all the
parameters in Table 3 and then removing duplicates
and merging the same parameters. We classified these
parameters into four main factor groups and then eval-
uated them through interviews with professionals and
experts with bridge maintenance background. This clas-
sification as four main factors and 45 sub-factors has
been shown in Table 4.
The “destruction” factor includes sub-factors, which
cause damage and destruction to the bridge components.
Some of them such as bridge seismology position or
hazardous geotechnical condition have potential effects,
while some other ones like environment humidity or
effects of vibrations cause damage to bridge elements
presently.
The main factor of “Destruction (1)losses” includes
financial, fatal, public and technical losses due to bridge
collapse or destruction.
Funds, logistic and information group includes
financial, equipment and information parameters.
For example, accessibility to weather information like
weather forecast, floods and stream flow information,
history of severe weather condition at bridge site or
 6    A. Amini et al.

Table 3. Bridge prioritization parameters in studies conducted in different countries.

No Country
1 UK (Ryall 2001)
2 Australia (Rashidi et al. October 2013)
3 Chile (Valenzuela et al. 2010)
4 Thailand (Rashid and Herabat 2008)
5 Vietnam (Hai 2008)
6 Belgium (Woodward et al. 2001)
7 Germany (Woodward et al. 2001)
8 France (Woodward et al. 2001)
9 Norway (Woodward et al. 2001)
10 Finland (Woodward et al. 2001)
11 Slovenia (Woodward et al. 2001)
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015
Parameter
1-Bridge condition factor, 2-Bridge location factor, 3-Bridge route factor
1-Structural significance, 2-Material vulnerability, 3-Age, 4-Environmental aggressive factor, 5-Road class,
6-Inspection quality, 7-Load-bearing capacity, 8-Vertical clearance, 9-Width, 10-Bridge barrier, 11-Drain-
age system, 12-Socioeconomic, 13-Political, 14-Historical
1-Strategic importance, 2-Hydraulic vulnerability, 3-Seismic risk, 4-Bridge condition
1-Traffic speed, 2-Traffic volume, 3-Bridge condition, 4-Bridge load-bearing capacity 5-Remaining service
life, 6-Bridge structure inventory and condition appraisal 7-The clear deck width in metres, 8-Number of
accidents per year, 9-Agency cost, 10-Vehicle operating cost, 11-Travel time savings after maintenance in
minutes, 12-Visibility distance in metres, 13-Savings in accident costs after maintenance
1-Bridge location, 2-Volume of traffic passing over the bridge, 3-Bridge load-bearing capacity
1-Bridge maintenance history, 2-Geotechnical conditions at Bridge site, 3-Danger due to bridge collapse
1-Type, severity, size and extent of the bridge components destruction 2-Type of path which bridge is lo-
cated on, 3-Traffic safety passing through the bridge 4-Availability of personnel, machinery and materials
required for maintenance, 5-Bridge free deck space
1-Bridge condition, 2-Type of path which bridge is located on, 3-Maintenance division facilities, 4-Mini-
mum budget allocated for maintenance division, 5-Bridge political importance
1-Type, severity, size and extent of the bridge components destruction, 2-Comparison between the cost
of repairing and replacing the bridge
1-Type, severity, size and extent of the bridge components destruction
1-Volume of traffic passing over the bridge, 2-Type, severity, size and extent of the bridge components
destruction, 3-Type of path which bridge is located on

