IABMAS-BMC-BMS-Report-20100806[1].pdf

THE IABMAS BRIDGE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

OVERVIEW OF EXISTING BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

2010

Photo’s cover © Rijkswaterstaat, the Netherlands

Adey, Klatter, Kong IABMAS 2010

3

THE IABMAS BRIDGE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

OVERVIEW OF EXISTING BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

2010

July, 2010

Bryan T. Adey

Institute for Construction and Infrastructure Management,

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland

E-mail: [email protected]

Leo Klatter

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Center for

Public Works, The Netherlands


Jung S. Kong

School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Korea University, Address: Seoul, Korea



4


5

Members of the IABMAS Bridge Management Committee 2010

Adams, Teresa, USA

Adey, Bryan T., Switzerland Aldayuz, Jose, USA

Bien, Jan, Poland

Bleiziffer, Jelena, Croatia

Branco, Fernando, Portugal

Bruehwiler, Eugen, Switzerland

Ellis, Reed, Canada

Furuta, Hitoshi, Japan

Hajdin, Rade, Switzerland

Hawk, Hugh, Canada

Jensen, Jens Sandager, Denmark Kerley, Malcolm, USA

Klatter, Leo, the Netherlands

Kong, Jung Sik, South Korea

McCarten, Peter, New Zealand

Messervey, Tom, Italy

Neves, Luis, Portugal

Pardi, Livia, Italy

Shepard, Richard, USA

Shirole, Arun, USA

Söderqvist, Marja-Kaarina, Finland Thompson, Paul, USA

Zandonini, Riccardo, Italy


6


7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 12

2 GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Level of ownership......................................................................................................................................15

2.2 Number of users .........................................................................................................................................16

2.3 Years of first and current versions..............................................................................................................17

3 IT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................. 20

3.1 Type of architecture ...................................................................................................................................20

3.2 Mode of data entry ....................................................................................................................................21

3.3 Reporting capabilities.................................................................................................................................22

3.4 Web access.................................................................................................................................................22

4 INVENTORY INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 22

4.1 Total number of objects .............................................................................................................................22

4.2 Number of bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls and other objects ...................................................23

4.3 Archived construction information.............................................................................................................24

4.4 Archived inspection and intervention information.....................................................................................25

5 INSPECTION INFORMATION................................................................................................................... 26

5.1 Level of information storage ......................................................................................................................26

5.2 Information handled on the element level .................................................................................................26

5.3 Information handled on the structure level................................................................................................28

6 INTERVENTION INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 29

6.1 Information handled on the element level .................................................................................................29

6.2 Information handled on the structure level................................................................................................30

6.3 Information handled on the project level...................................................................................................30

6.4 Intervention costs.......................................................................................................................................31

6.5 Prioritization...............................................................................................................................................32

7 PREDICTION INFORMATION................................................................................................................... 32

7.1 Predictive capabilities.................................................................................................................................32

7.2 Planning time frames .................................................................................................................................34

7.3 Uses of prediction information...................................................................................................................36

8 OPERATION INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 37

8.1 Data collection ...........................................................................................................................................37


8

8.2 Education and qualification .......................................................................................................................38

9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 40

9.1 on the BMSs in the report...........................................................................................................................40

9.2 on the type of information gathered..........................................................................................................40

9.3 on the process of compiling this report ......................................................................................................41

10 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 41

11 QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................................................................................. 42

11.1 Ontario Bridge Management System, OBMS.............................................................................................42

11.2 Quebec Bridge Management System, QBMS .............................................................................................46

11.3 DANBRO Bridge Management System, DANBRO.......................................................................................49

11.4 The Finnish Bridge Management System, FBMS ........................................................................................52

11.5 Bauwerk Management System, GBMS ......................................................................................................55

11.6 Eirspan........................................................................................................................................................58

11.7 APT-BMS, APTBMS .....................................................................................................................................62

11.8 BMS@RPI, RPIBMS .....................................................................................................................................65

11.9 Korea Road Maintenance Business System, KRMBS ..................................................................................68

11.10 Lat Brutus...............................................................................................................................................71

11.11 DISK........................................................................................................................................................74

11.12 SMOK .....................................................................................................................................................77

11.13 SZOK.......................................................................................................................................................80

11.14 SGP.........................................................................................................................................................83

11.15 Bridge and Tunnel Management System, BaTMan ...............................................................................87

11.16 KUBA ......................................................................................................................................................91

11.17 ABIMS.....................................................................................................................................................94

11.18 Pontis .....................................................................................................................................................97


9

TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. LEVEL OF OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................................................16 FIGURE 2. NUMBER OF USERS.....................................................................................................................................17 FIGURE 3. YEARS OF FIRST AND CURRENT VERSIONS .................................................................................................17 FIGURE 4. TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE .............................................................................................................................20 FIGURE 5. MODE OF DATA ENTRY ...............................................................................................................................22 FIGURE 6. TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER PRINCIPAL USER....................................................................................23 FIGURE 7. TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER OBJECT TYPE PER PRINCIPAL USER .......................................................24 FIGURE 8. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NUMBER ..............................................................................................................24 FIGURE 9. ARCHIVED CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION................................................................................................25 FIGURE 10. NUMBER OF CONDITION STATES..............................................................................................................27 FIGURE 11. COST INFORMATION.................................................................................................................................31 FIGURE 12. PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES .........................................................................................................................33 FIGURE 13. PLANNING TIME FRAMES .........................................................................................................................34 FIGURE 14. USES OF PREDICTION INFORMATION .......................................................................................................36 FIGURE 15. RIGHTS TO USE..........................................................................................................................................37 FIGURE 16. EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................................39


10

TABLE OF TABLES

TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (1) ........................................................................................................................14 TABLE 2. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (1) ........................................................................................................................15 TABLE 3. LEVEL OF OWNERSHIP AND NUMBER OF USERS..........................................................................................16 TABLE 4. YEARS OF FIRST VERSIONS............................................................................................................................18 TABLE 5. YEARS OF CURRENT VERSIONS .....................................................................................................................19 TABLE 6. TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE, MODE OF DATA ENTRY, WEB ACCESS ..................................................................21 TABLE 7. NUMBER OF OBJECTS PER OBJECT TYPE.......................................................................................................23 TABLE 8. ARCHIVED CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION..................................................................................................25 TABLE 9. COLLECTION OF INSPECTION DATA AND ABILITY TO ENTER CONDITION, SAFETY, VULNERABILITY AND

RISK, AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY INFORMATION FROM INSPECTIONS ON THE ELEMENT LEVEL..............26 TABLE 10. NUMBER OF CONDITION STATES................................................................................................................28 TABLE 11. ABILITY TO ENTER CONDITION, SAFETY, VULNERABILITY AND RISK, AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY

INFORMATION FROM INSPECTIONS ON THE STRUCTURE LEVEL .......................................................................29 TABLE 12. INTERVENTION INFORMATION ON THE ELEMENT, STRUCTURE AND PROJECT LEVEL...............................30 TABLE 13. COST AND PRIORITIZATION INFORMATION ...............................................................................................32 TABLE 14. PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES ...........................................................................................................................33 TABLE 15. TIME FRAME FOR SHORT-TERM PREDICTIONS...........................................................................................35 TABLE 16. TIME FRAME FOR LONG-TERM PREDICTIONS ............................................................................................35 TABLE 17. USES OF PREDICTION INFORMATION .........................................................................................................36 TABLE 18. RIGHTS TO USE............................................................................................................................................38 TABLE 19. EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATION ..............................................................................................................39


11

ABSTRACT

Even though infrastructure managers are increasingly using infrastructure management systems to

support their decision making processes, most owners and developers of these systems lack an up-to-

date view of the capabilities of the most advanced of these systems and how their system compares to

others. Such knowledge can be used to help determine future development of their systems or allow

identification of who to contact to investigate in detail how others have done, or are doing, what they are planning to do.

To fill this knowledge gap the bridge management committee of IABMAS decided in July of 2008 to

compile a report on the bridge management systems of the world to be issued in conjunction with the

2010 IABMAS conference. The report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge

management systems (Table 1), from 15 countries, being used to manage approximately 900’000

objects. It provides a general overview of the bridge management systems and does not focus on the

details of specific procedures used within the systems. It is expected that it will improve infrastructure

management by reducing duplicate efforts in the integration of new functionality into management

systems and by encouraging the development of ever better systems.

The main body of this report includes a summary of the information in the questionnaires and basic comparisons between the systems. The information summarized and compared includes:

- General system information,

- IT system information,

- Inventory information of the principal user,

- Inspection information, including structure types, and numbers of structures per structure type

- Intervention information, including data collection level, information on the assessment on the

element level, information on the assessment on the structure level,

- Prediction information, including the aspects being modeled, and

- Operation information, with respect to data collection and quality assurance.

