PIARC Bridge Priorisation

www.piarc.
org
2012R32EN
Cycle 2004-2007
PRIORITISATION
OF BRIDGE
REHABILITATION
WORKS
Technical Committee 4.4
Bridges and related structures
2 PRIORITISATION OF BRIDGE REHABILITATION WORKS
2012R32EN statements
The World Road Association (PIARC) is a nonprofit organisation established in 1909 to improve
international co-operation and to foster progress in the field of roads and road transport.
The study that is the subject of this report was defined in the PIARC Strategic Plan 2004 – 2007
approved by the Council of the World Road Association, whose members are representatives of
the member national governments. The members of the Technical Committee responsible for
this report were nominated by the member national governments for their special competences.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this publication are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their parent organizations or
agencies.
This report is available from the internet site of the World Road Association (PIARC)
http://www.piarc.org
Copyright by the World Road Association. All rights reserved.
World Road Association (PIARC)

La Grande Arche, Paroi nord, Niveau 2
92055 La Défense cedex, France
International Standard Book Number 978-2-84060-300-9
Cover: Fotolia
2012R32EN
This report has been prepared by the Working Group 3 of the Technical Committee 4.4 “Bridges
and related structures” of the World Road Association (PIARC).
The contributors to the preparation of this report are:
Peter Graham (Queensland, Australia) (Working Group Leader),

Susanne Troive (Sweden),
Edwin Kruger (South Africa),
Malcolm Kerley (Virginia, US),
Karel Dahinter (Czech republic),
Gyula Kolozsi (Hungary),
Börre Stensvold (Norway),
Nick Malakatas (Greece),
Dany Taloc (France),
Andrés Torres-Acosta (Mexico),
Božo Peraica (Croatia).
The editors of this report are:
Peter Graham (Australia), Malcolm Kerley (Virginia, US), Susanne Troive (Sweden) and Börre
Stensvold (Norway).
Peter Graham and Malcom Kerley were responsible within the Technical Committee of the
quality control for the production of this report.
The Technical Committee was chaired by Rafael Astudillo (Spain) and Florent Imberty (France),
Dimitris Konstandinidis (Greece) were respectively the French and English-speaking secretaries.
2012R32EN
contents
SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................5
Introduction........................................................................................................................................6
1. Previous PIARC Committee Reports..................................................................................7

2. LINKS TO PIARC STRATEGIC PLAN..............................................................................................8
3. Scope.......................................................................................................................................................8
4. Methodology...................................................................................................................................8
5. Analysis of BMS submissions...................................................................................................9
5.1. Background..............................................................................................................................9
5.2. Components.............................................................................................................................10
5.3. Outputs......................................................................................................................................10
5.4. Benefits......................................................................................................................................11
6. Analysis of Prioritisation Methods..............................................................................12
6.1. Discussion of factors........................................................................................................13
7. Modification of System Derived Prioritisation Outputs...............................14
8. Management of Unfunded Priorities............................................................................17
9. Guideline for Prioritisation..............................................................................................17
9.1. Overview...................................................................................................................................18
9.2. Bridge Management System Requirements...........................................................19
10. PROCESSES ........................................................................................................................................22
10.1. PRIORITISATION PROCESS.....................................................................................................23
11. Conclusions...................................................................................................................................25
12. Future works ..............................................................................................................................25
13. Glossary..........................................................................................................................................25
appendices.............................................................................................................................................27
Appendix A1 – Bridge Asset Management System Questionnaire....................27
Appendix A2 – B ridge Prioritisation Method Questionnaire............................28
Appendix A3 – S upplementary (Moderation of System Outputs)
Questionnaire ...................................................................................................29
Appendix B – Bridge Asset Mangement Systems: Summary of Responses....30
Appendix C – Bridge Prioritisation Methods: Summary of Responses.........43
Appendix D – Bridge Prioritisation Methods: Analysis of Responses..........49
Appendix E – Moderation of System Outputs: Summary of Responses.........57
2012R32EN
SUMMARY
Previous reports of World Road Association investigated various aspects of bridge

management and identified that a rigorous multi-criteria methodology for
prioritising structure management actions was desirable and should be investigated.
Accordingly a series of questionnaires, designed to elicit details of the bridge
managements systems, prioritisation factors, prioritisation algorithms and output
modification processes, were developed.
The analysis of the responses to the questionnaires that were submitted by more
than twenty countries has provided an indication of the minimum data sets and
processes that are required to prioritise bridge rehabilitation at the network level.
Although different prioritisation philosophies have been adopted by contributors
there is convergence in the data sets that are required. This is primarily in the
bridge and road inventory items but to a lesser extent in the rated deterioration of
components where there is significant divergence due to condition, damage and
repair priority philosophies that have been adopted by the surveyed countries as
measure of component deterioration. However, regardless of the favoured
philosophy, consistent, current and reliable inventory and condition data are
essential to prioritisation of bridge maintenance interventions to facilitate the
necessary data manipulation, analysis and reporting functionality.
Accordingly this document provides an analysis of the various network

prioritisation approaches adopted by countries that have responded to the targeted
questionnaires and concludes the basic data set and processes that are required to
prioritise bridge maintenance interventions at the network level.
2012R32EN
Introduction
The challenge in bridge management is to ensure that all bridges in a road network
remain fit for their intended purpose over their design life and beyond at minimum
life cycle cost. Issues of affordability in the context of “trade-offs” between
maintenance requirements for other road assets are outside of the scope of this
project. However, the bridge rehabilitation prioritisation process is part of the entire
road infrastructure management task and bridge asset managers must seek a
balance between the proposed performance targets and reasonable funding needs.
This exercise must be conducted in the context of acceptable professional practice

and community expectation of appropriate access standards and service function.
Inevitably, the available funding and/or resources is insufficient to fully fund the
required rehabilitation programme thus a funding constrained programme that
addresses network priorities to meet defined vision standards and financial
performance measures has to be developed.
Against this background, the PIARC Bridges and Related Structures Technical
Committee identified the need to investigate the current practises in network level
prioritisation of bridge maintenance interventions that have been adopted by a
sample of member countries. The committee considered that a survey of member
countries would be of interest both to countries with developed systems and those
with systems under development. In the case of the first target audience group the
study would provide a means of benchmarking existing systems or as stimulus to
enhancements while countries that were developing systems would have access to
a reservoir of information and contacts they could draw on to build or enhance
similar capabilities.
2012R32EN
1. Previous PIARC Committee Reports
The C11 committee produced a number of discussion papers concerning various

approaches to bridge asset management adopted by sample countries based on
responses to questionnaires. This proposal is the logical extension of the work carried
out by the PIARC C11 Committee and refers to the following reports produced by
that committee:
• Asset Management in Relation to Bridge Management, PIARC reference 11.11.B;

• Comparison Study on Bridge Management Activities, PIARC reference 11.12.B;
• Towards Performance Management of Bridges (and other structures), PIARC
reference 11.14.B;
• Indicators for Bridge Performance and Prioritisation of Bridge Actions, PIARC
reference 11.13.B.
The common denominator in the reports is the recognition that a rigorous

methodology for prioritising structure management actions, that considers other
network factors, functionality, safety, economic analysis and broader user and owner
requirements are desirable. Additionally, the evidence of all the surveys suggests
that the majority of the countries that responded to the surveys have developed road
and bridge management systems that collect and store the basic inventory and
condition data required to conduct a multi-criteria analysis albeit in different formats
and to varying extent and degree. However it is unclear to what extent bridge, road
and financial information systems are integrated to allow a fully automated
methodology for prioritisation.
In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence from the surveys that many owners have
embarked on multi-criteria analysis as a means of prioritising infrastructure
management actions. Additionally, those who have not developed a multi-criteria
approach consider it to be desirable. Accordingly, it would appear that an investigation
of those authorities that have indicated that they have automated prioritisation
systems would be a logical extension to the sound groundwork conducted by the C11
committee. Indeed, this was the ultimate conclusion made in the “Asset Management
in Relation to Bridge Management” report. However, it should be borne in mind that
the development of infrastructure management systems is dynamic and some of the
authorities that indicated that they did not have a methodology for prioritisation
when surveyed may have developed one in the interim.
2012R32EN
2. LINKS TO PIARC STRATEGIC PLAN
This project has a direct link to the goal of Strategic Theme 4 Quality of Road
infrastructure (2004-2007) namely to “improve the quality of road infrastructure
through efficient management of road assets in line with user’s expectations and road
managers requirements”. The overview further defines the necessity to “implement
management systems capable of integrating all components of infrastructure, based
on indicators reflecting functionalities” to efficiently manage road assets. The need
for further works is expounded in Issue 4.4.2 where one of the listed strategies is to
“continue the work on management of structures particularly in the field of strategic
planning”. The stated output is a “guidebook on strategic planning”.
3. Scope
The goal of this project is to document the systematic processes used by some of the
member countries of PIARC to assess and prioritise bridge management. The project
deliverable will be a guideline designed to assist network managers produce a prioritised
list of investment candidates, within budget constraints and the strategic direction of
the relevant organisation. Initially this will be used to compile the bridge programme
but ultimately may be utilised to derive the wider road network programme.
4. Methodology
Two questionnaires were developed by the project team to elicit details of the Bridge
Management Systems (BMS) and the bridge rehabilitation processes operated by a
sample of PIARC member countries. Initially, the survey was restricted to the home
countries of the project team to ensure that a minimum data set would be obtained.
Additionally, this exercise was designed to detect weaknesses in the questionnaires
and make the necessary improvement before circulating it to a wider group that had
no prior involvement in the project.
Preliminary analysis of the survey results found that BMS derived priorities were
often subject to manual review and change at the programme development stage.
However details of factors that influence these changes were not sought in the
original questionnaires. Pursuant to the completion of the primary surveys the
project team agreed that supplementary information concerning the modification of
BMS derived priorities would be desirable and a further questionnaire was developed
for completion by the project team members.
2012R32EN
The three questionnaires used in this project are listed below and included as
Appendix A:
1. Bridge Asset Management System

2. Bridge Prioritisation Method
3. Supplementary (Moderation of Systems Output)
5. Analysis of BMS submissions
The responses to the Bridge Asset Management System questionnaire, that is included
as Appendix A1, have been summarised in Appendix B and are discussed below.
5.1. Background
Bridge Management System(s) (BMS) are often developed in-house by individual

road administrations. UK seems to have been the first road administration to develop
a BMS (1984) followed by Finland (1986) and Denmark (1987). It is clear from the
submissions received that the extent of BMS development varies greatly and most
have adopted a staged approach to system development to meet evolving needs for
network level analysis and management. There are examples of knowledge and
system transfer where developed BMS have been adopted by other countries either
in the original or customised forms.
While most BMS include culverts there are examples of more extensive “Structure
Management Systems” in some countries that include other assets, such as tunnels
(Sweden, UK, Denmark, Western Australia), retaining walls (UK), gantries (example
Western Australia, UK, Vienna), high lightning masts (UK) and noise barriers
(Vienna). Several countries have indicated that additional structural asset types will
ultimately be included in their’ structural management system. While, this report
will use BMS to denote all forms of structural management system, only the content
and functionality pertaining to bridges will be analysed.
Predictably, the number of structures included in the BMS varies depending on the
extent of the road network in the respective countries. The extremes range from the
largely rural Northern Territory of Australia that manually manages 200 bridges
while the developed state of Virginia in the USA manages some 20,280 bridges and
culverts in its BMS. Additionally, the extent and sophistication of management
systems is dependant on the size and complexity of network that has to be managed.
In most countries, the principal BMS structure inclusion criterion is defined by
minimum span length however the minimum waterway area is sometimes specified
as a supplementary criterion. In the event that other structure types are included in
the BMS then specific inclusion criteria are specified in that regard.
2012R32EN
5.2. Components
A fully developed Bridge Management System (BMS) reflects the organisational