12 Portugal (Woodward et al. 2001) 1-Type, severity, size and extent of the bridge components destruction, 2-Traffic safety passing over the
bridge
13 Sweden (Woodward et al. 2001) 1-Bridge efficiency enhancement after repair
14 Greece (Chassiakos, Vagiotas, and 1-Type, severity, size and extent of the bridge components destruction, 2-Volume of traffic passing over
Theodorakopoulos 2005) the bridge, 3-Type of path which bridge is located on, 4-Bridge structure type, 5-Bridge age
15 Netherland (Klatter, van Noortwijk, 1-Traffic safety passing through the bridge, 2-Bridge aesthetics, 3-Bridge load-bearing capacity, 4-Con-
and Vrisou van Eck 2002) struction quality 5-Passing convenience
16 BRIME (Woodward 2001) 1-Bridge condition, 2-Traffic safety passing over the bridge, 3-Costs due to traffic delay, 4-Type, severity,
size and extent of the bridge components destruction 5-Bridge construction quality, 6-Bridge age,
7-Bridge historical importance, 8-Bridge aesthetics, 9-Taffic volume passing over the bridge, 10-Deteriora-
tion prediction based on bridge initial designing
17 Canada (Elbehairy 2007) 1-Disruption of public services due to repair operations, 2-Volume of traffic passing over the bridge,
3-Type of path which bridge is located on, 4-Bridge structure type 5-Bridge free deck space
18 USA (Maryland and Wisconsin states) 1-Bridge structure type, 2-Weather information, 3-Volume of traffic passing over the bridge, 4-Bridge
(Pesti et al. 2003) accident history
19 USA (Texas State) (Zhang 2002) 1-Bridge age, 2-Bridge condition, 3-Volume of traffic passing over the bridge
20 Iran (Alikhani 2009) 1-Bridge seismology position, 2-Air pollution rate, 3-Environment humidity, 4-Temperature changes at
bridge site, 5-Filling of expansion joints over time and their dysfunctionality, 6-Blockage of drainage
channels and insulators destruction, 7-Oil and chemical material pouring from vehicles on the bridge,
8-Use sand or salt to prevent vehicles from sliding, 9-Bump creation because of pavement destruction
and damage to bridge caused by vehicles crossing the bridge, 10-Vibrations affect the bridge because of
it is located on underground excavation or transportation routes, 11-Vibrations on the bridge because it is
located next to urban development projects, 12-Soil Erosion at bridge foot by the surface and sub-surface
water, 13-Fatigue (bridge loading cycle during the day), 14-Bridge importance in time of crisis, 15-The an-
nual rate of increase or decrease in traffic, 16-Availability of personnel, machinery and materials required
for maintenance, 17-Cost of bridge repair, 18-Volume of traffic passing under the bridge, 19-Volume of
traffic passing over the bridge, 20-Bridge free height, 21-Bridge military importance, 22-Bridge structure
type, 23-Bridge design and construction code, 24-Low quality of bridge construction, 25-Geotechnical
conditions at bridge site, 26-Condition and maintenance history, 27-Bridge appearance, 28-Type of path
which bridge is located on, 29-Maximum and average speed of vehicles passing over the bridge

information related to volume of fuel consumption of
vehicles passing the bridge if they need to pass an alter-
native longer detour can change the priority of bridges
for maintenance.
The strategic and CF group includes parameters
related to bridge certificate information, type and size
of damages to bridge elements, socioeconomic factors
or the strategic situation of the bridge in the transpor-
tation system.
5.  Research methodology
5.1.  Statistical population and sample size
Since the investigated parameters in this research
include a wide range of variables of bridge mainte-
nance operation, the statistically investigated population
should be consisting of varied expertise, skills and work
backgrounds related to this subject. For this purpose, in
the first step, four main groups of contractors, clients,
researchers and consultants were determined for the
statistical population. Then, about 22 companies and
organizations, which had experience in urban roadway
bridge maintenance, were identified and finally 100
experts, who were involved in bridge design, construc-
tion, maintenance, management and research in these
companies, were identified.
This question may arise that how many people can
be set as the sample size by a researcher. In other words,
what the number of sample people or collected inquiries
should be in order that the researcher can generalize
the results and calculated indexes for the studied pop-
ulation? The researcher can use one of these two tech-
niques for this purpose, personal estimation method or
statistical techniques.
 Australian Journal of Civil Engineering   7

Table 4. Main factors and sub-factors of bridge maintenance prioritization.

No Main factor Sub-factor
1 Destruction and environmental Environment humidity
2 Air pollution rate
3 Bridge hazardous seismology position
4 High temperature variations at bridge site
5 Risky geotechnical conditions at bridge site
6 Blockage of drainage channels and insulators destruction
7 Failure of expansion joints because of filling by dirt and debris
8 High average of annual rainfall and rainfall continuation
9 Oil and chemical material pouring over the bridge by passing vehicles
10 Sand or salt usage to prevent vehicles from sliding
11 Bump creation because of pavement destruction and damage caused by passing vehicles
12 Effects of vibrations because underground excavation or transportation
13 Effects of vibrations because of nearness to urban development projects
14 Soil erosion at bridge foot because of surface and sub-surface water
15 Maximum and average speed of vehicles passing the bridge
16 Fatigue (bridge loading cycle during the Day)
17 Bridge design errors
18 Bridge accidents history (previous damages caused by accidents)
19 Maintenance history (poor or incomplete maintenance)
20 Low construction quality
21 Destruction losses Bridge load-bearing capacity reduction
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015