The questionnaires are given in the appendix.


12

1 INTRODUCTION

Well functioning infrastructure, is vital to the prosperity and well-being of the people of a country. It

should be managed to maximize its benefit to society; requiring the implementation and systematic

following of appropriate procedures and practices to ensure that optimal intervention strategies are

determined and followed. In order to handle the amount of information required to do this, for even

moderately sized networks, an increasing number of infrastructure owners are supporting their decision making process with increasingly sophisticated computerized management systems.

Although ultimately it is expected that management systems will include all infrastructure objects1 and

their roles within their respective networks in an integrated manner, the current state of the art is the

development and implementation of management systems that ‘best match’ current practice and

decision making. Bridges, due to their individuality, complexity, and the significant impact on society if

they do not function as intended, have often been the starting point for the development of these

systems, and hence the use of the terminology bridge management system, even though many of these

systems are often used to handle many other objet types.

Even though infrastructure management systems are in full development most owners and developers

of these systems lack an up-to-date view of the capabilities of the most advanced of these systems and how their system compares to others. Such knowledge could be used to help determine future

development of their systems or allow identification of who to contact to investigate in detail how

others have done, or are doing, what they are planning to do.

To fill this knowledge gap the bridge management committee of IABMAS decided in July of 2008 to

compile a report on the bridge management systems of the world to be issued in conjunction with the

2010 IABMAS conference. The report is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge

management systems (Table 1), from 15 countries, being used to manage approximately 900’000

objects. It provides a general overview of the bridge management systems and does not focus on the

details of specific procedures used within the systems. For example, no information is given on how cost

calculations are made, only whether or not they are made. This type of information can be found in other reports, for example [1, 2]. It is expected that this report will improve infrastructure management

by reducing duplicate efforts in the integration of new functionality into management systems and by

encouraging the development of ever better systems.

The main body of this report includes a summary of the information in the questionnaires and basic

comparisons between the systems. The information summarized and compared includes:

- General system information (i.e. general information on the management system),

- IT information (i.e. general information about the information technology aspects of the

management system),

- Inventory information (i.e. information on the infrastructure objects owned or managed by the

principal user of the management system, including structure types, numbers of structures per structure type, and archives),

1 An infrastructure object is an item in a network that is often considered as a single unit, e.g. bridge, road section,

retaining wall. The word “object” is used instead of “structure” as many items that may be considered in

management systems are not necessarily seen by all people as structures, e.g. a road sign or a culvert.


13

- Inspection information (i.e. information about inspections where the information obtained is

either entered into or used by the management system, such as the information collected and

how it is collected),

- Intervention information (i.e. information about maintenance and preservation activities such as

repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities, that is either entered into or used by the management system, including data collection level, information on the assessment on the

element level, information on the assessment on the structure level),

- Prediction information (i.e. the aspects being predicted by the management system, as well as

how these predictions are made, including the types of algorithms used, where applicable),

- Operational information (i.e. information with respect to how data entered into the

management system is collected and how its quality is assured), and

- Additional information (i.e. a blank field for the entry of additional information if desired).

This report summarizes the information included in the questionnaires and provides basic comparisons

between systems. Table 1 contains, for each system investigated, the country of ownership, the name of

the owner, the name of the system, the abbreviation used for the system in this report, and the contact person for more information about the system and their e-mail address.

Due to ambiguity in some of the answers provided in the questionnaires there may be some errors in

the synthesis of the results. These ambiguities often resulted from a misunderstanding of the question.


14

Table 1. Management Systems (1)

System Contact person* No. Country Owner

Name Abb. Name E-Mail

1 Canada

Ontario Ministry of

Transportation and Stantec

Consulting Ltd.

Ontario Bridge

Management

System

OBMS Reed Ellis reed.ellis@sta

ntec.com

2 Canada Quebec Ministry of

Transportation

Quebec Bridge

Management

System

QBMS Reed Ellis reed.ellis@sta

ntec.com

3 Denmark Danish Road Directorate

DANBRO

Bridge

Management

System

DANBRO Jørn

Lauridsen

jorn.lauridsen

@vd.dk

4 Finland Finnish Transport Agency

The Finnish

Bridge

Management

System

FBMS

Marja-

Kaarina

Söderqvist

Marja-

Kaarina.Soder

qvist@liikenn

evirasto.fi

5 Germany German Federal Highway

Research Institute

Bauwerk

Management

System

GBMS Peter Haardt Haardt@bast.

de

6 Ireland Irish National Road

Association Eirspan Eirspan Liam Duffy [email protected]

7 Italy Autonomous Province of

Trento APT-BMS APTBMS

Daniele

Zonto

daniele.zonta

@unitn.it

8 Japan

Kajima Corporation and

Regional Planning Institute of

Osaka

BMS@RPI RPIBMS Makoto

Kaneuji

mackaneuji@k

ajima.com

9 Korea

Korean Ministry of Land,

Transport and Maritime

Affairs

Korea Road

Maintenance

Business

System

KRMBS K.H. Park [email protected]

r.

10 Latvia Latvian State Road

Administration Lat Brutus

Lat

Brutus Ilmars Jurka

[email protected]

v

11 Netherla

nds Dutch ministry of transport DISK DISK Leo Klatter

leo.klatter@r

ws.nl

12 Poland Polish Railway Lines SMOK SMOK Jan Bien Jan.Bien@pwr

.wroc.pl

13 Poland Local Polish Road

Administrations SZOK SZOK Jan Bien

Jan.Bien@pwr

.wroc.pl

14 Spain Spanish Ministry of Public

Works SGP SGP

Joan R.

Casas

joan.ramon.ca

[email protected]

15 Sweden Swedish Road Administration

Bridge and

Tunnel

Management

System

BaTMan

Bosse

Eriksson

Lennart

Lindlad

bo-

e.eriksson@vv

.se

lennart.lindbla

[email protected]

*All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31, 2009.


15

Table 2. Management Systems (1)

System Contact person* No. Country Owner

Name Abb. Name E-Mail

16 Switzer-

land Swiss Federal Roads Authority KUBA KUBA Rade Hajdin

rade.hajdin@i

mc-ch.com

17

United

States of

America

Alabama Department of

Transportation ABIMS ABIMS Eric Christie

christiee@dot

.state.al.us

18

United

States of

America

American Association of State

Highway and Transportation

Officials

Pontis Pontis José Aldayuz jaldayuz@mb

akercorp.com

*All questionnaires were received between June 1 and October 31, 2009.

2 GENERAL SYSTEM INFORMATION

The following general system information is summarized in the report:

- The level of system ownership,

- The number of users of the system, and

- The years of the first and current version of the systems.

The following general system information is only provided in the questionnaires in the appendix:

- The name and the web page address of the owner of the system,

- The name and the web page address of the developers of the system, and

- The names of, and how to access, the references and manuals related to the system.

2.1 Level of ownership

The level of ownership indicates the level, i.e. country level, province, state canton or prefecture level,

or country or municipality level, at which system changes are coordinated (Figure 1, Table 3). For

example, if a system is listed as being on the country level than when a new version of the system is

released by AASHTO, e.g. Pontis 5.2 to replace Pontis 5.1, replaces all licensed version of the system,

even if they are used by an organization on the provincial level. This characterization includes systems

owned by a government organization (e.g. KUBA is owned by the Federal Roads Authority of

Switzerland) or a private organization (e.g. Pontis is owned by American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials; a private organization) on a specific level. The majority of systems are

owned at the country level (12/18), and only one (SZOK) was owned at a municipality level.


16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Country Province/ State/

Canton/ Prefecture

County/ Municipality

Nu

mb

er

of

Sy

ste

ms

Level of ownership

Figure 1. Level of ownership

Table 3. Level of ownership and number of users

Level of ownership Number of users

No. Country Name Country

Province/

State/

Canton/

Prefecture

County/

Municipality Single Multiple

1 Canada OBMS 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1 1

4 Finland FBMS 1 1

5 Germany GBMS 1 1

6 Ireland Eirspan 1 1

7 Italy APTBMS 1 1

8 Japan RPIBMS 1 1

9 Korea KRBMS 1 1

10 Latvia Lat Brutus 1 1

11 Netherlands DISK 1 1

12 Poland SMOK 1 1

13 Poland SZOK 1 1

14 Spain SGP 1 1

15 Sweden BaTMan 1 1

16 Switzerland KUBA 1 1

17 USA ABMS 1 1

18 USA Pontis 1 1

Total 12 5 1 6 12

*USA – United States of America

2.2 Number of users

The number of users of each system (Table 3), indicated as either single or multiple, gives an indication

of the extent of use of the systems (Figure 2). 12/18 of the systems are used by multiple users indicating


17

that many bridge managers use the systems of others instead of developing their own. Cross-border

users are rare. PONTIS is the only system that reports foreign users.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Single Multiple

Nu

mb

er

of

Sy

ste

ms

Number of users

Figure 2. Number of users

2.3 Years of first and current versions

The years of the first and current versions of the systems give an indication of the use of systems and how actively systems are being modified (Figure 3, Table 4, Table 5). Since the first release dates of

systems are relatively evenly distributed over time, starting in 1985 with DISK, it can be inferred that

there are steadily more administrations using management systems to support their decision making.

