Best Practices of Bridge System Management—A Synthesis

R. Edward Minchin Jr., M.ASCE1; Tarek Zayed, M.ASCE2; Andrew J. Boyd, M.ASCE3; and
Micheal Mendoza4

Abstract: The paper’s primary purpose is to evaluate current practices in bridge management and inspection procedures in the United
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

States and how State Highway Agencies 共SHAs兲 follow U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines. The efficiency of SHA in utilizing
the bridge management systems 共BMSs兲 available to them is analyzed, and the agencies’ readiness to respond to events such as hurricanes,
flooding, or earthquakes is evaluated. The paper addresses issues regarding bridges with unknown foundations, interviewing four struc-
tural engineers from three SHA regarding these topics. Bridge management officials across the country will benefit from this research by
evaluating their agencies’ current practices in comparison with other state agencies. Findings show that state officials attempt to follow
very closely the guidelines set by the federal government for bridge inspection and maintenance. However, it was also discovered that,
during catastrophic events, agencies rely heavily on managing engineers’ experience and decision-making capabilities because there is no
set of response procedures for these extreme conditions. Although powerful BMS tools are available, few SHA utilize these tools to their
full capabilities.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0742-597X共2006兲22:4共186兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridge maintenance; Systems management; Bridge foundations; Earthquakes; Hurricanes.

Introduction
State highway officials are often put in situations in which they
have to make difficult decisions, some life or death. Among these
are decisions dealing with whether to leave a bridge open to traf-
fic or to close the bridge following a disaster or upon determining
that the bridge may have problems dealing with structural, scour,
or seismic conditions. These decisions not only affect travelers
that may be severely injured or even killed if the bridge is left
open and then collapses but also those who may suffer the same
fate should the bridge be closed, isolating them from needed
medical or emergency services.
Such decisions become even more difficult when the manager
does not have the information necessary to make a well-informed
decision. For example, if a bridge over a river has just been sub-
jected to a hurricane or an earthquake, and the status of the bridge
is in question, a decision must be made regarding whether to
leave the bridge open or close it. If there were a small community
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering, Univ. of
Florida, P.O. Box 116580, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail: minch@ufl.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Building, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Concordia Univ., BE-357, 1257 Guy St., Montreal PQ,
Canada H3G 1M7. E-mail: tzayed@alcor.concordia.ca
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering, Univ. of
Florida, P.O. Box 116580, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail: aboyd@
ce.ufl.edu
4
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering, Univ.
of Florida, P.O. Box 116580, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail:
mikemendoza77@yahoo.com
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2007. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on June 15, 2005; approved on March 7, 2006. This paper is
part of the Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 4,
October 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/2006/4-186–195/$25.00.
located on one side of the river and a large community on the
other side with the hospital and fire and rescue unit that serves the
smaller community, then making this decision would be more
difficult. If the bridge were closed, then the shortest detour would
add several miles to the distance between the towns. Closing the
bridge would thus cut off the smaller community from these es-
sential services.
With the managing engineer charged with making this deci-
sion facing a daunting task, what if the only information available
to him or her were what could be seen from the riverbank? What
if the managing engineer did not know anything about the foun-
dation of the bridge? These conditions make a well-informed de-
cision impossible and put state highway officials and bridge
system managers in an unenviable and sensitive position.
The situation described above is not hypothetical, but real. The
National Bridge Inventory 共NBI兲 is a collection of key informa-
tion used to identify and characterize the type, usage, size,
location, and condition of each bridge in the United States. Ap-
proximately 104,000 of the 580,000 bridges in the NBI have been
identified as having unknown foundations 共Olson et al. 1998兲.
Because of inadequate foundation information, expensive bridge
countermeasures are often implemented even though they may
not be necessary; however, taking no action at all brings unac-
ceptable risks. Without guidelines to follow, it becomes more dif-
ficult for managers to develop a proper course of action after a
disaster.
Public transportation agencies are responsible for keeping the
nation’s bridges safe. Inspections are done on a regular basis, and
effective bridge management techniques are essential. The U.S.
Department of Transportation 共USDOT兲 has established guide-
lines on bridge maintenance and inspection procedures. The pur-
pose of this paper is to evaluate current practices in bridge
management and inspection procedures in the United States and
how state highway agencies 共SHA兲 follow USDOT guidelines. To
accomplish this, it was necessary to evaluate existing bridge man-
agement systems 共BMSs兲, investigate how effectively state high-

186 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006

J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195

 way agencies 共SHAs兲 are using available pridge management sys-
tems 共BMSs兲, and evaluate SHAs’ use of BMSs as part of their
response to emergency situations such as natural disasters.
Obsolescence and Structural Deficiency
Wear and tear is a natural occurrence in any structure that is
exposed repeatedly to weather and heavy loads, and bridges are
no exception. Many states throughout the country have a signifi-
cant number of bridges that require repairs. For instance, in Loui-
siana, approximately one-third of bridges over 20 ft long are
defective and require replacement or repair 共Road Information
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Program 2003b兲. A bridge is considered to be deficient if there is
considerable damage to its main components. Bridges are said to
be obsolete if either their widths are narrower than the current
standards or they have insufficient clearance or other factors that
affect public safety.
On a much larger scale, one-fourth of America’s bridges are
either obsolete or structurally deficient. A structurally deficient
bridge either needs rehabilitation in order to remain open or
should be closed. A functionally obsolete bridge is usually so
rated because of the geometric issues mentioned earlier, which are
serving traffic loads heavier than originally designed for or be-
cause of occasional overtopping by the waterway. In 1995, 32%
of the nation’s bridges were reported to be deficient. This figure
dropped to 28% in 2001 共“Report” 2002兲. Table 1 shows the
results of a study by the Road Information Program using NBI
data. This table gives the number of structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete bridges for each state.
Fourteen percent of bridges nationwide that are 20 ft or longer
are now considered to be structurally deficient 共Road Information
Program 2003a兲. The vast majority of these deficiencies are not
due to a single, or even a series, of catastrophic events, but are
mostly the result of normal wear and tear. Nevertheless, the con-
dition of these bridges affects the safety and hinders the economic
development of the nation. One option for managing a bridge that
is below standards is to impose weight restrictions. Although this
allows most traffic to use the bridge, it is not an ideal solution.