22 Life and financial damages due to bridge collapse

23 Costs arising from traffic delays
24 The annual rate of increase or decrease in traffic
25 Disruption of public services due to repair operations
26 Funds, logistic and information Accessibility to weather information
27 The fuel consumption rate of vehicles passing the bridge if they pass a longer detour during the repair
­operations
28 The amount of funds allocated for repairs
29 Cost of bridge repairs
30 Difference between repairing cost and replacing cost of the bridge
31 Bridge efficiency enhancement after repair
32 Availability of personnel, machinery, technology and materials required for maintenance
33 Strategic and condition Type, severity, size and extent of the bridge components destruction (joints, structure …)
34 Volume of traffic passing over the bridge
35 Volume of traffic passing under the bridge
36 Traffic safety passing the bridge
37 Bridge importance in crisis or disaster time (like earthquake)
38 Type of path which bridge is located on (highway, the main route or shortcut route)
39 Bridge structure type (concrete, steel, pre-stressed concrete) in terms of ease of operation and maintenance
40 Bridge political and symbolic importance
41 Bridge military importance
42 Bridge appearance
43 Bridge free height
44 Bridge historical value
45 Bridge age

5.1.1.  Personal estimation method d2: error level

In this method, the researcher estimates the sample size
or determines a specific percentage of statistical popu-
lation by considering personal factors. For example, he
determines 20 or 50% of the statistical population as the
sample size. It is obvious that the smaller population
results in greater percentage and vice versa.
5.1.2.  Statistical method
Cochrane sampling equation presented by Equation (10)
is one of the statistical methods to calculate the sample
size, which we used in this study (Hashemiparast 2006).
2
Nt pq
n=
Nd 2 + t 2 pq
where:
n: sample size
N: statistical population
t2: normal distribution
q: absence of attribute in the population
p: existence of attribute in the population
To generalize the result of this research in statistical
population, we use probabilistic sampling, where the
statistical population is 100 and an error level is equal
to 5% (95% confidence level). The normal distribution
value with 95% confidence level upon the table of area
under the normal curve is 96.1
Values of (p) and (q) are replaced with 0.5 from pre-
vious data and statistic and the sample size is calculated:
n = 80. (Equation (11))
(100)(1.96)2 (0.5)(0.5)
n= ∼ 80 (11)
(100)(0.5)2 + (1.96)2 (0.5)(0.5)
(10)
So, 80 questionnaires were distributed and collected and
then the answers were analysed.
5.2.  Data collection
Prioritizing of effective parameters, in this paper, was
carried out through collecting information from experts
who are involved in urban roadway bridges maintenance
 8    A. Amini et al.
of Tehran city, the capital city of Iran. Upon the last
statistics of the year 2008, there are 275 bridges in this
metropolis that most of them are roadway bridges with
almost 4 million users a day (Alikhani 2009).
A questionnaire was developed to determine the
importance level of each parameter. Respondents
who belong to four different expert groups in bridge
engineering, construction and management (contrac-
tor, consultant, client and researcher) scored each
parameter a number from 0 to 10 according to their
years of work experience and expertise divided into
four grades of 0–5, 5–10, 10–15 years and more than
15 years.
The score (0) to a parameter indicates the unimpor-
tance of being, (1) too little importance, (2) the relatively
low importance, (3) low importance, (4) the low average,
(5) the average, (6) the upper average, (7) the relatively
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015
high, (8) high importance, (9) very high importance
and (10) is special importance. Twenty-four numbers
of these questionnaires were filled by contractors, 10 by
clients, 36 by consultants and 10 numbers were com-
pleted by researchers involved in bridge engineering,
management and maintenance issues.
5.3.  Statistical parameters
For analysing the questionnaires, descriptive and infer-
ential statistics methods were used. In the descriptive
statistics, classification and sorting of data, graphical
representation and calculating of values such as SD,
mean and median are taken that show characteristics
of every member of surveyed population.
As both variables of “experts work experience” and
“parameters importance level” are graded variables,
we use the Spearman correlation coefficient (SCC) for
investigating the relation between these two variables.
We use a significance level (SL) factor to control the sig-
nificance relation between Friedman test rank and SCC.
5.3.1.  Friedman test
In this test, an average rank is calculated for each param-
eter based on frequency of responses, SD and normal
average importance value, which is called “Friedman test
average rank”. The parameters are prioritized using this
value (Behboodian 2008).
5.3.2.  Spearman test
We use SCC for evaluating the intensity and direction of
relation between two graded variables. This coefficient
is shown with the abbreviation (r). The minimum value
of (r) is (−1) which means there is no relation between
two variables and the maximum value of (r) is (+1) that
shows there is a perfect relation between two variables. A
positive (r) shows a direct relation and a negative (r) rep-
resents an indirect relation. For example, in this study,
(r) = +0.6 between experts work experience and consid-
ered importance degree for a sample parameter means
there is a positive and direct relation between these two
variables. In other words, experts with more work expe-
rience have considered a higher level of importance for
that sample parameter (Momeni and Faal Ghayoomi
2007).
5.3.3.  Significance level
The SL is a number which shows if the calculated val-
ues for correlation coefficient or Friedman test rank are
acceptable by statistical science or not. This number is
shown by (p) and its acceptable value is between 0 and
5%, which means 5% error is permissible (Momeni and
Faal Ghayoomi 2007).
6.  Data analysis and discussion
Due to the large volume of data, the SPSS1 software was
applied for processing the questionnaires. The SPSS out-
put results include the following:
• Calculating the average importance degree (AID),
standard deviation (SD) and average rank for each
sub-factor in each main factor using the Friedman
test by considering the SL test.
• Calculating the total average rank for all parame-
ters using the Friedman test.
• Calculating the SCC to investigate the relation
between experts’ experience and specified impor-
tance degree to each sub-factor by considering the
SL test.
• Calculating the average of ranks for each sub-factor
in each main factor in separation of each expert
group.
The SPSS software analysis results have been pre-
sented in Tables 5 and 6.
The information in Table 5 shows that the most
important sub-factors for bridge prioritization for main-
tenance are “low construction quality”, “Bridge impor-
tance in crisis or disaster time” and “life and financial
damage due to bridge collapse”. According to Table 5,
“Air pollution rate” factor is the least significant factor
from specialists’ point of view.
The SCC in Table 5 investigates the relationship
between two variables; specialists work experience and
significance assigned to each parameter. In this table, to
check each parameter must first notice to its SL. If the SL
is less than (0.05), we can say that the relevancy between
the two variables is meaningful. Then, we should notice
to its correlation coefficient. If the SCC value is posi-
tive, it means that there is a direct correlation. In other
words, the experts with more work experience con-
sidered a higher score for the importance level of the
parameter, but if the value is negative, it means there
is an indirect correlation. In other word, expert with
more work experience considered less importance level
for the parameter.
 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015