structure, operational procedures, policies and strategies of the bridge network
owner. Additionally, the BMS will possess the functionality to conduct a gap analysis
between network vision standards and current performance in order to select cost
effective investment candidates.
The system will normally be predicated on a detailed asset inventory containing data
pertaining to location, geometry, condition, defects, maintenance activities,
estimates, replacement costs and so on. Optimally, the BMS will be part of an
integrated Road Information System that allows access to traffic, crash, environment,
function and other road asset data to be included in the network analysis deliberations.
By modelling the present and future performance of the infrastructure system,
it enables administrations to identify infrastructure needs. Based on this information,
the system will be able to identify options or alternatives for addressing these needs.
These alternatives will usually be analysed and evaluated on the basis of their
cost-effectiveness using analytical tools and other optimisation techniques.
Constraints on budget and resource allocation are generally incorporated into the
evaluation criteria of the alternatives. Selected alternatives are then included in the
list of projects that will go into the road administrations short- and long-range plans.
The final stages of the process consist of implementation of the projects and
monitoring of the resulting performance of the infrastructure system.
However, as stated previously, the state of development of the BMS and its subsidiary
components in the responding countries varies greatly. All submitted BMS have
some kind of inventory module and condition rating system. However, there is a
significant divergence in condition, damage and repair priority philosophies that
have been adopted by the surveyed countries as measure of component deterioration.
Most keep records on inspections and management activities and the facility to plan
and rank future management activities. Documents such as reports, photographs and
plans are often stored in the systems. Some respondents indicate that they include
knowledge and/or costing databases (Sweden, Croatia, and Hungary) to assist in
planning and estimating management activities and the costs associated with these.
5.3. Outputs
Typically, the outputs from the BMS consist of detailed asset inventory reports and the
known condition of the assets. Defects and maintenance activities are also often
identified. Examples of other outputs mentioned are design and/or assessed load
capacities (UK, Sweden, Queensland and Western Australia). Reports vary from
standard to customised forms that can be produced as paper and/or spreadsheet formats.
2012R32EN
The more advanced systems produce maintenance work programmes based on a

prioritized listing of interventions for a given defect within a defined budget. Other
respondents indicate that they forecast future needs such as repair and construction
programmes for 6 years at the project level (Finland). The priority ranking of projects
is sometimes based on cost-benefit analyses (Spain, Virginia, Sweden, Hungary,
Ontario), but more often on lifecycle cost analysis.
Many BMS produce budget needs based on the condition of the assets. Some of the
submissions indicate that they run different scenarios as basis for decision-making.
In Hungary, for example, the condition of network is determined for different funding
scenarios while Ontario runs alternative program scenarios for varying budgets or
performance targets to determine prioritized investment candidates. In Finland and
Denmark optimal annual budgets are developed based on scenario runs. Network
level reports are produced by the BMS in Norway, Hungary, Sweden and Queensland.
5.4. Benefits
The benefits that can be realised from a BMS are dependant on its state of
development, friendliness and functionality. Furthermore, the degree of alignment
with the owner’s organisational structure, operational procedures, policies and
strategies also influences the efficiencies and benefits that can be realised.
Typically, respondents were of the opinion that the ready accessibility of consistent
and reliable inventory and condition/defect data as a means monitoring performance
(or asset health) and identifying priority investment candidates was a significant
benefit of the BMS. Respondents from countries with more advanced BMS state the
benefits of economic modules that deliver network level efficiencies through
budget-constrained, incremental benefit/cost analyses (Ontario, Switzerland and
Virginia). Efficient and effective management of assets, operational support of
planning and operations and objective decision making were identified as benefits
by many of the respondents as would be expected. A myriad of other benefits were
identified that included effective heavy load management, improved asset
performance, risk reduction and improved communication mechanisms for agencies,
politicians, industry and the public.
Primarily, the systemisation of network management operations offers the facility of

prompt responses to any queries and the ability to compile realistic, cost-effective
and defensible asset management strategies and maintenance programmes within
available budgets.
2012R32EN
6. Analysis of Prioritisation Methods
This questionnaire was designed to elicit the primary factors, together with respective
weightings, that are used to derive network priorities and attendant investment
candidates for the maintenance programme. Review of Appendix C shows that more
than eighty (80) different prioritisation factors were nominated by respondents.
These would have been difficult to analyse in a meaningful manner thus they have
been grouped together under the common categories. (The rationale for the grouping
is evident in the tables presented in Appendix C.) Each bridge parameter was given
a value rating of low, medium, or high in the response and these were weighted to
determine the importance factor for the category as shown in table 2. The Importance
Factor is determined by the number of times the bridge parameter was identified in
responses weighed by the value of the rating received (L=1, M=2 and H=3). The sum
of the modified ratings represents the value of the importance factor.
TABLE 1 – SURVEY RESULTS FOR PRIORITISATION PARAMETERS

Low Medium High Importance
Bridge
Weighted Weighted Weighted Factor
Parameters Score Score Score
Score Score Score (Normalised)
Structural
Conditions 3 3 15 30 40 120 153 (1.0)
Traffic Impacts 6 6 10 20 7 21 47 (0.3)*
Design
Requirements 5 5 13 26 4 12 43 (0.3)
Bridge Function/
Geometrics 13 13 7 14 4 12 39 (0.3)
Financial Aspects 7 7 3 6 8 24 37 (0.2)
Social Aspects 6 6 5 10 1 3 19 (0.1)
Road Impacts 4 4 4 8 2 6 18 (0.1)
Environmental
Impacts 4 4 3 6 0 0 10 (0.1)
* Sample calculation: Importance Factor = 6 x 1 + 10 x 2 + 7 x 3 = 47; Normalised = 47 / 153 = 0.3
The primary data and performance measures used by responding countries for
analysing the bridge network and determining candidates for the bridge rehabilitation
program are described below. These indicate a heavy reliance on condition,
deterioration or other structural factors as would be anticipated in a bridge
engineering system. Traffic impacts are the second most dominant factor which
again is unsurprising however the relatively low weighting of financial considerations
was not expected particularly given the responses to the realised benefits in the
preceding section.
2012R32EN
6.1. Discussion of factors
A review of the factors indicate a high preference for the engineering aspects of a
Bridge Management System. Structural conditions, traffic impacts, design
requirements, bridge function/geometrics and financial aspects are the top
parameters. Of these, traffic impacts and financial aspects are not technical
engineering aspects. Financial and social aspects and road and environmental
impacts were considered less important.
The bias for the engineering aspect of a Bridge Management System is probably
greatly influenced by the background or experience of the individuals that completed
the survey. These individuals concentrated on the important structural conditions of
the bridge in filling out the survey. Since most Bridge Management Systems are
developed within the engineering section or division of an agency, it is logical to
assume that engineering technical aspects would be emphasized.
However, while financial aspects are rated at the bottom of this grouping, it greatly
influences the ability of managers to maintain their inventory. This is covered later
in the report.
Appendix D of the report shows each parameter submitted by each county. The rating
received (L, M, H) is also shown. Table D2 shows a summary of the ratings and Table
D3 the grouping of the parameters into categories agreed to by the project team.
Structural conditions consist of 27 different parameters with the highest rating for
condition ratings and general condition rating. Component condition/results of
inspection and repair urgency also stood out as important factors. The importance
factor for structural condition of 153 (shown in table 1) greatly exceeded any of the
other categories. Traffic impacts (47) and design requirements (43) as well as bridge
functions/geometrics (39) and financial aspects (37) are closely grouped together in
importance factors. Commercial vehicle/heavy traffic volume was the most
important parameter for traffic impact while it was load capacity in design
requirements. The bridge function/geometric category highlighted weights,
clearance and obstacles crossed over. Funding (level and source) and the socio
economic marginal return/cost benefits were the most important parameters to
consider in the financial area.
The last grouping of categories: Social aspects (19), Road impact (18) and
environmental impacts (10) did not have any parameters that stood out. Accident
frequency, road classification, and environment aggressiveness were the main
parameters for these categories.
2012R32EN
In summary, structural condition is clearly the most important parameter of a Bridge

Management System. It is important, however, to insure that all parameters are
considered as they will impact the ability of the Bridge Management System to
function in an acceptable manner.
7. Modification of System Derived Prioritisation

Outputs
Preliminary analysis of the survey responses indicated that the network priorities
derived from the BMS were almost without exception subject to manual review and
moderation. It was considered that this moderation would generally be driven by the
following influences but that these should be tested by a supplementary questionnaire:
• BMS programming and output is not consistent with actual operational practises;
• primary data used to select bridge maintenance program candidates is not current
or reliable;
• need to package structures in jobs on a geographical and/or bridge material basis
to increase delivery efficiency through minimisation of establishment overheads;
• need to interface with other road infrastructure systems and their’ priorities to
package works that realise savings and produce greater return in terms of improved
service to users;
• cross-district or cross-region packaging to realise organisational or economic
efficiencies;
• priorities within pre-defined intervention envelopes may be re-ordered in accordance
with operational or local strategic imperatives;
• priorities re-ordered in the aftermath of a natural disaster such as flooding, fire,
earthquake or avalanche;
• priorities re-ordered in the aftermath of severe accident damage or collapse;
• structures that do not meet the target intervention levels may also be considered on
the basis of an approved business case arguing over-riding strategic or operational
imperatives. In this event it is essential that the proposal details how structures
displaced from the programme can be safely managed.
Pursuant to the completion of the primary surveys the project team agreed that
supplementary information concerning the modification of BMS derived priorities
would be desirable and a further questionnaire entitled “Moderation of System
Derived Priorities” was developed for completion by the project team members. The
pro-forma is included as Appendix A3 and the results are shown in table 2, page 16,
and discussed below. This questionnaire listed the primary moderation factors agreed
by the project team that are listed below and was designed to elicit the frequency that
they were used in the moderation processes adopted in the member countries.
2012R32EN
a) Aspects of operation and maintenance of the entire road network:
If the BMS is not a component of an integrated Road Information Management

System then the combined network needs determined by the BMS and other
independent infrastructure management systems for pavements or traffic, for
example, must be assessed to determine priorities on an entire network basis. This
will inevitably lead to some moderation of the optimal works programme for each of
the systems. While the required changes may be due to budget changes (that are
covered under a separate factor) this factor reflects the packaging of works across
assets to produce the best road network outcome overall at the expense of maximizing
benefits in one or other of the individual asset management systems. For example,
in the course of rehabilitating a certain route, bridge maintenance works that have
been deferred by the BMS may be carried out as part of a wider infrastructure
scheme to minimize disruption to road users and reap the economies of scale through
reduced establishment costs. However, this will displace planned and justified
interventions to the same value from the programme of works on other routes.
b) Budgetary limits
The optimum sequence of maintenance interventions can be altered by a budget

reduction below the network needs analysis in any year and significantly compromised
by insufficient funding over a number of years. This can lead to an exponential
increase in the repair costs when maintenance is deferred to the point that damage of
the member occurs. In this event, available funds must be targeted to ensure the best
value return while maintaining the safety of the network. This is at the expense of
overall deterioration of the remainder of the network and consequential increase in
the real costs of repair.
c) Recognition of individual or group interest with an increase

of available funds
Variations in the volume and rate of the economic growth achieved by individual
regions may trigger differences in the demand for road transport of goods. Certain
groups representing specific economic interests have frequently showed willingness
to fund construction or modernization of road sections directly related with their
activities and their contribution to such construction and modernization projects can
yield considerable additional resources. Thus, previously earmarked funds can be
released and re-assigned to other important projects.
d) Conflict of local and national interests
A national initiative such as increased axle masses or the access of innovative heavy
vehicle configurations may necessitate a change of local, bridge maintenance and
2012R32EN
programming activities. Similarly, industrial developments or transport corridors

that are mandated by the national government may change the local maintenance
strategy and programme.
e) Expectations of groups representing political or other interests
The development and maintenance of the public road network has regularly become
a key subject of pre-election campaigns. However, the re-assignment of the available
funds, to meet promises of a political nature can compromise the short and long-term
bridge maintenance program.
The factors described above can occur in isolation or in combination and, as

discussed, can compromise the optimal bridge maintenance programme determined
by the BMS. The results of the survey are documented in Appendix E, summarized
in table 2 and discussed below. Each moderation factor was given a value rating of
low, medium, or high in the response and these were weighted to determine the
importance factor for the category as shown in table 2. The Importance Factor is
determined by the number of times bridge parameter was identified in responses
weighed by the value of the rating received (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5). The sum of the modified
ratings represents the value of the importance factor.
TABLE 2 – SURVEY RESULTS FOR PRIORITY MODERATION FACTORS