Since the majority of systems (14/17) have new versions released in the last five year period and one,

the GBMS, is scheduled for release in the near future, it can be inferred that systems, in general, are

actively being developed.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009

Nu

mb

er

of

Sy

ste

ms

Year

First version

Current version

Figure 3. Years of first and current versions


18

Table 4. Years of first versions

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Country

Can

ad

a

Can

ad

a

De

nm

ark

Fin

lan

d

Ge

rman

y

Ire

lan

d

Ital

y

Jap

an

Ko

rea

Latv

ia

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

lan

d

Spai

n

Swe

de

n

Swit

zerl

and

USA

USA

Name

OB

MS

QB

MS

DA

NB

RO

FBM

S

GB

MS

Eirs

pan

AP

TBM

S

RP

IBM

S

KR

BM

S

Lat

Bru

tus

DIS

K

SMO

K

SZO

K

SGP

BaT

Ma

n

KU

BA

AB

MS

Po

nti

s

Tota

l

1985 1 1

1986 0

1987 1 1

1988 1 1

1989 0

1990 1 1

1991 1 1

1992 1 1

1993 0

1994 1 1

1995 0

1996 0

1997 1 1

1998 1 1

1999 0

2000 0

2001 1 1

2002 1 1 2

2003 1 1

2004 1 1

2005 1 1

2006 1 1

2007 0

2008 1 1

2009 0


19

Table 5. Years of current versions

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Country

Can

ad

a

Can

ad

a

De

nm

ark

Fin

lan

d

Ger

man

y

Irel

and

Ital

y

Jap

an

Ko

rea

Latv

ia

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

lan

d

Spai

n

Swe

de

n

Swit

zerl

and

USA

USA

Name

OB

MS

QB

MS

DA

NB

RO

FBM

S

GB

MS

Eirs

pan

AP

TBM

S

RP

IBM

S

KR

BM

S

Lat

Bru

tus

DIS

K

SMO

K

SZO

K

SGP

BaT

Ma

n

KU

BA

AB

MS

Po

nti

s

Tota

l

1985 0

1986 0

1987 0

1988 0

1989 0

1990 0

1991 0

1992 0

1993 0

1994 1 1

1995 0

1996 0

1997 0

1998 0

1999 0

2000 0

2001 0

2002 0

2003 0

2004 1 1 2

2005 0

2006 1 1

2007 1 1

2008 1 1 1 1 4

2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8


20

3 IT INFORMATION

The following IT information is summarized in the report:

- Type of architecture,

- Mode of data entry,

- Reporting capabilities, and

- Web access.

Information on the system platform is only provided in the questionnaires in the appendix.

3.1 Type of architecture

A wide range of information over the architecture of the systems was given. The majority of systems are

either two tier or three tier systems (Figure 4). More information with respect to the architecture can be

found in the questionnaires in the appendix. Much of this information is not easily reducible.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier

Nu

mb

er

of

Sy

ste

ms

Architecture

Figure 4. Type of Architecture


21

Table 6. Type of architecture, mode of data entry, web access

Type of system

architecture Mode of data entry*

Web

Access

No. Country Name

1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier

Desktop

and

portable

computer

Only

desktop

computer

Un-

clear Yes No

1 Canada OBMS 1 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1 1 1

4 Finland FBMS 1 1 1

5 Germany GBMS 1

6 Ireland Eirspan 1 1 1

7 Italy APTBMS 1 1 1

8 Japan RPIBMS 1 1 1

9 Korea KRBMS 1 1 1

10 Latvia Lat Brutus 1 1 1

11 Netherlands DISK 1 1 1

12 Poland SMOK 1 1 1

13 Poland SZOK 1 1 1

14 Spain SGP 1 1 1

15 Sweden BaTMan 1 1 1

16 Switzerland KUBA 1 1 1

17 USA ABMS 1 1 1

18 USA Pontis 1 1 1

Total 1 10 6 5 11 2 12 7

*How data is entered into the system.

3.2 Mode of data entry

The majority (12/18) systems have the capability to enter data at a desk top computer, whereas 4

systems have the ability to enter data both at a desk top computer and through mobile computers

(Figure 5, Table 6).


22

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Only desktop computer Desktop and portable

computers

Unclear

Nu

mb

er

of

Sys

tem

s

Mode of data entry

Figure 5. Mode of data entry

3.3 Reporting capabilities

All systems have reporting capabilities. As the GBMS is a prototype this information was not given.

3.4 Web access

Ten of the systems allow access to information in the system over the internet (Table 6).

4 INVENTORY INFORMATION

The following inventory information is summarized in the report:

- The total number of objects in the system,

- The number of bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls and other objects, in the system

- The archived construction information in the system, and

- The archived inspection and intervention information in the system.

4.1 Total number of objects

The inventory information reported is that of the principal user. This was possible for all systems except

for Pontis. As Pontis is owned by a private company (at the country level) it is used on principally on the the state level, being licensed to 44 of the States in the USA, and therefore has no single principal user.

For Pontis, the approximate numbers of objects given are those in all of the States in the USA. The total

number of objects per system range from zero, for the GBMS which is still a prototype and for SZOK

where the numbers were not given, to 750’000 for Pontis (Figure 6 ).


23

54

00 92

00

12

05

0

14

68

5

0

28

00

10

11

75

0

56

31

17

79

47

95

33

27

6

0

22

50

8

17

81

83

40

15

84

2

75

00

00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

OB

MS

QB

MS

DA

NB

RO

FBM

S

GB

MS

Eirs

pan

AP

TBM

S

RP

IBM

S

KR

BM

S

Lat B

rutu

s

DIS

K

SMO

K

SZO

K

SGP

BaT

Man

KU

BA

AB

MS

Po

nti

s

Nu

mb

er

of

Ob

ject

s

System

Figure 6. Total number of objects per principal user

Table 7. Number of objects per object type

No. Country Name Bridges Culverts Tunnels Retaining

Walls

Other

objects Total

1 Canada OBMS 2’800 1’900 0 700 0 5’400

2 Canada QBMS 8’700 0 0 500 0 9’200

3 Denmark DANBRO 6’000 6’000 0 50 0 12’050

4 Finland FBMS 11’487 3’078 20 0 100 14’685

5 Germany GBMS 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Ireland Eirspan 2’800 0 0 0 0 2’800

7 Italy APTBMS 1’011 0 0 0 0 1’011

8 Japan RPIBMS 750 0 0 0 0 750

9 Korea KRBMS 5’317 0 314 0 0 5’631

10 Latvia Lat Brutus 934 845 0 0 0 1’779

11 Netherlands DISK 4’000 600 14 20 161 4’795

12 Poland SMOK 8’290 24’189 26 771 0 33’276

13 Poland SZOK 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Spain SGP 13’252 5’979 0 0 3’277 22’508

15 Sweden BaTMan 288 300 800 13 380 1’781

16 Switzerland KUBA 5’000 1’250 365 1’000 725 8’340

17 USA ABMS 9’728 6’112 2 0 0 15’842

18 USA Pontis 500’000 250’000 0 0 0 750’000

Total 580’357 300’253 1’541 3’054 4’643 889’848

4.2 Number of bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls and other objects

The predominant use of the systems is for bridges, although SMOK has more culverts than bridges

(24’189 vs. 8’290), and BatMan has more tunnels than bridges (800 vs. 288). The total number of objects

per object type can be seen for all systems in Table 7, and for all systems except Pontis in Figure 7.

Pontis has approximately 250’000 culverts and 500’000 bridges. For Pontis, no other object types were

reported although it is known that at least some states use it for the management of sign structures,

high mast light poles, traffic signal mast arms, retaining walls, tunnels, and drainage structures. The


24

percentage of total number of object type/ total number of objects can be seen in Figure 8 and Table 7.