Table 5. Parameters prioritization in main factor groups and totally.

AID SD SL SCC (r) Average rank of Friedman Test Total priority rank
Main factor Sub-factor In main factor Total
Destruction and Environment humidity 5.04 2.08 0.433 .090 7.83 15.30 37
environmental
Air pollution rate 4.45 2.75 0.716 −0.042 3.65 6.82 45
Bridge hazardous seismology position 7.31 2.66 0.023 0.257 13.54 28.21 11
High temperature variations at bridge site 4.94 2.18 0.967 −0.005 7.10 13.30 41
Risky geotechnical condition at bridge site 7.61 2.11 0.113 0.181 13.31 27.77 12
Blockage of drainage channels and insulators 7.56 1.38 0.005 0.315 13.87 29.14 8
destruction
Failure of expansion joints because of filling by dirt 7.47 1.88 0.401 −0.096 13.38 28.24 10
and debris
High average of annual rainfall and rainfall contin- 5.69 2.37 0.46 0.085 8.76 17.04 34
uation
Oil and chemical material pouring over the bridge 4.69 2.57 0.628 −0.056 6.69 13.11 42
by passing vehicles
Sand or salt usage to prevent vehicles from sliding 5.49 2.07 0.037 −0.236 9.35 18.69 32
Bump creation because of pavement destruction 6.83 1.92 0.030 0.245 11.9 24.68 22
and damage caused by passing vehicles
Effects of vibrations because underground excava- 6.08 2.29 0.833 −0.024 9.91 20.47 29
tion or transportation
Effects of vibrations because of nearness to urban 4.95 0.88 0.061 0.214 6.91 13.7 40
development projects
Soil erosion at bridge foot because of surface and 7.04 2.24 0.151 0.164 12.98 27.08 14
subsurface water
Maximum and average speed of vehicles passing 5.45 2.24 0.324 0.113 7.76 15.39 36
the bridge
Fatigue (bridge loading cycle during the Day) 7.06 1.76 0.326 0.113 12.61 26.07 15
Bridge design errors 6.81 2.36 0.185 0.152 12.34 25.64 18
Bridge accidents history (previous damages caused 5.26 2.15 0.141 0.168 8.23 16.53 35
by accidents)
Maintenance history (poor or incomplete mainte- 6.76 2.01 0.363 0.104 11.97 24.38 23
nance)
Low construction quality 9.16 1.24 0.002 0.343 17.9 38.48 1
Destruction losses Bridge load-bearing capacity reduction 7.78 1.62 0.769 0.034 3.36 30.16 6
Life and financial damages due to bridge collapse 8.79 1.63 0.253 0131 4.39 37.05 3
Costs arising from traffic delays 6.94 1.97 0.997 0.00 2.69 25.61 19
The annual rate of increase or decrease in traffic 5.46 2.54 0.185 −0.152 1.97 17.70 33
Disruption of public services due to repair opera- 7.00 1.86 0.08 0.2 2.6 25.33 20
tions
Funds, logistic and Accessibility to weather information 4.49 2.04 0.621 0.057 2.44 10.86 44
information
The fuel consumption rate of vehicles passing 4.54 2.05 0.787 0.031 2.51 12.45 43
the bridge if they pass a longer detour during the
repair operations
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering 