1 2 3 4 5
Importance Factor
Weighted Score
Weighted Score
Weighted Score
Weighted Score
Weighted Score
(normalised)
Priority moderation
Score
Score
Score
Score
Score
factors
Aspects of operation 37
and maintenance of the 0 0 4 8 1 3 4 16 2 10
entire road network (0.8)
46
Budgetary limits 0 0 0 0 3 9 3 12 5 25
(1.0)
Recognition of 24
individual or group
interest with increase in 1 1 5 10 4 12 1 4 0 0 (0.6)
funding *
Conflict of local and 21
national interest 4 4 5 10 1 3 1 4 0 0
(0.5)
Expectations of groups 23
representing political 2 2 5 10 3 9 1 4 0 0
or other interests (0.5)
* Sample calculation: Importance Factor = 1 x 1 + 5 x 2 + 4 x 3 + 1 x 4 + 0 x 5 = 27 ;
Normalised = 27 / 46 = 0.6
2012R32EN
The priority moderation factors selected for the survey appear to be appropriate
given that all are reasonably well represented in the results. It is clear that insufficient
budget allocations to address the system derived needs (1.0) and issues of affordability
in the context of “trade-offs” between maintenance requirements for other road
assets (0.8) are the primary change mechanisms as one would probably expect.
However, the normalized scores for the other moderation factors that range between
0.5 and 0.6 show that they are also significant mechanisms for changes to BMS
derived priorities.
It is interesting to note that the financial aspects of the priority moderation factor
clearly stands out as the leading factor when it was not considered as the major factor
in the initial survey of bridge parameters.
8. Management of Unfunded Priorities
Within the context of the prioritisation process, the bridge rehabilitation intervention
standards in some instances may represent the minimum duty of care standard. If
funding is insufficient to meet the entire network needs then the unfunded structures
must be proactively managed to ensure the safety of road users and to mitigate the
road network authority’s duty of care and non-feasance liability. Typically structure
specific management plans can be developed and implemented as a means of
demonstrating responsible management of a network within available funding levels.
The responsible authority has a number of options within this context as itemised
below. It is essential that the condition of the structure and these plans are
continuously reviewed pending the required maintenance treatment being effected:
• impose height, lane or load restrictions;

• impose detour or build side-track;
• establish continuous monitoring process in cases where the initiation of progressive
failure can be readily detected;
• conduct a load test.
Whichever approach is adopted, it is essential that senior management and elected

representatives are briefed on proposed network restrictions and that they are
communicated effectively to key road transport bodies and other road users prior to
and during their application.
9. Guideline for Prioritisation
The findings of the various surveys together with the accumulated experience of the
project team members can best be expressed in a set of basic guidelines for the
prioritisation of bridge rehabilitation works. Although, as the surveys show, this is a
complex and iterative process it is hoped that the following sections will provide a
2012R32EN
useful frame of reference for those administrations with advanced BMS and provide
some assistance to those administrations with BMS under development.
9.1. Overview
The primary purpose of collecting and managing data in a bridge information

database is to support objective and systematic bridge asset management. This
includes the determination of the state of deterioration of the network and the gross
funding needs to restore that network to a serviceable condition. Inevitably, the
available funding and/or resources are usually insufficient to fully fund the required
rehabilitation programme thus a funding constrained programme that addresses
network priorities to meet defined vision standards and financial performance
measures has to be developed. Accordingly, a moderation process has to be part of
the programme development process and this can be external to or partly integrated
in the Bridge Management System. The results of this survey indicate that all systems
are subject to manual review and moderation. Additionally, processes to safely
manage structures while maximising their’ service/access level must be developed
for those structures where intervention is deferred due to lack of funding. The basic
requirements of the process are itemised below:
• the organisation will develop bridge performance measures/indicators and

complementary performance targets or vision standards. The latter must be practical
and affordable;
• bridge inspection and deterioration rating will be a standardised, continuous and
cyclic activity that is conducted in accordance with defined processes by accredited
personnel at specified frequencies;
• bridge inspection data shall be uploaded or manually entered in the BMS within
specified time frames and includes component and structure deterioration rating,
compilation of maintenance backlog activities, estimates and perhaps maintenance
priorities. A mapping of component deterioration states to appropriate maintenance
activities and associated price books may be included in the system;
• the network steward will review the inspection and maintenance data for each
structure and approve, defer or reject the proposed activities and develop and
implement interim management schemes for critical structures pending development
and implementation of the rehabilitation programme;
• the network steward will conduct network analysis in the BMS and produce
the system-derived list of network priorities and unconstrained budget needs by
comparing the gap between current performance and the defined network vision
standards;
• a budget constrained programme is developed and distributed to strategic and
operation personnel to develop the moderated programme;
• management plans are developed and implemented for unfunded candidates;
2012R32EN
• performance of the assets and inspection and maintenance standards are continuously
monitored through the inspection regime.
9.2. Bridge Management System Requirements
The responses to the questionnaires indicate the minimum framework required for
the development of a BMS capable of conducting network level prioritisation. The
basic outlines of the fundamental components are as follows.
Governing Manuals, Specifications or Guidelines
Network level prioritisation is dependant on current, consistent and reliable data that
is delivered by a number of subsidiary processes. Accordingly, it is essential that
both the prioritisation system and the subsidiary systems are underpinned by
appropriate strategies, policies, accountabilities, methodologies, training
programmes and accreditation schemes. The details are outside the scope of this
report but a comprehensive, mature and robust bridge management system would
require the following support tools:
• bridge management policy framework detailing the overarching framework, scope,

deliverables and clearly defined accountabilities covering inventory, inspection,
maintenance, network prioritisation and associated data collection and management;
• documented interaction between the BMS and other components of the Road
Information Management System and the salient common data that has to be
maintained;
• strategies that define the asset performance measures with affordable vision
standards, interim targets and reporting requirements;
• manuals for bridge inspection, maintenance and prioritisation processes that are
integrated with the BMS. (For example, there should be mapping between the defects
identified through the inspection programme with the appropriate treatments and
activities defined in the maintenance manual to permit the compilation of backlog
estimates. Similarly, completion of a maintenance activity should remove one or
more inspection defects);
• credible and transparent prioritisation guideline; and
• robust and transparent stakeholder consultation mechanisms.
Bridge Information Database Framework
Table B2 in Appendix B documents the components that comprise the BMS in the
various countries that responded to the questionnaires. It can be seen that there is
convergence with respect to the primary components but the extent and detail of
coverage is dependant on the size and complexity of the network and the maturity of
the road authority’s network management systems. It is clear however that an
2012R32EN
integrated modular architecture that can be developed in stages in conjunction with

the governing technical documentation, training and support mechanisms is
desirable. As stated above, the system should reflect the strategic and technical
governance of the organisation both in content and functionality as the repository of
all bridge data and as an effective and efficient management tool. It is also essential
that the scope, complexity and administrative demands of the system are appropriate
for the specific network and the organisational arrangements of the road authority.
However, if a staged approach is adopted then it is imperative that the ultimate
system configuration and functionality are considered in the development of the
individual stages to avoid the need for costly reprogramming in the event of omissions
being detected at a later stage of development.
It is also apparent that the prioritisation task will generally involve consideration of
the various operational factors that have been discussed in section 1.8 and are
generally external to the BMS such as the strategic importance of the route, traffic
and accident data. Accordingly, the developer must consider the means of populating
the prioritisation tool through manual or data transfer interfaces. Alternatively, and
preferably, the BMS can be developed as an integrated module of the Roads
Information Management System.
The following modules would have to be considered in the development of a BMS

that ultimately would have the capability of prioritising bridge rehabilitation works:
• inventory Module with sufficient granularity to define the assets such that the
desired system functionality is achievable. However, consideration will have to
given to the cost of populating and maintaining inventory data when defining the
inventory structure and content as the labour costs for programming, population
and maintenance can be significant;
• inspection Module that is the repository of all inspection data including condition
or defect rating at the bridge and component level. The module would generally
include an inspection status and programming tool;
• maintenance Management Module that provides the mechanism for assigning
maintenance activities and estimated repair costs to defects identified by the
inspection regime. The module should also be able to record the actual costs incurred
in effecting the repairs and remove the associated defects from the structure when
the works are completed. (This is essential when current network needs have to be
determined);
• optimisation Module that includes predictive condition and economic modelling
to determine current and future network funding needs and/or to ensure that the
best network return is achieved for the available budget. Typically, this will be an
incremental cost benefit analysis capability;
• prioritisation Module that is described in the section 1.8; and
• interfaces with the Road Information Management System.
2012R32EN
Bridge Inspection Regime
A disciplined approach to regular cyclic inspections is an essential and basic

prerequisite to provide current, consistent and repeatable component deterioration
data for effective bridge management. Countries may differ in the rating philosophy
but whether condition, defects/damage or maintenance urgency is adopted, the
consistency and repeatability of comprehensive deterioration state data at the
component level is essential. The report has previously identified the various
philosophies adopted and advice can be sought from exponents if required.
Different types of inspections are carried out during the life of a bridge and the BMS
should support all of these however prioritisation decisions are generally predicated
on the detailed and systematic condition/defect rating of components These inspections
are generally conducted at approximately five year intervals, however, this varies
between jurisdictions and the interval may also vary depending on the last rated
condition and/or structure type. Usually this inspection is a thorough visual inspection
of the whole bridge conducted within close proximity of individual components. It
may include inspection of cables, under-water components and/or electrical and
mechanical equipment. Given that crucial network management decisions are
contingent on the data collected by this level of inspection it is imperative that data
quality is ensured through the development of systematic inspection processes with
the appropriate manuals, training and accreditation structure.
Typically, less detailed annual inspections are conducted as a means of detecting

emerging defects that have arisen between detailed inspections and to schedule a
detailed condition rating inspection if required. These inspections are also scheduled
after extreme events such as flooding, fire or accident to check the performance of
the bridge and identify damage that may require a higher level of inspection.
Additionally, the more frequent inspections may be used to confirm that maintenance
activities have been conducted in accordance with the programmed actions.
Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation
As described earlier, it is essential that a systematic approach that is fully aligned

with the bridge inspection manual is adopted to assign maintenance activities to
address the defects identified through the inspection regime. This is to ensure that
cost-effective treatments are applied and that their performance can be continuously
assessed through the inspection programme. Most authorities achieve this through
the development of a manual for bridge rehabilitation activities and an associated
training and accreditation programme. The document will typically include:
• policy, strategy, accountabilities and definitions;

• technical guidance concerning structure, component and material deterioration;
2012R32EN
• generic treatments for component defects;

• maintenance activities and item coverage;
• bill of quantities; and
• mapping between defects and maintenance activities that will be the framework
for the maintenance management module of the BMS. (This will normally be
supplemented by a “price book” that is used to compile estimates of the maintenance
needs within the BMS).
It is essential that the document is allowed to evolve with stakeholder feedback and
performance monitoring to eliminate sub-optimal treatments and add new or
improved treatments.
10. PROCESSES
The allocated funds for bridges in operation are normally divided into two major
programs:
• Programme 1 - Capital investments (for new structures) and Structure renewal

(upgrading/ strengthening of existing structures);
• Programme 2 - Operation, maintenance and reparation of existing structures.
Programme 2 represents the normal preservation of assets through maintenance and

rehabilitation works but some bridges will be transferred to Programme 1 when it is
no longer economical to operate and maintain them or when they do not meet current
requirements for improved function. The parameters that influence the transfer of
works from the maintenance programme to the capital works programme can be
grouped in 8 categories. They are ranked below in order of general importance/
severity of consequences:
• structural conditions, e.g. repair urgency or condition;

• traffic impacts, e.g. volume of total traffic or heavy traffic;
• design requirements, e.g. load capacity;
• function & geometrics, e.g. clearances or geometry;
• financial aspects, e.g. funding or value;
• social aspects, e.g. accident frequency;
• road impacts, e.g. road classification;
• environmental impacts, e.g. aggressive environment.
These parameters are derived from inspections, damage-reports or feedback from

road/bridge authorities, users and the general community and their influence requires
analysis from bridge authorities so that the appropriate actions may be taken.
2012R32EN
10.1. PRIORITISATION PROCESS
The various stages for identifying candidates and prioritising needs for the works
programmes can be itemised as follows:
1. evaluate and describe the current situation or status;