For example, a bridge with weight restrictions requires many
heavy vehicles, such as commercial trucks, commercial and pri-
vate buses, ambulances, and fire trucks, to use an alternative
route. Rerouting these vehicles consumes more fuel, extends
travel time, reduces efficiency, increases wear and tear on other
components of the infrastructure, and puts those who need emer-
gency services at risk.
Another factor that increases the wear and tear on the nation’s
bridges is the number of vehicles. The United States is experienc-
ing constant growth in passenger vehicle and commercial truck
travel time. In order to keep up with the increasing demand, ef-
fective, sound management and inspection procedures are essen-
tial to keep America’s bridges functioning safely.
Natural Disasters
Because performance in the most stressful of times shows the true
level of quality of any organization or system, how well an SHA
is prepared to respond to a disaster is a good indicator of the
quality level of the SHA’s overall bridge management.
Hurricanes
With wind speeds of up to 185 mi/ h and surf surges of 18 ft or
more, hurricanes can cause significant damage to bridges. Strong
wind can affect a bridge’s superstructure, but most damage comes
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006 / 187
J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195
from the storm surge 共which can damage the bridge’s pier foot-
ings, columns, and foundation兲 and flooding 共which causes dam-
age to the bridge’s piers, abutments, and foundation through scour
or floating debris兲.
During recent hurricane seasons, hurricanes damaged several
bridges. Wind speeds of up to 115 mi/ h were reported during
Hurricane Jeanne, while a quarter-mile section of the eastbound
Interstate 10 Bridge that connects Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties over Florida’s Escambia Bay was destroyed and washed
away by Hurricane Ivan. The Bob Sikes Bridge, which connects
Gulf Breeze and Pensacola, lost a 30 ft section. Other bridges
were also shut down due to structural damage caused by the hur-
ricane. In St. Lucie County, Florida, bridge damage forced high-
way officials to prohibit the use of northbound and southbound
access to Hutchinson Islands. According to the Coast Guard, a car
fell into Florida’s Indian River Lagoon due to a damaged bridge
railing following a hurricane 共Hurricane City 2004兲.
This shows the importance of bridge management decisions
during and after catastrophic events; lives can be lost if slow or
poor management decisions are made. Disastrous events can be
prevented or minimized if the authorities managing the bridges
have a well-prepared plan ready for execution in the event of a
catastrophe. Speed is of paramount importance in emergency situ-
ations, and a well-prepared team can execute tasks rapidly if
preparations have been made ahead of time.
Flooding
Flooding can be caused by hurricanes, heavy storms, or a mal-
functioning dam system. Flooding usually leads to scour. In fact,
95% of the nation’s highway bridge failures and damages have
been associated with scour 共Dowding 1994兲. High velocity water
flow during a flood washes away sediments that are integral to the
bridge’s foundation design. Continuous removal of this material
eventually exposes the foundation and makes it less safe. Signifi-
cant loss of sediments around and under the bridge footing due to
scour may also result in excessive pier movement, creating an
unwanted stress in the bridge structure that may eventually lead to
failure or collapse.
There are several countermeasures and preventive measures
available for scour. There are also instruments available to help
detect bridge scour during an extreme event. Typical analyses
used by bridge managers to initially check for scour are inexpen-
sive, simple procedures, such as lead lines and hydrographs. After
a flood, one of the most common techniques for investigating the
amount of erosion due to scour is underwater visual inspection.
This task requires experienced and well-trained divers and under-
water bridge inspectors. Because scour is one of the leading
causes of bridge failures in the nation, it is very important for
bridge maintenance and inspection teams to closely observe
proper practice in instituting countermeasures. It is also important
to always have qualified divers perform the necessary inspections
after each flood.
Bridges with Unknown Foundations
For a bridge to have “unknown foundations” means that the type
and depth of the foundation was never recorded, that the records
have been lost, or that as-built plans are not available to document
the depth, geometry, or materials used to build the bridge foun-
dation. In cases where the type of foundation is known but the
depth is unknown, the bridge is still classified as having an un-
known foundation.
The main concern for bridges with unknown foundations is
 Table 1. Number of Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Bridges by State 共Source: www.fhwa.dot.gov兲
NHS bridges All bridges

Number of Structurally Functional Total Number of Structurally Functionally Total

State bridges deficient obsolete deficient bridges deficient obsolete deficient
Alabama 2,672 95 577 672 15,648 2,393 2,286 4,679
Alaska 350 42 46 88 1,187 151 202 353
Arizona 2,525 16 160 176 7,119 163 554 717
Arkansas 1,943 55 283 338 12,456 1,238 1,894 3,132
California 7,422 966 993 1,959 23,823 2,894 3,774 6,668
Colorado 2,005 119 282 401 8,182 604 783 1,387
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Connecticut 1,585 59 324 383 4,167 345 1,018 1,363

Delaware 236 4 24 28 850 42 80 122
District of Columbia 118 6 61 67 251 23 134 157
Florida 3,983 28 478 506 11,469 317 1,801 2,118
Georgia 2,464 40 258 298 14,461 1,187 1,761 2,948
Hawaii 403 29 148 177 1,099 156 357 513
Idaho 731 34 138 172 4,047 316 414 730
Illinois 3,601 260 395 655 25,727 2,436 1,925 4,361
Indiana 2,487 36 335 371 18,171 1,993 2,023 4,016
Iowa 1,792 111 177 288 24,902 5,259 1,699 6,958
Kansas 2,432 89 355 444 25,525 3,330 2,570 5,900
Kentucky 2,151 50 312 362 13,500 1,283 2,821 4,104
Louisiana 2,616 94 569 663 13,362 2,070 2,254 4,324
Maine 496 42 93 135 2,371 355 488 843
Maryland 1,614 59 292 351 5,064 428 1,051 1,479
Massachusetts 1,979 186 895 1,081 4,954 614 1,932 2,546
Michigan 2,582 420 298 718 10,818 1,764 1,357 3,121
Minnesota 1,645 55 92 147 13,026 1,163 470 1,633
Mississippi 2,074 42 413 455 16,838 3,379 1,318 4,697
Missouri 2,740 134 415 549 23,791 5,028 3,216 8,244
Montana 1,277 19 225 244 5,043 576 498 1,074
Nebraska 1,209 47 47 94 15,455 2,550 1,425 3,975
Nevada 746 13 96 109 1,611 54 144 198
New Hampshire 679 58 83 141 2,357 355 433 788
New Jersey 2,519 170 520 690 6,484 890 1,480 2,370
New Mexico 1,725 132 107 239 3,839 404 320 724
