นัง ือรับรองคุณ มบัติของผูเ นอขอรับทุน

ขาพเจา (นาย / นาง / นาง า )…นายธ ัชชัย ปญญาคิด.………………………………………………………………

ตำแ นง อาจารยประจำ ังกัด าขา ิชา..... ิ กรรมโยธา.......................................................................
คณะ........คณะ ิ กรรม า ตรและ ถาป ตยกรรม า ตร ................................................................
ม า ิทยาลัย..ม า ิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีราชมงคลตะ ันออก เขตพื้นที่อุเทนถ าย...........ซึง่ เปน ถาบันอุดม ึก า
ระดับปริญญาในประเท ไทย ได ึก าขอมูลรายละเอียดตามประกา ำนักงานการ ิจัยแ งชาติ เรื่อง การรับ
ข  อ เ น อ ก า ร ิ จ ั ย แ ล ะ น ั ต ก ร ร ม ท ุ น พ ั ฒ น า ั ก ย ภ า พ ใ น ก า ร ท ำ ง า น ิ จ ั ย ข อ ง อ า จ า ร ย
รุนใ ม ประจำปงบประมาณ ๒๕๖๖ โดยละเอียดเปนอยางดี โดยเฉพาะ “คุณ มบัติของผูเ นอขอรับทุน”
ทั้งนี้ ขาพเจาขอยืนยัน า มีคุณ มบัติของผูเ นอขอรับทุนครบถ นตามประกา ฯ ดังนี้
๑. ำเร็จการ ึก าระดับ
 ปริ ญ ญาเอก รื อ เที ย บเท า รื อ ำเร็ จ ุ ฒ ิ บ ั ต รแพทย แ ละทั น ตแพทย เ ฉพาะทาง (Board
Certification) เมื่อ ันที่.......21.......เดือน.........กรกฎาคม........พ. .....2565.......จากม า ิทยาลัยขอนแกน
.......ประเท ..........ไทย...............
 หลังปริญญาเอก (postdoc) เมื่อ ันที่...........................เดือน...................................พ. ..................
จาก ถาบัน.................................................................................................................ประเท ..............................
๒. เปนการขอ มัครรับทุนพัฒนา ักยภาพในการทำงาน ิจัยของอาจารยรุนใ ม ประจำปงบประมาณ
๒๕๖๖ ครั้งที่
 ครั้งที่ ๑
 ครั้งที่ ๒ และ/ รือเคยไดรับทุนพัฒนา ักยภาพในการทำงาน ิจัยของอาจารยรุนใ ม รือทุน
งเ ริมนัก ิจัยรุนใ มของฝาย ิชาการ ก . รือทุน ิจัยของ ช. มาแล
๓. ถานภาพการรับทุน ิจัยอื่นใดในขณะนี้
 ไมติด ัญญารับทุนอื่นใด
 ติด ัญญารับทุนอื่นใด นอกเ นือจากการเ นอขอรับทุนพัฒนา ักยภาพในการทำงาน ิจัยของ
อาจารยรุนใ ม ประจำปงบประมาณ ๒๕๖๖ โดยเปน  ผู ิจัย ลัก  ผู ิจัยร ม มีระยะเ ลาตาม ัญญารับ
ทุนตั้งแต ันที่..........................................ถึง.....................................................ซึ่งปจจุบันมี ถานะการดำเนินการ
รอยละ.......................อยูในขั้นตอน.......................................................................................................................
๔.  มีผลงาน ิจัยในช ง ๕ ปที่ผานมาเปนไปตามประกา ฯ
๕.  ไมดำรงตำแ นงผูบริ ารตั้งแตระดับ ั นาภาค ิชา รือเทียบเทาขึ้นไป
กรณีภาย ลัง ช. พบ าไมเปนไปตามประกา ำนักงานการ ิจัยแ งชาติ เรื่อง การรับขอเ นอการ
ิจัยและน ัตกรรม ทุนพัฒนา ักยภาพในการทำงาน ิจัยของอาจารยรุนใ ม ประจำปงบประมาณ ๒๕๖๖
ขาพเจายอมรับคำตัด ินของ ช. ในการยกเลิกการ นับ นุนทุน ิจัยและน ัตกรรม และเรียกเงินทุน ิจัยคืน
ทั้ง มดโดยไมอุทธรณใด ๆ

(ลงชื่อ).............................................................ผูเ นอขอรับทุน
(......นายธ ัชชัย ปญญาคิด..................)
ันที่....20....... เดือน...กุมภาพันธ...........พ. . .2565….
 ประ ัตินัก ิจัย

ประ ตั ิ  นตั
ชื่อ - กุล ดร.ธ ัชชัย ปญญาคิด Dr.Thawatchai Phanyakit
นั /เดือน/ปเกิด 6 พฤ ภาคม 2514
น ยงาน ม า ิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีราชมงคลตะ ันออก
ม า ิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีตะ ันออก เขตพื้นที่อุเทนถ าย 225 ถ. พญาไท แข ง
ที่อยูที่ ามารถติดตอได ะด ก ปทุม ัน เขตปทุม ัน กรุงเทพม านคร 10330 แข งปทุม ัน เขตปทุม ัน
กรุงเทพม านคร 10400
ตําแ นงปจจุบัน อาจารย
โทร ัพท/โทร าร 0637120199 โทร าร
มือถือ 063-712-0199
อีเมล thawatchai_ph@rmutto.ac.th

การ กึ า
ปริญญาเอก ิ กรรมโยธา ม า ิทยาลัยขอนแกน
าขา ชิ าการทีม่ คี ามชํานาญพิเ
ิ กรรมระบบราง
ิ กรรมโยธา
ประ บการณทเ่ี กีย่ ของกับการบริ ารงาน จิ ยั
ผลงานตีพมิ พ
ผลงานตีพมิ พใน าร าร (Journal) ที่มีการค บคุมคุณภาพโดยผูทรงคุณ ุฒิ (peer review)
• International Journal of GEOMATE ญีป่ นุ
• International Journal of GEOMATE ญีป่ นุ
ทิ ธิบตั ร
ผลงานทีน่ าํ ไปใชประโยชนแล
ราง ลั
• Outstanding Paper is Awarded Rajamagala University of Technology Krungthep Railway Track Degradation Mechanism and
Track-Quality Index Standard to Optimizing Track Maintenance and Rehabilitation, Thailand (25 มิถนุ ายน 2561)
• บทค าม ิจัยดีเดน ม า ิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีราชมงคลกรุงเทพ การทํานายการเ ื่อม ภาพของทางรถไฟจากการทบท น รรณกรรมที่มีอยู (10
กุมภาพันธ 2566)
ประ ตั กิ ารอบรม
• การ างแผนการทํางานร มกันระ า งเจาของโครงการ ผูร บั เ มากอ ราง และทีป่ รึก า บริ ทั ช. การชาง จํากัด (ม าชน) ไทย (15 พฤ ภาคม
2562 ถึง 15 พฤ ภาคม 2562)
• การประยุกตใช ญ
ั ญากอ รางตาม ญ
ั ญามาตรฐานของ International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) บริ ทั ช. การชาง จํากัด
(ม าชน) ไทย (24 กันยายน 2566 ถึง 24 กุมภาพันธ 2566)
• ฝกอบรมฐาน มรรถนะตามมาตรฐานอาชีพและคุณ ุฒิ ิชาชีพ าขา ิชาชีพรถไฟค ามเร็ ูงและระบบราง ม า ิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีพระจอมเกลา
ธนบุรี ร มกับ ถาบันคุณ ุฒิ ิชาชีพ และการรถไฟแ งประเท ไทย ประเท ไทย (14 กรกฎาคม 2563 ถึง 30 กรกฎาคม 2566)
โครงการทีอ่ ยูใ นระบบ NRIIS
โครงการ NRIIS ทีเ่ ร็จ น้ิ
 ั นาโครงการ

ดร ธ ชั ชัย ปญญาคิด

r awa ai an a i

awa ai p r u o a

น ยงาน งั กัด ค ามเชีย่ ชาญ

ม า ทิ ยาลัยเทคโนโลยีราชมงคลตะ นั ออก ิ กรรมระบบราง
คณะ ิ กรรม า ตรและ ถาปตยกรรม า ตร ิ กรรมโยธา

ประ ตั กิ าร กึ า
2565 ปริญญาเอก ปรัชญาดุ ฎีบัณ ิต ิ กรรมโยธา ม า ิทยาลัยขอนแกน

ประ ตั กิ ารทํางาน
2537 - 2543 ิ กรโครงการ (Project Engineer) บริ ทั กําแพงเพชร ิ ฒ ั นกอ ราง จํากัด
2543 - 2545 ิ กรโครงการ (Project Engineer) บริ ัท Shimizu Corporation (Thailand)
2545 - 2552 ผูจัดการฝาย ิ กรรม (Engineering Manager) บริ ทั อิตาเลียนไทยดีเ ลล็อปเมนทจาํ กัด (ม าชน)
2552 - 2555 QS Manager บริ ทั ยูนคิ เอ็นจิเนียริง่ แอนดคอน ตรัคชัน่ จํากัด (ม าชน)
2555 - 2565 Contract Manager บริ ทั ช.การชาง จํากัด (ม าชน)
2565 - 2566 อาจารย าขา ิ กรรมโยธา คณะ ิ กรรม า ตรและ ถาปตยกรรม า ตร ม า ิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีราชมงคลตะ ัน
ออก

ผลงานตีพมิ พ
ประเภท ผลงานตีพมิ พใน าร าร (Journal) ที่มีการค บคุมคุณภาพโดยผูทรงคุณ ุฒิ (peer review)
ชือ่ าร าร/ประชุม International Journal of GEOMATE ประเท ญีป่ นุ
ชือ่ ผลงาน (FU MU TI-ATTRI UTE DECISIO MAKI G FOR T E SE ECTIO OF A SUITA E RAI A TRACK
MAI TE A CE P A A CASE STUD I T AI A D)
รายชือ่ ผูร  ม/ผู นับ นุน
ันที่ตีพิมพ/เผยแพร 15 .ค.62 บับที่/เลมที่ ol.17, Issue 60 นาที่ pp.96-104
แ ลงขอมูล
ชือ่ าร าร/ประชุม MATEC eb of Conferences ประเท ไทย
ชือ่ ผลงาน (Track- uality index and degradation of railway track structure The construction track doubling project
of northeast line from thanon chira junction to khon kaen station, Thailand)
รายชือ่ ผูร  ม/ผู นับ นุน
ันที่ตีพิมพ/เผยแพร 1 .ค.61 บับที่/เลมที่ olume 192, 201 นาที่
แ ลงขอมูล

ประ ตั กิ ารอบรม
 การประยุกตใช ญ ั ญากอ รางตาม ญั ญามาตรฐานของ International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) ณ อ ง
ปาริชาติ อาคาร ริ ยิ ะถา ร บริ ทั ช. การชาง จํากัด (ม าชน), 24 กันยายน 2566
การ างแผนการทํางานร มกันระ า งเจาของโครงการ ผูร บั เ มากอ ราง และทีป่ รึก า อ งปาริชาติ อาคาร ริ ยิ ะถา ร บริ ทั ช.
การชาง จํากัด (ม าชน), 15 พฤ ภาคม 2562
ฝกอบรมฐาน มรรถนะตามมาตรฐานอาชีพและคุณ ฒ ุ ิ ชิ าชีพ าขา ชิ าชีพรถไฟค ามเร็ งู และระบบราง โรงเรียน ิ กรรมรถไฟ
กรุงเทพม านคร ตั้งแต ันที่ 14 -30 กรกฎาคม พ. . 2563., 14 กรกฎาคม 2563

สิทธิบตั ร

รางวัล
Railway Track Degradation Mechanism and Track-Quality Index Standard to Optimizing Track Maintenance and
Rehabilitation, Thailand ราง ลั Outstanding Paper is Awarded (25 มิถุนายน 2561)
การทํานายการเ อ่ื ม ภาพของทางรถไฟจากการทบท น รรณกรรมทีม่ อี ยู ราง ลั บทค าม จิ ยั ดีเดน (10 กุมภาพันธ 2566)
 นัง ือรับรองการเปนนักวิจัยที่ปรึก า

า เา า รา าร ร ั ิ รกล ห ง อา าร
ห งา ร า รอ าหกรร ล เ ล หา ิ าลั เ ล ร อ เกลา ร
อ ั า า เ า รั เป ัก ิ ั ปรก า งา ิ ั รงการ ิ ั เรอง A Hybrid Multi-Criteria
Decision Making Model for Highway Bridge Maintenance in Thailand
ง า ั ั ปญญา ิ
ังกั า า ิ กรร า ิ กรร า ร ล าป กรร า ร หา ิ าลั เ ล รา ง ล
ั ออก เ อเ า
ลอ ร เ ลา เ ิ การ ิ ั ัง ห ปรก า า ั อ ล ิ การ ิ ั ลอ ร เ ลา
เ ิ การ รงการ