2. identify critical conditions or special emergencies that require immediate action;
3. if such cases are repairable, then the task may be implemented in the programme
for operation, maintenance or repairs for funded activities prior to the normal
prioritizing process;
4. non repairable structures are diverted to the Capital Investment Program or
alternatively phased out;
5. for structures that are not in a critical or emergency situation, but are included
in the Capital Investment Program, the task may be diverted to this programme;
6. if the structure is no longer functionally adequate for current needs or the cost of
further operation/ repair is disproportionate to the benefit received, then the task
may be diverted to the program for capital investment and renewal;
7. the remaining tasks are then screened for priority/ranking. The influence of bridge
parameters listed in 1.11.1 above is considered. These are mainly derived from
inspections and damage reports, but other impacts that require actions should
also be considered. For example, special demands/impacts from users and society
may be considered. If immediate action to this is necessary, then these tasks may
also be implemented in the programme for operation, maintenance or repairs and
given an appropriate priority. Additionally, if other scheduled work on a structure
is to be carried out, it may be profitable/ advantageous to carry out maintenance/
repair tasks at the same time. In order to exploit this opportunity, these tasks may
be prioritized and included in the coming programme;
8. the result is a preliminary/ draft program for maintenance and repair that is
normally based on a strategy to optimise the use of allocated funds;
9. if there are sufficient funds for the prioritized tasks, then these are implemented in
the final programme for operation, maintenance and repair;
10. usually, however, the needs exceed the available funding and some tasks have
to be diverted to the backlog. The order of priority or ranking for these tasks is
maintained in the backlog queue;
11. the remaining tasks constitute a constrained programme. A budget is developed
for this reduced programme;
12. an alternative strategy to diverting important tasks to the backlog is to allocate
or divert tasks from other work plans with funding, which are considered less
important or expendable, to carry out necessary work;
13. the draft program for maintenance and repair is then revised accordingly until it is
in balance with available funds;
14. the final programme for operation, maintenance and repair for funded activities
is then developed.
2012R32EN
The foregoing process is illustrated in the figure 1.
FIGURE 1 – BRIDGE WORKS PRIORITISATION PROCESS

2012R32EN
11. Conclusions
• Network level analysis is essential to identify investment candidates that will

maximise the return from available funding levels;
• consistent, current and reliable inventory and condition data are essential;
• automated Bridge Management Systems are required, for all but the smallest
networks, to facilitate the necessary data manipulation, analysis and reporting
functionality;
• various prioritization methodologies and attendant factors have been adopted by
the surveyed jurisdictions however condition/deterioration is the primary factor in
the surveyed systems;
• all surveyed countries conduct a manual review of the system derived investment
candidates to take account of political, strategic, operational, social or budgetary
constraints not considered in the automated analysis. The primary reasons for
modifying the investment candidates are imposed budgetary limits or operational
matters that dictate a diversion of funding to other infrastructure assets;
• unfunded priorities must be actively and transparently managed to mitigate further
deterioration, risk to users and legal liability.
12. Future works
• Bridge performance measures and relative influence on prioritisation;

• non-bridge factor influence on prioritisation with particular reference to financial
factors;
• mechanisms for evaluating bridge needs relative to other infrastructure elements;
• mappings of condition/defect and treatment options and the relative efficacy of
options;
• deterioration model investigation covering the various deterministic, stochastic and
artificial intelligence approaches or combinations thereof;
• management of unfunded structures in poor conditions.
13. Glossary
RMS – Road Management System
BMS – Bridge Management System (independent or integrated with RMS)
Bridge Rehabilitation – Restoration of structure to original functional performance
Capital Works – Works that improve the functionality of the structure such as
replacement, strengthening or modifications.
2012R32EN
Steward – The owner’s delegate with responsibility for the bridge rehabilitation
programme.
Deterioration State – Measure of deterioration of a component assessed by an

accredited inspector that can be in terms of condition, damage, defects or maintenance
urgency.
Significance Rating – Measure of the load bearing criticality of a component.
Risk – A numerical score representing relative risk determined from a multi-criteria

analysis.)
C11 – PIARC Technical Committee 2004-2007 Road Bridges and Related Structures.
2012R32EN
appendices
Appendix A1 – Bridge Asset Management System

Questionnaire
PIARC TC 4.4 BRIDGES AND RELATED STRUCTURES
COUNTRY
Bridge Asset Management System (BAMS)
BACKGROUND
Should cover:
• Why developed?
• What developed?
• Size of bridge inventory?
COMPONENTS
Should cover:
• What is included in system?
• How is the system set up?
OUTPUTS
Should cover:
• What information is in system that can be used?
BENEFITS
Should cover:
• What are the benefits/goals of the system?
Attach flow charts/diagrams that help explain your system.
Note: Number of bullets in each category show for draft purposes only. Individual
systems may have more or less.
2012R32EN
Appendix A2 – B
ridge Prioritisation Method
Questionnaire
PIARC TC 4.4 BRIDGES AND RELATED STRUCTURES
COUNTRY
Bridge Prioritisation Method
BRIDGE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS & WEIGHTINGS

Various individual measures that are used in prioritization of bridgeworks. These
can be sourced from the bridge and road management systems or elsewhere. For
example, traffic, condition, load capacity and environment. The relative weightings
of these parameters should be assigned in terms of high, medium or low importance.
Parameter Weight Source Comments
BRIDGE RATING INDICES/ALGORITHMS

Indices/algorithms used that provide a measure of a structures ability to meet
functional/service requirements. For example, sufficiency ratings and health indices.
BRIDGE RATING METHODOLOGY

Description of how bridgeworks are prioritized using the parameters and indices/
algorithms.
STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL OVERRIDES

Application and limitations of the prioritisation analysis methodology in practical
programming.
Attach flow charts/diagrams that help explain your system.
Note: Number of bullets in each category show for draft purposes only. Individual
systems may have more or less.
2012R32EN
Appendix A3 – S
upplementary (Moderation of System
Outputs) Questionnaire
How intensively can the five factors listed below influence the result produced by the
management system?
Please, choose a score along a scale ranging from 1 to 5, as shown below:
1. absolutely not;
2. slightly perceivably, infrequently, in case of a few projects;
3. regularly, in case of more projects but not too significantly;
4. regularly and significantly;
5. predominantly, almost in every case.
Factors 1 2 3 4 5
Aspects of operation and maintenance of the road network
(Competing priorities from other assets and effects of other
A maintenance or capital network strategies. The latter could be
strategic rehabilitation of a route that promotes assets on that route
over higher bridge priorities on other routes.)
Budgetary limits
(Optimising works within a constrained budget. Re-programming on
B
basis of whole of life costs when maintenance deferral is required
due to funding constraints.)
Appreciation of individual or group interest; increase of the
possible/available funds
(Contributions made to road authority by private, state or federal
C bodies to conduct works to maintain access levels or improve access
levels. This allows expenditure to be redirected in some instances.
Bridge strengthening for excess mass movements or perhaps federal
funding for HML initiative. )
Conflict of local and national interests
(Competing regional or federal strategies. Business case for
D accelerated maintenance to assist regional development or local
industry at expense of statewide priorities. Need to accelerate works
on interstate routes (not national highway) for HML.)
Expectations of groups representing political or other interests
E (The effects of delivering projects defined in a political manifesto or
other political initiative on the needs defined programme.)
TABLE B1 – BACKGROUND
30
2012R32EN
SRA 14,500 bridges, BaTMan is web-based, 7 regions manage national Bridge & network level Plan-opt peripheral for
19 tunnels. in-house BMS for SRA roads. decision making tool short long term planning.
Sweden (Swedish Road & long term planning.
Administration) Also used
by Rail & councils.
Bridge & culvert inventory VDOT used BMS is part of transition
Virginia records for 12,640 bridges AASHTO-PONTIS to needs-based budgeting.
(USA) & 7,640 culverts >= 36 ft 2 (COTS package) since
openings. 1995.
Appendix B – B
985 bridges with span>5m HrMos based on DANBRO St&-alone PC based Basic inventory &
total area 520,000m 2. introduced in 1997 to system with data exchange condition data collection
Croatia
provide budgeting & by external disks. 1989-1991.
prioritisation functionality.
Developed by “Pontex Integrates inventory,
Ltd” to manage operation condition, defects,
& maintenance of all structural assessment but
Czech
bridges on all types of financial optimisation
road. aims at higher level of
bridges.
1450 bridges & tunnels. DANBRO started in 1987 Initiated to provide St&-alone PC based DANBRO 2 has Windows
34 major structures. by Danish Road budgeting & prioritisation system with data exchange OS & is client server based
Denmark
Directorate & “Ramboll”. functionality to by external disks. with internet updates.
supplement inventories.
H-BMS manages the Primary network Prioritises investment Relational database for all
operation & maintenance management tool. candidates through bridge data.
Hungary of 6000 bridges on the optimisation of available
National road network funding.
Bridges with span > 2 m.
Summary of Responses
17,500 bridges with data Norwegian Public Roads NPRA responsible for System comprises
for inventory, inspection, Administration initiated national & local documentation to underpin
condition & maintenance BMS named BRUTUS in authorities’ bridges. inspection & inventory
Norway
activity, costs & 1991 to relace existing processes.
procedures. bridge inventory.
Bridge has span > 2.5 m.
7560 bridges & major Defects based BMS SANRAL formed 1998 to STRUMAN integrated
culverts total including “STRUMAN” developed in manage national roads. with the “Intelligent
concessions (6770 1998 to replace condition 15,000km, Transport Information
excluding concessions) based system. 150-190,000 AADT, System”.
ridge Asset Mangement Systems:
South
Bridge defined as span (average 3,500).
Africa
> 6m or L >= 20 m or
Opening> 36 m 2. Major
culverts have span > 2.1 m
or Opening > 5 m 2.
PRIORITISATION OF BRIDGE REHABILITATION WORKS
31
2012R32EN
Manages the operation & BMS is Sub-system of Created a corporate Addresses risk of Assists operational Provides performance
maintenance of 2,800 Road Information System inventory. overloading defective mangers develop bridge measures that are accepted
bridges & 3,600 major ARMIS. structures. maintenance & a s a means of allocating
Queensland
culverts. replacement programmes. budget.
Australia
Includes structures with
Openings>1.8 m &
Waterway Area > 3m 2.
3000 structures (bridges, Development of BMS in Currently only a bridge Inventory & Bridge
tunnels, gantries) progress. Will be register database holding Maintenance Practices
Western Structures with opening > sub-system of IRIS inventory & basic Manuals Implemented.
Australia 3 m. Integrated Road management information
Information System. on state & local
government bridges.
Manages 200 mainly short Independent bridge
Northern span modern PSC bridges. inventory with overall
Territory Includes road, pedestrian bridge condition rating
Australia & cycle bridges with a maintained.
span > 4 m.
Structure span > 3 m. OBMS initiated in 1999 & Client/server using Oracle
Ontario inventory & inspection database. Data checkout &
Canada modules released in June checking from central
2000. server to field units.
1650 “objects” in City of “BAUT” initiated 1999 for
Vienna data base. Austrian Highway
Vienna operating association to
Austria manage bridges, tunnels,
walls, gantries & noise
barriers.
“Network Quality Index SAMOA development Index of Network Quality
Development” initiated in initiated in-house in 1986 IQR from algorithm using
2000 based on data from to collect inspection data distribution of ranges of
Autostrade
“STONE” program Uses on road structures & in IQR.
Italy
“maximum ratings” that 1996 elaboration for the
indicate urgency of repair. prioritisation of
interventions.
KUBA development Data used to develop Part of overarching road KUBA 4 release in 2007.
initiated in-house in 1992 policies, optimal system MISTRA that is
Switzerland to collect inspection & intervention for each also under development.
intervention data on road structure & load rating.
structures.
18,000 bridges & culverts BMS initiated in 1986 to Object to provide a reliable Based on thorough
entered . replace the Bridge tool to determine funding inspection & condition
Finland Register. needs for maintenance, evaluation.
rehab & replacement &
project planning.
32
2012R32EN
Ultimately will hold BMS used to enact Sound asset management Still under trial.
10,000 national highway maintenance plans that requires data.
bridges. reduce life-cycle costs &
Japan
smooth future bridge
reconstruction
programmes.
Transit NZ operates a A national Bridge Asset Operate Bridge
largely manual system Management Plan outlines Descriptive Inventory
comprising policies, the staged development of (BDI) & a Bridge
New
specifications & a system. Structural Inventory (BSI)
Zealand
guidelines. Used to engage databases.
external suppliers & their
systems.
Holds inventory records A BMS has been in use Highways Agency (HA) / SMIS used for scheduling
for 9000 bridges & large since 1984 but current DoT is responsible for inspections / recording
culverts, 1500 small Structures Management & operating, maintaining, defects / planning /
United
culverts, 1705 retaining Information System improving & managing the prioritising / managing
Kingdom
walls, 11 tunnels, 2700 (SMIS) developed on motorway & trunk road maintenance.
gantries, 600 high lighting Oracle by HA & launched network.
masts. (> 20 m). in 2000.
Contains inventory & Ministry of Works has Part of MoW transition to
inspection records for used Torroja Ingenieria needs based budgeting for
16,246 bridges & 973 (COTS) Sistema de maintenance & operations.
Spain
culverts. (> 3 m opening). Gestion de Puentes (SGP)
bridge management
modules since 2000.
Ministry of Danish system bought in Bridge inventory where Based on visual inspection At this moment the system Provides performance
Communications and 1993. Provide a tool to 32 State Bridge Offices evaluation. is having a Windows based measures that are accepted
Transports uses SIPUMEX determine funding needs manage about upgrade. as a means of allocating
Mexico (Spanish Initials for for maintenance and 7300 Federal Highway budget.
Mexican Bridge System). project planning. bridges. Neither State nor
Municipal bridges are
included.
TABLE B2 – COMPONENTS
33
2012R32EN
Overall Management Bridge management Bridge databases- Knowledge databases Processing
strategy- rule sets. activities- processing of inventories- admin, -deterioration curves, unit modules-inspection, project
databases. maintenance, design, rates, technical solutions, plans, procurement,
Sweden
trafficability, damage, measuring methods. verification, result analysis,
planned actions, performed load classifications.
actions, traffic flow.
Inspection Module- Project Planning Module Programming Preservation module-cost & Results module - graphical Gateway Module-
maintain inventory & (under development) Module-develop network deterioration modelling to scenario results of cost & Interfacing with other
Virginia inspection data. Analysis of structure standards & improvements optimise investment & performance. systems.
(USA) performance under different & run multi-year budget safety. Software modified
treatment scenarios. Used simulations/scenarios. by VDOT.
for project planning.
Inventory Module- location, Principal Inspections Ranking Module - Priority Optimisation Module - Price Book Module-
admin, geometry, technical Module- condition ratings, listing based on condition & Selects optimum plans for Learning (tenders entered)
properties. damage descriptions, call AADT (automatic & each bridge based on schedule of rates for
higher level inspections, manual). applied network budget creating BoQ for estimating
Croatia
evaluation of routine constraint. Technical & cost of plans.
maintenance, photos. financial long-term strategy
alternatives have to be
developed for each bridge.
Inventory module - data & Inspection Module- Maintenance Module-