It can be seen that some systems are used to deal exclusively with bridges, such as APTBMS and Eirspan,

whereas others are used to deal with a wide range of infrastructure objects, such as BatMan and KUBA.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

OB

MS

QB

MS

DA

NB

RO

FBM

S

GB

MS

Eirs

pan

AP

TBM

S

RP

IBM

S

KR

BM

S

Lat B

rutu

s

DIS

K

SMO

K

SZO

K

SGP

BaT

Man

KU

BA

AB

MS

Po

nti

s

Nu

mb

er

of

Ob

ject

s

System

Other objects

Retaining Walls

Tunnels

Culverts

Bridges

Figure 7. Total number of objects per object type per principal user

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

OB

MS

QB

MS

DA

NB

RO

FBM

S

GB

MS

Eirs

pan

AP

TBM

S

RP

IBM

S

KR

BM

S

Lat B

rutu

s

DIS

K

SMO

K

SZO

K

SGP

BaT

Man

KU

BA

AB

MS

Po

nti

s

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

tota

l n

um

be

r o

f o

bje

cts

System

Other objects

Retaining Walls

Tunnels

Culverts

Bridges

Figure 8. Percentage of total number

4.3 Archived construction information

Only five of the systems permit construction information to be archived in the system, although the

majority of systems allow the information to be either stored in some way or referenced (Figure 9). It

was assumed that if data could be entered into the system that reports could also be uploaded.


25

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Basic data

entered, uploaded

reports

Uploaded reports References No or not given

Nu

mb

er

of

Syst

em

s

Type of archived construction information

Figure 9. Archived construction information

Table 8. Archived construction information

No. Country Name

Basic data

entered,

uploaded

reports

Uploaded

reports References No or not given

1 Canada OBMS 1

2 Canada QBMS 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1

4 Finland FBMS 1

5 Germany GBMS 1

6 Ireland Eirspan 1

7 Italy APTBMS 1

8 Japan RPIBMS 1

9 Korea KRBMS 1

10 Latvia Lat Brutus 1

11 Netherlands DISK 1

12 Poland SMOK 1

13 Poland SZOK 1

14 Spain SGP 1

15 Sweden BaTMan 1

16 Switzerland KUBA 1

17 USA ABMS 1

18 USA Pontis 1

Total 5 5 5 3

4.4 Archived inspection and intervention information

All systems currently in operation allow archiving of inspection and intervention information.

Information for the GBMS was not given.


26

5 INSPECTION INFORMATION

The following inspection information is summarized in the report:

- Level of information storage (element or structure),

- Type of information handled on element level,

- Type of information handled on structure level, and

- Type of information handled on project level.

5.1 Level of information storage

All systems currently in operation allow the storing of inspection information at both the element and

structure level (Table 9). The only system where this was not reported was the GBMS, the prototype.

Table 9. Collection of inspection data and ability to enter condition, safety, vulnerability and risk, and load carrying capacity information from inspections on the element level

Inspection data

on element level Condition

Safety,

vulnerability, risk

Load carrying

capacity No. Country Name

Yes Not

given Yes No Yes No Yes No

1 Canada OBMS 1 1 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1 1 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1 1 1 1

4 Finland FBMS 1 1 1 1

5 Germany GBMS 1 1 1 1

6 Ireland Eirspan 1 1 1 1

7 Italy APTBMS 1 1 1 1

8 Japan RPIBMS 1 1 1 1

9 Korea KRBMS 1 1 1 1

10 Latvia Lat Brutus 1 1 1 1

11 Netherlan

ds

DISK 1 1 1 1

12 Poland SMOK 1 1 1 1

13 Poland SZOK 1 1 1 1

14 Spain SGP 1 1 1 1

15 Sweden BaTMan 1 1 1 1

16 Switzerlan

d

KUBA 1 1 1 1

17 USA ABMS 1 1 1 1

18 USA Pontis 1 1 1 1

Total 17 1 18 0 14 4 8 10

5.2 Information handled on the element level

The following was reported on the element level (Table 9):

- All 18 of the systems handle information on condition.

- Fourteen of the systems handle information related to safety, vulnerability or risk. There is,

however, some ambiguity in how respondents interpreted the field on safety, vulnerability, risk,


27

at the element level. It was intended that there was at least some explicit consideration of the

probability of failure of the element and the consequences of the element failing.

- Eight of the systems handle information on load carrying capacity.

Although not specifically requested in the questionnaire, information was provided on the number of

condition states used in each system for 16 systems (Figure 10, Table 10).The majority of systems use ratings of six condition states or fewer. Although noted in the questionnaire as “not given” it is known

that Pontis can handle up to five condition states. In Pontis the number of condition states used

depends on the organization that licenses it. The range of condition states currently being used is three

to five, with four being the most common.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 Not

given

Nu

mb

er

of

Sy

ste

ms

Number of condition states

Figure 10. Number of condition states


28

Table 10. Number of condition states

Number of condition states

No. Country Name 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

Not

given

1 Canada OBMS 1

2 Canada QBMS 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1

4 Finland FBMS 1

5 Germany GBMS 1

6 Ireland Eirspan 1

7 Italy APTBMS 1

8 Japan RPIBMS 1

9 Korea KRBMS 1


11 Netherlands DISK 1

12 Poland SMOK 1

13 Poland SZOK 1

14 Spain SGP 1

15 Sweden BaTMan 1


17 USA ABMS 1

18 USA Pontis 1

Total 1 5 4 4 0 0 1 1 2

5.3 Information handled on the structure level

The following was reported that on the structure level (Table 11):

- Seventeen of the systems handle condition information from inspections. The other, the FBMS,

generates a condition rating for the structure based on element level information.

- Thirteen of the systems handle information from inspections with respect to safety, risk,

vulnerability. The same ambiguity exists on the structure level as on the element level, though.

- Fourteen systems handle information from inspections on load carrying capacity. There is, however, some ambiguity in the answers provided. The question was intended to determine

whether information on the load carry capacity could be entered during an inspection. It is not

clear that all respondents interpreted the question in this way. For example, many state

agencies in the USA commonly do not ask their inspectors to determine the load-carrying

capacity of a structure, but enter the information into the system once it is calculated by an

engineer.


29

Table 11. Ability to enter condition, safety, vulnerability and risk, and load carrying capacity information from inspections on the structure level

Condition Safety, vulnerability,

risk Load carrying capacity

No. Country Name

Yes No Yes No Not

given Yes No

Not

given

1 Canada OBMS 1 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1 1



5 Germany GBMS 1 1 1




9 Korea KRBMS 1 1 1

10 Latvia Lat

Brutus 1 1 1

11 Netherla

nds

DISK 1 1 1



14 Spain SGP 1 1 1


16 Switzerla

nd

KUBA 1 1 1

17 USA ABMS 1 1 1

18 USA Pontis 1 1 1

Total 17 1 13 3 2 14 2 2

6 INTERVENTION INFORMATION

The following intervention information is summarized in the report:

- The type of interventions handled on the element level,

- The type of interventions handled on the structure level,

- The type of interventions handled on the project level, and

- The type of costs information handled,

6.1 Information handled on the element level

The following was reported that on the element level (Table 12):

- Twelve of the systems have predefined interventions.

- Sixteen of the systems allow user defined interventions.

- Thirteen of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies.


30

Table 12. Intervention information on the element, structure and project level

Element level Structure level Project level

No. Country Name

Pre

de

fin

ed

stan

dar

d

Use

r d

efin

ed

/

cust

om

Inte

rve

nti

on

stra

tegy

Pre

de

fin

ed

stan

dar

d

Use

r d

efin

ed

/

cust

om

Inte

rve

nti

on

stra

tegy

Pre

de

fin

ed

stan

dar

d

Use

r d

efin

ed

/

cust

om

Inte

rve

nti

on

stra

tegy

1 Canada OBMS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 Finland FBMS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 Germany GBMS

6 Ireland Eirspan 1 1 1 1 1


8 Japan RPIBMS 1 1 1 1 1

9 Korea KRBMS

10 Latvia Lat Brutus 1 1 1 1 1 1

11 Netherlan

ds DISK 1 1 1 1





16 Switzerlan

d KUBA 1 1 1 1 1

17 USA ABMS 1 1 1 1

18 USA Pontis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total 12 16 13 8 14 8 2 9 5

6.2 Information handled on the structure level

The following was reported on the structure level (Table 12):

- Eight of the systems have predefined interventions.

- Fourteen of the systems allow user defined intervention.

- Eight of the systems either calculate or allow entry of intervention strategies.

There is, however, some ambiguity in the answers. Some respondents stated that the predefined interventions on the structure level were built from the predefined interventions on the element level

where it is expected that others may not have indicated this even if it was true.

6.3 Information handled on the project level

The following was reported on the project level (Table 12):

- Two of the systems have predefined interventions.


31

- Nine of the systems allow user defined intervention.

- Two of the systems either calculate, or allow entry of, intervention strategies.

