Ap R198 02

AP-R198
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS THE STATE OF THE ART
AUSTROADS
Bridge Management Systems the State of the Art First Published 2002 Austroads Inc. 2002
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Bridge Management Systems the State of the Art ISBN 0 85588 611 0 Austroads Project No. BS.A.N.515 (Part 1) Austroads Publication No. APR198/02 Project Manager Dr Rodney McGee, DIER Tas Project Team Mr George Curran, DIPE NT Mr Peter Graham, DMR Qld Mr Adam Lim, MR WA Mr Hamish McNulty, DUS ACT Mr Norm Murray, MR WA Mr Sam Vulcano, DIPE NT Mr Peter Wilson, Transport SA Prepared by LB Dowling & Associates Pty Ltd Asset Management Reference Group Mr Paul Smith (Convenor), DMR Qld Mr Ron Ferguson, RTA NSW Mr Bruce Van Every, VicRoads Mr Neville Binning, MR WA Mr John Statton, Transport SA Mr Peter Todd, DIER Tas Mr Ken Docherty, DIPE NT Mr Hamish McNulty, DUS ACT Mr Dave Robertson, Transit NZ Mr Bruce Douglas, ALGA Mr Tim Martin, ARRB TR Mr Laurie Dowling, LBD&A (Secretary) Structures Technology Reference Group Mr Ray Wedgwood (Convenor), RTA NSW Dr John Fenwick, DMR Qld Mr Jeff Boully, VicRoads Mr Norm Murray, MR WA Mr Dean Whitford, Transport SA The late Dr Rodney McGee, DIER Tas Mr George Curran, DIPE NT Mr Frank McGuire, Transit NZ Mr Ahmad Shayan, ARRB TR Mr Brendon Hyde (Secretary)
Published by Austroads Incorporated Level 9, Robell House 287 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia Phone: +61 2 9264 7088 Fax: +61 2 9264 1657 Email: austroads@austroads.com.au www.austroads.com.au Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing, and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS THE STATE OF THE ART
Sydney 2002
AUSTROADS PROFILE
Austroads is the association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities whose purpose is to contribute to the achievement of improved Australian and New Zealand transport related outcomes by: developing and promoting best practice for the safe and effective management and use of the road system providing professional support and advice to member organisations and national and international bodies acting as a common vehicle for national and international action fulfilling the role of the Australian Transport Councils Road Modal Group undertaking performance assessment and development of Australian and New Zealand standards developing and managing the National Strategic Research Program for roads and their use. Within this ambit, Austroads aims to provide strategic direction for the integrated development, management and operation of the Australian and New Zealand road system through the promotion of national uniformity and harmony, elimination of unnecessary duplication, and the identification and application of world best practice.
AUSTROADS MEMBERSHIP
Austroads membership comprises the six State and two Territory road transport and traffic authorities and the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services in Australia, the Australian Local Government Association and Transit New Zealand. It is governed by a council consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven member organisations: Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales Roads Corporation Victoria Department of Main Roads Queensland Main Roads Western Australia Transport South Australia Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment Northern Territory Department of Urban Services Australian Capital Territory Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services Australian Local Government Association Transit New Zealand
The success of Austroads is derived from the synergies of interest and participation of member organisations and others in the road industry.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
With deep regret, Austroads wishes to record the death of Dr Rodney McGee on 1 February 2002. Despite a serious illness diagnosed shortly after approval to Austroads funding for bridge management system development for Australia and New Zealand, Dr McGee continued as Project Manager until the main work in preparing this report was completed. Rodney will be remembered for his significant contributions to technology and asset management for bridges, and particularly for his Doctoral study of concrete durability. Shortly before his death, Rodney was presented with an Austroads Achievement Award in recognition of his work in developing the 2001 Austroads Guide to Heritage Bridge Management.
Bridge management systems the state of the art
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and Introduction There are approximately 33,500 road bridges in Australia and 17,000 road bridges in New Zealand in public ownership. Numerous national, state and local authorities are responsible for managing those bridges. Each authority is required to select an approach to bridge management to suit its own circumstances. By commissioning this study and related work, Austroads intends to facilitate the selection process, to provide a framework for consistency in approach, and eventually to compile default models suitable for local calibration. This report is the output of Part 1 of Austroads Project BS.B.N.515. The aim of Part 1 was to review current local and international practice in modelling bridge performance, as a basis for developing default models for use in Australian bridge management systems in Part 2. This report describes the current state of the art with respect to research and practice in bridge management systems, including deterministic and probabilistic modelling practices for deterioration and works effects, and optimisation of program budgets. Austroads has other research in progress to identify a common set of bridge condition descriptors and to propose suitable bridge sufficiency indices. This report is intended to complement the results of that research.
The major inputs to the preparation of this report were a review of recent literature and information available on the Internet, a survey of the current state of development of bridge management systems by Austroads Member Authorities, and discussion with leading bridge management practitioners.
Bridge Management Systems Road agencies that embrace the concept of systematic management of their bridge stock usually develop their computer-based bridge management systems on an incremental basis. As a result, there is a wide range of sophistication in bridge management systems in use. This range extends from relatively simple databases with data on bridge inventory, condition and history to sophisticated systems which can recommend programs of works based on selection from a menu of treatments using criteria including in some cases various forms of financial or economic analysis. However, the literature review found very little about systems with operational models for condition deterioration and works effects. The literature review indicated that knowledge and understanding of bridge management at the network level is expanding rapidly. Literature earlier than 1998 is mainly of historical interest and contributed little to the objectives of the review. The literature review therefore concentrated mainly on conference proceedings and papers dated 1998 and later. PONTIS and BRIDGIT, both developed in the US, and their derivatives seem to be the most widely used bridge management systems. The European Economic Community (EEC) is presently developing a comprehensive bridge management system, drawing on the experience of member nations.
AUSTROADS 2002
Bridge Management Philosophy Two distinct broad philosophies have emerged in bridge management. Both sets of systems have welldeveloped modules for capturing data on inventory, inspections, and maintenance repairs. However, the distinction between the two philosophies is in their methods of planning works programs. Initially, and as typified by the systems emanating from North America, budget optimisation is based entirely upon the analysis of bridge condition. Budgets are either allocated from a top-down or a bottom-up approach to bridge repair. The top-down approach is driven by network performance. In the bottom-up approach, individual bridges are repaired to prescribed minimum condition standards. More recently, the philosophy of bridge management considers bridge condition data as only part of the process, and not as the sole generator of maintenance repair schedules. When compiling program budgets, the analysis process also considers the reliability and the safety of structures within the network. Network condition analysis modules are data hungry and are only as good as the accuracy of the information fed into them. Modelling techniques suitable for bridge management are well established. However, the benefits that those techniques may provide to bridge owners are in general yet to be realised because of a lack of sufficient, representative data from which to calibrate models. Over time, as modelling techniques are adapted and accurate condition inspection reports are recorded, that situation may be expected to improve. In the meantime, the optimal management process may well be through a process that identifies critical structures of the bridge network, and the individual management of those structures. That approach reflects sound management especially when the overall bridge stock is relatively small. At this stage, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that sophisticated bridge management systems have not been used to their full potential. Even a sophisticated bridge management system does not return useful results immediately, but has to grow through the gathering of knowledge concerning the network for which it has been established. Available historical records may not have been recorded in sufficient detail or an appropriate format to supply that knowledge. All bridge management systems perform their function as a database and, if they have been consistently applied and accurately populated with data, should be ready for the inclusion of analysis modules. Typical models do exist.
The Choice for Road Agencies This report comments on the degree to which various bridge management systems have been developed, indicates directions for their further development, and raises issues to consider in the future. Each road agencys choice of approach will be influenced by the size of the bridge stock, and the resources that the client is prepared to devote to bridge management. Bridge management systems are at the stage where each road agency has an opportunity to make a significant decision regarding its future approach to bridge management, including commitment of resources. Agencies have two main choices, either a program to sustain network condition based on specified minimum criteria, or to provide a network fit for purpose in terms of safety, reliability, and economics. Clearly there is a need for a better understanding of how condition relates to reliability and safety, and of the performance that is expected from a bridge to meet any demand on the road network. Included in that understanding would be some provision of a system indicator to show how well bridge management is being applied.
ii
AUSTROADS 2002
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1.2 The Status of Bridge Management in Australasia .......................................................... 1.3 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 1.4 Australasian Input ........................................................................................................... 1 1 1 2 3
2.
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 4 2.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 System Development ...................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Overseas Bridge Management Systems .......................................................................... 6 2.4 Status of BMSs within Australia and New Zealand ..................................................... 22 MODELLING ....................................................................................................................... 3.1 Analysis Techniques ..................................................................................................... 3.2 Deterioration Models .................................................................................................... 3.3 Life Cycle Cost Models ................................................................................................ 3.4 Works Effects Models ................................................................................................... 27 27 28 30 31
3.
4. 5.
REPORTS ............................................................................................................................. 32 ISSUES .................................................................................................................................. 33 5.1 Deterioration Models .................................................................................................... 33 5.2 Works Effects ................................................................................................................ 34 FUTURE DIRECTIONS ..................................................................................................... 6.1 Bridge Capacity Evaluation .......................................................................................... 6.2 Bridge Condition Index ................................................................................................. 6.3 Bridge Safety ................................................................................................................. 6.4 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis .............................................................................................. 6.5 Reliability Based Bridge Management Procedures ....................................................... 6.6 Uncertainty in Bridge Management .............................................................................. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 7.1 The Bridge Management Process .................................................................................. 7.2 Current Bridge Management Systems .......................................................................... 7.3 Austroads Member Authority Systems ......................................................................... 7.4 The Future for Bridge Management Systems ............................................................... 35 35 36 37 37 38 39 40 40 41 42 42
6.
7.
8.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................ 43
APENDICES Appendix 1 - Summary of Bridge Management Systems ...................................................... 45 Appendix 2 - Sample BMS Questionnaire ............................................................................. 48 Appendix 3 References ........................................................................................................ 51 INFORMATION RETRIEVAL ................................................................................................... 55
AUSTROADS 2002
iii
TABLE
Table A Summary of results from a survey of Bridge Management Systems of major road organisations in Australia and New Zealand ........................................... 22
FIGURES
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Structure of a model BMS ............................................................................................... 4 The optimisation process ................................................................................................. 6 Status of module development by Austroads Member Authorities ............................... 24 The bridge management process .................................................................................... 40 The overall aims of bridge management ........................................................................ 41
iv
AUSTROADS 2002
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background There has been significant investment in Australia and New Zealand in the development of tools and models for the management of pavement assets. However, the amount of similar development work for management of bridge assets has been relatively small. In 2000/01, Austroads therefore initiated a project which aimed to assist road agencies in establishing and improving their bridge management systems. The first part of the Austroads Project (No BS.B.N.515) comprised a review of international research and practice in the development and use of bridge management systems, and preparation of a state of the art report. A contract was awarded to LB Dowling & Associates to undertake this work. The methodology adopted was to carry out a survey of the major Austroads Member Authorities and other known bridge management system users to establish the current status and proposed development of their systems. Responses to the survey were followed up for clarification and detailed explanation. In conjunction with discovering local knowledge, a literature search of more recent references was conducted to seek information on bridge management systems in use, and to identify and describe the specific modules of those systems. A draft report drawing together the findings of the survey and literature review was prepared for review by the Project Manager, Project Team and others before proceeding to preparation of a final report. This final report incorporates comments and aims to clarify the issues raised. A 1996 inventory showed that within Australia there were 33,449 bridges under public ownership, all requiring maintenance. The maintenance needs of those structures are both varied and unavoidable. Effective maintenance management of that asset is essential when the budget for arterial bridges alone can be approaching $A100M. 1997-98 expenditure on bridge maintenance for arterial roads was $A85M (Austroads, 2000) (Ref 1). In 1999, New Zealand had 16,772 bridges in the public domain. Neither sets of total figures for Australia or New Zealand include tunnel structures.
1.2
The Status of Bridge Management in Australasia
Bridge and asset management conferences held within Australia in recent times have not attracted many papers covering development of management systems. The Austroads 1997 Bridge Conference, Bridging the Millennia included two papers out of a total of 83 connected to bridge asset management. More recently, at Austroads 4th Bridge Conference Bridges for the New Millennium held in Adelaide in November 2000, there were three papers on bridge management whilst at the 20th ARRB Conference Managing Your Transport Assets, held in Melbourne in March 2001, there was not a single paper on the topic. Clearly, there is considerable scope to improve asset management systems within Australasia through research and reporting of topics related to bridge system issues. The science of bridge management in Australasia has developed mainly on the initiative of the state road authority organisations. Private organisations have been reluctant to commit funding where there is uncertainty about returns.
AUSTROADS 2002
1.3
Literature Review
From early in the review of literature, it became apparent that generally any papers published before 1998 were mostly of historical interest. The development of technology and the available knowledge for bridge management systems has increased dramatically in recent years. System reporting and research into analysis techniques has grown threefold in the past eight years. That may be evidenced by an analysis of the topic content of the series of books on bridge management edited by Harding, Parke and Ryall. In 1993, of 105 papers only 6% were related to bridge management. In 1996 that ratio became 106 to 11 (10%), and in 2000 the ratio had grown to 92 to 16 (17%). This report has been prepared essentially from the following conference proceedings, papers and publications dealing with asset management:
1.3.1 Conference Proceedings 8th International Bridge Management Conference, Denver, Colorado. April 1999 (Ref 6, 19 and 50); 4th Austroads Bridge Conference, Adelaide, South Australia. November 2000 (Ref 27 and 28); 5th International Bridge Engineering Conference, Tampa, Florida. April 2000 (Ref 34 and 49).
1.3.2 Papers Bridge Management Systems Literature Review and Search, Edward Czepiel. November 1996 (Ref 5); Bridge Management in Europe (BRIME), Project for the European Commission. Project Coordinator, Dr R J Woodward, TRL, Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK. (Ongoing) (References 15, 16, 18, 31, 32 and 44).
1.3.3 Publications Bridge Safety and Reliability, 1999 (Ref 2); Bridge Management 4: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair, 2000 (References 4, 23, 29, 37, 38, 51, 58, 60, and 61); Management of Highway Structures, 1999 (References 17, 22, 25, 52, 54, 57, and 59). Many of the leading authors in the field of improved bridge management techniques ensure coverage of their subject by presenting papers at several conferences by including them in relevant management publications. Where necessary, and to confirm system properties, earlier references have been consulted. A full table of references is included as Appendix 3, and throughout the text cross referencing of source documents is provided to substantiate opinion or conclusions drawn from references and used in the report. In all, over 60 papers by over 100 authors have been referenced.
AUSTROADS 2002
1.4
Australasian Input
All member authorities of Austroads were approached for a general outline of the bridge management system their organisation had adopted, and for the status of its development. The questionnaire is in Appendix 2, and the responses are summarised later in Section 2 (Table A and Figure 3). In addition enquiries were directed to consultancy organisations known to be involved in managing bridge structures for road agencies. Those enquiries were fruitful in that they established the level of system development from within the private sector. Bridge management systems developed by private sector organisations were found to comprise databases and to be without modelling capabilities. Reliance seemed to be placed upon client analysis of maintenance options. Contract conditions appear to be written such that it is the clients responsibility for operating some form of management system into which inspection condition data can be fed and from which comes client direction for maintenance of the asset. Asset management has not been a contract responsibility. Contract maintenance management of bridge assets over relatively short periods would not necessitate development of sophisticated bridge systems. Short-term contracts do not encourage major rehabilitation or maintenance, which is not compatible with making short term profits. Any change in condition over the contract period would not encourage expenditure on anything other than routine maintenance. During a BOOT and similar types of contract, the bridge assets are relatively young, and so in general a sophisticated bridge management system cannot be justified. At this stage and from the evidence, there does not appear to be a need for, or even moves towards, the development of commercial bridge management systems in Australia and New Zealand.
AUSTROADS 2002
2.
2.1
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Background
In general terms, computerised systems for bridge management began to appear round 1980, initially as databases for storage and simple evaluation of deficiencies. Optimisation of maintenance programs became an established part of management systems in the late 1980s and early 1990s. US national efforts created two basic systems, PONTIS for FHWA and BRIDGIT for NCHRP. The adoption of either, or a similarly capable system, was mandated throughout US in 1991 with PONTIS becoming the preferred system (Hearn, 1999) (Ref 2). System development in the UK appears to have been accelerated by a 15 year program in response to imposed legislation to increase the load carrying capacity of bridges and thereby meet standards set by the European Community. That program was the impetus for development of management systems to provide a better framework for future management of the bridge network. 2.2 System Development
Ideally, a bridge management system consists of several modules that may be used for the effective management of bridge assets either corporately at the network level or locally for individual bridges. It is very important that the system be developed by those persons who will be responsible for its implementation and upkeep, and not be a computer programmers cherished project (Lauridsen et al, 1998) (Ref 3). The system should comprise guidelines and management tools to be used at all levels of bridge operation and maintenance; the executive, the planning, the administration and the maintenance levels. A structure for a model bridge management system could be (Steele et al, 2000) (Ref 4):
Activities Inventory Inspection Maintenance Construction Traffic Surveys Accident Reporting Cost Accounting D A T A B A S E
Costs: Agency User
Management Inputs
Funding constraints Minimum conditions
Outputs
Needs Bridge condition BMS Analytical Process Predictions Options Costs
Deterioration prediction
Feasible actions
Engineering Inputs
Figure 1 Structure of a model bridge management system
AUSTROADS 2002
The system essentially consists of various databases for the storage of unique records and intelligent predictive modules for decision making based upon that data. A complete BMS is not just a computer program. It is: a set of interrelated activities for managing bridges; a set of codes and guidelines for those activities; an organisation to manage and carry out those activities; a database holding data resulting from those activities; and a set of computer tools for processing the data in the database (Lauridsen et al, 1998) (Ref 3). AASHTO Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems suggest that a bridge management system include four basic components: data storage, cost and deterioration models, optimisation models for analysis, and updating functions (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). Information regarding the condition states of bridge elements is gathered from field inspections and stored in the database attached to the system. That information is then used as input into the modelling modules which have the ability to predict future condition states for the bridge elements and to optimise maintenance actions under various budget constraints. There are three primary types of models, namely deterioration, cost and optimisation models. Deterioration models predict the condition of elements at any point in time and may be either deterministic or probabilistic in nature. Most deterioration models are patterned as a Markovian Chain process which predicts deterioration from the existing condition and not from historical condition data. Two types of costs are obtainable from the cost model, the cost of maintenance action to restore an element condition and the user savings as a result of restoration. The optimisation model uses results from the deterioration and cost models to determine the most beneficial strategy for bridge elements using life-cycle cost analysis or an equivalent procedure. Strategies may be determined annually, over a number of years, or simply for a sub-set of the network. Operated under various budget constraints, the system provides an indication of the effect of delayed maintenance on future element conditions and budget needs. Optimisation may be either a top-down or a bottom-up approach, ie, from an overall perspective of setting desirable standards for the entire network, or from a determination of the optimal action for an individual bridge based upon achieving a network optimisation. Each approach has its advantages and drawbacks. The top-down approach works quicker since the individual projects are determined after the network standards are set. However, the process requires a large population of bridges to provide meaningful results. The bottom-up approach uses more computer time optimising individual bridges and thus becomes too cumbersome for large bridge populations. The process may be summarised as depicted in Figure 2 below (Small et al, 1999) (Ref 6). The updating function provides reports for planning and programming, and uses input from actual maintenance repairs to update the prediction and cost models. Given the lack of historical records on bridge condition and maintenance costs, until the updating module is in place there can be no realistic improvement to the science of bridge management.
AUSTROADS 2002
Top-Down Approach Budgets Standards
Bottom-Up Approach Budgets Costs
Policies Projects
Budgets and standards used to develop policy options which are then used to plan projects. Feedback is provided to refine models. Budgets and standards may be modified to perform what-if analysis.
Standards
Projects
Standards assist in planning projects. Planned projects are totalled to generate costs which are then compared to budgets. Budget constraints are used to adjust the standards and modify the plan.
Figure 2 The optimisation process
Before a bridge management system can become sophisticated it by necessity must grow through the collection of the basic data from which it is expected to function. Information detailing the change in condition, the maintenance costs for specific repairs, the improvement in condition that those repairs provide, and the useful life of maintenance strategies can only come from the simple systems over a period of time. That period of time could be several years (Vassie, 1996) (Ref 7). Continued research focuses on better definitions of costs, especially user costs, on better predictive models for condition ratings for elements, on management of design, hazard, and of obsolescence, and on the use of quantitative measures of condition of elements. The challenge ahead for improved management is the efficient collection of data needed to make quantitative evaluations of bridges. Condition ratings are only qualitative indicators of the visible deterioration of a bridge. They are not at present useful for assessment of load capacity, structural safety or any other quantitative evaluations (Hearn, 1999) (Ref 2). 2.3 Overseas Bridge Management Systems