(ลง อ
ปรก า
( ร ั ิ รกล
ั 19 เอ ก า ั 2566
 แบบการใชประโยชนจากงานวิจัย (จัดทำเปนภา าไทย)
( ำ รับผู มัครในทุกทุนและทุก าขาวิชา)
*******************
1. ร ั โครงการ (จากระบบ NRIIS)
2. ชื่อโครงการ A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Highway Bridge Maintenance
in Thailand
3. ชื่อ ัว นาโครงการ ดร.ธวัชชัย ปญญาคิด ังกัด คณะวิศวกรรมศา ตรและ ถาปตยกรรมศา ตร ม าวิทยาลัย
เทคโนโลยีราชมงคลตะวันออก เขตพื้นที่อุเทนถวาย
4. เบอรติดตอ 0637120199 เมล thawatchai_ph@rmutto.ac.th
5. ที่มาของขอเ นอการวิจัย (ไมมีผลตอการประเมินขอเ นอการวิจัย)
 1. มาจากผูใชประโยชน/ Stakeholders โดยตรง (โปรดระบุ)
 2. มาจากผูใ ทุน
 3. มาจากความ นใจของนักวิจัยเอง
 4. อื่น ๆ (โปรดระบุ)
6. ครง รของท น ั อ ู นส ข ต ม OECD เ ือ เ ง ขอ
1) กลุม าขา ิ กรรมและเทคโนโลยี
 เทคโนโลยีชี ภาพ ิ่งแ ดลอม  เทคโนโลยีชี ภาพอุต า การ
 เทคโนโลยีพลังงาน  นาโนเทคโนโลยี
 ิ กรรมการแพทย  ิ กรรมเคมี
 ิ กรรมเครื่องกล  ิ กรรมไ าอิเล็กทรอนิก 
 ิ กรรมโยธา  ิ กรรมและเทคโนโลยีอื่น ๆ
 ิ กรรมโล ะและ ั ดุ  ิ กรรม าร นเท
 ิ กรรม ิ่งแ ดลอม
2) กลุม าขา ิทยา า ตรธรรมชาติ
 คณิต า ตร  ิทยา า ตรกายภาพ
 ิทยา า ตรคอมพิ เตอรและ าร นเท  ิทยา า ตรเคมี
 ิทยา า ตรชี ภาพ  ิทยา า ตรธรรมชาติอื่น ๆ
 ิทยา า ตร ิ่งแ ดลอม
3) กลุม าขาเก ตร า ตร
 เก ตร า ตร  เทคโนโลยีชี ภาพทางดานการเก ตร
 ประมง  ปาไม
 ิทยา า ตรการเก ตร  ิทยา า ตรทางดานการเก ตรอื่น ๆ
 ัต แพทย า ตร  ัต า ตร
4) กลุม าขา ิทยา า ตรการแพทยและ ุขภาพ
 การแพทยคลินิก  การแพทยพื้น าน
 -2-

 เทคโนโลยีชี ภาพทางดานการแพทย  ิทยา า ตรการแพทยและอื่น ๆ

 ิทยา า ตร ุขภาพ
5) กลุม าขา ังคม า ตร
 จิต ิทยา  นิติ า ตร
 นิเท า ตรและ ื่อ ารม ลชน  ภูมิ า ตรทาง ังคมและเ ร กิจ
 รั า ตร  ังคม า ตร
 เ ร า ตร  ังคม า ตรอื่น ๆ
 ึก า า ตร
6) กลุม าขามนุ ย า ตร
 ประ ัติ า ตรและโบราณคดี  ปรัชญา จริยธรรมและ า นา
 ภา าและ รรณคดี  มนุ ย า ตรอื่น ๆ
 ิลปะ
7 ั อ ู น ร เ นมุงเนน (เลือกเพียง ขอ) กรณีไมเกี่ย ของขามไปขอ
 ) การแพทยและ ุขภาพ
 ัคซีนปองกันโรคอุบัติใ มอุบัติซ้ำ
 ผลิตภัณ การแพทยขั้น ูง (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product รือ ATMP)
 ) การเก ตรและอา าร
 Functional Ingredients, Functional Food, Novel Food อุต า กรรมอา าร
 ารออก ทธิเชิง นาที่ (Functional Ingredients)
 อา ารเชิง นาที่ (Functional Food)
 อา ารชนิดใ ม (Novel Food)
 อา ารและผลไมไทยคุณคา ูง
 ) การทองเที่ย การพัฒนาและยกระดับการทองเที่ย โดยใชเ ร กิจ ราง รรค
 ) ยานยนตไ า (Electric Vehicle: EV) การพัฒนาอุต า กรรมยานยนตไ า
 ) น ัตกรรมขนาดใ ญ (Innovation-driven Enterprises: IDEs)
 ) ังคม ูง ัย การพัฒนาผู ูงอายุในภาคชนบทและเมืองใ  ามารถพึ่งพาตนเองได
 ) เ ร กิจ านราก การขจัดค ามยากจนและลดค ามเ ลื่อมล้ำ
8 ร ับค ม รอมท งเทค น รือ ร ับค ม รอมท ง ังคม SRL)
8. ร ับค ม รอมท งเทค น TRL)
1) TRL ณ ปจจุบัน ระดับ
รายละเอียด
2) TRL เมื่องาน ิจัยเ ร็จ ิ้นระดับ
รายละเอียด
8 ร ับค ม รอมท ง ังคม SRL)
1) SRL ณ ปจจุบัน ระดับ
รายละเอียด
2) SRL เมื่องาน ิจัยเ ร็จ ิ้นระดับ
รายละเอียด
 -3-

9. เปา มาย ุดทายของโครงการในระยะยา ที่นัก ิจัยคาด ัง คือ อะไร และคาด าจะกอใ เกิด impact
ตอเ ร ฐกิจ/ ังคม/ ชุมชนและพื้นที่/ ง ิชาการ ที่เกี่ย ของอยางไร (Begin with the end in mind)
(ตองระบุ)* ามารถพัฒนาระบบการตร จ อบและตัด ินใจเพื่อใ การซอมบำรุงเปนไปอยางมีประ ิทธิภาพ
และมีค ามคุมคาตอการลงทุนทางดานเ ร ฐ า ตร
10. ผูมี  นได  นเ ีย (Stakeholders) (ที่เกี่ยวของกับโจทยวิจัย, ประเด็นวิจัย, input, และ outputs
ในระยะตาง ๆ)
12. ผลงาน ิจัย/ ตั ชี้ ัด/ ิ่งที่คาด าจะ งมอบ (นอกเหนือจากรายงานผลการวิจัย)
13. ผูที่ทานคาด าใชประโยชนจากงาน ิจัยนี้/ ที่ไ น/ ใชอยางไร/ เกิดผลเชนใด (Outcomes)
14. การเปลี่ยนแปลงที่คาด าจะเกิดขึ้นภาย ลังงาน ิจัยเ ร็จ ิ้น รือเมื่อผลงาน ิจัยถูกนำไปใช
(ขอนี้จำเปนตองระบุ)*
กอน ิจัย ลัง ิจัย
(ขอมูลที่ปรากฏจริง) (ใน proposal ใชขอมูลคาดการณ)
ปจจุบัน ะพานทาง ล งในประเท ไทย ลาย ๆ จะมีระบบตร จ อบการชำรุดและเ ื่อม ภาพของ
ะพานมีอายุการใชงานมานาน ลายปและมี ะพานเพื่อนำไปใชในการตัด ินใจเลือกแผนการซอม
การชำรุด รือเ ื่อม ภาพอยางตอเนื่องแตยัง บำรุงรัก า ะพานใ มีค ามเ มาะ มและคุมคา
มีระบบการตร จ อบการชำรุด รือเ ื่อม ภาพ ตอการลงทุนตลอดอายุการใชงาน (Service life)
เพื่อ างแผนการซอมบำรุงอยางเปนระบบและมี
ประ ิทธิภาพมากนัก
(*วช. จะเก็บขอมูลนี้อีกครั้งเมื่อสิ้นสุดโครงการวิจัย ทั้งนี้ เพื่อตองการทราบถึงการเปลี่ยนแปลงที่เกิดขึ้น
เมื่อมีงานวิจัยเขาไป*)
15. การนำผลงาน ิจัยจากโครงการไปใชประโยชน
16. แผนการผลักดันผลงาน ิจัย ูการใชประโยชน

มายเ ตุ นอกจากจะจั ด ทำเป น ไฟล แ นบในระบบ NRIIS แล ขอค ามอนุเ คราะ จ ัด ตอบตามลิง ค
https://forms.gle/RUm7xKZjHad3uyuF8 รือ QR code ดานลางนี้

แบบการใชประโยชนจากงาน ิจัย
Research Proposal
1. Project title: A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Highway Bridge
Maintenance in Thailand
2. Project duration: 2 Years
3. Total budget: 600,000 Baht
4. Principal investigator and Mentor
Principal investigator
Name: Thawatchai Phanyakit, Ph.D.
Mentor
Name: Assoc. Prof. Chuchai Sujivorakul, Ph.D.

5. Abstract
Highway bridges and other civil infrastructure perform an essential role in the economy
of many developed countries. Highway organizations around the world have been improving
productivity by increasing axle loads and train speeds on Highway lines that were not originally
designed for these higher forces. As with other civil structures, bridges deteriorate with age, and
use and with increased loads, and would eventually become unsafe without adequate
maintenance. However, despite the best and most diligent maintenance practices, eventually,
the bridge condition will reach a point when it may be uneconomical or not practical to
conduct routine maintenance, and major maintenance alternatives, including bridge
replacement or refurbishment, may need to be considered. Therefore, Highway organizations
are being challenged to find economical solutions to address the issues caused by increased
asset degradation, while simultaneously reducing maintenance costs on aging infrastructure. An
application of the approach was conducted with a random selection of bridges and condition
information from Highway organizations of Thailand. Maintenance plans and estimated annual
budgets were predicted for a forward planning using life cycle costing, residual value, cost-
benefit, and minimum cost objective functions.

6. Keywords: Highway bridges, Multiple defects, Inter-related defects, Service life.

7. Research area / Sub area of this project: Civil Engineering/ Highway Engineering
8. Introduction to the research problem and its significance
Thailand, like many other countries in the world, has many older Highway bridges that
require routine maintenance and repairs to ensure their safe operation. Generally, the cost of
maintenance increases as the age and usage of the structure increases. This cost places an
1
increasing burden on organizational budgets that are already under pressure from competition
and increasing labor and material costs. This has led to a slow and steady decline in the
condition of long-life assets, such as Highway bridges. A brief account of Thailand's Highway
history gives an indication of why the condition of the Thailand Highway bridge inventory has
fallen into its current state.
A Highway bridge is a structure that may have multiple functions, with the main function
being the spanning of a physical obstacle to allow safe passage of Highway traffic. Bridge
structures are often used to carry out secondary functions, for example carrying road traffic,
pedestrian traffic, or support services for telecommunication and electrical cables. In Thailand,
the definition of a road bridge and a Highway bridge are similar and vary only slightly between
routes.
The most common definition of a Highway bridge is high cost, long life structures that
are designed to perform specific functions within environmental and operational conditions
over their functional life. The environmental and operational conditions include the capacity to
carry future traffic volumes, load limits, serviceability, flood events, etc. Design standards
consider these conditions within limit state design and provide methods to calculate future
performance requirements.
Budget, topography, function, quantity, and quality of building materials, among other
factors, are taken into consideration when designing Highway bridges. Due to its minimal
maintenance requirements, extended lifespan, and great reliability, prestressed concrete has
been the favored building material for new Highway bridges since the early 1990s. In Thailand,
concrete structures are built with a 100-year minimum design life.
Bridge management is “the means by which a bridge stock is cared for from conception
to the end of its useful life” (Ryall, 2010). This statement implies that bridge management
includes construction, performance monitoring, maintenance, operation, and disposal of bridges
at the end of their functional life. Therefore, bridge management encompasses all stages of a
bridge’s life.
Unfortunately, it is well known that long term maintenance planning on infrastructure
assets in Thailand has generally not been actively encouraged. This may be for many reasons
and the most obvious reason is that long term maintenance analysis is time consuming and
requires an in-depth knowledge of maintenance options and ensuing costs. Furthermore, long
term maintenance planning often conflicts with short term productivity gains. A list of possible
reasons why some IMs may prefer short term gains over long-term performance is provided
below:

2
 1) Unreasonable owner demands: Shareholder and governmental expectations of speedy
outcomes, lucrative profits, and brief payback times.
2) The link between maintenance effort and present performance-There aren't any obvious
quantitative relationships between maintenance effort and potential asset performance.
3) Conflicts with staff incentives-Annual budgets are monitored, and personal salary
incentives are provided to IMs if they maintain their assets for less than their allotted
budget. This encourages IMs to delay high-cost maintenance in fear of losing their annual
bonus.
4) Slow deterioration of long-life structures-Long life structures deteriorate slowly over a
longer period and maintenance can be neglected for a longer time before damage is
evident. This permits IMs to delay maintenance without hindering short term
performance.
5) Conflicts with organizational management/process boundaries: IMs may assert that one
department oversees a maintenance process, and vice versa. For instance, distinct IMs
are frequently in charge of long-term and short-term maintenance planning.
6) Conflicts with standard operating procedures and policies-Some operating policies are
counter intuitive, increasing maintenance cost and decreasing safety by restricting
preventative maintenance. For example, IMs can choose to allow their bridges and track
to deteriorate to the stage where they are eligible for capital works funding, albeit at a
higher repair cost. In many cases, assets can be maintained at a lower cost by
implementing prompt, simple maintenance actions.
7) Conflicts with above-rail operator relationships: Some Highway operators in Thailand fail
to maintain their fleet to suitable standards, which has a multiplied negative impact on
structures. For instance, flat wheels reduce the operating life of supporting bridge
structures and tracks by banging against them. This has the consequence of reducing
access to the structure for above-rail operators by increasing the frequency of
maintenance operations. This encourages IMs to choose quick, inexpensive fixes to
increase immediate track availability.
These organizational culture examples are partial justification for the need for an
objective decision support system for rehabilitation planning. The following sections provide
additional justification as they briefly explore the technical issues surrounding bridge
maintenance planning.
9. Literature review
Many nations throughout the world have put into place efficient bridge maintenance
management systems and electronic databases. According to Chase and Gaspar (2000), the U.S.