New York 3,604 222 1,087 1,309 17,301 2,172 4,380 6,552
North Carolina 2,466 164 342 506 17,340 2,322 2,874 5,196
North Dakota 511 9 10 19 4,507 803 259 1,062
Ohio 4,135 142 587 729 27,907 3,052 4,050 7,102
Oklahoma 2,734 324 243 567 23,312 7,307 1,450 8,757
Oregon 1,474 157 310 467 7,261 659 1,189 1,848
Pennsylvama 3,855 627 544 1,171 22,253 5,464 3,940 9,404
Rhode Island 273 64 65 129 749 193 212 405
South Carolina 1,383 101 161 262 9,201 1,286 844 2,130
South Dakota 802 51 82 133 5,961 1,072 418 1,490
Tennessee 3,030 94 376 470 19,688 1,499 3,000 4,499
Texas 15,175 173 2,083 2,256 48,950 2,580 7,615 10,195
Utah 1,094 65 123 188 2,805 256 250 506
Vermont 466 55 115 170 2,690 484 470 954
Virginia 3,233 125 407 532 13,160 1,186 2,162 3,348
Washington 2,324 83 622 705 7,543 420 1,636 2,056
West Virginia 1,104 115 123 238 6,881 1,078 1,477 2,555
Wisconsin 2,722 158 214 372 13,611 1,495 844 2,339
Wyoming 1,340 108 112 220 3,033 409 220 629
Puerto Rico 578 52 81 133 2,135 261 788 1,049

Totals 115,104 6,399 17,178 23,577 593,885 77,758 80,560 158,318

188 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006

J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195

 scour, and there is a need to evaluate all bridges for their suscep-
tibility to scour. To perform this evaluation effectively, the
bridge’s foundation type and depth, its foundation geometry, the
foundation materials, and the foundation’s integrity must be de-
termined. The foundation materials can be either wood, concrete,
or steel.
Methods of determining the type and depth of unknown foun-
dations vary. One method is excavation. Excavation is not only a
very destructive and expensive way of identifying the type and
depth of an unknown foundation, but it is also both dangerous to
workers and time consuming. Expensive excavation equipment
may also be necessary, especially if sheeting and dewatering are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
required 共Olson et al. 1998兲.
A fast, inexpensive method for determining the type and depth
of unknown foundations is probing. However, using this method,
only negative information can be obtained. Positive information
such as identification of foundation type, limited depth capacities,
the presence of boulders, etc., cannot be easily or consistently
obtained by probing.
Another fast, and more positive, method for determining the
type and depth of unknown foundations is drilling or coring.
However, it is expensive, traffic is usually impeded, and one still
cannot determine foundation type or depth. Remote subsurface
exploration is another method for determining the type and depth
of unknown foundations. This method is expensive, a barge may
be needed if the bridge is over water, and multiple angled drill
holes are needed to confirm pile location and type. It is very
difficult to obtain foundation depth information using this
method.
Literature Review
Perhaps the best source for information on this subject is the
Proceedings of the 9th International Bridge Management Confer-
ence in Florida, from April 2003. Some of the most applicable
information contained therein is referenced in this paper. The Fed-
eral Highway Administration 共FHwA兲, under the USDOT, estab-
lished what is called the Recording and Coding Guide for the
Structural Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges 共Re-
port No. FHwA-PD-96-001兲. This report is often referred to as
“The Guide” and is available for download from the FHwA web-
site 具http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/mtguide.pdf典. All individu-
als involved in the NBI program are encouraged to review these
guidelines.
Appendix C of The Guide contains the National Bridge In-
spection Standards 共NBIS兲, which is a list of federal regulations
on procedures and practices for inspecting and managing the na-
tion’s bridges. The Guide also includes requirements for fre-
quency of inspection, qualifications of personnel, the inspection
report, and preparation of bridge inventory.
Summary of Inspection Procedure Requirements
1. The federal government requires SHAs to have a bridge in-
spection agency perform the necessary bridge inspections,
prepare reports, and determine bridge safety ratings based on
conditions specified in AASHTO Manual for Maintenance
Inspection of Bridges 1983.
2. Bridge structures that require inspection must be rated for
safe load-carrying capacity in compliance with Section 4 of
the manual.
3. All records gathered from inspection and all bridge invento-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006 / 189
J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195
ries must be prepared and maintained to comply with the
NBIS.
4. The person responsible for inspection, reporting, and inven-
tory must maintain individual records for each performed
inspection. A master list containing the following must also
be maintained:
a. Bridges with fractured critical members: A description
of the member and its location, the frequency of the
inspection, and the procedures followed in inspecting
the fractured critical member must be included. NBIS
defines fractured critical members as “tension members
of a bridge whose failure will probably cause a portion
of or the entire bridge to collapse” 共FHwA 1995兲.
b. Bridges whose underwater members cannot be in-
spected visually during periods of low flow or cannot
be examined for safe load capacity due to excessive
water level or high turbidity: These members, along
with their inspection procedure, must be described and
the inspection frequency must be stated, not to exceed a
period of five years.
c. Bridges that contain unique features that necessitate
special inspection procedures: Frequency of inspection
and the required procedures must be listed.
d. The date of the last conducted inspection of Parts a–c
and a description of the findings. Any necessary actions
or follow-up procedures necessary must also be listed.
Summary of Inspection Frequency Requirements
1. Each bridge must be inspected at a maximum interval of two
years.
2. Some bridge types will require inspection intervals of less
than two years. The person in charge of the inspection pro-
gram decides the frequency of inspection on these bridges.
The factors taken into consideration when making this deci-
sion are age of the bridge, traffic characteristics, state of
maintenance, and any known deficiency in the bridge.
3. On the other hand, there are bridge groups that may be in-
spected at intervals of more than two years. This decision is
based on favorable past inspection reports. Before a state can
increase the inspection interval on a bridge, however, they
first need to submit a detailed proposal accompanied by sup-
porting data. The Federal Highway Administration must then
approve this proposal.