(Continued)
 9
 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015

10 
  A. Amini et al.

Table 5. (Continued)
AID SD SL SCC (r) Average rank of Friedman Test Total priority rank
Main factor Sub-factor In main factor Total
The amount of funds allocated for repairs 6.96 2.24 0.27 0.126 4.51 24.95 21
Cost of bridge repairs 6.98 1.99 0.00 0.414 4.73 25.81 16
Difference between bridge repairing cost and 7 2.09 0.692 0.046 4.9 25.87 17
replacing cost
Bridge efficiency enhancement after repair 7.21 2.00 0.204 −0.146 5.06 27.63 13
Availability of personnel, machinery, technology 6.36 2.36 0.931 −0.01 3.85 21.45 27
and materials required for maintenance
Strategic and Type, severity, size and extent of the bridge compo- 8.4 1.75 0.001 0.36 9.58 33.61 4
condition nents destruction (joints, structure …)
Volume of traffic passing over the bridge 7.49 1.96 0.517 0.074 8.45 28.27 9
Volume of traffic passing under the bridge 4.71 2.43 0.958 0.006 4.38 15.28 38
Traffic safety passing the bridge 6.38 2.34 0.312 −0.116 5.97 21.02 28
Bridge importance in crisis or disaster time (like 9.14 1.22 0.004 0.325 9.96 38.47 2
earthquake)
Type of path which bridge is located on (highway, 7.90 2.20 0.003 0.332 8. 79 32.21 5
the main route or shortcut route)
Bridge structure type (concrete, steel, pre-stressed 6.35 2.12 0.156 0.162 6.05 21.53 26
concrete) in terms of ease of operation and main-
tenance
Bridge political and symbolic importance 5.98 2.17 0.536 0.071 5.76 20.10 31
Bridge military importance 6.45 2.54 0.598 0.061 6.53 21.78 25
Bridge appearance 4.86 2.08 0.859 −0.021 4.12 13.73 39
Bridge free height 6.10 2.69 0.836 0.024 5.84 20.38 30
Bridge historical value 6.69 2.59 0.769 0.034 7.08 24.06 24
Bridge age 7.59 1.89 0.073 0.204 8.5 29.58 7
 Australian Journal of Civil Engineering   11

Table 6. Friedman test ranks calculated separately in the breakdown of the inquired specialist groups.