3
Federal highway administration uses the Points and the BRIDGIT to provide comprehensive
assistance for figuring out the ideal expenditures necessary to maintain a specific level of service
for the population of bridges. In the meantime, the Yamaguchi-prefecture government in Japan
built the J-BMS to assess bridge performance, predict levels of deterioration and remaining
service life, and develop maintenance plans considering real costs, budgetary constraints, and
repair outcomes (Miyamoto et al. 2000). Even paper-based maintenance management is now
practiced in Thailand; however, several straightforward bridge database solutions have been
proposed. The function for evaluation and prediction of current and future physical condition
and serviceability as well as expenditure decision and optimal maintenance of existing bridges
are so far not yet available.
Effective maintenance management systems and computerized databases for bridges
have been implemented for many countries in the world. Chase and Gaspar (2000) mentioned
the use of the Points and the BRIDGIT at U. S. Federal highway administration to provide
comprehensive supports for determining the optimum expenditures required while maintaining
a specified level of service for population of bridges. Meanwhile, the J-BMS was constructed for
Yamaguchi-prefecture government in Japan to evaluate bridge performance, to estimate
degrees of deterioration and remaining service life, and to generate maintenance strategies in
consideration of actual costs, budget availabilities, and effects of maintenance (Miyamoto et al.
2000).
In Thailand, even paper-based maintenance management is currently used; several
simple bridge database systems are, however, suggested. One of them is the Bridgeman
developed by the British-Parkman consultant under consideration, but it is limited in managing
bridge-related inventory data only. The function for evaluation and prediction of current and
future physical condition and serviceability as well as expenditure decision and optimal
maintenance of existing bridges are so far not yet available.
This chapter presents a review of bridge nomenclature, management models, inspection
types, performance indicators, solvers, and methods of simulation. Furthermore, this chapter
examines previous research relating to bridge life cycle management optimization strategies
with a focus on decision support techniques, life cycle cost analysis and its application within
Highway bridge networks. Relevant publications for the literature review were sourced from
web-based scientific search engines, internal standards and publications from Thailand Highway
organizations and electronic libraries. To ensure a comprehensive review of optimal bridge life
cycle strategies, the following are also included:
1. A succinct explanation of the structural components and groups of Highway bridges.
2. A quick overview of bridge management system frameworks.

4
 3. An overview of the performance metrics for managing bridges.
4. A thorough analysis of the performance evaluation and measurement processes used by
bridge management systems.
5. A study of contemporary methods for decision analysis.
6. A review of methodologies for managing the life cycle of bridges, followed by a
discussion of maintenance optimization techniques.
9.1 Highway bridges
9.1.1 Asset type, groups, and elements
The highway bridge asset type is a complex structure that can be broken down into
elements to allow for easier reporting and maintenance analysis. Typically, a bridge is usually
divided into the three main areas of the superstructure, substructure, and deck (FHWA, 1995).
The superstructure is the structure above the bearings and the substructure includes the
bearings and below. The deck is the horizontal platform designed to take the load imposed by
traffic. The common terminology used for Thailand bridges is now mostly standardized with
only a few minor discrepancies. Thailand developed a general terminology diagram that was
distributed in the form of a drawing, and this is. The purpose of standardizing terminology is to
allow bridge management organizations to develop logically consistent frameworks and
communication of bridge inventory performance community, permits cross collaboration of
data and allows for easier migration of data to other systems.
The structures inventory framework details a five-tier system that is deemed to be the
minimum standard of inventory collection for any Bridge Management System used within
Thailand. The five tiers are:
Tier 1 Asset Type
Tier 2 Structural Group
Tier 3 Structural Element
Tier 4 Description / Material
Tier 5 Comment (typical information)
Dividing bridges into their components and documenting the condition and maintenance for
each structural element over multiple inspection cycles will allow detailed deterioration,
maintenance, and cost history to be available. Information collected on bridges is usually
placed into a database or spreadsheet application. There are many types of database
repositories that can include information regarding geometric details, loading information,
environmental conditions, economic data, historical data, and ancillary bridge functions. This
level of detail is usually kept in a repository called a Bridge Asset Register or a Bridge Inventory
Database. Another database called the maintenance register or asset maintenance database

5
holds inspection details and maintenance records. BMSs usually combine these databases into
one system (Ryall, 2010).
To assist with the creation of asset register databases have created a template shown in
Table1 that specifies the minimum level of data to be recorded. The level of collected data
ensures consistency within the Thailand bridge management community, permits cross
collaboration of data, and allows for easier migration of data to other systems. Unfortunately,
the data nominated by highway organizations of Thailand in Table1 does not record the level of
detail that is required for all deterioration and maintenance planning models and, therefore,
additional data may need to be collected for this project.

Table 1 Structure Details

Category General data item Description and comment

1.Structure Structure Number/ Structure A unique alpha or numeric identifier for
identification/ ID the structure
location/function Structure Type E.g., bridge, culvert, tunnel, sign
support structure, retaining wall, etc.
Structure Name Possible identifier but may not be
unique
Crossing Type/ Crossing Name Function of structure, e.g., road over
road, road over rail, river crossing,
pedestrian bridge, or to carry services
Road name/ Road number/ Road hierarchy identifier (road
Road class function)
Location identifier Location of the structure in terms of
the agency’s referencing system
LGA Local government area
Region Administrative area
Owner/Inspection Can vary depending on management
responsibility/Maintaining obligations
body
Design year/ Construction
year

6
Table 1 Structure Details
Category General data item
1.Structure Design code loading
identification/ Construction cost
location/function Modification construction
(cont.) year
Operational status
File/Docket numbers
Drawing numbers
2. Design standard
Structural information
Structure length/ width
Span length/ number
Superstructure type/
material
Substructure type/ material
Foundation’s type(s)/
material(s)
Barrier type/ location
3. Gross load limit/ application
Structure lives date
load capacity Axle load limit/ application
date
Assessed load capacity/
assessment date
Posted load limit/ date
Posted speed limit
Nature of deficiency
AADT
7
Description and comment
Including widening, strengthening, etc.
Under construction/ open to traffic/
closed/ archived
For storage of paper copies
Original design and any modifications
Year of design standard and design
loading
Overall dimensions for deck area
Includes max/min span lengths
Superstructure configuration
Basic configuration
Broad description of design of
foundations
Note standard to which barrier
designed
Nature of load limit, date applied
Include date of posting
Note date detected and date corrected
if action taken
Show both volume and year
Table 1 Structure Details

Category General data item Description and comment

3. % heavy vehicles Show both percentage and year
Structure lives Permit route Designated overweight prime routes
load capacity Detour route Length, status, condition
(cont.)
4. Nature of services attached to Year of design standard and design
Attachments bridge loading
Number / size of utility Overall dimensions for deck area
Attachment details Includes max/min span lengths
Date of agreement to attach Superstructure configuration
Lamp standards on bridge Basic configuration
5. Site environment Broad description of design of
Environmental/ classification foundations
historical listing National Trust listing Note standard to which barrier
designed
State / National heritage
listing
Mine subsidence area
6. Vertical clearances Max / min dimensions on and under
Geometric structure
details Horizontal clearances Min dimension on and under structure
Carriageway/ lane widths Include number of lanes
Footpath widths Left and right
Median width/ height If applicable
Barrier width/ height For internal barrier (e.g., on median, or
to separate footway)
Road approach alignment Curve radius – horizontal and vertical
Skew angle Degrees, left or right
Approach safety barrier Type and location
Waterway clearances Quoted to a reference standard
Hydraulic information Including afflux

8
 9.1.2 Bridge categorization
There are many bridge construction types used in the world today, and to assist in the
management of bridges they are often categorized into similar groups. Bridges are usually
categorized based on their construction type, load rating, function, risk rating, environmental
exposure or by any other means that separates them based on the suitability for analysis. The
Highway organizations of Thailand states that the following categories should be defined as the
minimum recorded in a bridge administrative system:
- Bridge identification, location, and function descriptors.
- Structural information, with descriptions of foundations, substructure, and
superstructure.
- Structure live load capacity.
- Attachments, e.g., services/lighting.
- Environmental and historical listing; and
- Geometric details, including alignment and clearances.
9.2 Bridge management systems
Bridge Management Systems in recent years have developed into complex software
applications that are classed as a specialized type of asset management system. The BMS
database is continually updated with maintenance works and assessment results to provide a
full range of current and historical data for analysis. BMSs were first developed in the 1980’s
(Ryall, 2010) to provide decision support capabilities (Markow and Hyman, 2009), maintenance
scheduling and fault recording (Loo et al., 2003), and have evolved over the past two decades
into complex systems that can generate maintenance plans and predict future budgets. Simple
bridge management systems may consist of a computerized spreadsheet or hand-written card
cataloguing system that holds important information about each bridge. More complex systems
may include multiple databases, models, and algorithms to produce optimal maintenance
plans, as shown in Table 2.
Today, many BMSs have decision support capabilities that can suggest appropriate
maintenance interventions and predict future maintenance expenditure to assist decision
makers. The most popular BMSs in the USA were created in the early 1990’s, these being called
Points (Robert et al., 2003) and BRIDGIT (Hawk, 1999). They were developed under the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
projects respectively.
As the complexity of bridge management increases and the available funding decreases,
it has become essential that modern bridge management systems are able to provide analysis

9
and assist with decision making for improved bridge management. Some of the limitations
noted in the report included:
- Only considers routine maintenance on individual elements.
- Only two actions, ‘to do’ or ‘not to do’.
- No structure capacity evaluation.
- User costs not included in analysis.
- No deterioration modelling.
- Maintenance optimization not included.
- No cost analysis functions, and
- No long term optimized long term work plan.
Most of the bridge management systems listed in the now ageing is still in use today and
many will still carry the same limitations. With this in mind, the International Association of
Bridge Maintenance and Safety published an Overview of Existing Bridge Management Systems
to assist bridge decision makers to evaluate their BMS against others in the world (Adey et al.,
2010).
9.3 Bridge management frameworks and information control
A structured framework enables efficient information flow, reducing duplication and
confusion. Austroads (2004) provides the BMS framework presented in Figure 1 showing the data
collection, inputs, and outputs in their approach to highway bridge management. Their
framework highlights the importance of data collection and information control throughout the
bridge management process

10
 Figure 1 BMS Framework (Austroads, 2004)

9.4 Performance indicators

Performance indicators are a measurement of current parameters which describe one
aspect of the organization’s operation or an asset’s performance (Parida and Chattopadhyay,
2007). Performance indicators should have the following characteristics: clearly defined, specific,
affordable, objective, attributable, measurable, achievable, and capable of being monitored.
Performance results can be recorded over time to identify trends or make comparisons against
a performance limit, target, or threshold. Complex asset management systems, including a BMS,
often employ multiple indicators to monitor the many factors relating to asset performance
(Adey et al., 2010).
A comprehensive multi-criteria hierarchical framework for maintenance performance
measurement. The relevant bridge maintenance performance indicators from their document
and indicators found within Thailand Highway Bridge networks are summarized below.
Structure related indicators:
- Availability: The total time the structure is available for unrestricted service.
Restricted service or downtime for maintenance reduces the structure availability.
This indicator is measured as a percentage of uptime/ (uptime + downtime).