Summary of Personnel Qualification Requirements
1. The person that manages bridge inspections, reporting, and
inventory must have the following minimum qualifications:
a. Professional Engineer 共P.E.兲 licence; or
b. Qualified for P.E. registration under the laws of the
state; or
c. A minimum of 10 years of bridge inspection experience
and completion of a comprehensive training course
based on the Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual,
Bridge Inspector’s Manual for Movable Bridges, Cul-
vert Inspector’s Training Manual, and Inspection of
Fracture Critical Bridge Members.
2. The bridge inspection team leader must have the following
minimum qualifications:
a. The qualifications specified in part 1 of this section; or
b. A minimum of five years of experience in bridge in-
spection and completion of a comprehensive training
 course based on the Bridge Inspector’s Training
Manual; or
c. A certified Level III or Level IV Bridge Safety Inspec-
tor under the National Society of Professional
Engineers’ Program for National Certification in Engi-
neering Technologies 共NICET兲.
Summary of Inventory Requirements
1. Every state is required to prepare and maintain an inventory
of all its bridges, which should be tabulated in accordance
with the FHwA structure and appraisal sheet. If necessary,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the FHwA will collect these data.
2. Newly completed structures and changes to existing struc-
tures due to modification must be entered into the state’s
inspection reports and computer inventory file as soon as
possible. According to the NBIS, this must be done “no later
than 90 days after the change in the status of the structure for
bridges directly under the state’s jurisdiction and no later
than 180 days after the change in status of structure for all
other bridges on public roads within the state” 共FHwA 1995兲.
Bridge Management Systems
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
共ISTEA兲 required all states to develop, establish, and implement a
BMS by October 1998. The ISTEA requirements, first distributed
in 1991, stated that the BMS must be implemented on all state
and local bridges. New federal legislation, however, required
implementation of BMS only for bridges on the National High-
way System 共NHS兲; therefore, use of BMS inspection for
non-NHS bridges is optional 共Sunley 1995兲.
BMSs are designed to help maximize the use of available in-
formation for the inspection, maintenance, rehabilitation, and re-
placement of bridges. They help to determine the optimal time for
bridge managing agencies to perform necessary improvements to
a bridge, and by adopting the system, bridge managers can im-
prove the networking of their bridges. This systematic mainte-
nance program has been implemented to monitor the condition of
the nation’s bridges by helping state officials keep track of the
bridges and make sure that they are in satisfactory condition.
Pontis
The Pontis BMS was developed in the early 1990s for the FHwA
and became an AASHTO product in 1994. The system is cur-
rently in its fourth major version, Release 4. 共Robert et al. 2003兲.
Pontis is a Windows-based BMS that performs functions such as
recording bridge inventory and inspection data, simulating condi-
tions and suggesting actions, developing preservation policy, and
developing an overall bridge program.
The system allows representation of a bridge as a set of struc-
tural elements, with each element reported based on its condition.
It is capable of recommending necessary actions based on the
bridge elements’ current conditions with respect to the surround-
ing environment. Pontis also performs program simulations to
determine actions needed for current situations and to predict the
bridge’s future performance. The system has the ability to esti-
mate costs from detours due to extended travel time in case the
bridge is closed. This is a valuable tool in optimizing models that
can be used in balancing the differences between the available
solutions.
190 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006
J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195
As of October 2002, 46 agencies throughout the nation had
Pontis licensing, and each SHA could customize the system ac-
cording to its needs 共Robert et al. 2003兲. Pontis permits users to
develop their own screen layouts, reports, and data entry forms.
Other functions that allow modification are data definitions such
as operating environments, element types, and categories of
bridge treatment action. Pontis also allows users to define their
own deterioration models and build interfaces between their other
databases and the Pontis database 共Robert et al. 2003兲.
According to the study performed by Robert et al. 共2003兲 re-
garding statistics on the use of Pontis and the level of agency
customization, out of the 46 SHAs with licenses, 34 use the Pon-
tis system regularly. Of these:
• 17 use Pontis strictly for collecting and managing data during
inspection through the system’s Inspection Module. None of
these 17 agencies use the advanced features that the system
offers for program simulations and developing project plans.
Another four agencies use the advance functions but not the
Inspection Module;
• 50% use the system for inspection only;
• 11.8% use the system for inspection, programming, and
project planning;
• 11.8% use the system for programming and project planning
only;
• 8.8% use the system for inspection and project planning only;
• 17.6% use the system for inspection and programming only;
• Almost all of the 34 agencies have done customization to the
system; 46% have moderately customized the product, 36%
have done major customizations, and 18% instituted only very
minor changes;
• 59% have customized their databases; and
• 58% have developed data import/export procedures.
The Pontis system is also capable of either predicting the
bridge’s future condition based on a given budget or determining
the budget needed to achieve goals. For simulating bridge condi-
tions, Pontis allows users to input information such as bridge
inspection data, budget, agency business process rules, planned
projects, and improvement policies. Pontis then processes the
data, gives recommendations regarding what type of work needs
to be done, and states the benefits from performing the recom-
mended action. It also gives the bridge element conditions, the
bridge’s health index, its NBI condition rating, and its sufficiency
rating 共Cambridge 2004兲. Bridge managers can then develop their
bridge plan by combining recommendations from the Pontis sys-
tem with those from bridge maintenance engineers and inspectors.
BRIDGIT
BRIDGIT was developed by the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program 共NCHRP兲 and the National Engineering Tech-
nology Cooperation in 1985 in an attempt to improve bridge man-
agement networks. This system has capabilities similar to the
Pontis system. The user inputs the bridge element data, and the
system evaluates the condition of the elements. The cost modeling
of the BRIDGIT system is also similar to the Pontis system.
BRIDGIT is capable of delaying actions to a later date and can
analyze bridges for multiple numbers of years. It also has the
capability to choose feasible options for element protection sys-
tems. According to some agencies, the BRIDGIT system’s menus
and screens are much easier to use than those of Pontis 共Czepiel
1995兲.
 Pennsylvania BMS
Pennsylvania is one of a few states that chose to develop their
own system customized to their specific needs. McDonnell Dou-
glas Professional Services created Pennsylvania’s BMS by work-
ing closely with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
共PennDOT兲 engineers 共Czepiel 1995兲. PennDOT has been using
the system since 1986 共Rogers, personal communication, 2004兲.
Primarily, the PennDOT system rates individual bridge struc-
tures on a scale from 0 to 100, depending on condition. The BMS
then evaluates the bridges and ranks them in order for mainte-
nance, repair, and rehabilitation relative to cost-to-benefit ratio.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The system is also capable of providing a module that can help
state officials predict their bridges’ future needs 共Czepiel 1995兲.