Group Main factor SL First priority Avg. rank Last priority Avg. rank
Contractor Destruction and 0.001 Low construction quality 17.88 Air pollution rate 3.62
environmental
Researcher 0.001 “ 17.72 “ 3.00
Consultant 0.001 “ 17.7 “ 3.8
Client 0.001 “ 19.06 “ 3.81
Contractor Destruction losses 0.0001 Life and financial damages 4.15 The annual rate of increase or 2.17
decrease in traffic
Researcher 0.003 “ 4.39 “ 2.00
Consultant 0.0001 “ 4.56 “ 1.75
Client 0.022 “ 4.38 Bridge load-bearing capacity 2.25
reduction
Contractor Funds, logistic and 0.0001 Bridge efficiency enhancement 5.6 Weather information 2.4
information after repair
Researcher 0.002 “ 5.28 “ 2.06
Consultant 0.0001 Difference between bridge repair- 5.08 The fuel consumption if vehicles 2.54
ing cost and replacing cost take a longer detour instead
Client 0.001 Bridge efficiency enhancement 5.71 Weather information 1.71
after repair
Contractor Strategic and 0.0001 Type, severity, size and extent of 10.4 Bridge appearance 4.4
condition the bridge components destruc-
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015

tion
Researcher 0.0001 Bridge importance in time of crisis 9.83 Bridge free height 3.78
and disaster
Consultant 0.0001 Type, severity, size and extent of 9.9 Bridge appearance 3.01
the bridge components destruc-
tion
Client 0.002 Bridge age 9.81 Bridge free height 3.88