It is believed, however, that the question was not commonly understood. It was meant to mean that

multiple objects could be taken into consideration.

6.4 Intervention costs

The following was reported with respect to intervention costs (Figure 11, Table 13):

- Seventeen of the systems can handle intervention cost information. The exception is the

KRSBM.

- Eleven of the systems consider life-cycle costing at least partly.

- Only a minority of systems (6/18) handle inspection costs.

- Nine of the systems handle traffic delay costs. These systems either calculate or allow entry of

the costs of traffic delay.

- Nine of the systems handle indirect user costs. These systems either calculate or allow entry of

the indirect costs.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Inspection

cost

Intervention

cost

Traffic delay

cost

Indirect user

cost

Life-cycle

costing

Nu

mb

er

of

Sys

tem

s

Cost information

Figure 11. Cost information


32

Table 13. Cost and prioritization information

Cost information Prioritization

No. Country Name In-

spection

cost

Inter-

vention

cost

Traffic

delay

cost

Indirect

user cost

Life-cycle

costing Yes No

1 Canada OBMS 1 1 1 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1 1 1 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 Finland FBMS 1 1

5 Germany GBMS 1 1 1 1 1

6 Ireland Eirspan 1 1 1 1 1



9 Korea KRBMS 1

10 Latvia Lat Brutus 1 1

11 Netherlands DISK 1 1 1 1

12 Poland SMOK 1 1

13 Poland SZOK 1 1


15 Sweden BaTMan 1 1 1 1 1

16 Switzerland KUBA 1 1 1 1 1 1

17 USA ABMS 1 1 1

18 USA Pontis 1 1 1 1 1

Total 6 17 9 9 11 12 6

6.5 Prioritization

Twelve of the systems prioritize interventions, although there are seemingly large differences in how

interventions are prioritized, including the use of condition, cost benefit analysis, risk, combined rating

of multiple priority indices and using user defined ratings (Table 13). This information can be found in

the questionnaires in the appendix.

7 PREDICTION INFORMATION

The following prediction information is summarized in the report:

- Predictive capabilities of the systems;

- Planning time frames; and

- Uses of prediction information

7.1 Predictive capabilities

The following was reported with respect to predictive capabilities (Figure 12, Table 14):

- Nine of the systems can predict deterioration. Five of these systems use probabilistic methods.


33

- Nine of the systems are reported to predict improvement, i.e. the improvement due to future

interventions, of which two are reported to use probabilistic methods.

- Thirteen of the systems are reported to predict costs. As there are only nine systems that

predict future deterioration and improvements due to future interventions, it is assumed that

the additional four systems that predict costs do so only on an operational basis, i.e. taking into consideration only the existing condition state and likely intervention costs for the objects in

those condition states.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Deterioration Improvement Cost

Nu

mb

er

of

Sy

ste

ms

Predictive capability

Figure 12. Predictive capabilities

Table 14. Predictive capabilities

Deterioration Improvement Cost

Yes Yes No. Country Name Yes

Prob. Det. No Yes

Prob. Det. No Yes No

1 Canada OBMS 1 1 1 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1 1 1 1





7 Italy APTBMS 1 1 1 1 1


9 Korea KRBMS 1 1 1


11 Netherlan

ds

DISK 1 1 1



14 Spain SGP 1 1 1

15 Sweden BaTMan 1 1 1 1 1

16 Switzerlan

d

KUBA 1 1 1 1 1

17 USA ABMS 1 1 1

18 USA Pontis 1 1 1 1 1

Total 9 4 1 9 9 2 1 9 13 5


34

7.2 Planning time frames

Although not asked in the questionnaires, it was possible in many cases to deduce the planning time

frames (Figure 13, Table 15, Table 16). Two time frames were considered:

- a short time frame – for the development of work programs, and

- a long time frame – for the prediction of future budgets and the development of maintenance policies.

The difference between the predictions may either be different methods of calculation or simply a

recommendation of what may be viably considered and what not. In the analysis, the long time frame

was taken to be identical to that of the short, if only one predictive period was specified.

The short time frame prediction periods for Pontis were not given in the questionnaire, most likely

because the agencies that license Pontis are able to configure the work program horizon, i.e. short time

frame, to be any period from five years to 30 years to fit their budgeting processes. A ten-year horizon

is most common. Although the long time frame prediction periods, seen the users of Pontis, was not

reported, most likely due to the freedom agencies that license Pontis have in defining it.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1-5

6-1

0

11

-15

16

-20

21

-25

26

-30

31

-35

36

-40

41

-45

46

-50

51

-55

56

-60

96

-10

0

N/A

No

t gi

ven

Nu

mb

er

of

Sy

ste

ms

Years

Short term

Long term

Figure 13. Planning time frames


35

Table 15. Time frame for short-term predictions

Short term

No. Country Name

1-5

6-1

0

11

-15

16

-20

21

-25

26

-30

31

-35

36

-40

41

-45

46

-50

51

-55

56

-60

96

-10

0

N/A

No

t

giv

en

1 Canada OBMS 1

2 Canada QBMS 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1

4 Finland FBMS 1

5 Germany GBMS 1

6 Ireland Eirspan 1

7 Italy APTBMS 1

8 Japan RPIBMS 1

9 Korea KRBMS 1


11 Netherland

s DISK 1

12 Poland SMOK 1

13 Poland SZOK 1

14 Spain SGP 1

15 Sweden BaTMan 1


17 USA ABMS 1

18 USA Pontis 1

Total 3 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1

Table 16. Time frame for long-term predictions

Long term

No. Country Name

1-5

6-1

0

11

-15

16

-20

21

-25

26

-30

31

-35

36

-40

41

-45

46

-50

51

-55

56

-60

96

-10

0

N/A

No

t

giv

en

1 Canada OBMS 1

2 Canada QBMS 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1

4 Finland FBMS 1

5 Germany GBMS 1

6 Ireland Eirspan 1

7 Italy APTBMS 1

8 Japan RPIBMS 1

9 Korea KRBMS 1


11 Netherland

s DISK 1

12 Poland SMOK 1

13 Poland SZOK 1

14 Spain SGP 1 1

15 Sweden BaTMan


17 USA ABMS 1

18 USA Pontis 1

Total 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 1


36

7.3 Uses of prediction information

The following was reported with respect to the use of prediction information (Figure 14, Table 17):

- Fifteen of the systems are used to prepare budgets.

- Five of the systems are used to set performance standards.

- Eight of the systems are used to match funding sources.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Budget preparation Setting of performance

standards

Matching funding

sources

Nu

mb

er

of

Sys

tem

s

Selected Uses

Figure 14. Uses of prediction information

Table 17. Uses of prediction information

Used for

No. Country Name Budget preparation

Setting of

performance

standards

the determination of

matching funding

sources

1 Canada OBMS 1 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1 1







9 Korea KRBMS 0 0 0





14 Spain SGP 0 0 0



17 USA ABMS 1 0 0

18 USA Pontis 1 0 1

Total 15 5 8


37

8 OPERATION INFORMATION

The following operation information is summarized in the report:

- Data collection information, and

- The education and qualification information of those that use the system

8.1 Data collection

It was reported that in the majority of system (Figure 15, Table 18), that:

- Inventory information is normally collected and entered by both the infrastructure owner and

private companies

- Inspection and assessment information is normally collected and entered by the infrastructure

owners and private companies, and

- Intervention information is normally entered by the infrastructure owner. The planning of

interventions using the system is normally only done by the owner.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Owner Owner and

Companies

Companies

Nu

mb

er

of

Sys

tem

s

Rights to use

Inventory

Inspection/ Assessment

Intervention/ Planning

Figure 15. Rights to use


38

Table 18. Rights to use

Inventory Inspection/

Assessment

Intervention/

Planning

No. Country Name

Ow

ner

Ow

ner

an

d

Co

mp

anie

s

Co

mp

anie

s

Ow

ner

Ow

ner

an

d

Co

mp

anie

s

Co

mp

anie

s

Ow

ner

Ow

ner

an

d

Co

mp

anie

s

Co

mp

anie

s

1 Canada OBMS 1 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1 1







9 Korea KRBMS 1 1 1





14 Spain SGP 1 1 1



17 USA ABMS 1 1 1

18 USA Pontis 1 1 1

Total 3 12 3 1 13 4 13 4 1

8.2 Education and qualification

The following was reported (Figure 16, Table 19) with respect to the education and qualification of those

that use the systems:

- For seventeen of the systems there is education for inspectors that entered data into the

system.

- For fourteen of the systems there is certification of inspectors that enter data into the system.

- For eleven of the systems there is education provided for users of the system.

- For three of the systems there is a certification of the user of the system.