Several forms of bridge management systems have been developed and adopted with varying degrees of success around the world. Whilst generally still regarded as large databases, bridge management systems have still to be accepted for what they may represent, a tool for the most efficient and economical preservation and safety of a network of bridge structures. Two bridge management systems developed in the US, PONTIS and BRIDGIT, appear to be the systems that have been widely adopted by the majority of bridge management authorities. However, there is a bridge management development program BRIME whereby member countries of the EEC hope to establish a comprehensive system to satisfy their perceived needs. The development and capabilities of the systems are outlined below. Appendix 1 summarises the capabilities, advantages and limitations of the more accomplished systems.
AUSTROADS 2002
2.3.1
North America
PONTIS Developed in 1991, the most commonly used bridge management system is reported to be licensed to 38 states and 4 other administrative authorities of the US. PONTIS with its top-down analysis approach can be used to optimise bridge funding for maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and also for improvements to bridge structures at the network level for a specified budget (Khan, 2000) (Ref 8). Inspection data and cost data, which feed into a deterioration model and a cost model respectively, are the basis to develop and update a preservation model. The preservation model provides recommendations for MR&R actions for each condition state of each element of a structure. The deterioration models in PONTIS are Markovian which entails time being divided into discrete, equal periods, the forecasting of the next periods deterioration based only upon this periods condition without regard to earlier conditions, and the prediction being based upon transitional probabilities between the condition states. In time, and as more condition data is stored, PONTIS has the inbuilt capability of updating and thereby improving the deterioration models (Thompson, 1993) (Ref 9). Limitations with the PONTIS system have been identified (Das, 1996) (Ref 10): maintenance is generated without regard to the expected remaining life of the structure; the influence of defects on member reliability is ignored, no load capacity evaluation; assumes inspections will identify all serious defects; considers only two options with repairs, to do or not to do; the cost of traffic delays are not included in any economic calculations; and as a self contained system, only element deteriorations are considered. A number of items have been identified that would enhance the performance of PONTIS (Khan, 2000) (Ref 8). Those items are: an algorithm that combines effects of action types on several elements rather than single elements; permit user input of maintenance condition parameters to override those identified in PONTIS; and a capacity to recognise planned future projects as part of the simulation process. BRIDGIT BRIDGIT is a bridge management tool based upon life-cycle cost and incremental benefit-cost analysis. It is similar in nature to PONTIS with its primary difference residing in the optimisation module OPBRIDGE, a bottom-up analysis module. The system gives better results for smaller bridge populations and becomes cumbersome when used for analysis of larger networks. The system consists of several modules, including administration; inventory; inspection; maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement (MR&R); analysis; models; other; and reports. It has an added bonus over PONTIS in that the system can distinguish between specific protection systems when determining feasible repair options (Khan, 2000) (Ref 8). The Maine DoT with its stock of 3,600 bridges is a strong advocate of BRIDGIT, and it is reported to have been tested by 8 to 10 other states. Several metropolitan planning organisations are expected to also adopt the system (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). Reportedly, BRIDGIT has the capacity to handle bridge inventories of many thousands of bridges and yet to be ideal for smaller authorities lacking IT resources to assign to the maintenance of a BMS system (Hawk, 1999) (Ref 11).
AUSTROADS 2002
The basic modules of the BRIDGIT system are: Inventory Module: Inspection Module: a flexible database with ability to accept user-defined items in addition to the FHWA mandated National Bridge Inventory (NBI) items; the collection of historical inspection data based upon a similar condition rating system as used within PONTIS with the ability to report at individual span/element levels; has the capacity to plan, schedule and monitor multi-year programs and to track historic work actions and related costs for individual bridges of the network; optimises work plans drawn from information stored in Inventory, Inspection and Models modules based upon parameters defined by the user; and allows user to view or modify models and tables to be used in the optimisation process and thus enables the user to customise BRIDGIT to suit its bridge network policies.
MR&R Module: Analysis Module: Models Module:
BRIDGIT uses a bottom-up approach to network analysis, selecting the most cost effective maintenance option for each bridge and summarising those results back up to determine the network level of funding required to address network deficiencies over any given time frame. BRIDGIT utilises Markovian deterioration models to predict future condition states, and life-cycle profiles and incremental benefit-cost analysis for budget optimisation. Unconstrained and constrained budgets scenarios may be considered with project alternatives giving the highest cost-effectiveness index being iteratively selected until the budget constraints are satisfied. As reported in NCHRP Synthesis 249 p.38 (Ref 12), the cost-effectiveness index is the rate of internal return between two alternatives, nominally comparing the present value costs of an option to the do-nothing alternative. For each bridge, BRIDGIT determines the cost-effectiveness indices of all feasible options within each period of the optimisation analysis horizon. The option with the highest cost-effectiveness index is the optimal choice for that bridge and with an unlimited budget would be selected for repair. Otherwise the iterative process of project selection is followed. Wyoming (WYO_BMS) A specific bridge management system has been developed for the Wyoming Department of Transportation from an assessment of the capabilities of other systems available at the time. Called WYO_BMS, the system has been compiled for use specifically by authorities with smaller rural inventories. A factor in the decision to develop a separate system was inventory size. The conclusion drawn was that when the inventory consists of more than 150 bridges say, then a comprehensive system such as PONTIS should be considered. Otherwise, when there would be no benefit from deterioration modelling and benefitcost analysis capabilities, WYO_BMS is better suited to manage the smaller bridge inventories (Gralund and Puckett, 1996) (Ref 13). Algorithms have been proposed for prioritising bridge repairs. Those algorithms are based upon a structure deficiency point calculation involving four factors multiplied by the highway classification factor. Those factors, bridge data items, are load capacity, vertical clearance, bridge deck width and a sufficiency point, a factor inversely proportional to the sufficiency rating. The methodology can be applied to components of the structure. North Carolina The North Carolina DoT developed its own bridge management system with only deck, substructure and superstructure elements. Deterioration is deterministically modelled and the results revised from historical data. Extensive research was conducted to establish user cost models for inclusion in the system, and those models have been subsequently adopted within PONTIS.
AUSTROADS 2002
The system is noted more for its optimisation model, OPBRIDGE, the first analysis model of its kind to be developed. The model determines from a bottom-up approach the optimum improvement action and time for each individual bridge in a network. OPBRIDGE prioritises bridge maintenance activities based upon a desired level of bridge performance and within a constrained budget. Life-cycle and road user costs are also considered. OPBRIDGE is capable of reporting at the network, local or individual bridge level. Its success may be measured by the fact that OPBRIDGE is the optimisation model within BRIDGIT (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania DoT also started early in its development of a bridge management system. The system is project based and prioritises bridges for MR&R on a benefit-cost analysis, also predicting future bridge repair needs. The system has no optimisation capabilities for the allocation of available budgets from a life-cycle cost analysis (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). Alabama The Alabama DoT began developing a bridge management system but did not proceed much further than defining specifications for the system, and only a few of the 22 modules are currently operational. Its strong attribute is a scour module to detect changes in streambeds that may lead to undermining of the bridge foundations. The optimisation module of the system has been customised from OPBRIDGE (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). Indiana The bridge management system of the Indiana DoT is a project level system comprising four interrelated modules. Improvement action for a bridge each year over a five-year period is selected by a decision tree process that looks at condition ratings for each element. The deterioration rate for each element is modelled as a Markov process. Index ratings, derived from bridge condition, life-cycle cost, safety and impact on the community, are used in the prioritisation process. That process consists of a rank model, based upon bridge condition, and an optimisation model, and gives the highest network level of service for the available budget. The Indiana DoT proposes system enhancements which include expanding the decision tree improvement options, obtaining cost data, and improving the calculation method for determining the rating indices (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). Washington The Washington DoT developed an early system to manage its bridge deck overlay program. As a result of that work, Washington was included in the original PONTIS testing (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). Connecticut The Connecticut DoT developed a bridge information system for the storage and retrieval of bridge related data. That system now operates in conjunction with PONTIS (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). Texas A bridge management system was commercially developed for the Texas DoT to store inspection data, namely the Bridge Inspection, Inspection and Appraisal database BRINSAP. However, BRINSAP only has the ability to identify serious defects in the bridge inventory. Accordingly, the Texas DoT is deciding whether to implement PONTIS for which it already has developed appropriate deterioration and cost modelling, as well as an optimisation model to complete the system (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5).
AUSTROADS 2002 9
Iowa An early decision was taken to cease development of an isolated bridge management system and to adopt PONTIS for use in the Iowa DoT. From that point, research and development concentrated on gathering information to complement that system (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). South Carolina The DoT is in the process of evaluating PONTIS for use, and customising modules to suit. The primary focus for future work will be the capture of cost data for which the DoT has little information (Czepiel, 1995) (Ref 5). OBMS (Ontario) The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is responsible for the management of approximately 3,000 bridges on the provincial highway network. After evaluating existing bridge management system developments with regard to its own requirements, MTO decided to build a completely new system. The system would be similar in network level function to modern systems developed in other countries, but would be more detailed in its project level capabilities than any existing system. In general, the business process model provides monitoring, needs identification and priority setting to be managed by the local level bridge staff, whilst budgeting, funding allocation and expenditure planning are performed at the corporate level. Bridge inspection is crucial to performance of the system and is the primary data source for OBMS. Structures are reported by element, and condition is expressed as the percent or quantity of each element found to be in each condition state. Inspections of element condition are performed biennially but for structures likely to receive work within a four-year period, a more detailed condition survey is undertaken to determine deterioration severity levels. Analysis of needs is at two levels, at a project level and at the network level. MTO place very demanding expectations of the system to ensure that network level outputs remain fully consistent with all project level inputs. The logical hierarchy of the system is such that element level analyses create alternative treatments from which feasible combinations of treatments are selected at the project-level. Those treatments are controlled by budget constraints and system wide performance measures established for the network. Project-level analysis uses a decision tree approach to the selection of appropriate maintenance from knowledge based feasible treatment alternatives and benefit-cost analysis. A Markovian deterioration model drives element-level needs. Costs are taken from bid tender rates. The network-level analysis finds the set of project alternatives that maximises benefits within budget constraints. Since benefits are expressed as avoided social costs, the implication is that social costs are minimised. Programme management analysis considers budget constraints and performance targets. Optimisation is performed with the overall budget constraint as highest priority. Feasible solutions are only considered as long as they can be achieved within the funding allocation constraints. Achievement of performance targets is not enforced. The system is expected to report the solution which can achieve the highest benefit while meeting as many of the funding constraints as possible, and it must report on the level of funding required to satisfy all performance targets. Through the use of an object-oriented design and development program it has been possible to provide an alternative solution for bridge management. Though the optimisation method was conceptual and still under development at the time of reporting, given MTOs sound knowledge from many years of research and experimentation, there was a confidence that this new approach to infrastructure management systems would succeed (Thompson et al, 1999) (Ref 14).
10
AUSTROADS 2002
2.3.2
Europe
The member countries of EEC have established a program known as BRIME to review and develop a comprehensive bridge management system for general use. Progress with that program draws heavily on the experiences with individual system development by member countries and the United States. Recommendations from the various deliverable tasks published to date have been cited in later sections of the report. Deliverables relating to system review have been used for comment in this section (Godart and Vassie, 1999) (Ref 15) (Godart and Vassie, undated) (Ref 16). It remains to be seen whether member countries with well established management systems such as DANBRO, SMIS and Finland, will be convinced of the benefits and be prepared to change to a new system. DANBRO (Denmark) With 1,400 bridges to manage the Danish authorities have had the bridge management system DANBRO in place for 20 years. The ultimate goal in the development of the DANBRO database system was not to provide a comprehensive computer system. They recognised that bridge management could not be performed by a computer. The development of DANBRO was controlled by the potential users and not by software developers. Essentially, the goal in development of DANBRO was to provide a system to assist decision makers and administration to perform their job, with an early objective utilised in designing the system being that the system would capture and store only sufficient data to accomplish that goal (Lauridsen and Lassen, 1999) (Ref 17). Pastor et al (no date) (Ref 18) report extensively on the performance of DANBRO. DANBRO is intended for use by four levels of management: The Executive Level Future policy for bridge maintenance decided and thereby future budget requirements. Information feedback to aid decision making: current condition of the bridge stock; need for funds to achieve optional repair strategies; backlog created when allocation less than required; and consequences of funding changes. Allocation of funds for preventive maintenance, repairs and replacements decided. At this level the following decisions are taken: amount of routine maintenance budget; optimisation of repair and rehabilitation works to suit the allocation for this type of maintenance; and new repair methods and materials to introduce, and what types to abandon. The level at which bridge data is managed and can include: administrative data about the bridge; technical data on construction of the bridge; inspection data on the condition; repair strategies to use for remedial works; construction and repair costs; and test data about deterioration, location, type, cause and development.
The Planning Level
The Administration Level
AUSTROADS 2002
11
The Preventive Maintenance Level
The local level at which maintenance works are controlled by means of: preparation of work orders for routine and periodic maintenance; control of quantities; control of budgets and costs; and monitoring the quality, costs and service life of materials used for maintenance.
The activities covered by the system are: Inventory administrative data: bridge identification information; technical data: bridge types, dimensions, materials, etc; passage data: clearances and load carrying capacities; archive references: storage of plans, designs; chronological overview: landmarks in the life of the bridge including rehabilitation work details; and programs for report generation. key activity in the monitoring of the condition of the bridges, with recommendations for the next inspection, the need for maintenance repairs including cost estimates for the work. carried out at the local level more frequently than Principal Inspections and used primarily to plan and monitor routine maintenance. initiated from Principal Inspections when a more detailed assessment of any damage is required and which lead to comparison of different rehabilitation strategies. an iterative process performs optimisation of the projects from the upcoming 5-year plan based upon budgets, a discount rate and data from economic evaluations of the Special Inspections. control of the development of budgets throughout the fiscal year. calculation of total future budgets from average repair intervals, average costs, average service lives and replacement costs. collection of current unit prices for common rehabilitation works. control of the movement of heavy loads by assignment of a vehicle class to a bridge determined from an assessment of the bridge capacity to carry that class of vehicle.
Principal Inspection
Routine inspections and routine maintenance Special Inspections
Optimisation of rehabilitation works Budget and cost control Long term budgeting Price catalogue Administration of heavy transports
Since different bridge owners have different needs, the structure of DANBRO is modular with inter-relations between individual modules. Each owner may elect which modules to implement, and which modules users may access. The modular structure of DANBRO is: The Basic Module The Maintenance Module containing administrative and structural databases, principal inspection records and programs for report generation. containing information about bridge components for regular maintenance, possible remedial works on components and the ability to generate works orders.
AUSTROADS 2002
12
The Price Catalogue The Optimisation Module
containing unit rates for various treatments based upon tendered rates, used to support the estimation of repairs. operates at the network level from information provided from Principal Inspections; an iterative process determines the structures most economic to repair and those that may be postponed; the net present value method is used to find the optimum allocations over a five year budget period. handles changes to the budget or works throughout the year and at any point can give the expected expenditure for a year. contains information on damage type and location, and stores historical expenditures on each structure.
The Budget and Cost Module The Experience Module
Rehabilitation strategies are determined at the time of principal inspections. When the need for and nature of repair is obvious, work is initiated otherwise a Special Inspection and investigation is ordered. The depth of the investigation determines the appropriate repair option which may be: a thorough repair now taking the damage back to a no deterioration condition; superficial repairs now and postpone the major repair; do nothing now and replace the element when no longer safe; or do nothing at all and close bridge when no longer safe.
The favoured repair is selected from the options considered by comparing their net present values performed over a 25 year period. Optimisation at the network level is a priority ranking process employed when the budget allocation is insufficient to undertake all the optimal works. The optimisation process consists of three steps: Pre-processing Three strategies are evaluated for each year over a five-year period; the later year strategies include delay costs for postponement of the work; 18 solutions are provided for each bridge. An iterative process on the project selection to meet: total cost estimate for direct costs lies within the budget over the five year period; and economic consequences are the lowest, ie, the economic consequences of postponing the repairs is the worst. Result must be analysed and adjusted for other factors not part of the evaluation, eg aesthetics, environmental impacts, political implications, other roadwork in the vicinity.
Automatic optimisation
Post-processing
It should be noted that DANBRO does not include a condition deterioration modelling module, that an appropriate expert supplies knowledge when the repair options are costed. Also, the system does not carry out life-cycle cost analysis beyond 25 years, beyond which the uncertainties are considered to be too unpredictable and the value of money meaningless, and the system retains engineering control. DANBRO has been in place throughout Denmark since 1988 and is reported as fulfilling its main purpose of aiding bridge management at all levels. Bridge management systems based on DANBRO have been implemented in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Croatia and Malaysia. Its success is attributed to the fact that it was developed by bridge engineers to be used by bridge engineers for precisely defined purposes, and that much emphasis was placed on making the computer programs an integral part of bridge administration (Lauridsen and Lassen, 1999) (Ref 17).
AUSTROADS 2002
13
Through the move to contracted works DANBRO has been modified for the management of works contracts and budgets, and now includes modules that offer an overview of the contract documents, and that capture information on prices for checking contractor bids (Henriksen, 1999) (Ref 19). COWI (Denmark) Consulting Engineers and Planners COWI, have developed a management system with characteristics which are remarkably similar to those of DANBRO. Information about the system has been taken from the companys brochure as the literature review found no papers related to the topic (Ref 20). The system operates at four levels of management. It contains nine modules namely of Inventory Recording, General Inspection, Principal Inspection and Condition Rating, Special Inspection, Load Capacity Rating, Preparation of Maintenance Strategies, Technical and Economical Priority Ranking, Budgeting of Maintenance Works and Administration of Heavy Transports. Insufficient details were available to make an assessment whether the system contained any distinct advantages for its use as opposed to the adoption of DANBRO. HiSMIS (United Kingdom) HiSMIS was an early bridge management system developed by consultants Rendel, Palmer and Tritton in the UK. The system included five distinct modules: Inventory Inspection Maintenance History Program for storage of the unchanging bridge detail; for recording information from all types of inspections; a database of MR&R needs, programming and costs; a record of any changes made to the structure; and a specific module where additional user-defined details can be stored.
Output is generated from a query and report generator, and there is an administration module for local administration of the software. The system was reported as used extensively throughout the UK, and to have been adopted by the authorities in Sri Lanka, Bahrain and Hong Kong. The system in its infancy did not contain deterioration modelling or optimisation procedures for management of future budgets (Blakelock, 1993) (Ref 21). SMIS (United Kingdom) A new bridge management system which determines maintenance needs based upon structural adequacy or safety rather than solely on the condition state of the structures is being developed for UKs Highways Agency. Unlike the current crop of systems which use deterioration models to predict future condition and produce optimised maintenance strategies at a network level, the system will acknowledge that structures management decisions need to consider safety requirements rather than just observed or measured condition. The structures management information system (SMIS) will hold data and provide software tools for all the structures management procedures. Development is planned on a modular basis so that as new maintenance procedures are finalised, they can be included into the system, as will any new processes and procedures that may arise. Seven modules are planned to make up the system: Structures inventory database (INDAT) Management plans database (MPLAN) Inventory, inspection records, assessment and strengthening, drawings, photographs, etc. Plans to identify all the work that needs to be undertaken on a structure and provide a longer term view of maintenance needs.
14
AUSTROADS 2002
Inspection database (INSP) Assessment database (ASSESS) Bid assessment and prioritisation system (BAPS) Outturn database (OUTTURN) Condition database (COND)
Data from inspections, inspection procedures currently under development. Module directly linked to MPLAN. Continual need for capacity assessments, results stored in this module. Module to assess and prioritise projects based upon bids that have been subject to life-cycle costing analysis Comprehensive record of the outturn cost of structures maintenance work. Information on the Condition Index and Safety Index of the structures stock.
To provide a user friendly and versatile querying and reporting facility for each of the above modules to the benefit of all end users is an important objective in the development of SMIS. Progressive development of software for the modules was envisaged, with a target date of the end of 2000 for the completion of SMIS (Hayter and Allison, 1999) (Ref 22). The system continues to follow the trend observed within UK for assessment of individual bridges of the network, and prioritisation of bid projects. Optimisation for a network does not appear to be a concept favourably adopted by the relevant maintenance authorities.
COSMOS (Surrey County Council, England) The bridge management system COSMOS, initially written for Berkshire County Council by the Babtie Group and now being developed within Surrey County Council, has replaced the earlier bridge management systems STREG and BRIDGIT (not the US version). From an analysis of inspection condition ratings, the system has been customised to be able to produce work instructions for priority maintenance repairs. A strong emphasis is placed upon engineering intervention in decision making. Accordingly, the system has no facility for benefit-cost analysis or maintenance prioritisation, but does allow for ongoing maintenance cost monitoring. A small improvement to the overall condition of the bridge stock has been demonstrated as a result of using COSMOS. However, experience to date indicates that delays in feeding in inspection records, and inspection coding inaccuracies can cause problems and hinder the cyclic maintenance process. COSMOS is used to manage the bridge stock by controlling the flow of information through the organisation, and is not allowed to manage the bridge stock for the authority. No computer is currently considered capable of dealing with the level of intuitive decision making that this would require. Decisions are still made by experienced engineers using information that the system provides (Brooman and Wotton, 2000) (Ref 23). The facility of Surrey County Councils bridge maintenance strategy to provide sustainable development and environmental improvement from a data system comprising a life-cycle methodology reflecting best bridge maintenance practices has been supported by research findings (Steele et al, 2000) (Ref 4). The module in effect recommends bridge maintenance actions with the least environmental impact as a justification for the achievement of sustainable development. exor (UK) exor Corporation Limited of Bristol, England has developed a commercial highways management system (Ref 24). Structures Manager is part of that system. Structures Manager is an application module that can be used to model, manage and maintain any type of structure, including bridges.
AUSTROADS 2002 15