PennDOT is constantly trying to improve their BMS to satisfy
new demands for bridge management. This includes integrating
their current system with Pontis to help them in managing
bridges. Although their current BMS is not capable of predicting
preservation maintenance and improvement needs, PennDOT per-
sonnel consider the system to be more than satisfactory and very
reliable. A top PennDOT bridge manager said, “I think that our
current BMS software is very well suited for understanding
bridge conditions, but since it was released in 1986, we’re not
getting enough features; it could be better” 共Rogers, personal
communication, 2004兲.
North Carolina BMS
In 1982, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
共NCDOT兲 teamed up with the North Carolina State University to
create a BMS for the state. The system rates structural elements
based on the scale set in the NBI. North Carolina’s BMS is also
capable of determining the annual user cost for a bridge, load
capacity detours, bridge load capacity deterioration, vertical clear-
ance detour, and accident unit costs. Many of these models were
adopted by the Pontis system in developing calculation abilities
for user costs 共Czepiel 1995兲.
The Optimum Bridge Budget Forecasting and Allocation Sys-
tem 共OPBRIDGE兲 is an optimization model that was developed in
1989. It is capable of determining the appropriate time and action
required to keep bridges operating at a safe level. It can also make
calculations which take costs and available budget into consider-
ation and is capable of reporting results on a network, county, or
individual bridge level. This optimization model is available in
other BMSs, such as BRIDGIT 共Czepiel 1995兲.
Indiana BMS
Indiana’s BMS is composed of four different, though related,
models. The system’s data requirements are similar to the NBI
data requirements. This BMS is capable of choosing the best ac-
tion to improve the condition of an individual structure based on
the condition of its elements. The system rates each bridge de-
pending on its condition, life-cycle cost, and impact on the safety
of the surrounding environment. This rating is then used to evalu-
ate the bridges and prioritize them using the Rank and Optimiza-
tion models. The Rank model gives priority to structures found to
be in the worst condition, while the Optimization model’s priority
depends on the available budget and how that money can be used
to maximize the level of service for the overall network of bridges
in the state. Bridge management officials then use these models to
structure their maintenance plan 共Czepiel 1995兲.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006 / 191
J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195
Other BMS Research
There have been many research projects throughout the nation on
which local agencies have worked with universities to develop
their own BMS. It is important that BMS products comply with
all the restrictions initially set by ISTEA. After evaluating the
BMSs that they have developed and comparing it to the Pontis
system, many states have decided that it is better to support and
integrate the Pontis system into their program, with slight modi-
fications as needed to customize the system to meet their require-
ments and preferences. Other BMSs developed by individual state
agencies do have good specific functions and qualities, but they
lack features that can satisfy all the demands of effective bridge
management and maintenance procedures on a national scale.
Other notable research and development efforts on BMS took
place in Iowa, Washington, Connecticut, Texas, and South Caro-
lina 共Czepiel 1995兲.
TISBO
The TISBO Infrastructure Maintenance Management System,
currently being developed by The Netherlands Ministry of Trans-
port, Public Works, and Water Management, is a system that in-
tegrates inspection registration and maintenance management.
This integration produces “rationalized and justified short- and
long-term maintenance programs and maintenance budgets on a
local, regional, and national level in a controlled and transparent
fashion.” Described as a proactive, rather than reactive, system,
TISBO bases maintenance measures on a combination of strategy
and inspection results instead of the more traditional systems
based on inspection results only 共Bakker and Volwerk 2003兲.
TISBO uses a central database, which makes it possible to
achieve infrastructure maintenance goals at the national level.
These national goals are based on social demands as well as de-
sired performance, and TISBO attempts to integrate functional,
economic, and technical considerations when meeting these goals.
Current Practices
In order to gain a deeper understanding of how managers of
bridge systems utilize current technology, how they manage their
bridge inspection programs, and how they handle specific events,
the research team conducted in-depth telephone interviews with
selected bridge management officials in November 2004.
Three SHAs from geographically and demographically diverse
states were selected to help evaluate the current practice of bridge
management in America. Four top bridge managers from the three
states were asked questions on topics such as management proce-
dures for bridge maintenance, bridge inspection, BMS applica-
tions, and handling bridges with unknown foundations. The
interviews also addressed other issues such as inspector qualifi-
cations, following USDOT guidelines, government funding,
improvement efforts, subcontractor qualifications, handling pri-
orities, and other ethical issues.
The state officials interviewed were from the Florida DOT
共FDOT兲, PennDOT, and the Iowa DOT 共IDOT兲. The positions
held by the bridge managers interviewed were Bridge Manage-
ment and Inspection Engineer, Assistant Chief Bridge Engineer,
Bridge Maintenance Engineer, and Assistant Bridge Maintenance
Engineer.
 Management Procedures on Bridge Inspection
Inspector Qualifications
The state officials were asked about the typical and the most
important qualities they look for in a bridge inspector. FDOT
looks for someone who is thorough, has a strong technical back-
ground, and has reasonable structural knowledge, that is, someone
who knows bridges very well and knows how deterioration oc-
curs. Bridge inspectors must also be able to record their findings
clearly on bridge inspection reports 共Kerr, personal communica-
tion, 2004兲.
PennDOT bridge inspectors undergo extensive training pro-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
vided by the DOT. PennDOT also looks for candidates with at
least a two-year engineering technician degree or an associate’s
degree who have a strong technical background and are physi-
cally able to climb 共Rogers, personal communication, 2004兲.
IDOT looks for experience, familiarity with bridges, and sur-
veying experience. They prefer candidates who have experience
in inspecting construction of new bridges, but in recent years,
these candidates have not been readily available. The department
employs a variety of bridge inspectors, using mostly in-house
staff, but it occasionally, for major bridges, hires consultants. The
engineers interviewed said that experience and education are im-
portant, depending on the type of inspection that needs to be
performed. For certifying their inspectors, IDOT basically follows
NBIS guidelines. This states that an inspector must have five
years of experience and have taken a three-week training course
共Brakke and Dunley, personal communication, 2004兲.