39

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Yes No

Nu

mb

er

of

Sy

ste

ms

Existence

Education for inspectors

Certification of inspectors

Education for users

Certification for users

Figure 16. Education and qualification

Table 19. Education and qualification

Education for

inspectors

Certification of

inspectors

Education for

users

Certification for

users No. Country Name

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

1 Canada OBMS 1 1 1 1

2 Canada QBMS 1 1 1 1

3 Denmark DANBRO 1 1 1 1

4 Finland FBMS 1 1 1 1

5 Germany GBMS 1 1 1 1

6 Ireland Eirspan 1 1 1 1



9 Korea KRBMS 1 1 1 1

10 Latvia Lat Brutus 1 1 1 1

11 Netherlands DISK 1 1 1 1




15 Sweden BaTMan 1 1 1 1

16 Switzerland KUBA 1 1 1 1

17 USA ABMS 1 1 1 1

18 USA Pontis 1 1 1 1

Total 17 1 14 4 11 7 3 15


40

9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Infrastructure managers increasingly use management systems to support their decision-making

processes with respect to the infrastructure objects for which they are responsible. These systems are

being either developed internally by the managing organization itself (with or without the help of

private companies) or are being bought off-the-shelf and modified to suit their needs.

At least partially due the active development of these systems and the many different sources from which this development is taking place, most owners and developers of these systems lack an up-to-

date view of the capabilities of the most advanced of these systems and how their system compares to

others. Such knowledge could be used to help determine future development of their systems or allow

identification of who to contact to investigate in detail how others have done, or are doing, what they

are planning to do.

This report, which is based on the completed questionnaires on 18 bridge management systems (Table

1), from 15 countries, being used to manage approximately 900’000 objects, helps to fill this gap by

providing a general overview of the surveyed management systems.

It is expected that this report will improve infrastructure management by reducing duplicate efforts in

the integration of new functionality into management systems and by encouraging the development of ever better systems.

Some specific conclusions emerging from the synthesis of the questionnaires are included in the

following three subsections.

9.1 on the BMSs in the report

A majority of the systems included in this report are used by multiple users, 12/18 (paragraph 2.2), and

with the exception of PONTIS all systems are used within one country. This is most likely due to the

differences in bridge management practices between countries. It also indicates that when off the shelf

systems are adopted by an agency that they are significantly modified, resulting in a new system and

hence a new name (e.g. Eirspan that was developed using DANBRO as a starting point). Based on this

observation, it is suggested that the need for standardization in the field of bridge (or infrastructure) management be investigated. It is the authors’ opinion that a certain level of standardization could

potentially enhance the exchange of knowledge and experience between managing agents, and improve

the usefulness of management systems.

9.2 on the type of information gathered

The information gathered for this report provides a good overview of features of many of the most

advanced bridge management systems currently used in the world. For the next edition of this report it

is intended to improve the questionnaire:

- to increase the value of the report for the end users,

- to include more bridge management systems, and

- to reduce the effort for respondents.


41

The feedback from the members of the IABMAS BMC and from those who filled out the questionnaires

will be used to make the improvements.

9.3 on the process of compiling this report

The process of sending out questionnaires, responding and compiling the report did not include a

feedback loop to check the completeness of this information and the interpretation of the answers provided in the questionnaires with the respondents. Such a feedback loop will enhance the quality of

the report in terms of consistency and synchronisation of information in the main part of the report and

questionnaires in the appendices. A feedback loop will be included in the compilation of the next

edition.

10 REFERENCES

1. BRIME report BRIME: BRIdge Management in Europe, Final report, 2001, European Commission

DG VII, 4th Framework Programme (www.trl.co.uk/brime/index.htm)

2. Arches, Assessment and Rehabilitation of Central European Highway Structures,

Recommendation on Systematic Decision Making Processes Associated with Maintenance and

Reconstruction of Bridges, Deliverable D09 (ARCHES-02-DE09), August 2009

(http://arches.fehrl.org/)


42

11 QUESTIONNAIRES

11.1 Ontario Bridge Management System, OBMS

Name (version) Ontario Bridge Management System - OBMS

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Stantec Consulting

Ltd.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/ and www.stantec.com

Date implemented (current /

first version)

Version 1.0 (2002)

Current Version 2.0.1 (2008)

Developer(s) (webpage) Stantec Consulting Ltd. (www.stantec.com )

References and Manuals

(available at - languages)

Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM)

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/ (English) Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), municipal agencies in

Ontario, other Canadian Provinces

Aspect description

Platform Oracle and Microsoft Access

Architecture Client Server, and Local Database (eg in field)

Data collection capabilities Desktop computer, and Tablet Computers (eg. in field)

Reporting capabilities Crystal Reports, inventory, inspection, analysis results.

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access No.

Structure types No. Structure types No. Structure types No.

Bored tunnels Locks and sluices Weirs

Bridges 2,800 Retaining Walls 700 Quays

Culverts* 1,900 Storm surge

barriers

Piers

Cut and cover tunnels Support structures * > 3m span

Galleries Protection

structures

Archives description

Construction data Bridge historical maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement contract

cost information.

Inspection reports Stored in system, .pdf reports optional.

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Bridge historical maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement contract

cost information.


43


Data collection level description

Element level Detailed Visual Inspection of all bridge elements (condition state,

severity and extent of defects), and Performance Deficiencies (eg

safety or load carrying capacity)

Structure level Appraisals for Live Load Capacity, Fatigue, Seismic, Scour, Barriers /

Railings/ Curbs

Assessment on element level description

Condition Four (4) condition states, defects identified and quantified by Detailed

Visual Inspection

Safety, vulnerability, risk Performance Measures (load capacity, safety, performance)

Load carrying capacity Performance Measures (load capacity)

Assessment on structure level description

Condition Bridge Condition Index (BCI) out of 100, based on element level

condition

Safety Appraisal Rating for Barriers/Railings and Code Performance Level,

and Appraisal Rating for Curbs

Load carrying capacity Appraisal Rating for Load Capacity, Live Load Capacity (tones), and

Posted Load Limits

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional Appraisal Rating for Fatigue, Appraisal Rating for Seismic, Appraisal

Rating for Scour/Flood


44


Element level description

Predefined standard Default treatments, and unlimited user defined treatments for

maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement, including unit

costs and effectiveness.

User defined/custom Yes, see above.

Intervention strategy Defined Treatments are applied to element condition states,

evaluated using lifecycle cost analysis, and provided to Project Level.

Structure level description

User defined/custom Yes at Element Level.

Predefined standard Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation or Replacement, consistent with

Element Level

Intervention strategies Recommended actions, timing and costs developed from Element

Level and selected based on lifecycle cost analysis.

Project level description

User defined/custom Cost and Benefit adjustment factors can be applied at the Project

Level.

Predefined standard Default is none.

Intervention strategies Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation, or Replacement. Analysis is

based on lifecycle cost analysis framework

Costs description

Inspection cost Cost of inspection is not included.

Intervention cost Intervention costs are specified at element level for specific

treatments

Traffic delay cost Yes, included in user defined project cost factors

Indirect user cost Yes, included in user defined project cost factors

Life-cycle costing Element and Project Level based on lifecycle cost analysis.

Prioritization description

Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Prioritization is based on lifecycle (Benefit/Cost), and on Bridge

Condition Index (BCI) at the Network Level. Budgets can be specified

or Target BCI can be specified.


45


Aspect description

Deterioration Default and User Defined Markovian deterioration models for each

element/material type are specified.

Improvement (e.g. repair,

rehabilitation, reconstruction)

Repair, rehabilitation and replacement of elements. Also complete

structure replacement.

Cost Project costs are calculated from element treatment unit costs, for

current condition and also forecasted to future timing using

deterioration models.

Planning time-frame Detailed lifecycle cost analysis 10 years followed by long term

lifecycle cost analysis for an additional50 years. Ten year budgets

(Years 1-5, and 6-10) with prioritized projects and resulting network

performance measure (BCI) are provided based on the detailed

lifecycle cost analysis.

Use description

For budget preparation Yes

For setting of performance

standards

Yes

For matching funding sources No.

Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional A feature in the Network Analysis enables budget setting for

predefined Regions, instead of the Provincial total budget. Projects

are prioritized to suit these budget constraints and distributed to the

Regions accordingly, resulting in a different set of projects than

calculated using a global Provincial budget.

Data collection data collecting group

Inventory Owner (MTO or municipality), or can be assigned to engineering

consultants. OBMS prepares check-out/check-in database for

selected structures to provide to consultants.

Inspection/assessment Generally assigned to engineering consultants, but can also be

performed by Owner (MTO or municipality). OBMS prepares check-

out/check-in database for selected structures to provide to

consultants.