11
 - Performance: This indicator reflects the reduced train speeds and loading due to
structure deficiency. It is expressed as a percentage of actual performance over
design performance. This indicator excludes downtime due to maintenance.
- Quality: This indicator refers to track quality and how it relates to passenger
comfort. Flat and straight track ‘top and line’ allows a smoother movement of the
train over the structure. Quality is measured by a track geometry vehicle and rates
the structure with a ‘track condition index’.
- Condition: This indicator is used to monitor structural and non-structural condition
of the physical asset. Condition is measured both qualitatively using visual inspection
and quantitatively using sensors or non-destructive testing devices.
9.4.1 Maintenance task related indicators:
- Quality for maintenance tasks: Maintenance quality has always been difficult to
accurately ascertain. Therefore, the following broad categories are used: better than
new, as good as new and as bad as old.
- Planned maintenance tasks: Time and cost measured for planned maintenance
activities.
- Unplanned maintenance tasks: Time and cost measured for unplanned maintenance
activities.
- Response time for maintenance: Time from fault identification to the time train
services recommence.
9.4.2 Health, Safety, Security, and the Environment (HSSE) indicator:
- Number of accidents/incidents: An indicator on the safety practices and maintenance
processes currently in use.
9.4.3 Employee satisfaction indicator:
- Employee absentees: An indicator on staff happiness, motivation, and willingness to
improve their own maintenance skills and provide improvement suggestions.
The effectiveness of maintenance optimization strategies is measured by the comparison
of maintenance performance against performance targets. How performance is measured and
assessed varies between countries and organizations. Incidentally, it seems that many Highway
organizations around the world and certainly those found within Australia, have selected
performance indicators based on qualitative inspector judgments (Adey et al., 2010).
Bridge performance can be evaluated at the network, bridge, element, or the defect
level. Each level is a subset of the previous level. Therefore, the network level would include
multiple bridges and each bridge would consist of multiple elements and elements may have
multiple defects. Decision analysis is usually based on data collected from only one of these
12
levels but may include data from the immediate lower level. For example, assessments
conducted at the bridge level would likely include defects located on an element. However,
defects are not usually considered in the network level decision analysis.
9.5 Current practices in bridge performance assessment
Many Highway organizations have developed their own methods to rate the adequacy of
their structures. The following sections present the most common methods used to calculate
various bridge performance assessments within various organizations and how they are
employed in bridge management.
9.5.1 Condition ratings
The structural performance indicator employed on many Thailand Highway and road
bridges is based on the physical asset condition assessed during periodic inspections. This
indicator is measured through monitoring and visual inspections of bridges and given the term
condition rating.
During regular inspections, an inspector usually appraises the physical condition of the
overall bridge, elements or defects based on predetermined discrete condition states (Ryall,
2010). In many cases, ratings assigned at the element level may be combined through a
mathematical equation and element weightings to give an overall bridge condition rating (Ryall,
2010), which may also be in the form of a bridge condition number or bridge health indicator.
Most of the Australian States have their own method, with various weighting factors, to
calculate the overall bridge rating based on individual element conditions. Some Thailand
Highway organizations do not rate the condition of each element individually, opting for their
inspectors to calculate an overall bridge condition rating together with a status of bridge
defects.
Shepard and Johnson (2001) published a performance measure called the bridge health
index developed for the California Department of Transport. The index is based on the overall
bridge condition as the ratio of current total element monetary value to the initial bridge
monetary value as shown in Equation 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Thompson and Shepard, 2000).

HI = (1)

TEV = TEQ X FC (2)

13
 CEV = (3)

WF = (4)
where:
HI = Bridge health index
CEV = Current element value
TEV = Total element value
TEQ = Total element quantity
FC = Failure cost of element
QCS = Quantity in a condition state
WF = Weighting factor

Adams and Kang (2009) conducted a sensitivity analysis of the bridge health
index with respect to element failure costs and conditions. They concluded that, when
considering bridges in poor condition, small variations in the element’s failure cost can
lead to large differences in the bridge heath index, thus changing the maintenance
priority order.
Japan’s BMS assigns each element a deficiency rating from 1 to 5, as shown in
Table 3, for each kind of defect such as corrosion and cracking (Ryall, 2010). Each
deficiency rating is multiplied by a demerit weighting and, through a process of
reduction, the overall rating is developed. A bridge rehabilitation planning module
reviews all the bridges and then prepares three rehabilitation plans for each bridge
(Ryall, 2010; Liu et al., 1997), these being:
- Repair only the most damaged element of the bridge.
- Repair all elements where the damage is less than deficiency rating 3.
- Replace

14
Table 3 Japan’s Condition Rating (Liu et al., 1997)

Deficiency Level Deficiency Degree Condition Description

I 0.8-1.0 Potentially hazardous
II 0.6-0.8 Obvious deterioration and may need
detailed inspection
III 0.4-0.6 Aggravating deterioration and may need
further investigation
IV 0.2-0.4 Minor deterioration
V 0-0.2 Like new

New York City has developed its own rating system using a condition rating
between 1 and 7 (7 being good) and assigns a rating to each span of the bridge (Yanev,
1998). Bridges are inspected every two years and rated from the categories in Table 4,
where even number ratings denote intermediate conditions.
New York City then allocates a Bridge Condition Rating (BCR) to each bridge
which is calculated from Equation 5 using condition ratings from Table 4 and element
weightings from Table 5 (Ryall, 2010; Yanev, 1998).

Table 4 New York Bridge Condition Ratings

Rating Condition
7 New
5 Functioning well
3 Not functioning as designed
1 Failed

BCR = = (5)

15
Table 5 Element Weights in the New York Rating System (Yanev, 1998)

Number Element Weight

1 Bearings 6
2 Back wall 5
3 Abutments 8
4 Wing Walls 5
5 Piers 8
6 Primary Members 10
7 Secondary Members 5
8 Deck 8
9 Curb 1
10 Wearing Surface 4
11 Bridge Seats 6
12 Sidewalks 2
13 Joints 4

Please see the details as shown in figure 2

Figure 2: Bridge Terminology

In 1968, the USA congress passed the Federal Highway Act which resulted in the
National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) (Chen and Duan, 1999). These stipulated
bridge condition ratings for the three major structural groups of deck, superstructure, and
substructure (FHWA, 1995). The NBIS were developed to ensure consistency of condition

16
assessment and reporting. The rating system consisted of a condition scale from 1 to 9
as shown in Table 6.

Table 6 FHWA Bridge Condition Rating (FHWA, 1995)

Rate Description
N Not applicable
9 Excellent condition or new condition: no noteworthy deficiencies
8 Very Good condition: no repair needed
7 Good condition: some minor problems; minor maintenance needed
6 Satisfactory condition: some minor deterioration; major maintenance
needed
5 Fair condition: minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scouring for minor
rehabilitation; minor rehabilitation needed
4 Poor condition: advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scouring;
major rehabilitation
3 Serious condition: section loss, deterioration, spalling or scouring have
seriously affected primary structural elements; immediate rehabilitation
needed
2 Critical Condition: advanced deterioration of primary structural elements
for urgent rehabilitation; bridge may be closed until corrective action is
taken
1 Imminent failure condition: major deterioration or section loss present;
bridge may be closed to traffic, but corrective action can put it back into
light service
0 Failed condition: out of service and beyond corrective action

While the NBIS bridge condition rating can indicate the level of maintenance
priority and probable impending structural failure, Thompson, and Shepard (2 0 0 0 )
claimed it provided little indication on the type of failure cause or the extent of
damage. In addition, the NBIS condition rating provided very limited information that
could be used to provide decision support that included economic considerations
(Thompson and Shepard, 2000).
To alleviate these issues of the NBIS condition ratings, AASHTO and FHWA
developed the CoRE element condition rating system (Thompson and Shepard, 2000).
17
 This complex system was implemented within the Pontis BMS and consists of
1 0 8 elements, each with a varying number of condition states, and 8 defect “smart
flags” (FHWA, 2012; Thompson and Shepard, 2000). The varying condition states for each
element meant that a particular condition state for one element may not have the
same level of severity as the same condition state on another element. However, all
level one condition states are deemed as good condition.
(QR Limited, 2008a) The defect severity rating is the defect priority; therefore, any
predicted deterioration calculation and maintenance optimization must be drawn from
the expertise of the inspector. These Highway agencies use the defect priorities listed in
Table 7.
Another a defect severity rating which is assigned by the bridge inspector on a 1
to 6 priority scale (V/Line, 2010). Table 8 shows the recommended action timeframes for
this organization.

Table 7 Repair timeframe (QR Limited, 2008a)

Priority Description
A Immediate action
D1 Defect to be repaired in 1 day
D7 Defect to be repaired in 7 days
D14 Defect to be repaired or re-evaluated in 14 days
M1 Defect to be repaired or re-evaluated in 1 Month
M3 Defect to be repaired or re-evaluated in 3 Months
M6 Defect to be repaired or re-evaluated in 6 Months
Y1 Defect to be repaired or re-evaluated in 1 Year
Y2 Defect to be repaired or re-evaluated in 2 Years

Table 8 Repair timeframe (V/Line, 2010)

Priority Description
1 Good condition – No action
2 Minor fault – No action
3 Minor fault – To be actioned in 3 years
4 Medium fault – To be actioned in 1 years
5 Serious fault – To be actioned in 1 Month
6 Unserviceable – Structure closed

18
 The Supply Bridge (SB) approach as explained by Adey et al. (2003b) assigns
maintenance priorities that are based only on the bridge condition ratings. This approach
was incorporated in the earlier versions of Pontis (Cambridge Systematics Inc, 1998) and
BRIDGIT (Hawk, 1999) bridge management systems. Adey et al. (2003b) claim that SB
approaches may not provide the most cost-effective maintenance solution as they do
not consider maintenance intervention costs in the condition rating. This point by Adey
et al. (2003b) assumes that some maintenance activities have a high cost and that costs
should influence priority. Furthermore, if a bridge is in a significantly deteriorated
condition, then a repair must be conducted regardless of the cost options, or the bridge
closed due to user safety concerns.
Maintenance management decisions based solely on the visual assessment of
element condition may not always be cost effective and in some cases may cause
safety related consequences (Frangopol and Liu, 2007b). To address this issue, Frangopol
and Liu (2007b) suggest that all related civil infrastructure performance metrics need to
be considered simultaneously to determine a feasible maintenance solution. The
suggested metrics are life cycle cost and structural performance in terms of condition,
durability, and safety states (Liu and Frangopol, 2005a; Frangopol and Liu, 2007b).
9.5.2 Reliability ratings
Bridge performance can be expressed in the probabilistic terms of reliability,
usually relating to bridge collapse or reduced functionality. Reliability is accepted as a
more objective means to assess structural performance than structural condition alone
(Frangopol and Liu, 2007b).
Stewart (2001) conducted a reliability assessment by comparing the current
bridge reliability with the minimal accepted reliability. This result can provide the
relative ‘safety’ of a structure, load rating or estimated remaining life (Stewart, 2001).
However, the precision of reliability measurement is uncertain, and it is more
appropriate to use reliability ratings for comparative or relative risk purposes (Stewart,
2001).
Under general reliability theory, bridges are expected to fail when the load (Q)
exceeds the structural resistance (R) (Ravindra and Galambos, 1978). A load can be
expressed as a moment, shear, axial force, or torque induced in a bridge member by
forces applied to the structure (AASHTO, 2012). The variability of applied loads and the
resistance variability due to structural deterioration usually leads to both load (f(Q)) and
resistance (f(R)) being assumed as a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. A graph of these
curves (Figure 2-2) shows the possible failure area (shaded) when R=Q. Reliability can

19
then be expressed as a probability of failure also known as the reliability index (β). Qn is
the nominal value for load effects and γ is the load factor, while Rn is the nominal
value for resistance and φ is the resistance factor. The objective of the reliability-based
design philosophy is to separate the load distribution and the resistance distribution so
that the overlap is acceptably small.

Figure 3: Distribution of loads (Q) and resistance (R) curves (Kulicki et al., 1994)

Reliability assessment data can be sourced from Structural Health Monitoring

(SHM) equipment and, when used in Finite Element Analysis (FEA), is able to determine
the structural response effect (Frangopol et al., 2008). There are currently two popular
methods for determining bridge reliability using FEA, the incremental method and the
member replacement method; the latter is also known as the failure path approach
(Thoft-Christensen and Microtus, 1986). The incremental nonlinear finite element
analysis (INL-FEA) can accurately determine the system reliability of complex structures
(Frangopol, 2011). This is an accurate method for determining system reliability, albeit a
very manual and time-consuming process (Frangopol, 2011). This approach has been
used to calculate the reliability of ageing bridge structures, determine the resistance of
the entire system and the load at which a given failure mode would occur. Accounting
for the variability in material properties and geometry is difficult when conducting an
INL-FEA due to its algorithmic form. One method to account for the variability of
parameters is to conduct a Monte Carlo simulation on the analysis inputs. However, in
2011 this method (using INL-FEA), was reported as too time-consuming for practical use
(Frangopol, 2011).