The exor Structures Manager system consists of a number of integrated modules: Inventory Abnormal Load Routing Inspections A flexible database permitting entry of user-defined elements. Linked to the exor module for road management, Network Manager, this module enables users to check movements of abnormal loads on a given route, and can report on temporary route restrictions. The module contains several features which may be summarised as: flexible inspections to match user-defined needs; auto scheduling in conjunction with inspection regimes; data capturing software for use with data loggers; inspection equipment and notice periods for the management of special inspection needs; inspection results; cost estimation for one or more structures; document management for storage of any documents; and priority ratings of structural sufficiency.
The exor Structures Manager system is integrated with the full network referencing system, Network Manager, but may be implemented independently. exor has recognised the potential for future development of the system to incorporate multi-criteria decision analysis based upon Bayesian and Fuzzy model approaches, and to make use of probabilistic methods to model bridge deterioration. However, those modules have still to be developed (Philip Caunter, of exors Asia Pacific Regional Office in New Zealand, personal communication on 12 June 2001). SIHA (Finland) A computer-based bridge management system has been designed by the Finnish National Road Administration to assist in network and local bridge management of Finlands 13,000 (approx) bridges and culverts. The system applies probabilistic deterioration models to find a condition distribution of the bridges to minimise repair costs, and establishes deterministic repair and reconstruction indices to prioritise individual bridges for annual programming (Soderqvist, 1999) (Ref 25). Unusually, the responsibility for prioritisation is at the local level. The Finnish system is one of the few systems where a degree of quality control to the management of bridges is applied (Godart and Vassie, 1999) (Ref 15). The Finnish bridge management system comprises three modules, a bridge register, a network level management system and a project level management system. The network level consists of two parts, a long-term module and a short-term module. The long-term module, through use of a set of probabilistic Markov chain models, predicts deterioration of various bridge structural members in search of a long-term optimal solution for the condition state distribution of the bridge asset. The linear programming model relies upon information gathered from inspections, including a recommended repair treatment and its expected cost. The short-term module determines over the next few years, the economical way in which to reach the long-term optimum condition distribution. Separate shortterm solutions are made for each coming year, and the network optimum will change from year to year when considering that the constraints of possible repair measures and their costs, minimum bridge condition requirements and budgetary limitations will vary.
16
AUSTROADS 2002
The project level system deals primarily with individual bridges and, using results from the network level system, determines repair measures to achieve the short term goals. Deterministic modelling of deterioration is used in that process. Because insufficient data was available initially, the original age behaviour curves were based upon opinion surveys or expert evaluations. Life-cycle cost analysis is used as part of the selection process to identify the most advantageous repair. However, engineer control may be exercised if the indicative repair may not give the minimal optimal solution when considering the total lifetime cost of the bridge. Repairs are prioritised according to a Repair Index and a Reconstruction Index which are determined from information supplied at the local level by the bridge inspector. The system is operating with assumed deterioration models. To develop the system further, the quality of the models needs to be improved, age behaviour of bridges requires research, and road user costs must be gathered in order to optimise MR&R cost calculations. BRUTUS (Norway) Commissioned by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration for management of more than 17,000 bridges on national and regional roads, Norconsult of Sanvika, Norway developed BRUTUS. The purpose of the system is to provide a basis for top and medium level management as well as guidance, support and assistance to bridge managers, to ensure cost effective inspections and maintenance operations and to document the results achieved (Ref 26). The system consists of the following modules: System Administration Module Bridge Inventory Module Bridge Inspection Module Bridge Maintenance Module overview of all users and their authorisation level, safety routines and language; a complete overview of all bridges on the public road system; technical, administrative and financial information; a complete history of a bridge for its life-cycle; an effective tool for planning inspections; storage of bridge condition data from various inspections; estimation of recorded damage an effective management tool for planning and assignment of maintenance priorities; includes a maintenance plan for each bridge; overview of completed maintenance tasks.
Handbooks have been written to guide and inform all bridge management staff on the collection and recording of inventory data, inspection data and the performance of maintenance activities. It is not clear from the BRUTUS handout how broadly maintenance is prioritised. However, a deterioration prediction module is not part of the system which suggests that formulation of maintenance plans would rely upon engineering input. SAFEBRO (Sweden) Swedish authorities are reported to have had in place since 1987 the bridge management system SAFEBRO for control of its 15,000 bridges. The system is to all intents functionally complete, it only appears to lack the application of life-cycle costing to its long-term budgeting process (Godart and Vassie, undated) (Ref 16). Full details of the system were not found in the literature search.
AUSTROADS 2002
17
PONTIS-H (Hungary) Hungary has approximately 6,000 bridges on its national road network. In 1993 the Ministry of Transport decided to adapt the PONTIS bridge management system to Hungarian conditions. The original model was investigated and trial runs of modules led to the development of PONTIS-H. PONTIS-H deterioration modules were developed from a comparative analysis of information gleaned from expert interpolation, Hungarian expert opinion, and American PONTIS expert opinion. Arising from local limitations and drawbacks to the American PONTIS system, further developments of the system are planned (Agardy et al, 2000) (Ref 27). Those developments are: a reduction to the number of bridge element numbers; management of analysis by data related to interconnected bridge elements; managing standard bridge spans rather than elements of standard bridges; total optimisation using all of a bridges elements; and incorporation of PONTIS-H into an Infrastructure Management System.
Poland With upward of 29,000 structures under state control, Poland commenced in 1991 to implement a computer based BMS to assist in managing the maintenance of bridges on the national road network. Comprising seven basic modules, the system offers: more efficient network reporting; immediate access to information concerning bridges at each management level; support for the management process; rational forecasting of financial needs; and optimum utilisation of budget funds.
The Internal Rate of Return method is used for prioritising the allocation of funds for reconstruction/rehabilitation of critical bridges. An optimisation procedure using deterioration curves and standard linear programming optimisation algorithms has ensured allocation of funds for the continued maintenance of bridges to their best condition. The process is reported as being implemented with an unqualified success (Hutnik and Mistewicz, 2000) (Ref 28). SIB-Bauwerke (Germany) Germany is reported to have 34,600 bridges to manage and has recently implemented a bridge management system. That system is fairly basic at the early stages and consists solely of databases to store inventory, inspection and condition, and detailed cost for action information (Godart and Vassie, 1999) (Ref 15). The system is still at the planning stage. A database for inspection, and reporting of damage and condition assessment, with the estimation of future maintenance costs has been established; tools for evaluation and selection of repair measures are being developed; and a system for creation of programs subject to restraints is planned. Completion by 2005 is anticipated (Krieger and Haardt, 2000) (Ref 29). BDOA (Wallonie, Belgium) The Ministry of Equipment and Transportation of Wallonie has 5,000 bridges to manage and has had a system in place since 1977. The system is reported as able to store data regarding inventory, inspections, condition, and bids for maintenance funding; prioritise maintenance work; and predict condition deterioration.
18
AUSTROADS 2002
There are no facilities to store cost information for maintenance actions, to consider alternative maintenance strategies or to apply life-cycle cost analysis (Godart and Vassie, undated) (Ref 16). Italy (Perugia) A basic system has been developed for the region of Perugia. The system manages bridges on an individual basis, has no deterioration modelling capabilities, and is not interlinked for network decision making (Gusella et al, 1996) (Ref 30). The Perugia system has three modules: data storage of bridge details; structural analysis for capacity assessment; and decision support, storage of maintenance history. Other European Systems Croatia, France, Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain are reported to have or be in the process of developing basic bridge management systems. Development is to the stage that inventory can be stored, inspection scheduling is performed, condition of structures rated, and a semblance of maintenance prioritisation is feasible. The more sophisticated steps for life-cycle cost analysis and condition deterioration prediction are not present in these systems (Godart and Vassie, 1999) (Ref 31) (Godart and Vassie, undated) (Ref 32). 2.2.3 Asia Japan The Public Works Research Institute of the Ministry of Construction started to develop a bridge management system in 1990 for its 65,000 bridge structures with spans longer than 2.0m. The system stores basic inventory information and uses bridge condition information to seek the most effective rehabilitation plan for a network of bridges whilst having regard to financial constraints. The system uses two program modules; a bridge condition evaluating module and a bridge rehabilitation planning module. From a bridge deficiency rating assessed at the time of inspection, the evaluating module can screen out heavily damaged bridges and in time will also be used to calculate a standard deterioration curve. The planning module uses that deterioration curve to optimise a rehabilitation plan. For a given financial constraint, it effectively selects which bridges to rehabilitate and the degree of rehabilitation. For a network of bridges, using a process of incremental benefit-cost ratios the rehabilitation plan is determined by comparing maintenance costs between projects. Development studies were planned: to improve the precision of the bridge condition evaluation module; to improve the precision of the bridge rehabilitation planning module; and to draft a long term rehabilitation plan. Also, time and subsequent inspection condition ratings would enhance the systems accuracy and capabilities (Yokoyama et al, 1996) (Ref 33). J-BMS (Japan) J-BMS has been developed as a management system that uses deterioration prediction curves for deterioration modelling and genetic algorithms for optimisation of a maintenance plan (Miyamoto et al, 2000) (Ref 34).
AUSTROADS 2002
19
J-BMS in outline is applied in five stages: Step 1 Step 2 a visual inspection of each bridge; from the inspection results and using technical specifications, an expert system is used to evaluate the performance of each bridge. Outputs include scores for load carrying capacity and durability; from the scores on capacity and durability, the present deterioration prediction curve is characterised from which the remaining life of the structure is estimated; the effects of repairs and strengthening are estimated and the cost of each measure is estimated; and an optimum repair or strengthening plan and the maintenance measures and costs determined from which generic algorithms determine an optimal maintenance plan.
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Future deterioration of bridge elements is estimated from prediction curves of load-carrying capability and durability. Load carrying capability is defined as the bridge performance based upon the load carrying capacity of the bridge element. Durability is defined as the ability of the bridge element to resist deterioration based upon the rate of deterioration of the element. Various forms of deterioration curve can be derived and depend upon assumptions made in their construction. The characteristics of curves are changed by maintenance. Miyamoto et al (2000) claim that J-BMS is able to estimate the deterioration of repaired or strengthened bridge elements, and is able to present various maintenance plans based on cost minimisation and also quality maximisation by using generic algorithms. Vietnam In 1995, a bridge management system based upon BridgeMan developed by Oxfordshire County Council (UK) was introduced into the management of initially 117 bridges along Vietnams main highway, National Route 1 linking Hanoi to Ho Chi Minh City (Anderson et al, 1998) (Ref 35). A Bridge Testing and Assessment Unit (BATU) was established within Vietnams Ministry of Transport for the development of the system. Following its initial installation, indications are that the BATU has become the centre of expertise in Vietnam and will aid in the promulgation of the system throughout the country. Detailed information about the system was not forthcoming. However, as advised, the system does not contain any ability to carry out predictive modelling (F Collins, personal communication, 11 May 2001). Indonesia To satisfy a need for consistency in the preparation of bridge construction work programs, the Director General of Highways has developed a bridge management system to enable the planning, implementation and monitoring of all bridge activities. The system has been applied to approximately 25,000 bridges on Indonesias National and Provincial roads. The bridge management system contains a computerised management information system with modules that enable the following actions:
20
entry and retrieval of inspection and other data; preparation of standard reports on bridges; examination of the database and retrieval of any combination of information; screening and ranking of bridges and preparation of indicative programs; planning and programming - preparation of annual and five year programs of bridge works; and case by case analysis of treatment strategies to determine the optimum treatment for each bridge.
AUSTROADS 2002
The screening and ranking module groups bridges into three maintenance categories according to a technical ranking based upon condition, traffic and load, and the cost of repairs. The three categories are routine maintenance, extensive repair and replacement. The planning and programming module produces priorities on those three categories within the constraint of available funds. As a history of condition from inspections grows, the system is expected to development as a direct consequence of knowledge about deterioration and the effectiveness of repairs. Subsequent application of an improved system to the Local/District road network level was anticipated (Alambai and Pawenang, 1994) (Ref 36). India The BRIDGIT program was adopted as the most appropriate bridge management system for Indias 6,400 bridge structures on its national highway network (Cox and Matthews, 2000) (Ref 37). In selecting a system, the following requirements were specified - a system that would: hold inventory; store inspection data; determine optimum repair levels; define minimum repair levels; prioritise maintenance; determine work programs; and issue work orders
BRIDGIT was selected based upon: the stage of development of the software; its user friendliness; the flexibility of the algorithms for inclusion of a wide range of bridge types; the capability to assimilate the increasing knowledge about deterioration regimes; and its wide range of maintenance options.
2.3.4 Elsewhere South Africa South Africa has 2,055 bridges on its national road system and anticipates future inclusion of bridges on urban freeways and other provincial roads to be incorporated into the stock. Development of a bridge management system based upon inspection and the rating of defects is in its early stages. The system comprises five modules: Inventory Inspection Condition Budget containing 21 items for inspection (coarse system); prioritises on strategic importance and condition rating of structure; optimisation based upon an estimated cost of repair for each defect when compared to the relevancy of the defect thus determining a benefit-cost ratio for the action, and the items with the greatest reduction in risk to the road use and the lowest cost have high priority; and the history of maintenance.
Maintenance
The system is reported to have been implemented by various road and rail authorities in southern Africa and in Taiwan (Nordengen et al, 2000) (Ref 38).
AUSTROADS 2002
21
2.4
Status of Bridge Management Systems within Australia and New Zealand
A survey has been carried out to determine the status of development and usage of bridge management systems by Austroads member authorities. The survey questionnaire is included as Appendix 2. The conclusions that may be drawn from the survey are that all Austroads member authorities have some form of a basic database system to capture information concerning inventory, inspection management, condition monitoring, reporting and maintenance action recording. System development is required in the areas of capturing capacity and safety checks, and in planning for future maintenance budgets based upon deterioration modelling and optimisation of maintenance repairs. A summary of the results of the survey is in Table A, below. Figure 3 shows the mean status of development for each module, and indicates the modules where development might be required in the future.
22
AUSTROADS 2002
M em b er Autho rity H as a System ? C ommercial M odel M odel N ame BM S M odules: Inventory Inspection Assessment M 'tce R ecords C ondition Safety Assessment M 'ment Planning D eterioration M odel Prioritisation R eporting N otes:
1 2 3 4 5
R T A N SW VicR o ad s Yes Yes 4 PO N T IS E E C D E C D A A E Yes Yes PO N T IS E E C E C B B B B B
T SA Yes No E E E E E D E A A E1
D M R Q ld Yes No E E B D E B B A B B
MR WA Yes No IR IS E E E E B B B A B E
D IPE N T Yes No
2
D U S AC T D IER T as Yes No E E E E E E A A A E Yes No E E B B E B C B B E
T ransit NZ No5
E B B A E3 A A B A D
R eports on overall condition, and on overall repairs w ith priority grouping and targets from last inspections. S ystem in place before P O N TIS , but captures sim ilar detail. N ot very effective because there is no evidence behind the notional condition ratings. A m odified version of P O N TIS is used for elem ent condition rating. Transit has no form al B M S for m anagem ent of its bridge asset, but m anages its bridges through guidelines and m anuals. M odule not considered for inclusion in the bridge m anagem ent system M odule under consideration M odule being developed M odule developed M odule populated and w orking
Legend:
A B C D E
Table A: Summary of results from a survey of Bridge Management Systems of major road organisations in Australia and New Zealand (May 2000)
AUSTROADS 2002
23
populated and working Stage of Development
developed
being developed under consideration
not considered
In ve nt or y In sp ec tio n C on di tio n R ep or ts R ec or ds C ap ac ity ng Sa fe ty rit ni io an Pr el M od lin g y
Figure 3 Status of module development by Austroads Member Authorities (Mean Value)
2.4.1 Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales RTA NSW has a bridge management system based upon the inspection and condition rating principles of PONTIS. The number of elements and condition descriptions have been customer modified. Several development projects are planned for RTAs system, including a method for processing condition assessments to provide a priority on maintenance repairs. At this time, neither deterioration modelling nor optimisation of maintenance works is being considered amongst those projects. 2.4.2 VicRoads In 1995, a strategy for managing the performance of bridges on Victorias arterial road system was issued by VicRoads (Ref 39). The strategy set a future direction for the management of the States bridge asset. It called for an improvement in the minimum performance standards, development of a system to record bridge inspections, the monitoring of bridge condition, better management of information, load capacity assessment for heavy load routing, and the setting of realistic budget needs. Since the implementation of the strategy there has been an improvement in the knowledge about the bridge network. The need for a simple approach, consistent with the available data, to modelling bridge deterioration and budget needs was recognised, along with a cultural change to managing assets to meet transport needs rather than responding to individual bridge needs per se. Future work would include an analysis of bridge condition changes resulting from maintenance work and hence a better understanding of life-cycle costing of structural elements (Lowe and Hadingham, 1997) (Ref 40). The VicRoads bridge management system comprises the basic modules of inventory, inspection and maintenance recording. Modules to capture bridge condition history and bridge capacity assessments are being developed, whilst the development of more sophisticated modules for maintenance planning, deterioration modelling, prioritisation and network performance reporting is being considered.
24
Pl
AUSTROADS 2002
2.4.3
Queensland Department of Main Roads
DMR Qld has a BMS development and implementation strategy that is controlled by limited financial and professional resources. The outline for load capacity and maintenance prioritisation modules are being developed and those modules will be integrated with the developed modules of inventory, inspection, condition and maintenance. Development and implementation of the Bridge Asset Management System (BAMS) was recognised as being a staged process. Early, urgent emphasis had been placed upon establishing an inspection policy, an inspection and condition rating methodology, and an associated training program. Development of a corporate bridge maintenance methodology could follow later. In March 1998, a Bridge Information System (BIS) was released and represented the core structural inventory. BIS is the hub of BAMS. Also a bridge inspection methodology was implemented in July 1998. A Design Inventory and an Inspection Inventory have been in operation since 1999 but those modules have yet to be fully populated. A simplistic programmed actions function to manage the rectification of defects was included in the 1999 release as an interim measure pending the development of the Maintenance Inventory that was released in December 2000. A bridge capacity and heavy vehicle management module is planned. Whilst these modules are aids to bridge management at the local level, they alone cannot produce a works program and associated funding allocations prioritised on a network basis. Development of a Maintenance Prioritisation module for asset management at the network level will ultimately be required, but for the moment its development is under consideration (Graham, 2001) (Ref 41). 2.4.4 Main Roads Western Australia MR WA reports that its bridge management system was developed in the late 1980s, with basic modules for inventory and condition management. Features include bridge inspection, maintenance scheduling and basic heavy load management. Bridge maintenance scheduling and prioritisation has continued to be a function of experienced bridge staff. The system has recently been migrated across from a mainframe computer base to an exor platform. 2.4.5 Transport South Australia T SA has a bridge management system which has been operating for approximately 25 years. It was rewritten in the early 1990s and updated in 2000. The system comprises the basic modules of inventory, inspection and maintenance planning. With only 1,400 structures to manage, the development of sophisticated deterioration modelling and prioritisation methods has not been considered necessary. 2.4.6 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Tasmania DIER Tas has a basic bridge management system developed to include inventory, inspection, and condition modules with reporting facilities. The system is integrated with the road management system RIMS. Future development of the bridge management system for deterioration modelling and prioritisation programming of repairs will be influenced by the outcomes of this and other Austroads projects.
AUSTROADS 2002
25
2.4.7
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern Territory
DIPE NT responded to the effect that its system came into being a little before PONTIS but many of the fields and items captured are similar in nature. A review of the system was underway in 2001 with the intention of amending practices and developing the process to provide more meaningful outputs. The relative usefulness of information within the database is low at present and requires an effective human system based on engineering experiences and judgment to support it. Rather than being a database of obscure ratings, the system needs to incorporate structural engineering input and parameters, and be built upon a meaningful and quantitative inspection regime. Modules covering prioritisation, management planning and safety assessment, and for recording maintenance activities are not part of or being considered for inclusion in the system. Development of a deterioration modelling module is being considered. 2.4.8 Department of Urban Services, Australian Capital Territory DUS ACT is operating a system that satisfies all criteria except for budgetary planning, deterioration modelling and prioritisation. Development of those three modules is not being considered. The reason for that decision may reflect the small asset population not needing such sophistication within the system. 2.4.9 Transit New Zealand Transit NZ reviewed PONTIS for suitability as a bridge management system to manage the New Zealand bridge stock. However, the system was found to be too data hungry and more applicable to a network comprising a very large number of bridges. Given the number of bridges on the New Zealand State Highway network and under the control of typical local authorities, the PONTIS probabilistic analysis methodology has been judged not appropriate. Whilst most NZ road authorities employ simple systems to manage their bridges, none of these could be classed as a bridge management system.
26
AUSTROADS 2002
3.
MODELLING
Because of the lack of historical series of bridge condition data within Australia, the introduction of modelling techniques will be inhibited (van Reyk, 1997) (Ref 42). That view should not preclude their introduction as, with time, their capabilities can only be improved (Yokoyama et al, 1996) (Ref 33). 3.1 Analysis Techniques
Without data and data analysis the bridge management process would be no more than an ad hoc or impromptu reaction to a series of urgent crises rather than the well-planned, pro-active process that it should be to achieve sound asset management objectives such as suitable levels of service at minimum lifecycle cost over long periods. The success of data analysis depends upon the quality and sufficiency of data collected. The objective of data analysis is not the analysis but better strategy selection (Kleywegt and Sinha, 1994) (Ref 43). Several analysis techniques exist, the adoption of which may achieve the objectives of bridge management. For condition data analysis, those techniques include: Markov Chains (probabilistic predictive modelling) Regression models (deterministic predictions) Bayesian Estimation Fuzzy Set Theory Latent Variable Approach to Regression Analysis; and Latent Markov Decision Process. Optimisation procedures exist in the form of: classical mathematical formulations of many types; neural networks; and genetic algorithms. Those procedures are outlined by Bevc et al (2001) (Ref 44) who also refer to appropriate articles for further reading on the topic. Techniques that assist in selection of projects for maintenance treatment include: ranking methods based upon sufficiency ratings, level-of-service criteria or pair wise comparisons for priority setting; and optimisation methods based upon the development of economic indicators such as life-cycle cost minimisation, benefit-cost ratios, maximisation of net present values and incremental benefit-cost analysis, or on the adoption of Linear and Integer Linear Programming, or Dynamic Programming, or Network and Heuristic Methods. The latter functions rely heavily upon the bridge managers ability to define and set meaningful objectives by which to rank projects, meaningful in that they satisfy both the asset owner and the road user. The degree of sophistication in any bridge management system is determined by the objectives of the agency and the resources available for its implementation. Bridge management is a continuous process for which systems should be frequently improved as new data analysis techniques are developed, better models are estimated, better optimisation techniques are developed and better decision making methods are implemented (Kleywegt and Sinha, 1994) (Ref 43).
AUSTROADS 2002
27
3.2
Deterioration Models