Intervention/planning Owner

Additional Stantec performs budgeting and prioritization service for

municipalities for a fee.

Quality assurance description

Education for inspectors Inspections performed by or under direct supervision of Professional

Engineer with background in bridge inspection.

Certification of inspectors All inspectors required to complete basis training course, and regular

MTO update inspection courses.

Education for users No, generally inspectors and engineers.

Certification for users No.

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … Internal User Group (MTO).

Ad

d-

itio

na

l Tablet Computers Full BMS is available in Tablet Computer version.


46

11.2 Quebec Bridge Management System, QBMS

Name (version) Quebec Bridge Management System - MPS

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ) http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/accueil_en


first version)

Version 1.0 (2008)

Current Version 1.0 (2009)

Developer(s) (webpage) (MPS) Stantec Consulting Ltd. (www.stantec.com )



Quebec Structure Inspection Manuals

http://www1.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/en/pub_ligne/index.asp (French)

a) Design and Implementation of a New Bridge Management System

for the Ministry of Transport of Québec, IABMAS ’08 Korea

b) The Québec Ministry of Transport’s Bridge Project Tactical

Planning Dashboard, Transportation Association of Canada, Toronto

2008.

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Quebec Ministry of Transportation (MTQ)

Aspect description

Platform Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, and Microsoft SQL Express

Architecture Client Server, and Local Database

Data collection capabilities Desktop computer

Reporting capabilities Crystal Reports, inventory, inspection, analysis results.

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Yes inventory and inspection.



Bridges 8,700 Retaining Walls 500 Quays

Culverts* Storm surge

barriers

Piers

Cut and cover tunnels Support structures * > 3m span


structures


Construction data Bridge historical maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement contract

cost information.

Inspection reports Stored in system, .pdf reports optional.

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Bridge historical maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement contract

cost information.


47



Element level Detailed Visual Inspection of all bridge elements (condition state,

severity and extent of defects), and Performance Rating

Structure level Live Load Capacity Rating, Indices for Seismic Vulnerability, Historic

Structure, Functionality.


Condition Four (4) condition states, defects identified and quantified by

Detailed Visual Inspection

Safety, vulnerability, risk Load capacity, seismic

Load carrying capacity Detailed Live load rating factors and calculation information


Condition Bridge Condition Index (BCI) out of 100, based on element level

condition

Safety Performance Rating for Barriers/Railings /Curbs and other elements

Load carrying capacity Rating for Live Load Capacity (tonnes), and Posted Load Limits

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional Historic Structure Index, Functionality Index


Predefined standard Default treatments, and unlimited user defined treatments for repair,

rehabilitation and replacement, including unit costs and

effectiveness.

User defined/custom Yes, see above.

Intervention strategy Defined Treatments are applied to element condition states,

evaluated using lifecycle cost analysis, and provided to Project Level.


User defined/custom Yes at Element Level.

Predefined standard Repair, Rehabilitation or Replacement, consistent with Element

Level, and Functional Improvements (widening, strengthening)

Intervention strategies Recommended actions, timing and costs developed from Element

Level and selected based on lifecycle cost analysis.


User defined/custom Cost and Benefit adjustment factors can be applied at the Project

Level.

Predefined standard Default is none.

Intervention strategies Repair, Rehabilitation, or Replacement . Analysis is based on lifecycle

cost analysis framework

Costs description

Inspection cost Cost of inspection is not included.

Intervention cost Intervention costs are specified at element level for specific

treatments

Traffic delay cost Yes, included in user defined project cost factors

Indirect user cost Yes, included in user defined project cost factors

Life-cycle costing Element and Project Level based on lifecycle cost analysis.


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Prioritization is based on lifecycle (Benefit/Cost), and on Bridge

Condition Index (BCI) at the Network Level. Budgets can be specified

or Target BCI can be specified.


48


Aspect description

Deterioration Default and User Defined Markovian deterioration models for each

element/material type are specified.



Repair, rehabilitation and replacement of elements. Also complete

structure replacement.

Cost Project costs are calculated from element treatment unit costs, for

current condition and also forecasted to future timing using

deterioration models.

Planning time-frame Detailed lifecycle cost analysis 10 years followed by long term

lifecycle cost analysis for an additional 50 years. Ten year budgets

(Years 1-5, and 6-10) with prioritized projects and resulting network

performance measure (BCI) are provided based on the detailed

lifecycle cost analysis.

Use description



standards

Yes


Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional A feature in the Network Analysis enables budget setting for

predefined Regions, instead of the Provincial total budget. Projects

are prioritized to suit these budget constraints and distributed to the

Regions accordingly, resulting in a different set of projects than

calculated using a global Provincial budget.


Inventory Owner (MTQ), or can be assigned to engineering consultants.

Prepares check-out/check-in database for selected structures to

provide to consultants.

Inspection/assessment Assigned to engineering consultants, and also be performed by

Owner (MTQ) using check-out/check-in database for selected

structures to provide to consultants.


Additional


Education for inspectors Inspections performed by or under direct supervision of Professional

Engineer with background in bridge inspection.

Certification of inspectors All inspectors required to complete basis training course, and regular

MTQ update inspection courses.

Education for users Internal training.

Certification for users No.

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other …

Ad

d-

itio

na

l Electronic Dashboard Powerful project level electronic dashboard available. See reference

b).


49

11.3 DANBRO Bridge Management System, DANBRO

Name (version) DANBRO

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Road Directorate


first version)

2009/1988

Developer(s) (webpage) Road Directorate

[email protected] www.Roaddirectorate.dk



http://www.vejsektoren.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=document&objno=1000

54 Available in Danish

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Road Directorate (National roads /railways/municipality roads)

Aspect description

Platform Windows XP/Delphi 7

Architecture Client / Server

Data collection capabilities Data is entered manually in a desktop computer

Reporting capabilities Reports, graphical and tabular

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Yes


Bored tunnels 0 Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0

Bridges 6000 Retaining Walls 50 Quays 0

Culverts 6000 Storm surge

barriers

0 Piers 0

Cut and cover

tunnels

0 Support structures 0

Galleries 0 Protection

structures

0


Construction data Archives are included in the system

Inspection reports Inspection reports are uploaded (pdf)

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports.


50



Element level Visual inspections containing damage descriptions are performed.

Other information can be stored, e.g. test results, plans, photos.

Structure level Aggregated from element level (see next section)


Condition Elements have a condition rating (0-5) based on visual inspection.

Safety, vulnerability, risk Is assigned and based on the condition ranking.

Load carrying capacity Yes (Bridge level)

Assessment on structure

level

description

Condition Aggregated from all elements in a structure, worst condition is default.

It can be overruled by user.

Safety Can be assigned by the user.

Load carrying capacity Can be assigned by the user.

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional


Predefined standard Standard interventions for reference strategies are predefined. They

can be modified by the user.

User defined/custom No

Intervention strategy Reference strategies are available. They can be overruled by the user.



Predefined standard Yes

Intervention strategies Yes


User defined/custom Yes, by description



Costs description

Inspection cost Generally on the structure level, although the cost of detailed

inspections can be included on element level

Intervention cost Yes

Traffic delay cost Yes

Indirect user cost Yes

Life-cycle costing Partly, all interventions are considered to be cyclic, and LCC is used to

estimate the long term costs of the intervention strategies.


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Based on condition marks.


51


Aspect description

Deterioration Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Offline models are

available to correspond with information in the system.



Improvements stored in the system.

Cost Intervals are assigned as input to all interventions in the system. This

enables a partial LCC computation. The system does not generate LCC

itself.

Planning time-frame Year + 10 and used for operational planning.

Use description

For budget preparation This information is used as advice for basic planning, and a reference

for actual planning. It is also an indicator for structures that do no

comply with the target maintenance level.


standards

No

For matching funding sources Yes

Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional -


Inventory Owner, can be assigned to engineering companies

Inspection/assessment Owners and inspectors from engineering companies


Additional -


Education for inspectors Training course at Road Directorate developed with engineering

companies. Mandatory for inspectors.

Certification of inspectors Personal certificate based on above training.

Education for users Training course by Road Directorate

Certification for users Inspectors personal certificate based on requirements

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … User groups discuss problems and solutions to improve quality.