Training Inspectors
PennDOT follows the NHI’s Basic Training Course for Bridge
Inspectors in training new inspectors. The inspectors also receive
an extra three-days of training to become familiar with the spe-
cifics of PennDOT inspection procedures. The agency then re-
quires a three-day refresher course every two years, which is
considered critical. Other courses offered to inspectors are the
Bridge Scour Assessment Course and the Fatigue and Fracture
Course 共Rogers, personal communication, 2004兲.
IDOT’s in-house bridge inspector team leaders must meet the
federal requirements for bridge inspectors. Their team leaders
then provide on-the-job training. The bridge manager interviewed
stated: “We have different training procedures. For example, there
is a publication by the FHwA, Report No. FHwA-PD-96-001,
which is titled “Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,” that we follow.
We also have basic procedures; exact policies are not written
down, but we expect teams to sketch or take photos of cracks and
include them in their report. There is also an ongoing draft for the
procedures, but it has not been approved, so it’s not yet publicly
available” 共Brakke and Dunley, personal communication, 2004兲.
Florida gives their bridge inspectors on-the-job training. They
send them out with an experienced bridge inspector so that they
learn the process and know what to look for in conducting an
inspection. In addition, the NHI offers training courses for their
bridge inspectors. Two of the courses offered are called Engineer-
ing Concepts for Bridge Inspectors and Safety Inspection of In-
Service Bridges 共Kerr, personal communication, 2004兲.
Following Guidelines
State officials were asked to comment on how closely they follow
the guidelines set by the USDOT.
FDOT’s policy is to follow the USDOT guidelines as closely
as possible 共Kerr, personal communication, 2004兲. IDOT uses the
192 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006
J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195
guidelines as basic requirements for inspection procedures and
intervals. The department has different types of inspections; for
example, fatigue inspection for steel bridges means that inspec-
tors check for cracking in the steel. This is a very intensive type
of inspection with extra emphasis on fatigue vulnerability. This
method also requires photographs and sketches of any damaged
components. IDOT has code sheets on various components of the
bridge, and they rate bridge conditions accordingly. Another type
of inspection done by IDOT is one in which inspectors do a
walk-through of the bridge, with neither photos nor sketches
being required in the report. It is considered a lower level of
inspection as compared to fatigue inspection 共Dunley, personal
communication, 2004兲.
PennDOT is more rigorous than the NBIS for general inspec-
tors, but they are having some difficulty and disagreement with
the five-year experience requirement for team leaders. They be-
lieve that an associate’s degree, proper training, and at least one
inspector course are better qualifications, but the agency still fol-
lows the NBIS guidelines for inspector qualifications 共Rogers,
personal communication, 2004兲.
Improvement Efforts
PennDOT has an ongoing quality assurance program in which
consultants for a select number of bridges attend a closed-door
meeting to discuss issues with consultants from other districts.
This is considered to be a powerful tool for ensuring quality ser-
vice. The department welcomes feedback from personnel regard-
ing whether their training was sufficient 共Rogers, personal
communication, 2004兲.
IDOT currently has two classes planned for their inspectors for
this fiscal year. As far as improving procedures, their paper in-
spection records have recently been converted to electronic
records. The department is constantly improving data manage-
ment so that data and other documents are more readily available.
The FHwA financed the development of the training courses, and
the federal government financed the development of the refresher
courses. The department’s only expense is the travel cost for their
inspectors 共Brakke and Dunley, personal communication, 2004兲.
FDOT reviews their procedures periodically. During these re-
views, they update and make adjustments as necessary. Other
periodic refresher training and a more detailed inspection process
course called Inspection of Fractured Critical Bridge Members
are also offered 共Kerr, personal communication, 2004兲.
Management Procedures on Bridge Maintenance
General Practice
The state officials were asked to comment on the typical and most
important practices they observe in bridge maintenance. In
Florida, a typical process is composed of going out to the site,
identifying deficiencies during the inspection process, and record-
ing the findings. They then review their findings and take appro-
priate action. The department believes that early detection and
action is more economical in the long run 共Kerr, personal com-
munication, 2004兲.
PennDOT considers scour countermeasures, clearing and
washing of steel members, protecting the superstructure from
drainage infiltration, cleaning and waterproofing, and bridge deck
maintenance as the most important issues in maintaining bridges
in their division 共Rogers, personal communication, 2004兲.
As far as erosion and scour, IDOT performs maintenance in a
timely manner. The action taken depends on the severity of the
 damage. The inspectors usually call in their findings. The office
then evaluates the severity of the damage and decides how to
proceed. Because Iowa is divided into six districts, each district
has its own repair crew. If a deck needs repairing, the districts
will repair it themselves. If the damage is beyond the repair
team’s capacity, the district works with the central office to have
a contractor perform the work 共Brakke and Dunley, personal com-
munication, 2004兲.
Handling Priorities
Because this paper focuses on management procedures, the state
officials interviewed were asked to comment on handling priori-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ties when problems or special situations occur; this is what they
had to say:
“At FDOT, the number one priority at all times is safety. If we
find that public safety is at risk after the inspection process, we
immediately prioritize what needs to be done. We immediately
perform whatever work needs to be done on the bridge. When
safety hazards are found, the process is expedited; the Department
Secretary is contacted and informed. We then shortcut the bidding
process to ensure a quick start to fixing the problem. Our depart-
ment is decentralized, and the different districts receive funds
based on their inventory. If a district 关structures group兴 feels that
they need more funding, they contact the district secretary, who
requests additional funding. The 关state兴 control office then evalu-
ates the request and decides whether to grant or decline the peti-
tion for additional funding” 共Kerr, personal communication,
2004兲.
“We have a policy here at PennDOT where we rate the job
priority from 0 to 5. For example, ‘0’ means do the job right now,
and ‘1’ means do the job immediately. Don’t dare put ‘0’ or ‘1’
and not be able to start on it immediately. When it comes down to
these situations, it really turns into a management issue. You have
to have the ability to make critical decisions and handle the situ-
ation. You also have to take the budget and scheduling into con-
sideration. I also believe in building strong relationships between
the maintenance team and the design team. A high level of com-
munication and trust is very important. Our inspection unit here at
PennDOT is under the design team, not under the maintenance
unit, like some states have. I also try to keep a good work order
system. I think it’s very important that we clearly track the main-
tenance needs, especially for big organizations” 共Rogers, personal
communication, 2004兲.
“There are certain things that would normally be performed
following a process set by the department. These processes must
be evaluated as necessary, but in emergency situations, we just do
what needs to be done to ensure public safety. The public is our
responsibility. Whatever work is necessary in emergency situa-
tions, we basically drop everything and handle the situation”
共Brakke and Dunley, personal communication, 2004兲.