Deterioration models predict the condition of bridge elements at any given point in the future. They may be deterministic or probabilistic in nature (James et al, 1991) (Ref 45). A deterministic model predicts that a bridge will deteriorate in accordance with an algorithm. A probabilistic model takes into consideration that the actual deterioration rate is unknown and includes a probability that the bridge will actually deteriorate at a particular rate. 3.2.1 The Markov Process Most deterioration models are patterned as a Markov or stochastic process. This type of model predicts deterioration in a probabilistic fashion on the basis of the current, and not historical condition of the element. That assumption is usually acceptable at the network level where only average behaviour of the inventory is needed. However, at the project level, many characteristics can influence the deterioration of specific elements to vary from the inventory average for that element. Those influencing characteristics include the length of time in a condition state, the environmental effect on deterioration rate, the quality of construction and maintenance, and loading of the element. The PONTIS system models deterioration of the bridge elements as a Markov process. In recognition of the uncertainty in predicting deterioration rates, PONTIS has the ability to update those predicted rates from its database of stored historical condition data. BRIDGIT also models deterioration as a Markov process. The Ontario BMS uses deterioration models of this type but being a project level system, the models are modified by an adjustment factor determined from knowledge based models that reflect relevant conditions at the specific bridge or element. Those factors may reflect deterioration rates that are slower or faster than the average (Thompson et al, 1999) (Ref 14). 3.2.2 Regression Models Regression or empirical analysis relies upon the ability to determine an equation whose parameters most closely predict actual deterioration. The important issue with any regression modelling is deciding the functional form of the equation which best fits the particular data set, in this instance condition deterioration. Parameter selection may be limited mainly by the availability of data of suitable quality. Possible parameters may include, but need not be limited to, the current condition, time elapsed since the last rehabilitation, the type of rehabilitation carried out, material type, traffic loading and environmental conditions, and may even incorporate expert knowledge. The regression model may be designed around whatever criteria are considered appropriate for determination of the future bridge or element condition. Examples of regression models for bridge deck, superstructure and substructure have been used in the bridge management system of the Indiana DoT. 3.3.3 Bayesian Estimation Bayesian estimation can be used for updating estimated probabilities of future conditions. Through a statistical analysis process of subsequent recorded data, future estimation probability factors are improved. As additional information is gathered the process becomes further refined. This updating technique is used in PONTIS.
28
AUSTROADS 2002
3.2.4
Fuzzy Set Theory
Fuzzy set theory presents a more realistic and flexible method to represent the subjective ratings of bridge elements. The technique normalises the spread of data that can occur when bridge element condition is rated by a variety of inspectors. Fuzzy set theory transcribes those less exact details into a specific set for application to an exact process. Tee et al (1988) are quoted by Kleywegt and Sinha (1994, p.18) (Ref 43) as claiming that: Fuzzy set theory has been used to assess the condition of bridge components and to construct a bridge safety index. 3.2.5 Latent Variable Approach in Regression Analysis The approach of latent variables is an attempt to model the effects of unobserved variables on the performance of an element from the observable characteristics. As an example Ramaswamy (1989) is quoted by Kleywegt and Sinha (1994, p.18) (Ref 43) as claiming that: when combining the two facts that deterioration tends to increase with decreasing maintenance and maintenance tends to increase with increasing deterioration, strange results can be obtained from inaccurate modelling of the situation such that it may appear that deterioration increases as maintenance increases. Clearly, models need to be tested to verify that the results from their analysis are realistic and acceptable in an engineering sense. Calibration may be necessary to avoid counter intuitive predictions. 3.2.6 Latent Markov Decision Process The Latent Markov Decision Process explicitly takes into account the uncertainty due to measurement errors associated with facility inspection and incorporates those variances in the Markov Decision Process. The method is computationally very cumbersome but Mandanat (1993) is quoted by Kleywegt and Sinha (1994, p.19) (Ref 43) as claiming that: The Latent Markov Decision Process approach is required to enable the recursive calculation of the conditional probabilities of the actual condition given all information up to that stage. The degree of complexity that could be tolerated within a bridge management system would establish whether a Latent Markov Decision Process was necessary and acceptable. 3.2.7 Bridge Rehabilitation Planning Module This module, included as part of the bridge management system developed for the Japanese Ministry of Construction, optimises selection of rehabilitation projects based upon a standard deterioration curve. That curve, assumed in the early stages of system usage, is expected to become more realistic as additional condition inspections are completed and the change in bridge deficiency is monitored (Yokoyama et al, 1996) (Ref 33). 3.2.8 Linear Deterioration Algorithms Deterioration curves based upon simple linear algorithms have been adopted for condition prediction in the bridge management system developed for use in Poland (Hutnik and Mistewicz, 2000) (Ref 28). Deterioration curves are built for the different structure types within the bridge stock and those curves represent the mean condition of the structure types for a given age. Its form takes a straight line age versus condition change between the descriptive conditions of good and poor. Optimisation of the allocation of bridge funding is deduced from these curves.
AUSTROADS 2002
29
3.3
Life Cycle Cost Models
A long term economic analysis of the total costs for bridge management, including costs for design, construction, maintenance, demolition and user costs and benefits, can be used as a decision criterion within a bridge management system (de Brito and Branca, 1994) (Ref 46). Life cycle costing of projects beyond a 25-30 year period should be performed with caution due to: the difficulties of predicting into the future; the lack of established databases of bridge condition to support prediction; and the artificial nature of the life-cycle process when the contribution of future maintenance costs to a net present value would be insignificant and well within the expected accuracy range of any present-day estimates (van Reyk, 1997) (Ref 42). That conclusion is supported by Silva Filho et al (1996) (Ref 47). Doubt has been expressed as to whether an economic assessment of projects does capture all of the costs and benefits realised by the available maintenance options during the lifetime of a bridge, the reason being that it is simply not possible to collect the large amount of information required for that calculation. The direct costs of a project can be as low as 50% of the total cost when related costs and indirect costs are taken into account. However, rapid improvements in IT techniques may soon make solving that overly complex problem feasible (Silva Filho et al, 1996) (Ref 47). The outcome of recent developments in life-cycle cost analysis for bridges is to minimise total bridge costs (Frangopol, 1999) (Ref 48). Effectively, the life of a structure is extended through essential and/or preventive maintenance performed at the appropriate time. Essential maintenance improves the reliability of a bridge above the target reliability, and the object of preventive maintenance is to slow down the rate of deterioration whilst possibly, but not necessarily improving the reliability. Frangopol states that the lifecycle cost analysis must consider the time value of money, but does not warn of the diminishing value that time has on costs. Das (1998) is quoted by Frangopol (1999, p.217) (Ref 48) as claiming that: any global prediction of future deterioration rates is likely to be very approximate. However, the process depends upon the ability to set a bridges target reliability level, and in defining the bridge reliability profile. Highway authorities will be required to collect in a systematic manner the data needed to determine the bridges life-cycle costs. That data has to include all inspection, maintenance and repair and rehabilitation expenditures, and the timing of those expenditures. Even though the goal of bridge management is to determine and implement the best possible strategy to ensure an adequate level of safety at the lowest possible cost, the integration of life-cycle cost analysis with bridge reliability analysis has been very limited (Frangopol et al, 2000) (Ref 49). Whilst the integration of lifetime reliability and the life-cycle maintenance cost of a network of aging and deteriorating bridges is considered a practical possibility, the application of the theory appears to be some way off. More investigation is needed into: reliable predictions of deterioration rates with or without preventive maintenance; preventive and essential maintenance costs; effects of maintenance activities on reliability; and user costs.
30
AUSTROADS 2002
3.4
Works Effects Models
The literature review completed for this report did not realise any papers directly connected with the subject of repair effects modelling on the prolongation of the lives of structures. A review of literature has shown that there were only a small fraction of papers dealing with optimisation of maintenance strategies (Bevc et al, 2001) (Ref 44). Work has been reported on the analysis of life-cycle performance for the bridges of New York City (Yanev and Testa, 1999) (Ref 50), (Testa and Yanev, 2000) (Ref 50). That research attempts to build into bridge condition deterioration models algorithms that extend the life of a structure following specific maintenance repair. The extent to which a maintenance task can affect the deterioration rate of a structure component is not easily quantified, but such a relationship is needed to estimate maintenance benefits in terms of lifecycle costs. Work is currently in progress to broaden the scope of the New York study. The proposed method is a first step in establishing a more rigorous relationship between bridge maintenance expenditures and bridge condition. It provides a flexible relationship that can be the subject of continuing refinement and optimisation. The process, in its infancy at this stage, has been developed based upon experienced bridge maintenance practitioners providing estimates for deterioration rates. Those assumptions need to be monitored and reported before adjustments to the assumed rates may be accepted. The process is intended to be continuous in its application. In time new maintenance repair techniques will be developed and their inclusion in the schedule of feasible repairs would need to be part of the refinement process.
AUSTROADS 2002
31
4.
REPORTS
All bridge management systems are capable of providing reports. Generally, reports are systemic with limited scope to provide detail based upon user defined parameters. Literature on this topic was restricted to descriptions of t individual capabilities within respective systems. Reports generally provide the following basic information: Structure Reports Reports that list all structures of the network which may be sorted by user defined criteria; Listings of inspections whether completed, due or overdue, special or inspections for any specified periods, past or future; Listings of structure defects either by order of treatment or for a structure, the work orders in progress, for the current year, or completed; and Reports presenting facts and figures of budget commitments or past expenditures.
Inspection Reports
Maintenance Reports
Financial and Management Reports
The presentation of meaningful reports from existing bridge management systems would not appear to be an issue. Where bridge management systems have been developed in close liaison with the client worthwhile reports can be generated.
32
AUSTROADS 2002
5.
ISSUES
The literature review indicated that a gap between system capability and system knowledge was being created through a lack of supportive evidence. Condition data collected over a timeframe to verify the results of probabilistic deterioration modelling has not been reported. Systems have been designed around modelling algorithms without evidence of the technical reliability of the process. Engineering input must always be part of any decision making. Decision making cannot be the responsibility of a black box (Brooman and Wootton, 2000) (Ref 23). Although computer based bridge management systems are primarily designed to prioritise maintenance work, one important component of the process is missing. That component was the decision process (Das, 1996) (Ref 10). The modules where further development is needed, and professional acceptance has yet to be achieved, are those of deterioration modelling and works effects modelling. 5.1 Deterioration Models
Development to date has been summarised earlier in this report. Deterioration is either probabilistic, when little or no historical evidence is available, or predictive, when information exists and can be analysed. The stage of bridge management system development within Australasia indicates that insufficient data suitable for developing deterioration models has been collected. Even if condition data has been collected, it may not be in an appropriate format to suit the modelling technique. The limited size of the bridge stock managed by any one road authority would suggest that collection of sufficient data to provide a representative sample for effects of generic bridge types could be a problem. The amount of data upon which to predict trends would be too small. Opinion is divided on the value of deterioration modelling. A huge amount of data is required for the technique to be implemented with assurance, and data processing time is a function of the systems storage and retrieval capacity. When the bridge stock is relatively small, the factors of storage space and time delay may not justify a sophisticated system. Management of issues such as safety and bridge reliability offer better returns for input effort than may be realised from deterioration and predictive modelling. The way ahead does not preclude improvement of modelling techniques, but the task has to be considered in perspective of the benefits to be gained. Collection of data to enable further work on the processes and to provide confidence in the accuracy of models is required. In the meantime, predicted deterioration for life-cycle cost analysis should remain a question to be solved, not by a computer, but rather by an engineer at the individual bridge level.
AUSTROADS 2002
33
5.2
Works Effects
Very little, if any literature has been written about works effects modelling in the context of bridge management. To improve confidence in the predictive capabilities of sophisticated bridge management systems, probabilistic modelling requires knowledge about works effects to support its assumptions. Obviously, predictive modelling cannot be formulated without historical data. The two types of works effects that could be considered for modelling are: the restored condition of the element following maintenance; and the change, or otherwise, in the rate of deterioration of the element following maintenance. Many authors writing about system development allude to the need for the input of effective data from which to build the predictive models to be incorporated into those systems. However, the information is not available. Another positive reason for information about works effects is to establish the cost effectiveness of various types of maintenance actions. There is a clear need for further research and recording of detail in this area.
34
AUSTROADS 2002
6.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Future research and development for the ongoing improvement and enhancement of any BMS have been emphasised in several of the papers of this review. The areas from which benefits would accrue include new and improved techniques for accessing and analysing existing bridge databases, developing improved deterioration and cost models, and developing integrated asset management systems (Khan, 2000) (Ref 8). There is a move away from prioritisation based solely upon structure condition to prioritisation based upon bridge safety and reliability. The primary objective of bridge management is to maintain the reliability of the bridge asset at an optimum level by forecasting future needs sufficiently in advance in order to use the best maintenance strategy possible given the available resources. Although deterioration is an important factor in setting that policy, risk and reliability considerations for the network should govern (Das, 1996) (Ref 10). Risk and reliability considerations, and bridge capacity rating described in more detail below, are areas worthy of further investigation by relevant authorities. The future for bridge systems is the move towards safety and reliability-based management techniques and further research into the topics of: system reliability; deterioration modelling and prediction; relationship between condition and reliability of a structure; and modelling of uncertainties (Flaig, 1999) (Ref 52).
These issues are also discussed in more detail below. 6.1 Bridge Capacity Evaluation
There are clear advantages to be gained from the knowledge of a bridges condition in relation to its load carrying capacity. Condition alone is not the criterion by which to manage bridge assets. Reliability needs to be aligned to condition states, with the benefit of being able to assess capacity from a knowledge of the bridges deteriorated condition. Bridge load testing will provide important criteria for management of the asset (Ariyaratne and Oates, 1997) (Ref 53). Those criteria may be summarised as follows: improved understanding of bridge performance under live load; identification of weak members of a bridge; identification of weak bridges in the road network; development of improved maintenance procedures; development of effective strengthening options; determination of potential for increased legal loads; application of results to other similar bridges; extended life of bridges; and minimisation of the number of bridges with restrictions on loads and speed.
AUSTROADS 2002
35
The benefits available to effective bridge management from that knowledge are: minimise strengthening of bridges; delay unnecessary replacement of bridges; prioritise the replacement and strengthening of bridges perceived as weak links in the road network; establish a basis to safely increase volume, axle mass, length and gross mass of road freight vehicles; allow more liberal movement of heavy loads across the country; and maximise benefits from limited bridge funds.
with global benefits of: improved utilisation of Australias bridge infrastructure; improved national transport efficiency and productivity; improved industry competitiveness; and reduced cost of living.
6.2
Bridge Condition Index
The concept of a Bridge Condition Index (BCI) has been proposed as a logical step to translate bridge condition ratings into a meaningful indicator (Blakelock et al, 1999) (Ref 54). The objectives for determining a BCI are to have indicators that can: reflect condition change of elements, or bridges or the whole stock between inspections; reflect whether funding levels are sufficient to maintain the entire stock in a steady state with respect to level of service; compare maintenance costs for different types of construction for future decisions on economical structure selection for new stock; and compare maintaining agents performance for given funding, or under varying contract conditions. The latter comparison should be used with caution as bridge types, materials and age enter the equation. The BCI is derived from the condition of primary and secondary elements, and the extent or severity of the condition. Primary elements are those, the failure of which would either bring about collapse of the structure or at least render it unusable. The age of elements is also considered as another factor influencing BCI. An algorithm for BCI has been developed using those factors and tested from a study of sample data stored in various bridge management systems around the world. The implications for the benefit of its future use are highly dependent upon the accuracy and completeness of inspections. Current practice in this area is, to say the least, very variable (Blakelock et al, 1999) (Ref 54). Similar work on the development of a Health Index (HI) to quantify the condition ratings obtained from inspections has been reported (Roberts and Shepard, 2000) (Ref 55).
36
AUSTROADS 2002
The HI is derived from the cost to restore elements to their good condition. The cost to restore elements of a structure or network from a reported condition is compared to the cost to restore the total element population of a structure or network, assuming it had deteriorated, and that ratio is the HI. The failure cost of an element is difficult to estimate using absolute procedures as it should include both agency and community associated values. The index has proved effective in helping to understand the overall condition of a bridge or network, and when used in conjunction with a deterioration model, a future HI with or without maintenance actions can be predicted.
6.3
Bridge Safety
The influence of bridge condition on bridge safety needs further investigation to develop an indicator or Safety Index. RTA NSW has prepared a draft report for action to introduce a Risk Factor into the process of condition inspection assessment the purpose of which is to rank element defects. Similar to a Safety Index, the Risk Factor for an element is derived from an assessment of its condition, how critical the element is, the exposure to public safety should the element fail, and the urgency for repair. The process introduces a consideration of safety into the inspection procedure, and the development of repair programs based upon objectives of reliability and not aesthetics (Taylor and Carter, 2001) (Ref 56). The section on reliability based bridge management procedures below considers bridge safety further.
6.4
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
To date, there is not a standardised and generally accepted methodology in place for this highly important aspect of the optimisation process Flaig (1999) (Ref 52). The use of life-cycle cost analysis, though desirable, has its limitations. Using a discount rate of between 6-7%, the value of any maintenance actions beyond 25 years is so small as to have no impact on the overall value of any planned action. Also, within that timeframe there exists uncertainties concerning traffic growth, introduction of new materials, technological improvements, material deterioration rates, etc which may make life-cycle cost analysis a highly theoretical exercise. A thorough review of the procedures and the principles behind life-cycle cost analysis is needed in order to find rational solutions from the process. Because of the diminishing value of money, the process has the tendency for analysts not to consider long-life options. However, whilst ever maintenance programs continue at approximately 1% of the bridge replacement value, there is a need to provide long-life stock and long-life solutions (Das, 1999) (Ref 57). The application of life-cycle cost analysis to the process of bridge management may sound appropriate but it must be used with care and in full knowledge of the reservations and the implied shortcomings of any time related process.
AUSTROADS 2002
37
6.5
Reliability Based Bridge Management Procedures
In order to measure and maintain the reliability of the bridge stock in respect of the multi-objective requirements it is necessary to adopt a management process that is capable of addressing a number of objectives in an explicit manner. The Highways Agency of UK is currently investigating such a methodology through a Research and Development (R&D) program (Das, 2000) (Ref 58). In essence, reliability is the likelihood or probability that an element satisfies a particular design or operational objective. A reliability based bridge management system requires certain basic ingredients, clear maintenance objectives, well defined performance indicators and feasible performance targets. The maintenance objectives may be categorised as: Functionality Safety Aesthetics Sustainability minimisation of traffic delays; safe for intended use; maintain an acceptable appearance; no backlog of repairs, and the workload remains at a manageable level; and maintenance is based upon life-cycle cost analysis.
Economic
The targets of the system should be: 1. 2. 3. to repair, strengthen or replace sub-standard elements; to compile a comprehensive but feasible program of inspections and assessments; and to keep annual preventive expenditure to the levels set in the strategic plan.
Existing inspection and assessment procedures will need to be modified to suit a reliability based approach to management. Methods are needed to determine cost-effective optimum preventive measures that can prolong a bridge life without wasting scarce resources. Implicit in those measures is the capability to predict whole-of-life performance of maintenance repairs. Further on the issue of reliability based bridge assessment and management, though not generally understood by practising engineers, the techniques lead to optimum inspection and repair planning, structural integrity assessment and whole-of-life performance based assessment. The process requires definition of target reliabilities and acceptable risk whence it can be a particularly useful tool. Safety is considered the most important criterion for target reliability, but how safe is safe enough?. Acceptable risk may be assessed in monetary terms by comparing the risk to life and the risk to loss of use costs (Flaig, 1999) (Ref 52). The technology has been used with success in the UK for the planned maintenance of a vital network of structures showing extensive deterioration. The aim behind using a risk based strategy was to provide rational justification for extending the timeframe of the repair program. That was achieved using reliability analyses to define priorities for repair with greater confidence (Cropper et al, 1999) (Ref 59). A better understanding of bridge condition when related to serviceability, the consequences of delaying repair, and the necessary type of repair will lead to effective use of limited bridge management funds.
38
AUSTROADS 2002
6.6
Uncertainty in Bridge Management
Areas exist within bridge management systems where problems may arise from an analysis of data that is insufficient or flawed. Through an examination of the total bridge management process those areas of uncertainty, the types of uncertainties, their effects and how to manage them have been identified (Das and Onoufriou, 2000) (Ref 60). The effects of uncertainties can be costly in that essential work may be missed, or unnecessary strengthening work and wasted preventative work may be ordered. Activities where further work should be developed include: development of a detailed flow chart of the bridge management process; identity of individual sources of uncertainty; use of reliability models to examine the sensitivity of the process; investigation of the feasibility to develop system models to represent the process; examination of the relative contribution of uncertainties to component parts of the system as a whole; development of a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to system models; and identification and prioritisation of future research needs.
Research effort should be focussed on: Existing documentation Inspection, measurement and testing Assessment analysis the retention of essential information and no more; recognised as a fertile area for errors, and an area where optimisation of the process can be achieved; a translation of inspection to structural strength parameters for which a simple analysis may be appropriate given other areas of gross approximations; a better understanding of the level of acceptance/tolerance; establishment of performance indicators to support the minimum levels of acceptance; without a pre-indication of needs, the work option can influence the design and funding requirements; identification of the level of uncertainty with estimating techniques; and a good deal of work in this area should continue, but with a lifecycle costing discount rate around 6%, the accuracy of the calculation of deterioration becomes less important with time. However, a range of discount rates and other analysis methods such as average annual costs are also worth considering.
Minimum acceptable criteria Safety and functional criteria
Work options
Unit costs
Deterioration
AUSTROADS 2002
39
7.
7.1
SUMMARY
The Bridge Management Process
Bridge system management has grown from the need to have in place a defined decision process to justify maintenance expenditure on an asset that was both ageing and exhibiting early signs of deterioration. The bridge management process has been defined by the following flow chart (Das and Onoufriou, 2000) (Ref 59). Two of the basic aims of bridge management may be summarised by the queries What needs to be done? and Is maintenance being completed effectively?. The systems identified throughout this report have been designed to satisfy the first question. The degree of accomplishment of those systems varies depending upon client requirements. Further development work and research are needed on techniques to prove whether a positive answer to the second question is being achieved. Bridge Management Activities
Maintaining Agent (Bridge specific)