20
 9.5.3 Risk based rating
Risk based ratings are developed from a review of hazard events and determining
the probability and consequences if the event occurs. However, when considering risk as
the sole measure of performance, then it is likely that the risk assessment will include a
performance indicator as seen in the BMS.
The BMS developed includes a risk-based assessment for ranking the priority of
bridge maintenance (Avery, 2011; Coe, 2004). Weightings are applied to probability and
consequence factors as shown in Table 2-9. The condition rating is a popular
performance indicator and is configured in this BMS as a hazard event with the
probability and consequence of exceeding the minimum performance threshold.

Table 9 BridgeAsyst risk weightings (Avery, 2012)

Probability Consequence
Factor Weighting Factor Weighting
Condition 0.4 Damage 0.15
Load Rating 0.1 Loss of life 0.4
Material 0.2 Loss of service 0.3
Line section 0.2 Economic 0.15

Adey et al. (2003a) presented a risk-based approach to determine the risk of

inadequate service for a bridge subjected to multiple hazards. The hazards were limited
to traffic overload and flood events over a 15-year period. The authors calculated the
optimal maintenance intervention time based on minimum allowable risk.
Johnson and Niezgoda (2004) presented a risk-based assessment method for
ranking, comparing, and selecting the most appropriate bridge scour countermeasures by
employing failure mode and effects analysis and risk priority numbers. Their analysis
incorporated the probability and consequence of failure modes and included a scour
detection rating in the analysis.
9.6 Maintenance planning
The field of maintenance planning involves systematic procedures that led to
“effective” decisions related to maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of bridges
in a network (Jiang and Sinha, 1989). The effectiveness of decisions is based on the
objective function of the analysis, which is usually cost effectiveness, as demonstrated
by the examples in this section. However, the available annual maintenance budget to
21
fund bridge maintenance activities is limited and must be spent in a rational and optimal
manner (Augusti et al., 1998b).
Maintenance planning involves the optimal selection of appropriate maintenance
actions at future maintenance interventions that meet a maintenance objective. As
discussed in the previous section, maintenance actions can sustain or increase the
remaining life of elements, and usually more than one type of maintenance action is
able to achieve this task. However, different maintenance actions incur different costs
with varying improvements in the remaining service life of elements. The example in
Figure 4 highlights the effect of maintenance on three elements of a small single span
bridge and Figure 5 shows the average remaining life of the same three bridge elements
(Nielsen et al., 2014).

Figure 4 Effect of maintenance on the remaining service life of three bridge elements

Nielsen et al. (2014) state that future maintenance actions can be carefully
selected to create a future point in time when all bridge elements would be reduced to
a lowest combined value. The points of lowest bridge value are “windows of
opportunity” for a possible bridge replacement.

22
 Figure 5 Average remaining service life of three bridge elements

9.7 Decision analysis techniques

The simplest form of bridge performance measurement and assessment is by
rating or ranking the performance indicator using the Utility Theory. This theory is an
economic concept that assumes decision makers can choose from available alternatives
that will gain them the greatest satisfaction (Patidar et al., 2007). However, the utility
theory is based on “satisfaction”, which is subjective and can be sometimes better
measured by a comparison of alternatives.
9.7.1 Multi-criteria decision-making
Using multiple parameters requires an ability to evaluate and assign an
importance to each parameter or attribute. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods can
balance competing objectives without bias, improve the transparency, efficiency,
analytic rigour and auditability of decisions (Dunning et al., 2000; Kabir et al., 2014). The
most popular methods in infrastructure management as evident from the review in
Section 2.5 are the Weighted Sum Model (WSM) (Zadeh, 1963; Fishburn, 1967), Weighted
Product Model (WPM) (Bridgman, 1922), Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980),
TOPIS (Hwang et al., 1980) and the Multi-attribute utility theory (Von Neumann and
Morgenstern, 1944; Keeney and Raiffa, 1976).
9.7.2 Analytical Hierarchy Process
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980) is well-established in the field of multi-
criteria decision making as a tool for determining attribute weightings. AHP is conducted

23
with a team of experts or a learning machine, and they answer pair-wise questions on
the importance between attributes (Saaty, 1980; Sasmal and Ramanjaneyulu, 2008). Each
attribute is individually compared with other attributes and the results are entered in a
matrix for evaluation. Unfortunately, AHP’s pair-wise questioning process generates an
exponential increase in questions with a linear increase of attributes evaluated.
Therefore, it is limited to comparing a small number of variables, usually fewer than 15,
before becoming too complex. To overcome this limitation, an approach called the Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA) (Charnes et al., 1978) is used if a greater number of
attributes are required.
Wang et al. (2008) combined the AHP and DEA methodologies to evaluate risks
to bridge structures. They assigned weights to each attribute and calculated the values
of linguistic assessments. An overall risk score was determined by a simple additive
method aggregating the risk criteria of safety, functionality, sustainability, and
environment. The risk of each bridge was rated as high, medium, low or none against
each risk criteria and weighted from the DEA model. The result was an overall bridge
rating based on risk.
9.7.3 TOPIS
The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
method was developed by Hwang et al. (1980) to solve multiple objective decision-
making problems. The TOPIS method selects alternatives that simultaneously have the
shortest distance to the “best” solution and the longest distance from the “worst”
solution (Cheng et al., 2002). To apply this method the parameters, need to be numeric
with similar units and be monotonically increasing (Kabir et al., 2014). A benefit with this
method is that it can use fuzzy numbers to consider uncertainty (Wang and Elhag, 2007;
Kabir and Sumi, 2013).
9.7.4 Multi-attribute utility theory
The MAUT was used to develop multi-attribute utility functions, which provide a
mathematical model that represents the decision maker’s intent (Patidar et al., 2007).
The utility functions combine multiple attributes associated with each decision and each
attribute may be assigned a weighting. As described earlier, weightings may be
determined by various methods including AHP and DEA. A major benefit of multi-
attribute utility functions is the combination of multiple attributes into a single value for
use in single objective optimization methods (Frangopol and Liu, 2007a). Some examples
of this technique are presented earlier in the Multi-attribute Ratings Section (9.5.2)

24
 9.7.5 Fuzzy logic approaches
Bridge assessment is usually conducted by inspectors and typically includes an
assessment of multiple performance criteria. Some performance criteria are hard to
quantify and are often based on the inspector’s knowledge, experience, and subjective
evaluation (Middleton and Lea, 2002). Therefore, this section presents previous research
on how mathematical techniques have been used to incorporate the subjectiveness of
qualitative ratings to produce bridge ratings.
Wang and Elhag (2006) employed the fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level
sets and a nonlinear programming solution procedure with an application to bridge risk
assessment. Subsequently, Wang and Elhag (2007) went on to develop a fuzzy group
decision making approach for bridge risk assessment. This approach uses the likelihood
and consequence to assess the risk against safety, functional, sustainability and
environment criteria. The approach seeks to achieve a consensus among decision
makers by applying the Delphi technique (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963). Wang and Elhag
(2007) conducted this analysis with a deliberate omission of extreme consequences. The
authors
claim that this approach was required because extreme consequences can
mathematically skew the risk analysis results and increase the risk score of all bridge
defects, particularly with Highway bridges.
Kawamura and Miyamoto (2003) proposed using a multi-layer neural-fuzzy hybrid
system to provide a reinforced concrete bridge rating. The neural network performs a
fuzzy inference and refinement in the network and is firstly solved by the back
propagation method. This expert system evaluated the bridge load rating from visual
inspections and concrete durability based on the technical specifications of concrete
cracking.
Sasmal et al. (2007) claim to be the first to combine fuzzy sets and AHP, to
evaluate the condition and repair priority of reinforced concrete bridges. This paper was
the first of two parts and focuses on the AHP development with the second part
(Sasmal and Ramanjaneyulu, 2008) focusing on the fuzzy logic approach. Their solution
included applying AHP to bridge evaluation criteria, considering uncertainty, to produce a
relative priority weight for each criterion. Inspector’s ratings of 45 bridge elements were
ranked with AHP before being entered into the fuzzy system to determine the final
bridge rating. Priorities may be skewed with this bridge rating approach in cases when a
bridge is in very good condition with one major defect. This would indicate the bridge as
a moderate repair priority when it should be assigned as a high priority.

25
 Wang and Elhag (2008) developed an adaptive fuzzy inference system for bridge
risk assessment. Their inference system learns the if-then rules between bridge risk
scores and risk ratings from the past bridge maintenance projects and stores the results
for generalization and predictions.
9.8 Maintenance optimization techniques
In 2005, a code of practice was developed in the United Kingdom for the
management of highway structures. One of the code’s recommendations is that “A
formalized maintenance planning and management process should be implemented
that identifies needs, prioritizes maintenance and produces cost effective and
sustainable short to medium term work plans that are consistent with the long-term
Transport Asset Management Plan.” (UK Bridges Board, 2005). This code highlights the
requirement that bridge level and network level optimization must support the
organizational strategic asset management plan.
A benefit with life cycle cost optimization as a single objective function is that it
usually provides the lowest cost solution over the life of the bridge. However, the
analysis would likely select a bridge replacement as its first intervention due to reduced
maintenance cost and the long life available from a new and modern structure. Likely,
the cost of a new bridge would not be available in the budget and many publications
listed in this review place a constraint on budgets in the optimization process. Most
modern Highway organizations apply multiple simultaneous objectives to meet their
organizational strategic goals by allowing trade-offs between objectives. These goals can
include growth, profit, safety, meeting societal needs, or any combination of these and
may include other business centric objectives.
9.9 Life cycle cost analysis for Highway bridges
Any design, construction, inspection, maintenance, repair, refurbishment,
replacement, or disposal action over a bridge’s life span will consume economic
resources. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is a method to estimate and compare the cost
of proposed options over the life of the asset (Woodward, 1997; Jiang et al., 2004).
Therefore, LCCA can determine the economic efficiency of expenditures over the
remaining life of existing assets (Hawk, 2003). LCCA can be performed at any stage of the
life cycle, however the greatest opportunity for change can be found during the design
planning stage.
The objective of LCC optimization is to select the best solution from a selection
of candidates based on minimizing costs over the life of the asset (Jiang et al., 2004).
Hawk (2003) added that LCCA can be applied to select an economically efficient set of

26
actions and their timing within a bridge’s life cycle. This includes bridge design,
construction, maintenance strategies and project management (Stewart, 2001; Jiang et
al., 2004; Schaufelberger and Jacobson, 2000).
LCCA has been a popular method for many years to reduce the total
maintenance cost over the life of a bridge (Hawk, 2003; Kong and Frangopol, 2003;
Frangopol, 2011). Conducting LCCA on existing assets assesses the cumulative cost of
different maintenance actions, including upkeep and user costs over the remaining life
of the structure, then selects the maintenance actions that provide the lowest total
remaining life cost (Hawk, 2003).
9.10 Life Cycle Cost Standards, regulations, and guidance
Life cycle cost analysis of bridges has been recommended by legislation for
many years in countries around the globe. This section provides a brief overview of the
numerous standards and guidelines published in the field of Life Cycle Costing and Life
Cycle Cost Analysis.
The economic optimizations of the LCC over a bridge’s life has identified
significant cost savings and is vigorously pursued by many organizations. To assist in this
pursuit, many organizational bodies have issued or endorsed the development of LCC
publications. Arguably, the most prominent of these in the bridge industry are the
International Organization for Standardization’s Standards ISO: 15686-5 on “Buildings and
constructed assets, Service-life planning – Life cycle costing” (ISO, 2008) and ISO: 14040
on “Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework”
(ISO, 2006).
In addition to the International Standards, many countries have endorsed their
own initiatives in bridge life cycle costing. The UK bodies include the Efficiency and
Reform Group, formerly the Office of Government Commerce, (HM Treasury, 2011) and
the National Audit Office (NAO, 2001). In Norway, Standard NS: 3454 was issued on the
“Life Cycle Costs for Construction Works - Principles and Classification” (Standards
Norway, 2013) to assist decisions regarding public procurement.
In 1991, the USA’s Intermodal Surface Transportation Act suggested the use of
LCCA when designing new bridges. In 1995 it became a requirement under the National
Highway System Designation Act for all States of the USA to conduct LCCA on all
projects over $25 million. The Transport Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998
rescinded the requirement to conduct LCCA from the 1995 National Highway System
Designation Act and an LCCA became optional. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users required States to conduct a value

27
 engineering analysis for projects over $20 million. In 2012, The Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act superseded the 2005 Act and requires a LCCA to be a
part of the asset plan.
In 2002, the USA’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a LCC Primer to
assist in calculating LCC for comparing highway investments (FHWA, 2002). The next year,
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) Project 12-43 produced a
report on “Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Bridges” which established guidelines and
standardized procedures for conducting life cycle costing of highway bridges throughout
the USA (Hawk, 2003).