pictures. Temporal inspection records Backlog, estimates &
Czech & maintenance completed work records.
requirements Three levels
of inspection.
Inventory Module- location, Principal Inspections Routine Maintenance Optimisation Module - Price Book Module- Bridge Map Module- Map
admin, geometry, technical Module- condition ratings, Module- Maintains requests Selects optimum plans for Learning (tenders entered) based queries & reports.
properties, technical report damage descriptions, call & performance of activities each bridge based on schedule of rates for
archive. for higher level inspections, & produces BofQ’s. applied network budget creating BoQ for estimating
Denmark
evaluation of routine constraint. Technical & cost of plans.
maintenance, photos. financial long-term strategy
alternatives have to be
developed for each bridge.
Inspection - Inspection Maintenance & Improvement Module - Price Book Module.

inventory & condition Rehabilitation Deficiencies in functional
ratings every 1-2 years by Optimisation- Manages requirements are quantified
accredited inspectors - deterioration models & as improvement costs.
commenced 1998. intervention cost factors.
Optimises investment based
on best return to ensure that
Hungary
overall condition of the
network at least remains
constant. 1. Condition of
stock determined when
available funding applied.
2. Optimisation for
maximum benefit.
34
2012R32EN
Inventory Module - Inspection Module - Maintenance Module - Cost Module - Record of Administration Module -
National overview of Inspection cycle Routine maintenance & construction, replacement, Authorisations & access.
dimensions & management & costs, priority rehabilitation scheduled maintenance
characteristics-owners, id, results, material scheduled manually costs. Residual values
names, location, traffic investigations. Ratings for considering damage & calculated.
Norway limits, load capacity. consequence & degree of condition indices. Works
Storage & manipulation of damage & member orders can be produced.
photos & plans. Dynamic significance determine
interface with Road Data Element Condition Index.
Bank. Cause of damage recorded.
Preliminary repair costs.
Inventory - basic Inspection Module -Degree, Prioritisation, Budget & Inspector training & User access to nationwide
dimensions & extent & relevancy of Maintenance Modules accreditation. infrastructure inventory &
South
characteristics. defects. Bridge Condition Exposure condition.
Africa
Index calculated from
inspection data.
Bridge Information System Inspection & Condition Inspector Training & Load capacity assessment & Specifications & Prioritisation Methodology.
- Repository of all bridge Rating policy & procedures Accreditation. Heavy Load Management. Maintenance Manual
data in various modules. covered in Bridge Management of
Structure, Design, Inspection Manual. Sub-Standard Bridges.
Queensland Inspection, Maintenance,
Australia Prioritisation, Image
Browser, Excess Mass,
Historical Report Archives.
All modules have querying
& reporting functions.
Inventory supplemented Inspection Management - Heavy Load Management- Maintenance Management Bridge Maintenance Asset Valuation.
with ID’s & hydraulic data. Management of data derived policies, procedures & -programming, scope, cost, Manuals.
Western
from existing processes & records. optimisation, status,
Australia
manuals. Inspector financial tracking.
accreditation & backlog.
Northern Inventory with Overall
Territory Condition Rating.
Australia
Inventory- location, type, Inspection- Element based Analysis Module- Project & Documents Module -
age, span, components. condition ratings. network level. Incremental Designed to store photos,
Maintenance work, benefit cost analysis to documents & plans.
Ontario performance deficiencies & determine optimal project & Currently only photos.
Canada capital work network investment over a
recommendations recorded 60 y period. 1-5 & 6-10 y
in database. Inspections programmes provided.
every 2 years.
Inventory. Administration - Inspection, Objects- technical

maintenance & management information (measures),
of objects. paving, equipment

Vienna
(guardrails & so on),
Austria
condition ratings, work
order forms, widening &
modifications.
35
2012R32EN
Deterioration model based Application of matrix to Application of repair STONE - maximum ratings,
on the historical annual current vectors gives future vectors (min, avg, max) deterioration model, project
“maximum ratings” to form ratings with no gives modified future rating estimates & forecast
Autostrade transitional matrix. % maintenance. predictions for different budgets. SAMOA - Quality
Italy Passing from one state to budgets. index & probability of
another. failure. BOA -Hydraulic
risk SEISMIC RISK,
FOUNDATION RISK.
Data collection - inspection Deterioration & Budget Reporting - Detailed reports Load Rating- compares load Administrative
& intervention data at Prediction Scenarios- on any module. effect of abnormal loads Components.
structure & element level. Intervention & associated with design load effects to
unit costs are defined for support permit issue.
Switzerland
condition states of each
element. Project costs can
computed at any year &
structure BCRs calculated.
Bridge Register - data, HIBRIS-Network Level Hanke-Siha Repair & Reference Bridges-
photos, reports, parameters, BMS Long term module to reconstruction programmes Representative sample of
feedback & users. find optimal network for 6 years at project level. bridge types & locations
condition. Short-term that are frequently
module to determine how to monitored to map
Finland move current stock to performance for
optimal level at project deterioration models.
level. Includes a life-cycle
module called Bridge Life.
Markov chain condition
predictions used.
Interaction - bridge specs, Deterioration Models. Life Cycle evaluation Soundness Evaluation Standard repair method
Japan traffic volumes, inspection model. model (?? Capacity??). selection & project cost
results, repair histories. estimation model.
Bridge Descriptive Bridge Structural Inventory

Inventory (BDI): Holds (BSI): Holds information
New information on 4,000 that assists analyses of
Zealand bridges & culverts with x/s excess mass loads.
greater than 3.5 m 2 that can
be accessed from website.
Inventory Module: Records Condition Module: Records Assessment Module: Works Module: Risk based Asset Valuation: Nett Future Modules: Whole Life
completed for all structures current & historic Assessed loading capacities. approach, called “Value depreciated replacement Costing, Condition
down to component level. component defects. Management”, to costs from age, type & Assessment and Future
Also holds photographs & Extent A-E, Severity 1-5. prioritising & scheduling dimensions of structures. Performance Assessment.
drawings. (A1 defect free, E5 maintenance or capital
United
non-functional). works programmes.
Kingdom
Activity Scheduler:
Progress monitoring.
Performance Indicators
(recent): Condition,
availability & Reliability.
36
2012R32EN
Inventory Module: Records Inspection Module: Records Management Module: Results Module: Reports on
completed for all structures. completed for 5,000 Classifies structures to predicted network cost &
Spain
structures. (30%). determine those in worst associated performance.
condition.
Inventory Module - Inspection Module – Visual Maintenance Module - Cost Module - Record of Administration Module - Bridge Map Module-
National overview of Inspection based module, Routine maintenance & construction, replacement, Authorisations & access Georreferenced Map based
dimensions & photos, rating based on priority rehabilitation scheduled maintenance depending on level of the queries & reports.
characteristics: id number, bridge engineer experience. scheduled manually costs. end user.
name, location, type Ratings for degree of considering damage &
structure, year of damage & member condition indices. Works
Mexico
construction, year of significance determine orders can be produced.
maintenance, Element Condition Index.
georreferenced coordinates, Cause of damage recorded.
rating form 0 to 5. Storage Preliminary repair costs.
and manipulation of photos
and plans.
TABLE B3 – OUTPUTS
37
Asset inventory. Physical & Temporal record Load capacity. Management Cost optimised Priced BofQ for CBA @ network Inspection & Information for
2012R32EN
Sweden functional of defect/ plan/activities. structure plans. each structure. level. performance operational
condition. damage. follow-ups. contractors.
Asset Inventory. Condition Performance Prioritised list
database measures of candidates
compiled by - “general based on CBA.
Virginia accredited condition”,
(USA) inspectors. “sufficiency
ratings”
“Health
Indices”.
Asset inventory. Vertical Statistical Temporal Principal Budget need Condition rating Maintenance Cost estimates
Clearances. analysis. records of inspection overview. statistics. work orders. for structure
Croatia
inspection & reports (6y plans.
maintenance. intervals).
Standard or
customised
reports from the
various modules
- inventory,
Czech condition,
capacity,
inspection,
maintenance
estimates
& so on.
Inventory Vertical Load capacities. Statistical Temporal 10 y budget List of Economic Maintenance Approved B of Q’s & Unit rate
reports. clearances. analysis records of needs. candidate scenarios for work orders. maintenance estimate records.
reporting. inspection, schemes. budget profiles. product lists. production.
Denmark
defects,
condition &
maintenance.
Detailed Optimisation Customised & Condition of Programme of
analysis of each module delivers standard query network for works for best
bridge. project needs, tools. different cost benefit for
Hungary
economic funding available
indicators & scenarios. budget.
guides policies.
Detailed Bridge Backlog Reporting Inspection & State of the Consistent
inventory. Condition estimates & options. maintenance bridge network bridge ratings
Indices. repair budgets. history & reports. using accredited
Norway
projected inspectors &
budgets. documented
methodology.
Detailed Priority Index Bridge repair Routine Repair projects Emergency Maintenance Projected
South Africa Inventory. for all estimates. maintenance & budgets. repairs history. budgets.
structures. activities. identified.
Detailed Current Defects & Critical Defensible Consistent & Development of State of network
inventory. condition maintenance structures programmes practical access maps. reports for
Queensland documented activities identified by from quantification senior
Australia consistently. identified. prioritisation non-feasance & of operational management.