Authorities (Bridge network)
Bridge inspection Bridge assessment Maintain records of inventory Submit annual bids for funds Design and carry out strengthening and repairs Maintain safety and serviceability
Financial planning Bid assessment Asset valuation Monitor performance of maintaining agent Monitor performance of network through time
Greater precision required

Figure 4 The bridge management process
Generally broad-brush estimates
40
AUSTROADS 2002
The overall aims of bridge management are summarised as (Das and Onoufriou, 2000) (Ref 60):
What needs to be done? NDT and monitoring techniques Is maintenance effective? Smart technology Performance indicators
Figure 5 The overall aims of bridge management
Bridge Management
7.2
Current Bridge Management Systems
Bridge management systems have been available since about 1980. Initially consisting of database modules to store knowledge about inventory, condition and maintenance, their development and sophistication has been controlled by client requirements. Systems are now capable of defining for a network of bridges optimum maintenance budgets over 5 year forward programs. Maintenance programming within bridge management systems is by one of two alternatives, either the top-down approach or the bottom-up approach. The top-down approach depends upon setting budgets and standards to develop optimal policies which are then used to develop projects. Using the bottom-up approach, structures which do not meet prescribed standards are considered for repairs and maintenance work is costed. The total cost for all bridges is compared to the budget and then planned works modified by an adjustment to the desirable standards if the budget is exceeded. Although current bridge management systems are useful for identifying bridges with the most visible signs of deterioration, those systems do not provide quantitative information for reliability based bridge evaluations. Derivation of a method for converting condition states to meaningful, decision influencing interpretative results is desirable. Maintenance repairs for bridges should be selected from decisions based on minimum expected life-cycle costs and on providing safety and serviceability (reliability), not from decisions based solely on the visible condition state. A computer driven process can assist in making these decisions, but a flexible approach controlled by engineering judgement should always be used in finalising decisions. Design of a bridge management system has grown from the early development of database modules for the storage of elementary information on inventory details, inspection records, and repair actions and costs to become more sophisticated. Predictive condition modelling by probabilistic methods, and optimisation of repairs using linear programming algorithms are possible, albeit with limitations. Whilst most systems operate on condition states in their decision process, a move exists towards translation of condition states into more meaningful capacity evaluations and thereby an improvement of the effectiveness of maintenance repairs. Repairs are only initiated on the grounds of benefit and not for aesthetic reasons.
AUSTROADS 2002
41
Bridge owners must make conscious decisions as to the sophistication of their management systems. The questions to be considered when deciding which system best satisfies the clients needs include: the amount of bridge stock to manage; how quickly systemic management is desired, ie, to have a total system immediately or one that can be developed as data is collected; the amount of resources, both time and personal input, that can be committed to its development and upkeep; and whether engineering control over the process is considered essential. Systems and modules are continuously being improved through research. Enhancements for systems will always become available. Systems need to be flexible and have the capacity to incorporate improved management technology.
7.3
Austroads Member Authority Systems
Most of the major road agencies in Australia and New Zealand have well developed bridge management systems that record inventory, manage inspections and collect maintenance information. The next stages of implementation will involve dealing with those uncertainties noted above. The choices available to road agencies range between accepting the implications of adopting a sophisticated system and being content with the existing databases and more local management through defined standards of performance. The existing systems can be developed over time. Systems will continue to be developed overseas and their modules may eventually prove appropriate for adoption in existing Australian systems. That does not imply existing systems stand still. Continued collection of time related condition information and maintenance costs is essential. That knowledge is critical for the successful functioning of any bridge management system. At the network level, system development should be focussed on designing procedures to measure bridge and agent performance, to interpret condition detail, and to define maintenance standards. Those client management techniques are required to compliment whatever system strategy is favoured. They cannot be neglected even when pursuing a softly, softly approach.
7.4
The Future for Bridge Management Systems
The next generation bridge management systems will be based upon lifetime reliability and whole-of-life costing. Following the process of management to ensure reliability states rather than condition states, maintenance actions will be selected in response to distinct needs to keep the bridge in a condition above its target reliability level (Frangopol et al, 2000) (Ref 61). Application of benefit-cost analysis to reliability based bridge management decision making will guide the selection of optimum program strategy in the face of uncertainties and fiscal constraints. Improved ability to assess user costs is inherent in adopting the procedure. The application of life-cycle cost analysis to the optimisation of maintenance may carry the feeling of good financial practice, but can only be effectively adopted when there is a full understanding of its limitations. For example, the timeframe over which costs and benefits are compared must respect the uncertainties regarding future methods and technologies, and discount rates effectively reduce to zero the value of actions beyond 25 years in the future.
42
AUSTROADS 2002
8.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
In this report the following abbreviations and acronyms have the meanings shown: AASHTO ACT ARRB BATU BCI BMS BOOT BRIME DIER DIPE DMR DoT DUS EEC FHWA HI MR&R MR WA MTO NBI NCHRP NDT NSW NT NZ OBMS RIMSi R&D Ref RTA SA SMIS Tas TRL T SA UK US Vic VicRoads WA American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Australian Capital Territory ARRB Transport Research Ltd Bridge Testing and Assessment Unit (Vietnam) Bridge Condition Index Bridge Management System Build, own, operate and transfer Bridge Management in Europe Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (Tasmania) Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment (NT) Department of Main Roads (Queensland) Department of Transportation Department of Urban Services (ACT) European Economic Community Federal Highway Administration (US) Health Index Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Replacement Main Roads Western Australia Ontario Ministry of Transportation National Bridge Inventory (US mandated system of bridge items) National Cooperative Highway Research Program Non-destructive testing New South Wales Northern Territory of Australia New Zealand Ontario Bridge Management System Road Information and Management System, Tasmania Research and Development Reference Roads and Traffic Authority (New South Wales) South Australia Structures Management Information System Tasmania Transport Research Laboratory, UK Transport South Australia United Kingdom United States of America Victoria Roads Corporation Victoria Western Australia
AUSTROADS 2002
43
APPENDIX 1 SUMMARY OF BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