10. References
AAMCOG. 2008. Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Brisbane QLD: Australian Asset Management
Collaborative Group
AASHTO. 2012. AASHTO LRFD Bridge design Specifications, 6th Ed. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
ABU DABOUS, S. & ALKASS, S. 2008. Decision support method for multi-criteria selection
of bridge rehabilitation strategy. Construction Management and Economics, 26, 881-
891.
ACCC. 2014. About the ACCC [Online]. ACCC. Available: http:/ / www.accc.gov.au/ about-
us/ australian-competition-consumer-commission/ about-the-accc [ Accessed 21
November 2014].
ADAMS, T. M. & KANG, M. K. 2009. Sensitivity Analysis of Bridge Health Index to Element
Failure Costs and Conditions. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
ADEY, B., HAJDIN, R. & BRÜHWILER, E. 2003a. Risk-based approach to the determination of
optimal interventions for bridges affected by multiple hazards. Engineering
Structures, 25, 903-912.
ADEY, B. , HAJDIN, R. & BRÜHWILER, E. 2003b. Supply and Demand System Approach to
Development of Bridge Management Strategies. J. Infrastruct. Syst., 9, 117-131.
ADEY, B. T. , KLATTER, L. & KONG, J. S. 2010. Overview of Existing Bridge Management
Systems. International Association of Bridge Maintenance and Safety.
AFFLECK, F. 2005. Exploration of Some Factors Contributing to Under-Provision of
Infrastructure Capacity: Coal Highway Networks in Queensland and the Hunter Valley
of New South Wales. ACCC Regulatory Conference. Gold Coast, Queensland Australia.
ANAO. 2001. Life Cycle Costing - Better Practice Guide. Canberra ACT: AusInfo.

28
ANOOP, M. B., RAGHUPRASAD, B. K. & BALAJI RAO, K. 2012. A Refined Methodology for
Durability-Based Service Life Estimation of Reinforced Concrete Structural Elements
Considering Fuzzy and Random Uncertainties. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 27, 170-186.
AUGUSTI, G., CIAMPOLI, M. & FRANGOPOL, D. M. 1998a. Life-cycle reliability-based system
management of structures and networks. Structural Safety and Reliability.
Balkema, Rotterdam: ICOSSAR.
AUGUSTI, G., CIAMPOLI, M. & FRANGOPOL, D. M. 1998b. Optimal planning of retrofitting
interventions on bridges in a highway network. Engineering Structures, 20, 933-939.
AUSTROADS. 2002. Bridge Management Systems: The state of the art. Sydney: Austroads.
AUSTROADS. 2004. Guidelines for Bridge Management – Structure Information.
AUSTROADS. 2009a. Guide to Asset management Part 6: Bridge Performance. Sydney,
NSW: Austroads.
AUSTROADS. 2009b. Guide to bridge technology Part 7: Maintenance and management of
existing bridges. Sydney, NSW: Austroads.
AVERY, S. 2011. BridgeAsyst [Online]. Pitt & Sherry. Available: http:/ / www.pittsh.com.au/
[Accessed 2 November 2011].
AVERY, S. 2012. RE: BridgeAsyst risk score algorithm Type to NIELSEN, D.
BELLMAN, R. 1957. Dynamic Programming, Princeton, NJ, USA, Princeton University
Press.
BELLMAN, R. 2003. Dynamic Programming, Dover Publications.
BIGGAR, D. 2005. What is the primary cause of long-term under-investment in rail? ACCC
Regulatory Conference. Gold Coast, Queensland Australia.
BIONDINI, F. & FRANGOPOL, D. M. 2008. Probabilistic limit analysis and lifetime prediction
of concrete structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 4, 399-412.
BIONDINI, F. , FRANGOPOL, D. M. & GARAVAGLIA, E. 2010. The role of design and
maintenance on the life-cycle reliability of truss structures. Safety, Reliability and
Risk of Structures, Infrastructures and Engineering Systems, 2053-2059.
BOCCHINI, P. & FRANGOPOL, D. M. 2011. A probabilistic computational framework for bridge
network optimal maintenance scheduling. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 96,
332-349.
BOCCHINI, P. & FRANGOPOL, D. M. 2013. Connectivity-based optimal scheduling for
maintenance of bridge networks. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 139, 760-769.
Yang, K.H., Chung, H.S., Ashour, A.F., 2008. Influence of type and replacement level of
recycled aggregates on concrete properties. ACI Mater. J. 105 (3), 289-296.

29
 Yildirim, S.T., Meyer, C., Herfellner, S., 2015. Effects of internal curing on the strength, drying
shrinkage and freeze-thaw resistance of concrete containing recycled concrete
aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 91, 288-296.
Younis, K.H., Mustafa, S.M., 2018. Feasibility of using nanoparticles of SiO2 to improve the
performance of recycled aggregate concrete. Ann. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1-11.
BOCCHINI, P., SAYDAM, D. & FRANGOPOL, D. M. 2013. Efficient, accurate, and simple Markov
chain model for the life-cycle analysis of bridge groups. Structural Safety, 40, 51- 64
BOLTON, W. 2011. RE: Bridge Risk Assessment. Type to NIELSEN, D.
BRIDGMAN, P. W. 1922. Dimensional Analysis, New Haven, Yale University Press.
BROWN, G. , GRAVE, S. & BOORMAN, G. 2010. Bridge Inspection Standards: A review of
international practice to benchmark bridge inspection standards for Kiwirail Network's
bridges. Conference on Highway Engineering. Wellington, New Zealand.
BROWNE, C., POWLEY, E., WHITEHOUSE, D., LUCAS, S., COWLING, P. I., ROHLFSHAGEN, P.,
TAVENER, S. , PEREZ, D. , SAMOTHRAKIS, S. & COLTON, S. 2012a. A survey of Monte
Carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and
AI in Games, 4.
BROWNE, C., POWLEY, E., WHITEHOUSE, D., LUCAS, S., COWLING, P. I., ROHLFSHAGEN, P.,
TAVENER, S. , PEREZ, D. , SAMOTHRAKIS, S. & COLTON, S. 2012b. A survey of Monte
Carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and
AI in Games, 4, 1-43.
CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS INC. 1998. Ponti’s Release 3.2 User’s Manual. Washington. DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
CHARNES, A. , COOPER, W. W. & RHODES, E. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision-
making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444.
CHASLOT, G., DE JONG, S., SAITO, J.-T. & IUITERWIJK, J. 2006. Monte-Carlo Tree Search in
Production Management Problems. Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Namur,
Belgium.
CHEN, W.-F. & DUAN, L. (eds.) 1999. Bridge Engineering Handbook, USA: CRC Press LLC.
CHENG, S., CHAN, C. W. & HUANG, G. H. 2002. Using multiple criteria decision analysis for
supporting decisions of solid waste management. Journal of Environmental Science and
Health - Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 37, 975-990.
11. Objectives
The aim of this study was to develop a decision support approach that assists
infrastructure managers make informed decisions on repair alternatives and to improve the
maintenance planning of their existing Highway bridge inventory. The study is to provide a

30
simple approach that assists IM’ s make informed decisions on the maintenance and
replacement of bridges over a long planning horizon, that is, durations longer than the typical
design life ( >75 years) . Conducting long term planning analysis at the typical 15–30 years
planning horizon does not capture the entire lifespan of many bridge elements. Many bridges
can stay in operational service for over 200 years. To achieve this aim, enabling objectives were
identified as follows
1. Provide a method to determine the importance of bridges within the network
and quantify their contribution to Highway operation.
2. Provide an approach to balance operational ( bridge level) , strategic ( network
level) and financial performance.
3. Conduct experiments with optimization methods using a dataset with bridge and
network parameters provided by Thailand Highway organizations.

It was also identified that the proposed decision support approach to maintenance
planning should have the following characteristics:
1. Practical, reliable, and economical approach.
2. Analysis planning horizons will have the capability to extend beyond the
stipulated bridge design life (steel and timber constructions) of 75 years.
3. Each bridge element will have at least three defined maintenance actions with
individual maintenance costs and life gain.
4. Consider uncertain remaining service life estimates of elements based on
subjective visual inspections, and
5. Efficient computational processing to provide a solution in a timely manner.
11.1 Need for a maintenance decision support approach
Two general maintenance intervention classifications Preventative Maintenance (PM) and
Essential Maintenance (EM) can be employed to either slow down bridge deterioration or
improve the condition of the bridge (Kong and Frangopoulos, 2003). Many rail bridges have
typically been repaired using EM because PM has historically had financial constraints.
11.2 Need for a comprehensive network maintenance planning model
The capacity of BMSs to integrate decisions at the bridge and network levels, as well as to
optimize evaluation and maintenance decisions while processing enormous bridge inventories
and complex algorithms, has been shown to be limited in recent years (Okasha and Frangopol,
2011). In addition to these limitations, managing the safety and integrity of bridges is challenging
due to low maintenance budgets, fewer and shorter maintenance windows because of
increased traffic, larger network sizes, and complex or inadequate management systems. It is

31
common knowledge that bridges need routine and occasionally scheduled maintenance
throughout their lifespan to guarantee they live up to or even past their full design life. The rate
of deterioration after maintenance, the estimated service life after maintenance, and other
factors can all be affected by the several maintenance alternatives that might be used at each
intervention.
- Which future maintenance/ repair alternatives would meet the asset strategy set via
organizational policy?
- What will be the future impact on economic and bridge performance by selecting
different maintenance alternatives?
12. Methodology
12.1 Introduction
The previous mention presented current practices and a literature review of decision
analysis techniques in the field of bridge maintenance management. This included some
comments on the limitations of existing methods and models that have been traditionally used
to solve bridge maintenance planning problems.
This item presents the research design and the selected supporting methods and
models from the literature review that will be investigated further. The first section introduces
an overview of the research design followed by a list of assumptions and constraints. A
customized bridge information framework is presented showing the path of information
transference between bridge management modules. Finally, the selected methods and models
that were adopted from the review are further described and discussed.
12.2 Research design overview
The literature review found that non-heuristic methods have remained comparatively
underdeveloped over the past 20 years, while heuristic methods have undergone significant
development and have been the attention of many researchers. To investigate potential
modifications for long-term bridge maintenance planning, the research design also goes into
the area of non-heuristic decision-making procedures.
The outcome was to create a system that helps IMs make educated decisions about the
maintenance and replacement of bridges over a lengthy planning horizon, which was the
goal of the study method, which was designed to fulfill the research aim and objectives
outlined in previous mention. The study design was divided into five phases, each of which
served as an essential part of the goal-oriented strategy as shown in Figure 6

32
 Phase1 Review
Literature review of Existing
approach

Maintenance
Remaining life Maintenance
Bridge inventory Bridge rating improvement
estimation model
model

Phase2 Pre-Processing
Bridge and maintenance characteristic

Evaluation and identify maintenance

Phase3 Bridge level analysis
plans for each objective

Calculate bridge renewal score to identify bridge Bridge importance

renewal windows Score

Phase4 Network Calculate bridge renewal score to identify bridge

level analysis renewal windows
Excess

Insufficient Is maintenance funding within

the acceptable 5 year range?
Impose load or speed
restriction, possibly temporary
close bridges to reduce Within range
maintenance cost
Conduct analysis to develop a 5 year
maintenance program