tool. risk load capacity.
perspectives.
38
Detailed Current Defects & Work/ Defensible Load ratings Bridge needs
2012R32EN
inventory. condition maintenance expenditure maintenance that support the aligned with
Western
documented activities forecasts. programmes. heavy vehicle programme
Australia
consistently. identified. permit system. management
approach.
Inventory with Priorities Defensible
Northern
Overall determined maintenance
Territory
Condition from inventory programmes.
Australia
Rating. & ratings.
Inventory lists. Inspection Cost beneficial Scenario runs
reports & projects for year with varying
Ontario summaries. 1-5 & 6-10 budgets or BCI
Canada Bridge programmes. targets with
Condition Index corresponding
reports. programmes.
Vienna Inventory,
Austria queries.
Generally the
maintenance
budget is
applied to
Autostrade
derive the avg
Italy
programme of
works &
acceptable
target ratings.
Generally Inventory, Medium & long Working
reports from the inspections, term financial program with
report module. interventions & needs. prioritised list
Switzerland
costs. of interventions
for a given
budget.
HIBRIS- Hanke-Siha- 68 standard
optimised Repair & reports in
annual budgets reconstruction Bridge Register
based on programmes for module- basic
scenario runs. 6 years at data,
Finland project level. functionality,
Reports on inspection,
efficiency & condition,
repair follow-up repair, load
available. carrying
capacity.
Bridge specs, Present state Repair & Estimates of
traffic volumes, & future strengthening necessary repair
inspection soundness. programmes works.
Japan
results, repair based on
histories. soundness
evaluation.
39
From BDI
2012R32EN
- Single sheet
New Zealand summaries or
computer
spreadsheets.
Detailed Known Design & Standard & Value
Inventory. condition from assessed load ad-hoc management of
United
systematic capacities. reporting intervention
Kingdom
inspection capability. works.
programme.
Detailed Known Performance Prioritised list
inventory. condition of ratings: General of structures
structures using Condition & determined by
Spain systematic Bridge Benefit Cost
methodology & Importance analysis.
accredited Index.
inspectors.
Detailed Known Performance Prioritised list Inspection & State of the Consistent Approved State of network
inventory. condition of ratings: General of structures maintenance bridge network bridge ratings maintenance reports for
structures using Condition & determined by history & reports. using accredited product lists. senior
Mexico visual Bridge Benefit Cost projected inspectors & management.
inspections by Importance analysis. budgets. documented
accredited Index. methodology.
inspectors.
TABLE B4 – BENEFITS
40
2012R32EN
Asset Physical & Temporal Load capacity. Management Cost optimised Priced BofQ CBA @ Inspection & Information
Sweden inventory. functional record of plan/activities. structure for each network level. performance for operational
condition. defect/damage. plans. structure. follow-ups. contractors.
Asset Condition Performance Prioritised list

Inventory. database measures of candidates
compiled by - “general based on CBA.
accredited condition”,
Virginia-Usa
inspectors. “sufficiency
ratings”
“Health
Indices”.
Asset Vertical Statistical Temporal Principal Budget need Condition Maintenance Cost estimates
inventory. Clearances. analysis. records of inspection overview. rating work orders. for structure
Croatia
inspection & reports (6y statistics. plans.
maintenance. intervals).
Standard or
customised
reports from
the various
modules
- inventory,
Czech
condition,
capacity,
inspection,
maintenance
estimates
& so on.
Inventory Vertical Load Statistical Temporal 10 y budget List of Economic Maintenance Approved B of Q’s & Unit rate
reports. clearances. capacities. analysis records of needs. candidate scenarios for work orders. maintenance estimate records.
reporting. inspection, schemes. budget product lists. production.
Denmark
defects, profiles.
condition &
maintenance.
Detailed Optimisation Customised & Condition of Programme of

analysis of module standard query network for works for best
each bridge. delivers project tools. different cost benefit for
Hungary needs, funding available
economic scenarios. budget.
indicators &
guides policies.
Detailed Bridge Backlog Reporting Inspection & State of the Consistent

inventory. Condition estimates & options. maintenance bridge network bridge ratings
Indices. repair budgets. history & reports. using
Norway projected accredited
budgets. inspectors &
documented
methodology.
Detailed Priority Index Bridge repair Routine Repair projects Emergency Maintenance Projected
South Africa Inventory. for all estimates. maintenance & budgets. repairs history. budgets.
structures. activities. identified.
41
2012R32EN
Detailed Current Defects & Critical Defensible Consistent & Development State of
inventory. condition maintenance structures programmes practical of access network
Queensland documented activities identified by from quantification maps. reports for
Australia consistently. identified. prioritisation non-feasance of operational senior
tool. & risk load capacity. management.
perspectives.
Detailed Current Defects & Work/ Defensible Load ratings Bridge needs
inventory. condition maintenance expenditure maintenance that support aligned with
Western
documented activities forecasts. programmes. the heavy programme
Australia
consistently. identified. vehicle permit management
system. approach.
Inventory with Priorities Defensible

Northern
Overall determined maintenance
Territory
Condition from inventory programmes.
Australia
Rating. & ratings.
Inventory lists. Inspection Cost beneficial Scenario runs

reports & projects for with varying
Ontario summaries. year 1-5 & budgets or BCI
Canada Bridge 6-10 targets with
Condition programmes. corresponding
Index reports. programmes.
Vienna Inventory,
Austria queries.
Generally the
maintenance
budget is
applied to
Autostrade
derive the avg
Italy
programme of
works &
acceptable
target ratings.
Generally Inventory, Medium & Working

reports from inspections, long term program with
the report interventions financial prioritised list
Switzerland
module. & costs. needs. of interventions
for a given
budget.
HIBRIS- Hanke-Siha- 68 standard

optimised Repair & reports in
annual budgets reconstruction Bridge
based on programmes Register
scenario runs. for 6 years at module- basic
project level. data,
Finland
Reports on functionality,
efficiency & inspection,
repair condition,
follow-up repair, load

available. carrying
capacity.
42
2012R32EN
Bridge specs, Present state & Repair & Estimates of
traffic future strengthening necessary
volumes, soundness. programmes repair works.
Japan
inspection based on
results, repair soundness
histories. evaluation.
From BDI
- Single sheet
New Zealand summaries or
computer
spreadsheets.
Detailed Known Design & Standard & Value

Inventory. condition from assessed load ad-hoc management
United
systematic capacities. reporting of intervention
Kingdom
inspection capability. works.
programme.
Detailed Known Performance Prioritised list

inventory. condition of ratings: of structures
structures General determined by
using Condition & Benefit Cost
Spain
systematic Bridge analysis.
methodology Importance
& accredited Index.
inspectors.
Overview of Ready access Overview of Mininimise Constrained Management All Federal MEXICO. Overview of Ready access Overview of Mininimise
inventory and to bridge data repair and safety risks budget and road and inventory and to bridge data repair and safety risks
condition. inside the budget needs and economic scenarios. documentation highway condition. inside the budget needs and economic
Mexico Ministry and for planing. shocks. of maintenance bridge Ministry and for planing. shocks.
its 32 Bridge works. structures its 32 Bridge
Offices in all covered. Offices in all
country. country.
TABLE C1 – BRIDGE RATING INDICES AND ALGORITHMS
43
2012R32EN
Priority ranking is determined
by relative socio-economic
benefits and the marginal
return. (Cost benefit analysis,
Sweden
bridge criticality, road
hierarchy, detour length, load
capacity/demand, condition of
critical components).
General Condition Rating Sufficiency Rating (SR) Condition ratings for Health Index 0-100% (best)
(GCR) 0(failed) - 9 for deck, 0(failed) - 100 for FHWA “commonly recognised calculated at element and
Appendix C – B
superstructure, substructure & funding allocations. < 80 structural elements” bridge level.
Virginia
channel. rehabilitation, < 50 1-5(worst).
(USA)
replacements. Includes load
capacity/demand, functional
obsolescence/level of service.
Bridge condition rating 0-5 Repair strategies are only
(worst) based on engineering developed for critical
judgement within available structures (important bridges
budget. and those in very poor
condition) due to lack of
Croatia
of Responses
funding. Although the BMS

has an optimisation tool it
cannot be used because
strategies have no been
developed for all bridges.
DANBRO 2.0 uses net present Firstly, a 50-year strategy is
values to compare alternative analysed with all repairs being
repair approaches and optimise conducted at optimum time.
investment and prioritise Then, the analysis is rerun with
works. The bridge that will optimum intervention deferred
cost most (agency and road for five years to identify cost of
Denmark
user) to repair if maintenance deferral.
is deferred is the highest
priority. A strategy is
developed for all bridges such
that function and safety is
maintained at all times.
Bridge element condition for Deterioration models for each Component and bridge health
85 predefined PONTIS/H element (transition matrices). indices. Latter derived from
Hungary
elements. New (1) to components.
Non-functional (5).
Damage by type, degree and Weighted Bridge Condition
consequence. index (BCI) for each bridge
Norway based on the damage factors
and the significance of
damaged elements.
ridge Prioritisation Methods: Summary