Management Procedures and BMS
The next set of questions pertained to the BMSs that the agencies
use. State officials were asked to comment on their reliability,
advantages and disadvantages, common applications used, and
BMS training.
Florida
Florida currently uses the Pontis system; however, they are using
only about 80% of the system’s features. The department uses the
program to record their inspection findings, create reports, track
performance of work orders, and plan and program work that
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006 / 193
J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195
needs to be done. FDOT offers periodic BMS training to their
personnel. They also hold training sessions when new features are
available 共Kerr, personal communication, 2004兲.
Other than an occasional period of inactivity and a few prob-
lems in the program, the department feels that the system is reli-
able. When they come across a problem, they identify it and
inform the software company. FDOT finds the following Pontis
features to be most useful:
• Standardized building inspection report: Standardized reports
are easier to track.
• Ability to store data in an electronic database: This eliminates
or minimizes paperwork and paper records 共Kerr, personal
communication, 2004兲.
Iowa
IDOT is licensed to use Pontis, but they have not been actively
using it for programming; rather, they are using it only to collect
and store data. They still rely heavily on their own electronic
system, which they have been using for years 共Brakke and
Dunley, personal communication, 2004兲.
The agency offers training on BMS scheduling and in using a
palm device for collecting Pontis data. There are also other BMS
training courses being set up for new employees. The officials
declined the opportunity to comment on the reliability of the Pon-
tis software, because they feel that they are not using the product
enough to judge; however, they mentioned that Pontis adds con-
venience and efficiency to collecting and storing data 共Brakke and
Dunley, personal communication, 2004兲. IDOT finds the follow-
ing features of their system to be most useful:
• Inspection data: The system electronically stores the condition,
photos, and sketches gathered from inspection.
• Electronic records management system: This is their main
storage tool, and it is accessible online. It replaced the micro-
films that IDOT used in the past 共Brakke and Dunley, personal
communication, 2004兲.
Pennsylvania
PennDOT has been using a standalone system since 1986 and is
now in the process of rewriting the program. Next year, they
expect to include Pontis in their system to assist them in bridge
management. The agency’s current system is not capable of pre-
dicting preservation maintenance and improvement 共Rogers, per-
sonal communication, 2004兲.
PennDOT fully optimizes their current BMS and uses 100% of
its features, but the department also feels that the system is un-
derdeveloped when it comes to planning and programming. At the
current time, the agency uses their standalone system to record all
inventories and bridge conditions and to keep track of mainte-
nance needs and completed maintenance activities, which are all
integrated with their Roadway and Project Management System.
PennDOT also places a strong emphasis on using BMS when
collecting underwater bridge elements data. In addition, the sys-
tem is used for automotive permit review and as an analysis sys-
tem for heavy hauling permits. PennDOT personnel are provided
with on-the-job BMS training 共Rogers, personal communication,
2004兲.
The department feels that their current BMS is satisfactory and
very reliable. The software is well suited for understanding bridge
conditions, but because it was released in 1986, the software does
not offer enough features. PennDOT’s BMS needs improvement
on programming and planning capabilities, the maintenance work
 order system, and design and implementation features 共Rogers,
personal communication, 2004兲.
Managing Bridges in Extreme Conditions
The last set of questions addressed handling extreme circum-
stances, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding, or bridges with
unknown foundations.
Catastrophic Events
PennDOT officials feel that they are prepared for catastrophic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and flooding and that they
do a very good job in responding. During emergency situations,
90% of their response team comes from within their own office.
After a catastrophic event, the agency immediately sends their
data collectors to perform an inspection on any bridge affected by
the event 共Rogers, personal communication, 2004兲.
The department also has statewide consultants that specialize
in different catastrophic situations. These consultants are required
to be available immediately during an emergency. The agency
handles earthquakes and floods in the same way that they handle
hurricanes; few of the emergency response procedures are written
guidelines 共Rogers, personal communication 2004兲.
PennDOT updates their emergency response procedures regu-
larly; they perform drills and practices to prepare for emergency
situations. The officials feel that they get enough real-life experi-
ences with fire, flooding, and vehicle collisions involving bridge
elements to keep them fresh in handling these situations. During
emergency situations, the process goes from responding to recon-
struction, because there is not much time to examine large quan-
tities of data and perform quality assurance. The department feels
that reconstruction is more important so that they can reopen
affected bridges as soon as possible. Officials also take note of
their emergency situation procedures during an event and work on
improvements afterwards 共Rogers, personal communication
2004兲.
FDOT does not have any emergency response procedures pre-
pared for earthquakes, because Florida is a low risk area for those
kinds of emergencies. On the other hand, they feel that they are
well prepared for hurricanes. The agency performs practices and a
Hurricane Response Drill at least once a year. During an emer-
gency, the district that covers the area affected by the hurricane
becomes the lead district, and the department’s responsibilities
include the entire transportation system. Bridges that are affected
by the storm are identified and listed. After the storm, the bridges
on the list are thoroughly inspected according to priority, with the
ones having the most damage being inspected first. Detours and
emergency contacts are planned, provided, and enforced. The dis-
trict is also responsible for debris removal on other parts of the
roadway 共Kerr, personal communication, 2004兲.
In Florida, emergency response procedures are not published
or printed in a manual. The department feels that the number of
emergency situations to which they have responded prepares them
to deal with any future catastrophes. They often evaluate their
procedures during the yearly drill sessions and make updates as
necessary 共Kerr, personal communication, 2004兲.
Bridges with Unknown Foundations
FDOT has no written manual on handling bridges with unknown
foundations but, rather, uses past experience to guide them. The
department feels that there is no economical method for determin-
194 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006
J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195
ing the length 共depth兲 of these foundations. After a storm, they
simply go out and inspect the bridge structures 共Kerr, personal
communication, 2004兲.
Iowa classifies bridges with unknown foundations as vulner-
able to scour. They usually put a monitoring plan in place or
install countermeasures such as riprap. When flooding occurs,
these bridges get evaluated, and the department develops a plan to
address the situation. The bridge is immediately shut down if
water hits a certain level 共Brakke and Dunley, personal commu-
nication, 2004兲.