System Name System Functions (see key below) A B C D E F G H I J K L System Comments A top-down network analysis process more suited to larger networks. The system is very data hungry. A probabilistic deterioration model predicts condition from the present state with no consideration of age. Limitations: PONTIS (US) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes only considers routine maintenance on individual elements; only two actions, to do or not to do; no structure capacity evaluation; and user costs not included in economic evaluations.
Advantages:
network analysis tool; and deterioration models will improve as data is collected. A bottom-up local bridge analysis system better suited to smaller bridge stocks. Similar in structure to PONTIS. Optimisation of repair actions performed by a comparison of the cost effectiveness of each. BRIDGIT (US) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Limitations: Advantages: as for PONTIS.
considers alternative repair options; and local bridge management tool. Designed for the management of a smaller rural bridge stock. Prioritisation based upon a structure deficiency point ranking derived from physical bridge characteristics, individual elements can be ranked. Limitations: deterioration modelling not included; and optimisation of maintenance not considered.
WYO_BMS (Wyoming)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Advantages: more appropriate for small bridge stocks. Developed to incorporate better project level capabilities than existing systems. Local managers are expected to derive maintenance strategies that meet corporate targets of funding and performance. OBMS (Canada) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Limitations: Advantages: probabilistic optimisation model to be developed. local bridge management; and maintenance selected based on benefit-cost analysis.
Functions:
A B C D
Inventory of existing bridge stock Schedule of inspections Condition rating of structures Bid for maintenance funds
E F G H
Prioritises maintenance work Budget planning (long term) Cost database for repairs Safety Assessments
I J K L
Considers MR&R Strategies Applies Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Considers road user delay costs in analysis Deterioration modelling capabilities
AUSTROADS 2002
45
Appendix 1 - Summary of Bridge Management Systems (continued)