44
2012R32EN
Defects by degree, extent & Priority Index is calculated for Bridge Priority Index Bridge Condition Exposure
relevancy for 21 bridge and each element using the defect calculated from a weighted Index- % of total traffic
South Africa 18 culvert elements. factors. 100% is defect free element PI’s. passing over bridges exceeding
while 50% represents a major a nominated Priority Index.
element in poor condition.
Risk Score-Multi-criteria Risk Index-Ratio of current Multiple Deficiency Index-
analysis based on a relative risk risk score to risk in good Any score greater than 1 is
approach. (Condition, member condition. Accordingly, a score indicative of a defective
criticality, multiple defects in a of unity means that there is no structure that requires
group, material, structure and maintenance deficit. This is intervention.
road importance, traffic, load also used as performance
capacity, detours, environment, measure at bridge and whole or
Queensland
replacement value and so on) part of the network level.
Australia
This gives a numerical rating
with targets to trigger
intervention. This is also used
as performance measure at
bridge and whole or part (road,
district, region) of the network
level.
Western None currently. Developing a
Australia Bridge Health indicator.
Northern None.
Territory
Australia
Element Condition- excellent, Bridge Condition Index - Importance factor - road class, Indices for fatigue, scour and
good, fair, poor. Weighted average condition of functional deficiencies, detour seismic. (Loads capacity,
bridge based on % poor in 5 length, spalling soffit on geometrics and barriers indices
Ontario Canada
elements. (Deck surface, soffit, overbridge. planned).
barriers, expansion joints,
girders).
General Condition Ratings (1-6
Vienna Austria
collapse) for eight elements.
STONE - Maximum Defect SAMOA - Quality index- Used BOA - Hydraulic risk (ratio of SEISMIC RISK-, vulnerability ANDIRO (Foundations)-
Rating 1-7, Index of to predict future condition 100y return to peak flow) IRIG (of structure) and seismic zone. Temporal variations in
Normalised Deterioration state. Probability of failure - as (global hydraulic risk) used to Inclinometer readings,
(composite effect of defects), above for decks only. These evaluate scour risk. (Hydraulic piezometer readings.
Project Estimates, and Budget trigger intervention at set risk, sediment transport,
Autostrade Italy
- required to achieve target values. geometry, floodway
defect score and IDN, constriction).
associated works and
improvement to Index of Total
Deterioration.
General Condition Rating 0-5 Assessment of Serviceability Road Importance (from Roads Other road infrastructure Agreements with local
(best) - Measure of (AoS) 5, 2 or 0 (Intolerable) Database) Four classes needs on road where bridge is authorities (not in BMS).
deterioration of all elements. and considers load capacity, dependent on traffic, located.
Poland
The GCR is the lowest rating road safety, allowable speed, international corridors,
for deck, girders, abutments/ clearance adequacy, approach strategic value of road. High,
piers as a mathematical mean. alignment. medium and low ratings.
45
2012R32EN
General Condition Rating 1-5 Element ratings collected every Utilisation value under review.
(Worst) - Measure of five years. Condition and
Switzerland
deterioration and loss of value damage process are recorded.
(restoration cost).
Indicator for preservation & Project level (structure) Rehabilitation & Life Cycle Action Profiles
functionality -Sum of Damage indicator of repair needs - Reconstruction Index (UTI) - (LCAP) - Scenario analysis
Points (VPS) based on Repair Index (KTI) based on functional deficiencies at tool.
Finland
condition, damage class, repair condition, damage class and bridge level.
urgency for individual bridges repair urgency.
or collectively.
Degree of Damage A-E (worst) Counter-measures - Seven Bridge Soundness calculated
rated for each component. categories rated for each for bridge based on the above.
Japan
component. Includes elevation
to detailed investigation.
Available funding and Any components in CS 3,4,5 Strong justification for Seismic screening. Scour screening.
subjective condition ratings. are high priority. preventative maintenance is
No formal condition rating high priority.
system. Factors used are
Condition (C), Importance of
New Zealand
Component (R), Importance of
Bridge (I), Cost of delaying
Maintenance (E) Urgency = C
x R x I x E < 15 low, 15-50
medium, > 50 high priority.
Condition, availability and
reliability indicators recently
United Kingdom
developed will be used to assist
in structure management.
General Condition Rating Road Weight- dependent on Bridge Weight (BW) = Structure Weight - function of Historical Value - subjective
(MCE)= 0-5 (perfect to failed) traffic volume and % trucks. Structure Weight X Historical replacement cost 0.71, 1, 1.41. rating by manager 0.71, 1, 1.41.
for superstructure, Value 0.5-2.0.
Spain substructure, accesses &
equipments “elements” at each
inspection. MC bridge (MCB)
is the summation of elements.
General Condition Rating 1-5 Element ratings collected every Bridge Priority Index If bridge needs further
(Worst) - Measure of two years. Condition and calculated from one or more evaluation due to importance
deterioration. damage process are recorded. elements graded 3 or more: of either the bridge or the
Mexico grade 3, repair in no more than damage, special detailed
5 years; grade 4, repair in no inspections are programmed.
more than 2 years; grade 5,
repair immediately.
TABLE C2 – BRIDGE RATING METHODOLOGY
46
2012R32EN
Object (bridge level) planning module Network planning module determines
evaluates effect of maintenance deferral on bridges with the best economic return for
a bridge for various strategies and identifies various maintenance deferral strategies.
Sweden
the strategy with the best return. This
module can also handle improvements but
currently not utilised.
Prioritisation of intervention works is Level of maintenance determined from Element condition, deterioration models, Health Index is being evaluated for use in
ultimately determined manually by GCR & SR. Varies from preventative & cost/benefit analysis to rank priorities in prioritisation. It represents the fractional
considering the values of the following ordinary maintenance to replacement. PONTIS. distribution of condition states for
Virginia
indices. Preventative/Ordinary GCR 9-7, SR individual elements and collectively for the
(USA)
80-100%; Repair/Rehabilitation GCR 6-5, structure.
SR 50-80%; Rehabilitation/Replacement
GCR < 4, SR < 50%
Manual determination of priorities based on
Croatia bridge condition rating in conjunction with
AADT.
NPV’s calculated at optimum and five year
deferral. Then 1-4 years deferrals are
interpolated for say three scenarios for each
bridge. The lowest NPV is sorted for each
Denmark bridge. The optimisation algorithm finds the
strategy for each bridge with the lowest
MPV in a five-year period. That is, the
specific remedial action for a bridge with
the lowest economic consequences.
Level and urgency of maintenance defined Optimisation module of PONTIS/H can
by condition calculate total needs or show condition
Hungary outcome for investment scenarios. Current
approach is to dynamically maintain current
network condition.
Engineering judgement based on the BCIs
determined from the inspection programme
Norway and the results of special investigations.
These are sometimes supplemented with
Cost Benefit Analyses.
Manual development of program based on
PI’s into individual bridge projects or
South Africa
packages of bridges projects within budget
allocation.
Risk score intervention thresholds for Structure Management Plans have to be The maintenance strategy should be Gross allocations will be made on the basis
rehabilitation are stipulated in the State developed for any structure that exceeds the consistent across district boundaries. of the analysis but there is scope for
Queensland
Wide Planning Strategy. thresholds pending repairs being conducted. moderation of projects at the district level
Australia
provided that acceptable business cases are
submitted.
TABLE C2 – BRIDGE RATING METHODOLOGY
47
2012R32EN
Engineering judgement with reference to Investment is predicated on a whole of life
bridge inspection results, road and bridge costing approach.
Western
inventories and hierarchies, traffic, load
Australia
capacity and current works programmes. A
system “overview” tool is being planned.
Independent road and bridge inventories are
maintained including an overall bridge
Northern
condition rating. Given the small number of
Territory
relatively modern bridges with few defects,
Australia
prioritisation is straightforward and by
exception.
The proposed prioritisation system will be Selected bridges are analysed for 1-5 and Incremental Benefit Cost ratio method is
Ontario designed to assist network managers assign 6-10 year programs for each bridge and only used to select projects for available budget.
Canada priorities and will not supplant sound those projects that return a positive benefit (Bridges/projects ranked by IBC ratio.
engineering judgement. are considered in the network analysis.
Condition ratings are considered in
Vienna
prioritising works. No method or other
Austria
factors provided.
Variations include multiple bridges or
Autostrade roadworks that are “bulked” in a single
Italy contract, specific user demands or political
reasons.
Condition state 5 bridge or element rating
Poland triggers an investigation or immediate
repair.
Bridges with high GCRs are investigated. KUBA assigns treatments to elements based
on condition and damage process. A unit
Switzerland
cost (country average) is applied to each
damaged element to calculate repairs.
Project level - KTI, UTI, Makovian Chain, Network Level - Makovian linear
LCAP, cost analysis. optimisation, deterioration and repair action
Finland
models based on Makovian chain, cost
models, long term and short term analyses.
Manager of each National highway office
Japan determines priorities and program from the
damage and countermeasure records.
New Zealand Cost controls at project level.
United Refer Value Management process.
Kingdom
Prioritisation Index = BW x (max MCE x MCE, MCB. Level of maintenance or capital works
Spain
2MCB). assigned on basis of MC.
Visual determination of priorities based on Condition ratings are considered in

bridge condition rating in conjunction with prioritising works. No method or other
Mexico
annual Federal budget for bridge factors provided.
maintenance.
TABLE C3 – STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL OVERIDES
48
2012R32EN
Business cases can be developed for alternative projects to Variations include multiple bridges or roadworks that are
Sweden those determined by the optimisation tool. This includes the “bulked” in a single contract, specific user demands or
economic effects of changing the optimised list. political reasons.
Virginia
(USA)
Croatia Political, economical, other.
Pre-existing projects and multiple bridges or roadworks that
Denmark are “bulked” in a single contract must be removed from the
analysis along with their’ allocated funding.
Hungary Budget constraints and engineering review.
Norway Budget.
Merging bridge or roadworks projects in vicinity to
South Africa Geometric or other functional factors.
minimise disruption or realise economies of scale.
System is designed to assist network managers assign
Higher mass limits, mass concession schemes, industrial
Queensland priorities and will not supplant sound engineering
development, social equity, politics, bulking of bridge and
Australia judgement. Accordingly, some moderation is possible
road contracts.
at the district level.
Higher mass limits, mass concession schemes, industrial The proposed prioritisation system will be designed to assist
Western
development, social equity, politics, bulking of bridge network managers assign priorities and will not supplant
Australia
and road contracts. sound engineering judgement.
Northern Higher mass limits, mass concession schemes, industrial
Territory development, social equity, politics, bulking of bridge and
Australia road contracts.
Ontario Merging bridge or roadworks projects in vicinity to
Bridge Condition Index. Modified BCI (critical elements BCI).
Canada minimise disruption or realise economies of scale.
Vienna
No response.
Austria
Autostrade
SAMOA, BOA, SEISMIC, ANDIRO and budget.
Italy
Poland
Condition state 5 bridge or element rating triggers an
Switzerland
investigation or immediate repair.
Finland
Japan No specifics given.
New Zealand See above plus engineering review and budget limitations.
United
Refer Value Management process.
Kingdom
Spain Screened by managers.
Condition state 5 rating (bridge or element) triggers an
Mexico Budget constraints and engineering review.
investigation or immediate repair.
2012R32EN
Appendix D – B
ridge Prioritisation Methods:
Analysis of Responses
TABLE D1- RAW DATA
Austria - Vienna
Austr - Queens.
Austr - North
New Zealand
Austr - West
Parameter
Denmark
Hungary
S. Africa
Virginia
Finland
Norway
Canada
Croatia
Sweden
Mexico
Poland
Japan
Spain
Swiss
Italy
U.K.
% Defective Components in Structure
H H
Group
% in Poor for 5 Bridge Components H H
AADT/Total Traffic Volume L L M M L M M M H
Access for Pedestrians and Cyclists L
Accessibility of Heavy Traffic M
Accident Frequency M L H
Aesthetics M
Agreement with Local Authorities M
Anidro Program Parameters M
Any Hazardous Category M
Assessment of Serviceability H
Boa Program Parameters M
Bridge Age H M
Bridge Clearances/Clearances L L H M
Bridge Element Condition & Analysis M M H H H
Bridge Geometry/Weight L M M M
Bridge Structural Part H
Capacity Until Repair H
Commercial Vehicle/Heavy Traffic
H H M M H
Volume
Component Condition/Results of
M M M H H H
Inspection
Component Material M M
Component Significance M M M
Condition Rating H H H H L M H
Currency of Condition Data M M
Current Bridge Condition Index H
Defect Importance H
Deficiency Status H
Degree and Consequence of Damage H H
Depreciation L
Design Class L H L
Detour Length L H H M L M
Environment Aggressiveness L L M
Environmental L M
Excluded Components L
Expected Development of Damage H
Expected Development of Traffic Volume H
Flood Capacity M
Funding: Level and Source H H H H M M
General Condition Ratings H H H H H M H
Hazardous Materials Route L
2012R32EN
TABLE D1- RAW DATA
Austria - Vienna
Austr - Queens.
Austr - North
New Zealand
Austr - West
Parameter
Denmark
Hungary
S. Africa
Virginia
Finland
Norway
Canada
Croatia
Sweden
Mexico
Poland
Japan
Spain
Swiss
Italy
U.K.
Health Index L L
Hydraulic Records M
Hydraulic Sufficiency M
Importance Factor M
Integration of Public Transport Facilities L
Intensified Monitoring H
Load Capacity H H M
Load Carrying Class H
Load Demands M
Local Industry Access L
Maintenance Estimates M
Maintenance Ranking M
Major Services Carried/Services Carried L L
Moveable Bridges H M
Navigable Waterway L L L
Number of Damages H
Obstacle Crossed/Over L L L M
Other Road Users L L L M
Partial Bridge Networks H
Present Service Load M
Present Value L
Priority Rating of Bridge Using Defects H
Repair Urgency H H M H
Replacement Value L L L L
Required Service Load M
Risk of Structural Failure H
Road Classification L L L L L L M
Road Geometry at Bridge L
Road Importance for Society H M
Road Needs for Improving Road Network H
Samoa Program Parameters M
Seismic Risk M
Significance of Damage Element H
Socio Economic Marginal Return/
H H H
Cost-Benefit
Stone Program Parameters H
Structure Type L M
Sufficiency Rating H H
Traffic Restrictions in Repair Period H
Type of Damage H
Utilization Value L
Waterway Adequacy L
2012R32EN
TABLE D2- COLLATION OF FACTORS AND WEIGHTINGS
Parameter High Medium Low
% Defective Components in Structure Group 1 0 0
% in Poor for 5 Bridge Components 1 0 0
AADT/Total Traffic Volume 1 5 3
Access for Pedestrians and Cyclists 0 0 1
Accessibility of Heavy Traffic 0 1 0
Accident Frequency 1 1 1
Aesthetics 0 1 0
Agreement with Local Authorities 0 1 0
Anidro Program Parameters 0 1 0
Any Hazardous Category 0 1 0
Assessment of Serviceability 1 0 0
Boa Program Parameters 0 1 0
Bridge Age 1 0 0
Bridge Clearances/Clearances 1 1 2
Bridge Element Condition & Analysis 2 2 0
Bridge Geometry/Weight 0 3 1
Bridge Structural Part 1 0 0
Capacity Until Repair 1 0 0
Commercial Vehicle/Heavy Traffic Volume 3 2 0
Component Condition/Results of Inspection 2 3 0
Component Material 0 2 0
Component Significance 1 2 0
Condition Rating 4 1 1
Currency of Condition Data 0 2 0
Current Bridge Condition Index 1 0 0
Defect Importance 1 0 0
Deficiency Status 1 0 0
Degree and Consequence of Damage 2 0 0
Depreciation 0 0 1
Design Class 1 0 2
Detour Length 1 2 3
Environment Aggressiveness 0 1 2
Environmental 0 1 1
Excluded Components 0 0 1
Expected Development of Damage 1 0 0
2012R32EN