Phase5 Application of approach Example

Figure 6 Diagram of phased approach to research design

33
 12.2.1 Phase 1 Review
A survey of literature was conducted to identify and examine existing maintenance
management techniques, models, and optimization methods. Based on the review, appropriate
condition rating, deterioration and cost estimation methods and models were selected for
inclusion in this study.
12.2.1 Phase 2 Pre-processing phase
Pre-processing of bridge parameters included conducting all the tasks related to aligning
maintenance cost, rating systems and inspection records into a single combined data set. The
models adopted in this study were sourced from suitable solutions in the literature review and
are discussed later in this Chapter
12.2.3 Phase 3 Bridge level analysis
The life cycle costing paradigm has long established that costs should be minimised over
the life of the structure. However, the life of the structure is usually ill defined and the cost
implications of delaying a bridge renewal at the end of the life are unknown. Furthermore, the
time of scheduled bridge renewals can also change to be earlier or later, so the end of life or
renewal date can also be uncertain. Therefore, the developed maintenance planning approach
includes the implications surrounding maintenance leading up to the time of structural renewal
and the cost impacts of delaying renewals. However, not every bridge will be scheduled for
renewal, and alternative approaches need to be explored to plan their future maintenance
needs.
Based on popular objectives identified in the review, this study considered four objective
functions to determine which objective or combination of objectives would achieve a suitable
decision support approach for bridge maintenance planning. A task specific dynamic
programming algorithm was developed to produce maintenance activity sequences including
Monte Carlo Simulations of subjective values. The output from the analysis is a sequence of
maintenance activities and intervention dates for each element, and when added with the cost
data they form a “ maintenance plan” . The results of the bridge level analysis are several
maintenance plans for each bridge based on the different objective functions. The multiple
maintenance plans for each bridge are then available for selection in the network level analysis.
12.3.4 Phase 4 Network level analysis
A multi-objective bridge renewal ranking process identifies the “ best” windows of
opportunity to conduct a bridge renewal. After the optional scheduling of bridges for renewal,
the analysis selects individual bridge maintenance plan alternatives that satisfy the limited
network budget. The analysis was solved using a binary integer linear programming method with
a constraint on the network budget. A single objective function was derived from the multiple

34
attribute utility theory using the bridge importance in the network and the minimum remaining
bridge service life (evaluated as a value).
12.3.5 Phase 5 Application of approach
A small network of bridges from the State Highway of Thailand (SRT) is used as an
example to demonstrate the approach. Results from the analysis are evaluated and discussed.
12.4 Constraints, assumptions, and objective functions
The following characteristics, constraints and assumptions on maintenance planning were
accepted for this analysis:
12.4.1 Constraints
1. Bridge inspection results are qualitative scores and may include errors.
2. Each bridge element has four maintenance alternatives that improve element
condition.
3. Bridge materials can be a mix of metal, and concrete components.
4. No size limit on the number of bridges elements.
5. Maintenance interventions are limited to a maximum of one per year.
6. Planning horizons are 100 years.
7. LCC and MBV analysis limited to a maximum of 5 maintenance interventions for
each bridge element over the planning horizon.
8. Future maintenance budgets are uncertain but can be estimated.
9. The service life gained after maintenance, future maintenance costs and the
service life of replaced/refurbished elements are uncertain.
10. Bridge dataset was limited to single line, Highway bridges.
11. Bridge dataset was limited to ‘simply supported’ bridge configurations.
12. Minimum acceptable element condition is 4 and after maintenance the minimum
element condition must be a rating of 4 or better.
13. The annual operational maintenance budget assigned to the bridge network is the
only cost constraint and multiple funding sources are not considered.
14. Decisions made now affect future decisions and decisions made in the past are
irreversible.
12.4.2 Acceptance criteria
1. Maintenance plan solutions achieving the goals of the objective functions.
2. The solution will include the future annual maintenance costs and actions
required to maintain bridges at or above minimum performance limits.
3. Network maintenance plan solution must be under the limited network budget.

35
 4. A modern personal computer must find a solution within an acceptable period,
and this was limited to 30 minutes.
12.4.3 Assumptions
1. The operational cost of bridge unavailability or restricted capacity during
maintenance interventions is not considered.
2. The ideal time for a repair, rehabilitation or replacement activity of a bridge
element would be just before that element reaches a minimum performance limit
to maximize the capital value.
3. Bridges are assessed at regular intervals and the results are available to update the
analysis.
4. Increased failure risk from combined or adjacent defects are not considered in this
study.
Regarding item 4, this study does not consider the additional risk that may be derived
from multiple defects located on nearby or adjacent elements. The implications of the severity
and extent of nearby defects and the failure risk transferred to adjacent elements will be an
area of future study.
12.4.4 Objective functions
The bridge level and network level analysis require at least one objective function for
each level. The four objective functions selected for the bridge level analysis include:
1. Minimum life cycle cost.
2. Minimum bridge value.
3. Maximum benefit/cost, and
4. Minimum cost.
The objective function for the network level analysis includes selecting the maintenance
plan that maximizes maintenance gains based on the importance of the bridge in the network.
This multi-objective function was developed using the well-established multiple-attribute utility
theory (Von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944; Keeney and Raiffa, 1976).
13. Scope of research
The scope of the study is limited to a typical population of small bridge structures in a
typical Thailand’s Highway network. The study will consider maintenance needs at the
individual element level (i.e., bridge components and parts), at the individual bridge
level and at the network level. This includes bridges constructed from steel, and
concrete or a combination of these materials but does not include drains, temporary
bridges, or tunnel structures. This study is limited to bridge spans with simply supported
and continuous girder design types.

36
14. Equipment needed for the project
Existing equipment and apparatus
There is no existing tool.
Equipment to be purchased
1. A device to record of the bridge structure
1. Switch hammer
2. Strain Gauge
3. Data Logger
4. Linear variable differential transformer (LVDT)
5. Hardness tester
6. Vibration Meter
7. Digital Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge
8. Computer and Printer

15. Work Plan for the entire project

Research plan Time (month)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
1. Literature review
2. Preparation of Tools and Equipment
3. Study of Bridge conditions and
properties each type
4. Survey or Investigation the Data of
Bridge each type on Site
5. Bridge Load test each type
6 Hardness tests
7 Data analysis by computer program
8. Submit manuscript to the
international journals
9. Preparation of final report

16. Output and KPI (Key Performance Indicator)

1. Knowledge about the new method a use of nanosilica and mineral fiber mixtures
as a new cementing material improve recycled aggregate concrete.

37
 2. Reduction of Portland cement consumption, reducing the cost of concrete and
also is good for the environment.
3. Encourages the researchers to further study on the use of by-product from
industries, leading to a good way to solve the disposal problems due to waste
concrete.
4. Novel product which can be commercialized and applied in concrete industrial.

17. Outcomes and Impact

Long term maintenance planning that considers maintenance alternatives at the bridge
element level ( i.e. , individual bridge components) is time consuming and costly, and is
usually only conducted for “ at risk” bridges or bridges with high importance. Therefore, a
practical, reliable, and economical maintenance planning approach was required that would
assist decision makers plan future bridge maintenance in an objective manner for all bridges
in the network. This thesis presented a novel approach to provide a decision support
system to evaluate and plan maintenance and renewals at the bridge element level while
considering annual budget limitations across the selected Highway network.
The decision support system presented in this research included the development of a
task specific application called the Asset Maintenance Planning. This application was
developed using the dynamic programming method and builds optimal maintenance plans
for each bridge element using three objective functions namely the Minimum Life Cycle
Cost + Minimum bridge Value (MLCC+MBV), Maximum Benefit/Cost (MB/C) and the Minimum
Cost (MC) objectives.
The network level analysis selects the maintenance plan that obtains the greatest
benefit to the bridge network within the limited annual budget. The network analysis
problem was solved using the binary integer linear programming method and a single
objective function with the overall budget as a constraint. The objective function combines
multiple attributes using the multiple-attribute utility theory. The combined attributes
encompass the benefit from the maintenance improvement and the bridge importance in
the network.
Bridges were categorized as either perpetual or fixed life structures. Perpetual bridges
were analyzed using either the MB/C or MC objective functions, and the fixed life structures

38
 that were scheduled for renewal were analyzed. Bridges were assigned an annual bridge
renewal score based on the remaining bridge value and the bridge importance.

18. Budget details

Detailed of total budget for the proposed project is given in the table below:

Item No Categories Budget (baht)

18.1 Honorarium (13,000x24) 312,000
18.2 Tools and Equipment
18.2.1 A device to record of the bridge structure 20,000
18.2.2 Switch hammer 10,000
18.2.3 Strain Gauge 10,000
18.2.4 Data Logger 10,000
18.2.5 Linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) 10,000
18.2.6 Hardness tester 10,000
18.2.7 Vibration Meter 10,000
18.2.8 Digital Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge 10,000
18.2.9 Computer and Printer 50,000
18.2.9 Office equipment 2,000
18.3 Other expenses
18.3.1 Travel and accommodation expenses 50,000
18.3.3 Data analysis 25,000
18.3.4 Test Bridge properties fee 25,000
18.3.4 Conference register fee 10,000
18.3.5 Publishing international Paper 30,000
18.3.6 Printing, copying expenses 3,000
18.3.7 Report expense 3,000
Total budget 600,000
The total budget for this 2-year research project is about 600,000 baht.

19. Expected benefits

The benefits of this study were to develop a decision support approach that assists
infrastructure managers make informed decisions on repair alternatives and to improve the
maintenance planning of their existing Highway bridge inventory.

39
 The benefits are to provide a simple approach that assists IM’s make informed decisions
on the maintenance and replacement of bridges over a long planning horizon, that is, durations
longer than the typical design life (>75 years). Conducting long term planning analysis at the
typical 15-30 years planning horizon does not capture the entire lifespan of many bridge
elements. Many bridges can stay in operational service for over 100 years.

20. Research connections

 Connections with other experts within and outside Thailand
- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chuchai Sujivorakul, Advisor for Industrial Relationship, Office of
Scientific and Technological Research and Service, King Mongkut's University of
Technology Thonburi (KMUTT), Thailand.
- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tawich Pulngern Associate Dean Institute of Engineering, King Mongkut’s
University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT).
 Connections with stakeholders and users

21. Will this proposal or related proposal be submitted within the next six months or
has it been submitted to other funding agency/source? If yes, please give the name
of the funding agency, name of the project and status of submission.
No
 Yes, please give the name of the funding agency, name of the project and status of
submission.

22. The projects that the principal investigator is currently carrying

Project title:_____________________________-
_____________________________________
Project duration _____-_____ years from __________-__________to________-_________
Research funding institute_________________________-____________________________
Budget _______________________________________-_____________________________
Role of principal investigator in this project  principal investigator
 other (please specify)
Weekly hours spent on this project ____________-_____________ hours/week

23. Curriculum vitae of Principal investigator and Mentor

Principal investigator
Name: Dr. Thawatchai Phanyakit, Age: 52
40
Position: Lecturer at Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture,
Uthenthawai Campus, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok, Bangkok, Thailand
(RMUTTO), Salary: 35,750
Education
- Ph.D. (Civil Engineering), Khon Kaen University (KKU), 2022
- M.Eng.(Civil Engineering Technology), King Mongkut’s University of Technology
Thonburi (KMUTT), 2020
- MBA (Business Administration), Burapha University (BUU), 2010
- B.Eng. (Civil Engineering), Rajamangala Institute of Technology (RIT), 1995
Department / Faculty / Institute / Address
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Uthenthawai Campus,
Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok, Bangkok, Thailand
Telephone
Tel: 02-252-7029, Cell: 063-712-0199, Fax: 02-252-7580
Email: thawatchai.enkku@gmail.com
Weekly hours intended to spend on this project
20 hours/Week

Examples of recent research outputs (Since 2018)

1. Proceeding Paper
1.1 In a National Proceedings Paper
- Thawatchai Phanyakit, Thaned Satiennam and. Pongrid Klungboonkrong. Fuzzy
Multi Attribute Decision-Making Approach to analyzing Highway track Failures and
Degradations for Choose plan of Maintenance and Renewal: Northeast Line from
Thanon Chira Junction to Nong Khai Station, Thailand Case Study. 23rd National
Convention on Civil Engineering (NCCE 23) 18-20 July 2018, Chulachomklao Royal
Military Academy, Nakhon Nayok, Thailand.

- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Thaned Satiennam. Decision Support System for the
Selection Highway Track Maintenance and Rehabilitation Planning: A Case Study of
Northeastern Line. 3rd National Conference on Creative Technology (Cretech
2019).19-21 June 2019. Loft mania Boutique Hotel, Thailand.

- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Ampol Karoonsoontawong. A Study to Improve Traffic

Control Measures at a Railroad Crossing Using Preemption System. 4th National
41
 Conference on Creative Technology (Cretech 2 0 20).5-7 August 2 0 20. Grand Pacific
Sovereign Resort & Spa Cha-am, Phetchaburi, Thailand.

- Thawatchai Phanyakit. Predicting railroad deterioration from a review of the existing

literature. 6 th National Conference on Creative Technology (Cretech 2 0 2 0 ).9 -11
August 2020. Health Land Resort & Spa Pattaya, Chonburi, Thailand.

1.2 In an International Proceedings Paper

- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Thaned Satiennam. Track-quality index and degradation
of Highway track structure: The construction track doubling project of northeast line
from thanon chira junction to khon kaen station, Thailand. The 4th International
Conference on Engineering, Applied Sciences, and Technology (ICEAST 2018).
Swissôtel Resort Phuket Paton Beach, Phuket, Thailand.

- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Thaned Satiennam. Using fuzzy multi attribute decision
making (FMADM) approach for Highway track rehabilitation planning: Case study of
northeast line from thanon chira junction to khon kaen station, Thailand. 4th
International Conference on Science, Engineering & Environment (SEE-Nagoya 2018),
Mie University 1577 Kurima Machiya-cho, Tsu-city, Mie 514-8507 Japan.

- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Thaned Satiennam. Highway track degradation mechanism

and track-quality index (TQI) for track maintenance and rehabilitation management,
Thailand. 6th International conference at Pattaya (Cretech 2018), Chonburi, Thailand.

- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Thaned Satiennam. Development of decision support

system for Highway maintenance: A Case study of state Highway of Thailand. 7th Int.
Conf. on Structure, Engineering & Environment (SEE-Pattaya 2021), Pattaya, Thailand,
Nov.10-12, 2021, ISBN: 978-4-909106070 C3051.

Publishing in a Journal Article

2.1 In a National Journal Article
- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Ampol Karoonsoontawong. A Study to Improve Traffic
Control Measures at a Railroad Crossing Using Preemption System. RMUTT Research
Journal. Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep. Vol. 16, Issue 1, January-
June 2022.

42
 2.2 In an International Journal Article
- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Thaned Satiennam. Track-quality index and degradation
of Highway track structure: The construction track doubling project of northeast line
from thanon chira junction to khon kaen station, Thailand. MATEC Web of
Conferences 192, 02022 (2018).

- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Thaned Satiennam. Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision

Making for the Selection of a Suitable Highway track Maintenance Plan: A Case Study
in Thailand. International Journal of GEOMATE, Aug. 2019, Vol.17, Issue 60, pp.96-
104.

- Thawatchai Phanyakit, and Thaned Satiennam. Decision Support System to Improve

Highway Track Maintenance Using Track-Quality Index (TQI). Research Journal RMUTT
Bangkok. Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep. Vol. 13, Issue 1, January-
June 2019, pages 59-67.

Mentor
Name: Chuchai Sujivora, Ph.D.
Academic position: Assoc. Prof.
Institute / Address
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering King Mongkut’s University of Technology
Thonburi (KMUTT) 126 Pracha Uthit Rd., Bang Mod Thung Khru, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
Academic field of specialty
- Vice President, Thailand Concrete Association
- Chairman of Concrete Structural Committee, Thailand Concrete Association.
- Committee of Concrete Structures Division, Thai Concrete Association.
- Committee of Concrete and Materials Division, The Engineering Institute of
Thailand Under H.M. King’s Patronage.
- Subcommittee for Drafting of the Ministry Regulations on Cable Car Control,
Department of Public Works, and Town & Country Planning
- Chairman of Academic Subcommittee, 7/6 Branch--Concrete Piles, Thai Industrial
Standards Institute.
- Committee, Building Codes, Standards, and Guidelines for Amusement Rides,
Funicular, and Aerial Tramway Safety under the 1979 Building Control Act

43
 - Committee of Guideline for Reinforced Concrete Building: Ultimate Strength
Design, The Engineering Institute of Thailand, under H.M. the King’s Patronage.
- Committee of Guideline for Reinforced Concrete Building: Working Stress Design,
The Engineering Institute of Thailand, under H.M. the King’s Patronage.
- Principal Organizer, Training Course of Precast Concrete, Thailand Concrete
Association.
- Speaker, Training Course of the Design and Materials for Reinforced Concrete
Building Used for Earthquake Resistance, Thailand Concrete Association.
- Speaker, Training Course of the Design of Reinforced Concrete after College,
Thailand Concrete Association.
- Speaker, Training Course of the Design of Prestressed Concrete, The Engineering
Institute of Thailand Under H.M. King’s Patronage.

Examples of recent research outputs (Since 2014)

Selected Journal Papers
1.Sripan, T., and Sujivorakul C., “Variables that Influence the Intention to Persist in
Vocational Education” International Journal of Instruction, Volume 13, No.2, April
2020.

2.Chuchai Sujivorakul, Teerawut Muhummud, and Sakol Kong, “Steel Fiber Reinforced
Concrete Sandwich Panel Using a Foam Core: Flexural Investigation and Prediction”,
Journal of Thailand Concrete Association, January-June 2017, Volume 5, No.1, pp.24-
34.

3.Chuchai Sujivorakul and Kanokwan Chaivorawitkul, "Influence of Compressive

Strength of Concrete and Sample Size on the Compressive Strength of Concrete
Obtained from a Non-Destructive Test Using Rebound Hammer, " Journal of Vocational
Research and Innovation, January-June 2017, Volume 1, No.1, pp.62-69.

4.Poondej, C. Ravinder, K., and Sujivorakul C., “Achievement goal orientation and the
critical thinking disposition of college students across academic programmes”, Journal
of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 37, No.4, pp.1-15, January 2012.
5.Lerdpornkulrat, T., Ravinder, K., and Sujivorakul, C., “The Influence of Ability Beliefs
and Motivational Orientation on the Self-Efficacy of High School Science Students in
Thailand”, Australian Journal of Education Australian, Vol.56, No.2, pp.163-181, 2012.

44
6.Kudngaongarm, P., Sujivorakul, C. (2012), “Competencies Framework for Civil
Engineer in Thailand,” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 4, No. 4, February, pp. 377-382.

7.Choosit, P., Sujivorakul, C., Kongsuwan, S. (2012), “Core Competencies in Vocational

Welder Worker: Based on Thai Welding Industry Participator Perceptions,” Research
Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 4, February, pp.
371-376.

8.Sujivorakul C., Jaturapitakkul C. and Taotip A. (2011), “Utilization of Fly Ash, Rice
Husk Ash, and Palm Oil Fuel Ash in Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” Journal of
Material Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 23, No. 9, September, pp. 1281-1288.

9.Koul, R., Clariana, R. B., Kongsuwan, S., & Suji-Vorakul, C. (2009). Students’ goal
orientations and perceptions of professional competencies. Journal of Vocational
Education and Training, 61(3), 307-318.

10.Sujivorakul, C., Waas, A. M., and Naaman A. E. (2000), “Pullout of a Smooth Fiber
with an End Anchorage,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 9,
September, pp. 986-993.

Selected Conference Papers

1.Chamroeun Chhun, Chuchai Sujivorakul, Teerawut Muhummud, “Bond Mechanisms
of An Anchor Embedded into Concrete,” 2nd International Conference on Engineering
Innovation 2018, July 5- 6, 2018, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of
Technology North Bangkok, Thailand.

2.Wijitsombat, S., Sujivorakul C., Factors Affecting on the Strengthening of Reinforced

Concrete Beams Using Steel Plate, The 2nd ACF Symposium 2017 : Innovations for
Sustainable Concrete Infrastructures, 23-25 November 2017, Chiang Mai.
3.Luecha, K., and Sujivorakul, C., “Pull-Out Mechanisms of Different Hooked Steel
Fibers”, 7th Asia Pacific Young Researchers and Graduates Symposium (YRGS 2015) -
Innovations in Materials and Structural Engineering Practices, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19 - 22 August 2015.

45
4.Wongpran, W., Sujivorakul, C., and Muhummud, T., “The Study of Epoxy–Surface
Preparation and Cross-Sectional Enlargement Patterns to Strengthen RC Beam Using
Fiber Reinforced Concrete”, 7th Asia Pacific Young Researchers and Graduates
Symposium (YRGS 2015) - Innovations in Materials and Structural Engineering Practices,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19 - 22 August 2015.

5.Viriyajaroenwong, S., Sujivorakul, C., and Muhummud, T., “Flexural Strengthening of

Concrete Slabs Using Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete”, 7th Asia Pacific Young
Researchers and Graduates Symposium (YRGS 2015) - Innovations in Materials and
Structural Engineering Practices, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19 - 22
August 2015.

6.Sujivorakul, C., and Thanongthanasit, P., “Model of Reinforced Concrete Beam Using
Hooked Steel Fibers Reinforced Concrete”, ACF 5 th, Int. Conference, Pattaya,
Chonburi, 24-26 October 2012.

7.Sujivorakul, C. (2012), “Flexural Model of Doubly Reinforced Concrete Beams Using

Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” 3rd International Symposium on
Ultra-High Performance Concrete and Nanotechnology in Construction, Kassel,
Germany.
8.Kudngaongarm, P.,Sujivorakul, C. (2012), “Competencies Framework for Civil Engineer
in Thailand,” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Vol.
4, No. 4, February, pp. 377-382.

9.Sujivorakul C. and Taotip A. (2011), “Parameters Affecting Tensile Properties of

Hooked Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” 16th National Civil Engineering Conference,
Chonburi, Thailand.

10.Sujivorakul C., Jaturapitakkul C. and Taotip A. (2011), “Utilization of Fly Ash, Rice
Husk Ash, and Palm Oil Fuel Ash in Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete,” Journal of
Material Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 23, No. 9, September, pp. 1281-1288.
11.Sujivorakul C. and Sangsan S. (2008), “Effect of Hooked Steel Fibers on the Bending
Strength and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam,” 13th National Civil Engineering
Conference, Chonburi, Thailand.

46
12.Sujivorakul C. and Junyam P. (2008), “Compression Expansion and Weight Change
of Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites Embedded in Sea Water,” 13th National Civil
Engineering Conference, Chonburi, Thailand.

13.Sujivorakul C. and Chumugsorn J. (2007), “Development of Fiber Reinforced

Geopolymer Composites,” 12th National Civil Engineering Conference, Pitsanulok,
Thailand.

14.Sujivorakul C. and Panpatheep P. (2006), “Control of Crack of Plastering Mortar in

Mone-Brick and Light-Weight-Brick Walls By Using Fibers,” 2nd Annual Concrete
Conference, Udonthani, Thailand.

15.Sata, V., Sujivorakul, C., Jaturapitakkul, C., and Naaman, A. E. (2006), “Effect of
Pozzolanic Materials on Tensile and Bending of Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites,”
8th Eight International Symposium and Workshop on Ferrocement and Thin Reinforced
Cement Composites, Bangkok, Thailand.

16.Sujivorakul, C., Muhammud, T., Narmluk, M., and Yodnumkhum, W. (2006),

“Development of Cement Composites Plates Reinforced with Wastepaper Fibers,” 8th
Eight International Symposium and Workshop on Ferrocement and Thin Reinforced
Cement Composites, Bangkok, Thailand.

17.Sujivorakul C. (2005), “Bending Size Effect of Steel Fiber Reinforced Cement

Composites,” 10th National Civil Engineering Conference, Chonburi, Thailand, pp
MAT1-MAT6.

18.Sujivorakul C. and Panjapalinkul S. (2005), “Control of Plastic Shrinkage Cracking of

Concrete Using Plant Fibers,” 1st Annual Concrete Conference, Rayong, Thailand,
CON120-CON125.
19.Sujivorakul, C. and Naaman, A. E. (2004), "Parameter Influencing Bending Response
of Cement Composites Reinforced with Twisted Polygonal Steel Fibers,” 1st
International Conference of Asian Concrete Federation, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

47
20.Sujivorakul, C. and Naaman, A. E. (2004), "Ultra High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced
Cement Composites Using Hybridization of Twisted Steel and Micro Fibers,” 6th Rilem
Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concrete, Varenna, Lake Como, Italy.

21.Sujivorakul C. and Naaman A. E. (2004), “Bond of Twisted Polygonal Steel Fibers

Embedded in Cementitious Materials,” 9th National Civil Engineering Conference,
Petchaburi, Thailand.

22.Sujivorakul, C. and Naaman, A. E. (2003), “Modeling Mechanical Bond in FRC

composites,” High Performance Fiber Reinforced Composites (HPFRCC 4), edited by H.
W. Reinhardt and A. E. Naaman (E & FN SPON, London), pp. 35-48.

23.Sujivorakul, C. and Naaman, A. E. (2003), “Effect of Bond Characteristics in Fiber

Reinforced Cement Composites,” Forth Regional Symposium on Infrastructure
Development in Civil Engineering (RSID4), April, 2003, Bangkok, Thailand.

24.Sujivorakul, C. and Naaman, A. E. (2002), "Evaluation of Bond-Slip Behavior of

Twisted Wire Strand Steel Fibers Embedded in Cement Matrix,” ACI Symposium on
Concrete: Material Science to Applications; A Tribute to Surendra P. Shah, April 22-23,
2002, Detroit, Michigan, pp. 271-292.

25.Naaman, A. E., and Sujivorakul, C. (2001), "Pull-out Mechanisms of Twisted Steel

Fibers Embedded in Concrete,” Proceeding of the International Conference on
Engineering Developments in Shotcrete, April 2-4, 2001, Hobart, Tasmania Australia, pp.
197-203.

26.Wijeyewickrema, A. C., and Sujivorakul, C. (1995), “Stress Intensity Factors for

Annular and Penny-Shaped Cracks in a Fiber,” Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Composites Engineering, August 21-24, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 809-
810.

48