If the SL is greater than 0.05, indicates that the relation- 7. Conclusion

ship between two variables is not significant and should
Due to the limited funding to bridges’ maintenance
not make any judgement about the correlation coefficient.
and reactive maintenance strategies in this area which
According to Table 5, the SL of less than 0.05 and
cause heavy losses, prioritizing bridges which are the
positive SCC in strategic and condition group, show that
city’s main arteries of connections are very important.
the experts with more work experience recognized more
Therefore, finding effective parameters that affect the
importance for sub-factors of “Bridge importance in cri-
prioritizing of bridges for maintenance operation in
sis or disaster time”, “Type, severity, size and extent of
order to optimize the use of allocated funds is considered
the bridge components destruction” and “Type of path
one of the fundamental issues of the urban management
which bridge is located on”. In “Funds, logistic & infor-
system. In this paper, bridge prioritization parameters
mation” group, the SCC shows that the only significant
which are considered by managers, experts, researchers
and direct relation between experts’ work experience and
and officials for bridge maintenance issue were intro-
sub-factor importance degree exists for “cost of bridge
duced, classified, analysed and prioritized. The results of
repair” which means the more experienced experts has
this study can be used for identifying the most effective
considered this factor more important than others.
parameters of bridge maintenance in order to prioritize
For having a comparison, the average rank of
them with regard to local and regional conditions or
Friedman test for the most and the least important
weighting the parameters in a BMS which use multi-at-
parameters, in each main factor has been illustrated in
tribute decision-making models.
Table 6 in separation of different involved expert groups
in the bridge maintenance area.
For example, in strategic and CF group, from con- Note
tractors and consultants point of view, “type, size and 1. 
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
bridge component destruction condition” sub-factor has
the highest priority and “bridge appearance” has the least
Notes on contributors
priority. Researchers have realized the “bridge impor-
tance in time of crisis and disaster” as the most impor- Amin Amini received his BSc in Civil Engineering in 2004
from K.N.T University of Technology and his MSc degree
tant parameter, while clients have considered “bridge in Construction Management Engineering from Science
age” as the highest priority factor. Both the clients and and Research branch of Tehran Azad University in 2010.
the researchers have recognized “bridge free height” as From 2004 to 2010 as a civil engineer, structural designer
the least significant factor. Therefore, the opinion of con- and project engineer, he worked on many residential, indus-
trial, cultural and commercial projects in Iran. In 2009, his
tractors and consultants is closer to each other where paper at the first International Conference of Construction
clients and researchers only concur in the last priority Management in Tehran was selected as one of the top 14 ad-
factor. mired papers. From 2012, he is doing his PhD at the Civil
 12    A. Amini et al.
Faculty of Curtin University. His research interests include
structural analysis and design, bridge management systems,
risk management of infrastructure projects, decision-making
in engineering and management using multi-attribute deci-
sion-making models and fuzzy logic.
Navid Nikraz obtained his BE (Electrical) and BComm de-
grees from UWA in 2005 and went on to complete his PhD in
Electrical Engineering at UWA in 2008. He commenced his
role as a senior lecturer at Curtin University in 2010 and cur-
rently supervises three PhD and three MPhil students. His
current research interests include asset management, options
analysis, project feasibility, linear/non-linear state–space ob-
servation and power system protection.
Ali Fathizadeh received his BSc in Civil Engineering in 2007
from Ahvaz Azad University and his MSc degree in Con-
struction Management Engineering from Science and Re-
search branch of Tehran Azad University in 2010. For three
years, as a member of supervisory and research team, he has
worked for roadway bridges maintenance deputy of Tehran
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 18:10 27 December 2015
municipality. He is now working as a planning team mem-
ber of Iran International Mall Project. He also has coopera-
tion with architecture faculty of Tarbiat Modares University
as a professor assistant in the field of planning and project
control.
ORCID
Amini Amin   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3304-6481
References
Alikhani, A. 2009. “Urban Bridges Maintenance
Prioritization.” MSc thesis, Iran Science and Technology
University, Tehran.
Behboodian, D. J. 2008. Nonparametric Statistics, 5th ed.
Shiraz: Shiraz University Publications.
Chassiakos, A. P. , P. Vagiotas, D. D.Theodorakopoulos. 2005.
“A Knowledge-based System for Maintenance Planning
of Highway Concrete Bridges.” Advances in Engineering
Software 36 (11): 740–749.
Elbehairy, Hatem. 2007. “Bridge Management System
WITH Integrated Life Cycle Cost Optimization.” A Thesis
Presented to the University of Waterloo in Fulfilment
of the Thesis Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo
Library, Waterloo.
Hai, Dinh Tuan. 2008. “Computerized Database for
Maintenance and Management of Highway Bridges in
Vietnam.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE 13 (3):
245–257.
Hashemiparast, S. M. 2006. Statistics and Probability in
Engineering and Science. Tehran: Khaje Nasir Toosi
University of Technology Publications.
Klatter, H. E., J. M. van Noortwijk, N. Vrisou van Eck 2002.
“Bridge Management in the Netherlands; Prioritization
Based on Network Performance.” First International
Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and
Management IABMAS 2002, Barcelona, July 14–17.
Momeni, M., A. Faal Ghayoomi. 2007. Statistical Analyses
Using SPSS. Tehran: Ketab e Now Publications.
Pesti, G., A. J. Khattak, V. Kannan, P. T. Mc coy. 2003.
“Decision Aid for Prioritizing Bridge Deck Anti-Icing
System Installations.” 82nd Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board (TRB 2003), paper no.
3-2681, Washington, DC.
Rashid, M., and P. Herabat. 2008. “Multi attributes
Prioritization Framework for Bridges, Roadside
Elements, and Traffic Control Devices Maintenance.”
Tenth International Conference on Bridge and Structure
Management, Transportation Research Circular, Number
E-C 128, Buffalo, New York, 175–188.
Rashidi, M., G. Peter, and T. K. Ho. October 2013. A
New Approach to Bridge Infrastructure Management.
Wollongong: International Symposium for Next
Generation Infrastructure.
Ryall, M. J. 2001. “Bridge Management”. In Planta Tree
Institute Publications, Chapter 1, pp. 1–24 & Chapter 2,
pp. 72–73.
Valenzuela, S., H. de Solminihac, and T. Echaveguren. 2010.
“Proposal of an Integrated Index for Prioritization of
Bridge Maintenance.” Journal of Bridge Engineering 15 (3):
337–343.
Woodward, R. J. 2001. Deliverable D14 is the final report of
BRIME PL97-2220, and chapter 7 of this report has been
assigned to "Criteria for decision making".
Woodward, R. J., D. W. Cullington, A. F. Daly, P. R. Vassie,
P. Haardt, R. Kashner, A. Astudillo, C. Velando, B. Godart,
C. Cremona, B. Mahut, A. Raharinaivo, M. Y. Lau, I.
Markey, L. Bevc, and I. Peruš. 2001. “Bridge Management
Systems: Extended Review of Existing Systems and Outline
framework for a European System.” Bridge Management
in Europe – Final Report, BRIME PL97-2220. A Project
Funded by the European Commission under the Transport
RTD. Programme of the 4th Framework Programme.
Project Duration: January 01 1998 to December 31 1999,
Deliverable D14.
Zhang, Zhanmin, F. Aki, and W. Ronald Hudson. 2002.
Developing an Integrated Management System for
the Urban Transportation Infrastructure. Report No.
SWUTC/02/167511-1. Austin, TX: Southwest Region
University Transportation Center, Texas Transportation
Institute, Texas A&M University System.