System Name System Functions A B C System Comments D E F G H I J K L Designed specifically to assist, not control, the management process. The system has the basic data modules but does not perform deterioration modelling or life-cycle costing. Those functions rely upon engineering expertise. Optimisation of projects based upon most economic repair options. DANBRO (Denmark) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Limitations: Advantages: no modelling; and system has no cost analysis function.
retains engineering control over the system; and 20 years of application experience in many locations. Contains the basic modules for data storage. Decision process includes capacity assessments and safety requirements. Deterioration and Optimisation not considered in development of the system. Individual bridge repair strategies developed and funded by a bidding process. SMIS (UK) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Limitations: no deterioration modelling; bidding process controls selection of repair projects; and no long term optimisation of a works programme.
structure capacity is assessed as part of the process; and safety needs of the network governs repair strategies An extension of highways by exor, structures manager is in the early stages of development. Deterioration modelling using probabilistic methods is proposed. However, the inclusion of an optimisation process does not appear to have been considered. exor (UK) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Limitations: Advantages:
Functions: A B C D Inventory of existing bridge stock Schedule of inspections Condition rating of structures Bid for maintenance funds E F G H Prioritises maintenance work Budget planning (long term) Cost database for repairs Safety Assessments I J K L
Advantages:
early stages of development; and deterioration model at concept stage. system integrates into a total asset management system.
Considers MR&R Strategies Applies Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Considers road user delay costs in analysis Deterioration modelling capabilities
46
AUSTROADS 2002
Appendix 1 - Summary of Bridge Management Systems (continued)

System Name System Functions A B C System Comments D E F G H I J K L The system relies upon local level evaluation of factors that determine repair priorities. Probabilistic deterioration models are used to minimise repair costs. One of the few systems that applies quality control to the management system. Limitations: deterioration models need factual data to improve results; road user costs not included in economic calculations. Advantages: local management of the asset; prioritisation at local level to achieve network optimum targets. The system has the basic modules but not a deterioration module. Prioritisation is based upon a system of indices combined with a solid engineering judgement. Limitations: deterioration modelling not included; and system at the early stages of development. Advantages: network level guidance on cost effective management; and local level determination of repairs. The system is reported as complete but lacks the application of life-cycle costing analysis to the budgeting process. Insufficient published articles to substantiate these claims. A highly computerised system using probabilistic deterioration curves to construct optimal maintenance plans for repair or strengthening measures based on minimising life-cycle cost. System more suited to the management of individual major structures than a network of bridges. Limitations: algorithms require large computation times; essentially operates on single structures; and optimisation of network maintenance not considered. Advantages: optimises many options for minimum life-cycle cost; and accounts for effects of maintenance on future deterioration.
I J K L Considers MR&R Strategies Applies Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Considers road user delay costs in analysis Deterioration modelling capabilities
SIHA (Finland)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
BRUTUS (Norway)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
SAFEBRO (Sweden)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
J-BMS (Japan)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Functions:
A B C D
Inventory of existing bridge stock Schedule of inspections Condition rating of structures Bid for maintenance funds
E F G H
Prioritises maintenance work Budget planning (long term) Cost database for repairs Safety Assessments
AUSTROADS 2002
47
APPENDIX 2 SAMPLE BMS QUESTIONNAIRE

(as distributed in May 2001 to Australian State and Territory Road Authorities and Transit New Zealand)
48
AUSTROADS 2002
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SURVEY - QUESTIONNAIRE