Expected Development of Traffic Volume 1 0 0
Flood Capacity 0 1 0
Funding: Level and Source 4 1 0
General Condition Ratings 5 1 0
Hazardous Materials Route 0 0 1
Health Index 0 0 2
Hydraulic Records 0 1 0
Hydraulic Sufficiency 0 1 0
Importance Factor 0 1 0
Integration of Public Transport Facilities 0 0 1
Intensified Monitoring 1 0 0
Load Capacity 2 1 0
Load Carrying Class 1 0 0
Load Demands 0 1 0
Local Industry Access 0 0 1
Maintenance Estimates 0 1 0
Maintenance Ranking 0 1 0
Major Services Carried/Services Carried 0 0 2
Moveable Bridges 1 1 0
Navigable Waterway 0 0 3
Number of Damages 1 0 0
Obstacle Crossed/Over 0 1 3
Other Road Users 0 1 3
Partial Bridge Networks 1 0 0
Present Service Load 0 1 0
Present Value 0 0 1
Priority Rating of Bridge Using Defects 1 0 0
Repair Urgency 3 1 0
Replacement Value 0 0 4
Required Service Load 0 1 0
Risk of Structural Failure 1 0 0
Road Classification 0 3 4
Road Geometry at Bridge 0 0 1
Road Importance for Society 1 1 0
Road Needs for Improving Road Network 1 0 0
2012R32EN

Samoa Program Parameters 0 1 0
Seismic Risk 0 1 0
Significance of Damage Element 1 0 0
Socio Economic Marginal Return/Cost-Benefit 3 0 0
Stone Program Parameters 1 0 0
Structure Type 0 1 1
Sufficiency Rating 2 0 0
Traffic Restrictions in Repair Period 1 0 0
Type of Damage 1 0 0
Utilization Value 0 0 1
Waterway Adequacy 0 0 1
2012R32EN
TABLE D3- SUMMARY FACTOR CATEGORIES

Financial Aspects 8 3 7
Depreciation 0 0 1
Funding: Level and Source 4 2 0
Maintenance Estimates 0 1 0
Present Value 0 0 1
Replacement Value 0 0 4
Socio Economic Marginal Return/Cost-Benefit 3 0 0
Stone Program Parameters 1 0 0
Utilization Value 0 0 1
Structural Conditions 40 15 3
% Defective Components in Structure Group 2 0 0
% in Poor for 5 bridge Components 2 0 0
Assessment of Serviceability 1 0 0
Bridge Element Condition & Analysis 2 2 0
Bridge Structural Part 1 0 0
Capacity Until Repair 1 0 0
Component Condition/Results of Inspection 3 3 0
Component Material 0 2 0
Component Significance 1 2 0
Condition Rating 5 1 1
Currency of Condition Data 0 2 0
Current Bridge Condition Index 1 0 0
Defect Importance 1 0 0
Deficiency Status 1 0 0
Degree and Consequence of Damage 2 0 0
Expected Development of Damage 1 0 0
General Condition Ratings 5 1 0
Health Index 0 0 2
Intensified Monitoring 1 0 0
Maintenance Ranking 0 1 0
Number of Damages 1 0 0
Priority Rating of Bridge Using Defects 1 0 0
Repair Urgency 3 1 0
Risk of Structural Failure 1 0 0
Significance of Damage Element 1 0 0
2012R32EN

Sufficiency Rating 2 0 0
Type of Damage 1 0 0
Social/Economic Components 1 5 6
Accident Frequency 1 1 1
Aesthetics 0 1 0
Agreement with Local Authorities 0 1 0
Importance Factor 0 1 0
Integration of Public Transport Facilities 0 0 1
Local Industry Access 0 0 1
Other Road Users 0 1 3
Bridge Function & Geometrics 4 7 13
Access for Pedestrians and Cyclists 0 0 1
Bridge Age 1 1 0
Bridge Clearances/Clearances 1 1 2
Bridge Geometry/Weight 0 3 1
Major Services Carried/Services Carried 0 0 2
Moveable Bridges 1 1 0
Navigable Waterway 0 0 3
Obstacle Crossed/Over 0 1 3
Partial Bridge Networks 1 0 0
Road Geometry at Bridge 0 0 1
Road Impacts 2 4 4
Road Classification 0 3 4
Road Importance for Society 1 1 0
Road Needs for Improving Road Network 1 0 0
Design Requirements 4 13 5
Anidro Program Parameters 0 1 0
Boa Program Parameters 0 1 0
Design Class 1 0 2
Excluded Components 0 0 1
Flood Capacity 0 1 0
Hydraulic Records 0 1 0
Hydraulic Sufficiency 0 1 0
Load Capacity 2 1 0
Load Carrying Class 1 0 0
2012R32EN

Load Demands 0 1 0
Present Service Load 0 1 0
Required Service Load 0 1 0
Samoa Program Parameters 0 1 0
Seismic Risk 0 2 0
Structure Type 0 1 1
Waterway Adequacy 0 0 1
Environmental Impacts 0 3 4
Any Hazardous Category 0 1 0
Environment Aggressiveness 0 1 2
Environmental 0 1 1
Hazardous Materials Route 0 0 1
Traffic Impacts 7 10 6
AADT/Total Traffic Volume 1 5 3
Accessibility of Heavy Traffic 0 1 0
Commercial Vehicle/Heavy Traffic Volume 3 2 0
Detour Length 1 2 3
Expected Development of Traffic Volume 1 0 0
Traffic Restrictions in Repair Period 1 0 0
2012R32EN
Appendix E – Moderation of System Outputs: Summary

of Responses
Factors Ratings Importance

Respondent 1 2 3 4 5 factor
AA
spects of operation and maintenance Hungary 1
of the road network (Competing
Norway 1
priorities from other assets and effects of
other maintenance or capital network Sweden 1
strategies. The latter could be strategic
rehabilitation of a route that promotes South. Africa 1
assets on that route over higher bridge Virginia USA 1
priorities on other routes).
Czech
Greece
France
Croatia 1
Mexico 1
Queensland Australia 1 1
Total/11 0 4 1 4 2 37
BB
udgetary limits (Optimising works Hungary 1
within a constrained budget.
Norway 1
Re-programming on basis of whole of
life costs when maintenance deferral is Sweden 1
required due to funding constraints).
South. Africa 1
Virginia USA 1
Czech
Greece
France
Croatia 1
Mexico 1
Total/11 0 0 3 3 5 46
CA
ppreciation of individual or group Hungary 1
interest; increase of the possible/
Norway 1
available funds (Contributions made to
road authority by private, state or federal Sweden 1
bodies to conduct works to maintain
access levels or improve access levels. South. Africa 1
This allows expenditure to be redirected Virginia USA 1
in some instances. Bridge strengthening
for excess mass movements or perhaps Czech
federal funding for HML initiative). Greece
France
Croatia 1
Mexico 1
Total/11 1 5 4 1 0 27
2012R32EN
Factors Ratings Importance
Respondent 1 2 3 4 5 factor
D Conflict of local and national interests Hungary 1
(Competing regional or federal
Norway 1
strategies. Business case for accelerated
maintenance to assist regional Sweden 1
development or local industry at expense
South. Africa 1
of statewide priorities. Need to
accelerate works on interstate routes (not Virginia USA 1
national highway) for HML).
Czech
Greece
France
Croatia 1
Mexico 1
Total/11 4 5 1 1 0 21
EE
xpectations of groups representing Hungary 1
political or other interests (The effects
Norway 1
of delivering projects defined in a
political manifesto or other political Sweden 1
initiative on the needs defined
programme). South. Africa 1
Virginia USA 1
Czech
Greece
France
Croatia 1
Mexico 1
Total/11 2 5 3 1 0 25

PIARC Bridge Priorisation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIARC Bridge Priorisation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.piarc.

Copyright by the World Road Association. All rights reserved.

World Road Association (PIARC)

International Standard Book Number 978-2-84060-300-9

The contributors to the preparation of this report are:

Peter Graham (Queensland, Australia) (Working Group Leader),

The editors of this report are:

1. Previous PIARC Committee Reports..................................................................................7

Previous reports of World Road Association investigated various aspects of bridge

Accordingly this document provides an analysis of the various network

This exercise must be conducted in the context of acceptable professional practice

1. Previous PIARC Committee Reports

The C11 committee produced a number of discussion papers concerning various

• Asset Management in Relation to Bridge Management, PIARC reference 11.11.B;

The common denominator in the reports is the recognition that a rigorous

2. LINKS TO PIARC STRATEGIC PLAN

1. Bridge Asset Management System

5. Analysis of BMS submissions

Bridge Management System(s) (BMS) are often developed in-house by individual

A fully developed Bridge Management System (BMS) reflects the organisational

The more advanced systems produce maintenance work programmes based on a

Primarily, the systemisation of network management operations offers the facility of

6. Analysis of Prioritisation Methods

TABLE 1 – SURVEY RESULTS FOR PRIORITISATION PARAMETERS

* Sample calculation: Importance Factor = 6 x 1 + 10 x 2 + 7 x 3 = 47; Normalised = 47 / 153 = 0.3

6.1. Discussion of factors

In summary, structural condition is clearly the most important parameter of a Bridge

7. Modification of System Derived Prioritisation

a) Aspects of operation and maintenance of the entire road network:

If the BMS is not a component of an integrated Road Information Management

The optimum sequence of maintenance interventions can be altered by a budget

c) Recognition of individual or group interest with an increase

d) Conflict of local and national interests

programming activities. Similarly, industrial developments or transport corridors

e) Expectations of groups representing political or other interests

The factors described above can occur in isolation or in combination and, as

TABLE 2 – SURVEY RESULTS FOR PRIORITY MODERATION FACTORS

8. Management of Unfunded Priorities

• impose height, lane or load restrictions;

Whichever approach is adopted, it is essential that senior management and elected

9. Guideline for Prioritisation

The primary purpose of collecting and managing data in a bridge information

• the organisation will develop bridge performance measures/indicators and

9.2. Bridge Management System Requirements

Governing Manuals, Specifications or Guidelines

• bridge management policy framework detailing the overarching framework, scope,

Bridge Information Database Framework

integrated modular architecture that can be developed in stages in conjunction with

The following modules would have to be considered in the development of a BMS

Bridge Inspection Regime

A disciplined approach to regular cyclic inspections is an essential and basic

Typically, less detailed annual inspections are conducted as a means of detecting

Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation

As described earlier, it is essential that a systematic approach that is fully aligned

• policy, strategy, accountabilities and definitions;

• generic treatments for component defects;

• Programme 1 - Capital investments (for new structures) and Structure renewal

Programme 2 represents the normal preservation of assets through maintenance and

• structural conditions, e.g. repair urgency or condition;

These parameters are derived from inspections, damage-reports or feedback from

10.1. PRIORITISATION PROCESS

1. evaluate and describe the current situation or status;

The foregoing process is illustrated in the figure 1.

FIGURE 1 – BRIDGE WORKS PRIORITISATION PROCESS

c) Recognition of individual or group interest with an increase

Appendix A1 – Bridge Asset Management System

ridge Prioritisation Methods: Summary

Appendix E – Moderation of System Outputs: Summary