IDOT also has bridges with unknown foundations that are
handled by counties and cities. They may hire bridge consultants
to take care of any problems that occur, but the department over-
sees all activities to ensure that all bridges are well maintained.
There are about 4,000 bridges maintained by the state and about
22,000 maintained by the cities and counties in Iowa 共Brakke and
Dunley, personal communication, 2004兲.
PennDOT has printed materials available on handling bridges
with unknown foundations. This type of bridge is a part of the
department’s Scour Assessment Program. They constantly keep
track of the bridge’s hydraulic and hydrologic features when
emergency situations, such as flooding, occur. In a catastrophe,
bridges with unknown foundations are given priority 共Rogers,
personal communication, 2004兲.
Ethical Issues: Making a Decision
In the final step, the bridge system managers were asked to com-
ment on any ethical issues or concerns they had in making im-
portant bridge management decisions. This is how they answered:
“Public safety comes first 关at IDOT兴; this is our main ethical
consideration. Pressure to open the bridges is easy to deal with.
We simply won’t open the bridge until it’s proven safe again”
共Brakke and Dunley, personal communication, 2004兲.
“It is important to make every decision in an ethical manner.
The factor of safety is the top priority for FDOT. Public safety
comes before anything else. Pressure may arise in special situa-
tions as to whether to keep the bridge open when it needs to be
closed. Especially when a bridge lies on a major route, closing it
down will have a huge economic impact. After inspection, we do
get a lot of pressure to open the bridge as soon possible, but
whatever happens, safety comes first” 共Kerr, personal communi-
cation, 2004兲.
“Safety is Job # 1. This issue is not much of a problem. Our
principle here in Pennsylvania is ‘If we can’t prove it’s safe . . .
it’s unsafe.’ We close the bridge until it is guaranteed to be safe
again. The first thing we do when a situation occurs is to close the
bridges, and they remain closed until we complete our investiga-
tion. We do get strong executive support when it comes to making
decisions on whether to keep the bridge open or to close. But we
can’t have a bridge open when we’re not sure if it’s safe” 共Rogers,
personal communication, 2004兲.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Findings show that the nation’s bridges need effective mainte-
nance and inspection procedures more than ever. Many of the
bridges still in service were designed when the demand for trans-
portation facilities was not as great as it is today; therefore, the
bridges are experiencing accelerated deterioration and are becom-
ing more and more exposed to wear and tear as time progresses.
This study shows that state agency officials put high emphasis
 on following the guidelines set by the FHwA on inspection
procedures, frequency requirements, personnel qualifications, in-
spection reports, and inventory. The importance of management
experience in emergency situations is crucial, because there are
no written manuals available on how to handle these situations.
The drills and practices performed may be helpful, but it is sug-
gested that agencies also perform drills for situations when the
state officials are not present during a catastrophe. It also would
be helpful to have a basic written manual, guide, or checklist of
things to do in case a catastrophic event should occur.
The ISTEA of 1991 required implementation of a BMS in
each state, but no specifics were stated, and no minimum require-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/09/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ments were set. As a result, many state agencies implemented the
use of a BMS only to a minimal extent. As the survey shows,
BMSs currently in use either are outdated or, if they are up to
date, are not fully utilized. Even the national product, Pontis,
which offers extensive features for bridge management, is not
fully utilized by even the most progressive SHA.
It is recommended that the USDOT set minimum requirements
for agencies regarding utilization of Pontis. The only way for
bridge maintenance budgets to keep up with demand is to opti-
mize the technology available. The department must realize the
importance of mandatory use of all BMS functions available. This
will vastly improve the bridge management procedures now in
practice, because the study shows that agencies using standalone
systems are more likely to fall behind, especially if they are not
putting any effort into improving those systems.
Rapid action is necessary because deterioration of bridge
structures continues, and the best solution available at this time is
BMS technology. Local agencies cannot be expected to perform
this action unless they are required to do so. The transformation
efforts may initially require a tremendous amount of time and
funding, but in the long run, it should save time and money. It
will also help save the nation’s bridges and, possibly, human life.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2006 / 195
J. Manage. Eng., 2006, 22(4): 186-195
References
Bakker, J., and Volwerk, J. 共2003兲. “TISBO infrastructure maintenance
and management system.” Proc., 9th Int. Bridge Management Conf.,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 61–69.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 共2004兲. “Pontis modeling approach
overview.” 具http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/
pontismodel.htm典 共Mar. 1, 2005兲.
Czepiel, E. 共1995兲. “Bridge management systems literature review and
search.” Northwestern Univ. BIRL Industrial Research Laboratory,
Technical Rep. No. 11, Evanston, Ind.
Dowding, C. 共1994兲. “Use of time domain reflectometry to detect bridge
scour and monitor pier movement.” 具http://iti.acns.nwu.edu/
publication/tdr/1994_papers/dowding.html典 共Mar. 1, 2005兲.
Federal Highway Administration 共FHwA兲. 共1995兲. “Recording and cod-
ing guide for the structure inventory and appraisal of the nation’s
bridges.” 具http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/mtguide.pdf典 共Mar. 1,
2005兲.
Hurricane City. 共2004兲. “2004 damage reports.” 具http://www.
hurricanecity.com/dam/dam2004.htm典 共Mar. 1, 2005兲.
Olson, L., Jalinoos, F., and Aouad, M. 共1998兲. “Determination of un-
known subsurface bridge foundations.” 具http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
bridge/GT-16.PDF典 共Mar. 1, 2005兲.
“Report warns of wear on bridges.” 共2002兲. USA Today, 具http://
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/07/bridges.htm典 共Mar. 1,
2005兲.
Road Information Program. 共2003a兲. “Deficient bridges.” 具http://
www.tripnet.org/DeficientBridges070903.PDF典 共Mar. 1, 2005兲.
Road Information Program. 共2003b兲. “The road to economic development
in Louisiana.” 具http://www.tripnet.org/DeficientBridges070903.PDF典
共Mar. 1, 2005兲.
Robert, W., Marshall, A., Shepard, R., and Aldayuz, J. 共2003兲. “The
Pontis Bridge management system: State-of-the-practice in implemen-
tation and development.” Proc., 9th Int. Bridge Management Conf.,
Transportation Rearch Board, Washington, D.C., 49–60.
Sunley, W. 共1995兲. “Pontis—A bridge inspection.” 具http://www.lib.niu.
edu/ ipo/im951013.html典 共Mar. 1, 2005兲.