LB Dowling & Associates has been engaged by the Austroads Bridge Network Performance Models Project Team to review the development and implementation of bridge management systems by Austroads member authorities. Ultimately it is intended that the outcome from the review will provide the basis for development of modules for use in bridge management systems in subsequent years. Your co-operation in completing the following questionnaire regarding your organisations management system for maintaining bridges would be appreciated. 1 Does your organisation have a Bridge Management system? Y/N
2 3 4
(if No proceed to Q5) Is your system aligned to a commercial model? What is the name of that model? eg, PONTIS, DANBRO
Y/N
A BMS ideally consists of various modules. Please indicate which if any of the following modules exist in your system and the status of development for that the module.
Status
Modules:
1 - Not considered 4 - Developed
2 - Under consideration 5 - Populated and working
3 - Being developed
Status .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Inventory (database of physical properties) Inspection (management of inspections) Assessment (load capacity rating and heavy vehicle routing) Maintenance Records (past treatments with costs) Condition (condition inspection history, condition index) Safety Assessment (bridge reliability factor, safety index) Management Planning (budgeting, forward and annual programs) Deterioration Modelling (prediction of deterioration) Prioritisation (optimisation and life-cycle costing of maintenance works) Reporting (network performance reports) 5
Any comments regarding the adoption of your particular BMS and its future development?
Would you (personally) like Austroads to keep you informed of progress with this Project (mainly by E-mail)? If yes, please provide your contact details plus others names as appropriate.
Name(s) Phone Fax E-mail address
Thank you for your help. Please return your response to L B Dowling & Associates at lbdowli@attglobal.net
AUSTROADS 2002
49
This page has been intentionally left blank
50
AUSTROADS 2002
APPENDIX 3 REFERENCES
1. 2. AUSTROADS (2000). RoadFacts 2000. Sydney: Austroads. Hearn, G. (1999). Bridge Management Systems. In D Frangopol (Ed) Bridge Safety and Reliability (pp 189-209). ASCE, Retson, Virginia. Lauridsen, J., Bjerrum, J., Andersen, N. H. and Lassen, B. (1998). Creating a Bridge Management System. Structural Engineering International. Steele, K. N. P., Cole, G., Parke, G. A. R., Clarke, B. and Harding, J. E. (2000). Bridge maintenance strategy and sustainability. In M.J. Ryall (Ed), G.A.R. Parke (Ed) and J.E Harding (Ed) Bridge Management 4: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 361-369). London: Thomas Telford. Czepiel, E. (1995, March). Bridge Management Systems Literature Review and Search. ITI Technical Report No. 11. Small, E. P., Philbin, T., Fraher, M. and Romack, G. P. (1999). Current Status of Bridge Management System Implementation in the United States. In Proceedings 8th International Bridge Management Conference, Denver, Colorado (pp A.1-16). TR Circular 498. Vassie, P. R. (1996). In J. E. Harding (Ed.); G. A. R. Parke (Ed); M. J. Ryall (Ed), Bridge Management 3: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 195-202). London: Spon. Khan, M. S. (2000, August). Bridge Management Systems: Past, Present, and Future. Concrete International. Thompson, P. D. (1993). PONTIS: the maturing of bridge management systems in the USA. In J. E. Harding (Ed.); G. A. R. Parke (Ed); M. J. Ryall (Ed), Bridge Management 2: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp971-978). London: Thomas Telford. Das, P. C. (1996). Bridge Maintenance Management Objectives and Methodologies. In J. E. Harding (Ed.); G. A. R. Parke (Ed); M. J. Ryall (Ed), Bridge Management 3: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 1-7). London: Spon. Hawk, H. (1999, April). BRIDGIT: User-Friendly Approach to Bridge Management. Transport Research Circular No 498 (pp E:7.1-15). Methods for Increasing Live Load Capacity of Existing Highway Bridges. NCHRP Synthesis 249. Transportation Research Board. Gralund, M. S. and Puckett, J. A. (1996, April). System for Bridge Management in a rural Environment. ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 10 (2) 97-105. Thompson, P. D., Merlo, T., Ker, B., Cheetham, A. and Ellis, R. (1999). The New Ontario Bridge Management System. Transport Research Circular No 498 (pp F:6.1-15) Godart, B. and Vassie, P. R. (1999). Review of existing BMS and definition of inputs for the proposed BMS. Deliverable D4 for BRIME Project PL97-2220, Godart, B. and Vassie, P. R. (undated). Bridge Management Systems: Extended Review of Existing Systems and Outline framework for a European System. Deliverable D13 for BRIME Project P97-2220.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
AUSTROADS 2002
51
17.
Lauridsen, J. and Lassen, B. (1999). The Danish bridge management system DANBRO. In P. C. Das (Ed) Management of Highway Structures (pp 61-70). London: Thomas Telford. Pastor, R.A., Torrealba, J. M. A., Cabanas, C. V. and Bruna, C. L. (undated). Decision on repair/replacement. Deliverable D7 for BRIME Project P97-2220. Henriksen, A. (1999). Bridge Management-Routine Maintenance: Recent Experience with the Routine Management Module in the DANBRO Bridge Management System. In Proceedings of 8th International Bridge Management Conference (pp I-5/1-13). Transportation Research Circular 498, Denver, Colorado. Bridge Management System BMS (January 1999) (handout). (Available from COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners AS, Lyngby, Denmark). Blakelock, R. (1993). Experience in the development of a computerised bridge management system and of its use in a number of authorities in the UK and overseas. In J.E Harding (Ed), G.A.R. Parke (Ed) and M.J. Ryall (Ed). Bridge Management 2: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 880- 888). London: Thoms Telford. Hayter, G. F. and Allison, B. H. (1999). Structures management information system (SMIS). In P. C. Das (Ed) Management of Highway Structures (pp 153-162). London: Thomas Telford. Brooman, H. and Wootton, N. (2000). Bridge maintenance a local authority perspective. In M.J. Ryall (Ed), G.A.R. Parke (Ed) and J.E Harding (Ed) Bridge Management 4: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 753-761). London: Thomas Telford. structures manager by exor (1999, December). (handout). (Available from Exor Corporation Limited, Bristol, England). Sonderqvist, M. (1999). The Finnish practice and experience regarding bridge inspection and management. In P. C. Das (Ed.). Management of Highway Structures (pp 71-80). London: Thomas Telford. The Bridge Management System BRUTUS (undated). (handout). (Available from Norwegian Public Roads Administration, Oslo, Norway). Agardy, G., Bako, A., Gaspar, L., Kolozsi, G., Lubloy, L. and Molnar, I. (2000). Adaption of PONTIS BMS to Hungarian conditions. In Proceedings of 4th Austroads Bridge Conference (pp 6170). Sydney: Austroads. Hutnik, A. and Mistewicz, M. (2000). Management of Public Bridges in Poland. In Proceedings of 4th Austroads Bridge Conference (pp83-90). Sydney: Austroads. Krieger, J. and Haardt, P. (2000). Management of bridges in Germany. In M. J. Ryall (Ed), G. A. R. Parke (Ed), and J. E. Harding (Ed.); Bridge Management 4: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 719-726). London: Spon. Gusella, V., Materazzi, A. L. and Moriconi, C. (1996). Information System for Management of Bridges Owned by the Province of Perugia, Italy. In J. E. Harding (Ed.); G. A. R. Parke (Ed); M. J. Ryall (Ed), Bridge Management 3: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 595-602). London: Spon. Godart, B. and Vassie, P. R. (1999). Review of existing BMS and definition of inputs for the proposed BMS. Deliverable D4 for BRIME Project PL97-2220.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
52
AUSTROADS 2002
32.
Godart, B. and Vassie, P. R. (undated). Bridge Management Systems: Extended Review of Existing Systems and Outline framework for a European System. Deliverable D13 for BRIME Project P97-2220. Yokoyama, K.,Sato, H., Ogihara, K. and Toriumi, R. (1996). Development of a Bridge Management System in Japan. In J. E. Harding (Ed.); G. A. R. Parke (Ed); M. J. Ryall (Ed), Bridge Management 3: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 580-586). London: Spon. Miyamoto, A., Kawamura, K. and Nakamura, H. (2000, April). Practical Applications of a Bridge Management System in Japan. In Proceedings of 5th International Bridge Engineering Conference, Tampa, Florida. TRB Journal 1696. (Vol. 2, pp 14-25). Washington: National Academy Press. Anderson, G., Collins, F., and Grace, W. R. (1998). Development of Bridge Evaluation and Maintenance Management Methodologies for the Road Network of Vietnam. In 2nd RILEM Conference on Rehabilitation of Structures, (pp 576-591). Melbourne, Australia. Alambai, S. and Pawenang, H. (1994, February). Strategy for Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement. In Bridges essential to our economy; proceedings of the Austroads Bridges Conference (pp 49.1-13). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Cox, J. C. and Matthews, S. J. (2000). Study for a bridge management system in India. In M. J. Ryall (Ed), G. A. R. Parke (Ed), and J. E. Harding (Ed.); Bridge Management 4: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 20-29). London: Spon. Nordengen, P. A., Welthagen, D. and de Fleuriot, E. (2000). A bridge management system for the South African National Roads Agency. In M. J. Ryall (Ed), G. A. R. Parke (Ed), and J. E. Harding (Ed.); Bridge Management 4: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 20-29). London: Spon. Victorias Bridges Critical links for transport efficiency. (July 1995) (handout). (Available from Roads Corporation Victoria, Melbourne). Lowe, M. and Hadingham, K. (1997, December). Implementing the Victorias Bridges Strategy. In G. J. Chirgwin (Ed.), 1997 Austroads Bridge Conference Proceedings (pp 57-74). Sydney, NSW, Australia. Graham, P. (2001, April). Development of the Bridge Asset Management System. Road and Bridge Maintenance Conference May 2001. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. van Reyk, F. (1997, December). Bridge Evaluation and Asset Management. In G Chirgwin (Ed.), 1997 Austroads Bridge Conference Proceedings, (pp 139-149). Sydney, NSW, Australia. Kleywegt, A. J. and Sinha, K. C. (1994, April). Tools for Bridge Management Data Analysis. Transportation Research Circular No 423 (pp16-26). Washington, DC. Bevc, L., Perus, I., Mahut, B. and Grefstad, K. (2001, January). Review of Existing Procedures for Optimisation. Deliverable D3 for the BRIME Report Project PL97-2220. James, R. W., Stukhart, G., Garcia-Diaz, A., Bligh R. and Sobanjo, J. (1991). Analytical Approach to the Development of a Bridge Management System. Transportation Research Record 1290 (pp 157-170). de Brito, J. and Branco, F.A (1994, November). Bridge management policy using cost analysis. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers Structures and Buildings, Vol 104, 431-439.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
AUSTROADS 2002
53
47.
Silva Filho, L. C. P., Bower, D. and Smith, N. J. (1996). The Role of Economic Evaluation in the Bridge Management Process. In J. E. Harding (Ed.); G. A. R. Parke (Ed); and M. J. Ryall (Ed), Bridge Management 3: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 849-857). London: Spon. Frangopol, D. M. (1999). Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Bridges. In D. M. Frangopol (Ed) Bridge Safety and Reliability (pp 210-236). ASCE, Reston, Virginia. Frangopol, D. M., Gharaibeh, E. S., Kong, J. S. and Miyake, M. (2000). Optimal Network-Level Bridge Maintenance Planning based on Minimum Expected Cost. In Proceedings 5th International Bridge Engineering Conference, Tampa, Florida. TRR 1696 (pp 26-33). Yanev, B. S. and Testa, R. B. (1999). Life Cycle Performance of Bridge Components in New York City. In Proceedings of 8th International Bridge Management Conference, Denver, Colorado Transportation Research Circular 498 (pp C.5/1-10). Testa, R. B. and Yanev, B. S. (2000). Annualised life cycle costs of maintenance options for New York City bridges. In M. J. Ryall (Ed), G. A. R. Parke (Ed); and J. E. Harding (Ed.); Bridge Management 4: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp 400-407). London: Thomas Telford. Flaig, K. (1999). Issues of Practical Concern. In P.C Das (Ed) Management of Highway Structures, (pp 90-96). London: Thomas Telford. Ariyaratne, W. and Oates, R. (1997, December). Bridge Evaluation and Asset Management. In G. J. Chirgwin (Ed.), 1997 Austroads Bridge Conference Proceedings, (pp 291-300). Sydney, NSW, Australia. Blakelock, R., Day, W. and Chadwick, R. (1999). Bridge Condition Index. In P. C. Das (Ed) Management of Highway Structures (pp 130-138). London: Thomas Telford. Roberts, J. E. and Shepard, R. (2000, April). Bridge Management for the 21st Century. Proceedings of 5th International Bridge Engineering Conference, TRB 1696, (pp 2.197-203). Taylor, R. J. and Carter, D. J. (2001, January). Review of the Bridge Inspection Process and Utilisation of BIS Data in Bridge Asset Management. Draft Report to Road and Bridge Technology Section, RTA NSW. (Unpublished). Das, P. C. (1999). Whole life considerations for bridges and other highway structures. In P. C. Das Management of Highway Structures, (pp 112-118). London: Thomas Telford. Das, P. C. (2000). Reliability based bridge management procedures. In M. J. Ryall (Ed), G. A. R. Parke (Ed) and J. E. Harding (Ed) Bridge Management 4: inspection, maintenance assessment and repair, (pp 1-11). London: Thomas Telford. Cropper, D., Jones, A. K. and Roberts, M. B. (1999). A risk-based maintenance strategy for the Midland Links Motorway viaducts. In P. Das Management of Highway Structures, (pp 81-89). London: Thomas Telford. Das, P. and Onoufriou, T. (2000). Examination of uncertainties in bridge management. In M. J. Ryall (Ed), G. A. R. Parke (Ed) and J. E. Harding (Ed) Bridge Management 4: inspection, maintenance assessment and repair, (pp 231-245). London: Thomas Telford. Frangopol, D. M., Kong, J. S. and Gharaibeh, E. S. (2000). Bridge management based on lifetime reliability and whole life costing: the next generation. In M. J. Ryall (Ed), G. A. R. Parke (Ed) and J. E. Harding (Ed), Bridge Management 4: inspection maintenance, assessment and repair, (pp 392399). London: Thomas Telford.
AUSTROADS 2002
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
54
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads (2002), Bridge management systems the state of the art, Sydney, A4, 64pp, AP-R198/02.
KEYWORDS: Bridge, bridge management system, condition, deterioration, inspection, maintenance, management, monitoring, rehabilitation, road network
ABSTRACT: Road agency inventories in Australia and New Zealand include approximately 50,000 structures that are being managed as bridges. In Australia and New Zealand on arterial roads alone, the value of structures being managed as bridges exceeds A$10b, and annual expenditure on bridge maintenance is of the order of A$100m. This report contains the main findings from a literature search in mid-2001 on bridge management, with emphasis on the capability of bridge management systems being used by public sector road agencies around the world. The report outlines bridge management system practice in around 40 road agencies in North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia, and summarises the functions, advantages and limitations of 11 of the more accomplished bridge management systems. An important purpose of this report is to assist Australian and New Zealand road agencies in further developing their systems for bridge management at both project and network levels. The world literature survey was therefore supplemented by a questionnaire survey of Austroads members. The report summarises the development status of systems for bridge management being used in 2001 by nine of the major road agencies in Australia and New Zealand. The literature search and the survey identified a severe lack of consistent historical data on bridge condition that could be used for developing and calibrating deterministic prediction models for works effects and bridge deterioration. The report raises issues such as bridge management based on minimum condition criteria or on fit for purpose criteria in terms of safety, reliability and economics. Other issues including incremental development of systems, bridge condition indices, bridge capacity evaluation, life-cycle costing, top-down and bottom-up optimisation, and reliability-based management procedures are discussed. The report includes an extensive bibliography on bridge management.
AUSTROADS PUBLICATIONS
Austroads publishes a large number of guides and reports. Some of its publications are: AP-1/89 AP-11/88-99 AP-12/91 AP-13/91 AP-14/91 AP-15/96 AP-18/00 AP-22/95 AP-23/94 AP-26/94 AP-C29/01 AP-G30/02 AP-34/95 AP-36/95 AP-38/95 AP-40/95 AP-42/96 AP-43/00 AP-45/96 AP-46/97 AP-47/97 AP-48/97 AP-49/97 AP-50/97 AP-52/97 AP-53/97 AP-54/97 AP-127/97 AP-55/98 AP-57 & 58/98 AP-59/98 AP-61/99 AP-62/99 AP-64/00 AP-G68/01 AP-144/00 AP-R165/00 AP-R173/00 AP-R191/01 AP-R192/01 AP-T06/00 AP-T07/00 AP-T08/01 AP-T09/01 AP-T11/01 AP-T12/02 AP-T13/02 Rural Road Design Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice (15 Parts) Road Maintenance Practice Bridge Management Practice Bridge Construction Practice Australian Bridge Design Code RoadFacts 2000 Strategy for Pavement Research and Development Waterway Design, A Guide to the Hydraulic Design of Bridges, Culverts and Floodways Strategy for Structures Research and Development Austroads Strategic Plan 2001-2004 Road Safety Audit (2nd edition) Design Vehicles and Turning Path Templates Adaptions and Innovations in Road and Pavement Engineering Guide to Field Surveillance of Quality Assurance Contracts Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development Benefit Cost Analysis Manual National Performance Indicators Strategy for Productivity Improvements for the Road Transport Industry Strategy for Concrete Research and Development Strategy for Road User Costs Australia at the Crossroads, Roads in the Community A Summary Roads in the Community Part 1: Are they doing their job? Roads in the Community Part 2: Towards better practice Strategy for Traffic Management Research and Development Strategy for Improving Asset Management Practice Austroads 1997 Bridge Conference Proceedings Bridging the Millennia Concrete Structures Durability, Inspection and Maintenance Procedures Position Paper Principles for Strategic Planning Cities for Tomorrow Better Practice Guide and Resource Document Cities for Tomorrow CD Australia Cycling 1999-2004 The National Strategy e-transport The National Strategy for Intelligent Transport Systems Austroads 4th Bridge Conference Proceedings Bridges for the New Millennium Guide to Heritage Bridge Management Valuation of Road Infrastructure Assets in Australia and New Zealand Implications for the Road Transport Sector of Tax Reform (ANTS) Guidelines for Multi-Combination Vehicle Route Access Assessment Austroads Project Evaluation Compendium Multi-Modal Evaluation and Assessment: A Perspective Monitoring of Steel Corrosion in Concrete Service Life Prediction of Reinforced Concrete Structures Australian Bridge Code Interim Australian Standard Austroads Provisional Sprayed Seal Design Method Revision 2000 Management of Concrete Bridge Structures to Extend Their Service Life Validation of Dynamic Load Models Technical Documentation Guide to Road Profile Unevenness and Bridge Damage
These and other Austroads publications may be obtained from: ARRB Transport Research Ltd 500 Burwood Highway VERMONT SOUTH VIC 3131 Australia Telephone: Fax: Email: Website: +61 3 9881 1547 +61 3 9887 8144 donm@arrb.com.au www.arrb.com.au
or from road authorities, or their agent in all States and Territories; Standards New Zealand; Standards Australia and Bicycle New South Wales.

Ap R198 02

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ap R198 02

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AP-R198

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS THE STATE OF THE ART

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS THE STATE OF THE ART

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................ 43

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

The Status of Bridge Management in Australasia

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Needs Bridge condition BMS Analytical Process Predictions Options Costs

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Top-Down Approach Budgets Standards

Bottom-Up Approach Budgets Costs

Figure 2 The optimisation process

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

MR&R Module: Analysis Module: Models Module:

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

The Planning Level

The Administration Level

Bridge management systems the state of the art

The Preventive Maintenance Level

Routine inspections and routine maintenance Special Inspections

Bridge management systems the state of the art

The Price Catalogue The Optimisation Module

The Budget and Cost Module The Experience Module

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Status of Bridge Management Systems within Australia and New Zealand

Bridge management systems the state of the art

R T A N SW VicR o ad s Yes Yes 4 PO N T IS E E C D E C D A A E Yes Yes PO N T IS E E C E C B B B B B

D U S AC T D IER T as Yes No E E E E E E A A A E Yes No E E B B E B C B B E

Bridge management systems the state of the art

populated and working Stage of Development

being developed under consideration

Figure 3 Status of module development by Austroads Member Authorities (Mean Value)

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Queensland Department of Main Roads

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern Territory

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Fuzzy Set Theory

Bridge management systems the state of the art

Life Cycle Cost Models

Bridge management systems the state of the art