Ad

d-

itio

na

l


52

11.4 The Finnish Bridge Management System, FBMS

Name (version) The Finnish BMS (Bridge Register & Project Level BMS)

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Tiehallinto (The Finnish Road Administration FINNRA) www.tiehallinto.fi

Date implemented (current / first

version)

2009 / 1990 & 1995

Developer(s) (webpage) Tiehallinto ( www.tiehallinto.fi )

References and Manuals (available

at - languages)

User handbooks for Bridge Register and the Project Level BMS

(Hanke-Siha) (in Finnish)

Inspection quidelines and handbook (in Finnish)

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Tiehallinto / cities and communities, consultants companies

Aspect description

Platform Oracle 8 database, Oracle Forms 5, running in Citrix-

Architecture Client- Server

Data collection capabilities Data entered manually

Reporting capabilities 70 ready to use -reports with Visual Basic, Oracle Reports , can be

printed in PDF, Excel and Word format

Add hoc reports with SQL*Plus, printed in Ascii and Excel - format IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access No, a special web-portal from outside Finnra to Citrix server


Bored tunnels on-going

data

collection

(about 20)

Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0

Bridges 11487 Retaining Walls 0

Culverts 3078 Storm surge barriers 0

Quays

Piers

about

100

together

Cut and cover

tunnels

0 Support structures 0


structures

0


Construction data Manual bridge folders for planning, design, calculations,

construction papers

Inspection reports Special inspection reports and research results are preserved in

manual archives and bridge folders (basic inputs to Bridge Register)

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Yes, older repair data (before 1985) not complete


53



Element level Visual inspections with damage description and estimated repair

measures and costs with photos, drawings, test results

Structure level Visual inspections with damage description and estimated repair

measures and costs with photos, drawings, test results


Condition The nine main structural parts' condition is evaluated by the inspector,

rates 0-4 (very good - very poor)

Safety, vulnerability, risk Is taken into consideration by giving the "repair urgency" grade

(immediate, in 2 years, in 4 years, later, no repair)

Estimated condition with age behavior curves can be predicted.

Load carrying capacity Only remark "the damage has effect to the load carrying capacity"


Condition The overall condition is evaluated by the inspector, rates 0-4 (very

good - very poor)

Safety Conclusions can be drawn from the element level

Load carrying capacity Loading tests, evaluation of the need of load limitations,

Calculations for special heavy transports.

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional

Maintenance target measures

1) Bridges in "bad condition", the measure "official condition class" (1-

5, very poor to very good) is calculated from the condition and damage

information given by the inspector. Bad condition means the classes 1

and 2.

2) Sum of damage points, calculated from the damage information

given by the inspector.


Predefined standard Lists of parameters. Inspection handbook gives rules for actions

according to structure and damages (Bridge Register and BMS)

User defined/custom In BMS yes

Intervention strategy Repair urgency class (immediate, in 2 years, in 4 years, later, no repair)

for every recorded damage


User defined/custom In BMS yes

Predefined standard Lists of parameters. Inspection handbook gives rules for actions

according to structure and damages (Bridge Register and BMS)

Intervention strategies Repair urgency, written recommendations by the inspector, the next

year of inspection by the inspector


User defined/custom Yes

Predefined standard SILKO Bridge Repair Manual

Intervention strategies Repair index, Reconstruction index, optimal repair policy in BMS

Costs description

Inspection cost No


Traffic delay cost No

Indirect user cost No

Life-cycle costing No


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Repair index, Reconstruction index, Damage Index


54


Aspect description

Deterioration Age behavior models for structural elements' deterioration



Repair measure models

Cost LCA and LCC analyses

Planning time-frame Repair programs for coming 6 years

Use description

For budget preparation Yes, by the bridge engineer in the road region


standards

Yes, by the Central Administration of Finnra

For matching funding sources Yes, by the Central Administration of Finnra

Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional


Inventory Road regions have the responsibility of basic data collection,

engineering companies' inspection consultants possibly input the

data, too.

Inspection/assessment Engineering companies' inspection consultants

Intervention/planning Planning is made by bridge engineers, consultant companies can be

involved in some cases

Additional


Education for inspectors Inspection training course, 3-4 days theory, 1 day in situ training, 1

day examination (theory and in situ inspection)

Certification of inspectors Inspection course examination, no inspections without it.

Education for users Bridge Register basic course 2 days, BMS basic course 2 days

Certification for users The Bridge Register course (no examination demanding)

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other …

Bridge Inspector Qualifications

Yearly training day for bridge inspectors is obligatory. This means

"calibration" of inspectors, everyone inspects the same bridge, data is

inputted into the Bridge Register. Statistical measures of divergence

are calculated. The results lead to "inspector's quality points", which

are used when comparing the inspection offers in competitive

biddings.

If someone does not participate, the quality points from the earlier

year are reduced according special rules.

Inspection Quality Report A report of inspection quality is produced yearly to follow the data

quality.

Ad

dit

ion

al

The programs are old. A new design competitive bidding is going on.

The design work starts in the end of September this year. Both the

Bridge Register and the Project Level BMS (Hanke-Siha) are totally

renewed. This means that new features and possibilities for new data

will be added. The new programs should be in use in early 2011.


55

11.5 Bauwerk Management System, GBMS

Name (version) Bauwerk-Management-System (BMS) (Version 1.0)

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) no


version)

BMS under development; prototype will be available and end of

2009

Developer(s) (webpage) none


at - languages)

Not yet (expected in 2010)

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Federal ministry of traffic building and urban affairs an and

Federal states

Aspect description

Platform

Architecture

Data collection capabilities

Reporting capabilities

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access No


Bored tunnels Locks and sluices 0 Weirs 0

Bridges Retaining Walls Quays 0

Culverts Storm surge

barriers

0 Piers 0

Cut and cover tunnels Support structures


structures


Construction data Program “SIB-Bauwerke”

Inspection reports Program “SIB-Bauwerke”

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Program “SIB-Bauwerke”


56



Element level yes

Structure level yes


Condition yes

Safety, vulnerability, risk Stability, traffic safety and durability

Load carrying capacity -


Condition Yes (calculated with information from element level)

Safety Yes (calculated with information from element level)

Load carrying capacity For the whole bridge

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional Guideline RI-EBW-PRÜF for the assessment of the damages/defects is

basis for calculation of condition index


Predefined standard Warning and threshold values for damages/defects

User defined/custom

Intervention strategy -


User defined/custom -

Predefined standard Threshold values

Intervention strategies Cost-benefit-analysis


User defined/custom -

Predefined standard Threshold values

Intervention strategies Cost-benefit-analysis (object level) and prioritization with knapsack-

algorithms (network level)

Costs description

Inspection cost no

Intervention cost yes

Traffic delay cost yes

Indirect user cost yes

Life-cycle costing partly


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures no


57


Aspect description

Deterioration Deterioration models (corrosion, chloride intrusion, carbonation) and

service life model (e.g. for bearings and expansion joints)



Measure catalogue implemented (different levels; repair,

reconstruction)

Cost Cost catalogue implemented

Planning time-frame 6 year planning period and 20 years “prediction period”

Use description

For budget preparation Yes (“financial scenario”)


standards

Yes (“quality scenario”)

For matching funding sources no

Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional On network level two scenarios (financial and quality scenario)


Inventory Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality; plausibility test for

construction and damage data in the BMS-Program

Inspection/assessment Federal states (16) are responsible for data quality

Intervention/planning Meeting between federal ministry and federal states every 6 months

Additional -


Education for inspectors Further training courses (recommend not obligatory); www.vfib-ev.de

Certification of inspectors Testing and the end of further training courses

Education for users Not yet

Certification for users No

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … -

Ad

d-

itio

nal

-


58

11.6 Eirspan

Name (version) Eirspan (2008 version)

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) National Roads Authority, Ireland

(www.nra.ie)


first version)

2008/2001

Developer(s) (webpage) Original version developed by Danish Roads Directorate

(www.vejdirektoratet.dk) Since 2004 developments made by National Roads Authority,

Ireland

(www.nra.ie)



Individual manual produced for each module (inventory, principal

inspection, routine maintenance, etc.) Manuals in English only.

Manuals not made available on web.

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) National Roads Authority

Aspect description

Platform Interbase

Architecture Client, Application server, database

Data collection capabilities Data is entered manually on a desktop computer

Reporting capabilities Printed reports with text, photographs & drawings

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Yes



Bridges 2800 Retaining Walls Quays


barriers

Piers



structures


Construction data Archive module contains electronic links to documents

Inspection reports Historical condition ratings and photos are stored digitally

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Description can be stored in archive module


59



Element level Visual structural inspections recording damage & repair details for each

element are stored along with photos & sketches

Structure level Comprises a summary of element level descriptions.


Condition Condition ratings 0 (best) to 5 (worst) given for each of 13 structural

elements

Safety, vulnerability, risk Whilst formal risk assessments are not undertaken during inspections,

safety and risk are considered in the condition rating.

Load carrying capacity Assessment for load-carrying capacity can be requested as a ‘Special

Inspection’ based on visual inspection.


Condition Condition rating (0 to 5) given for fourteenth structural element

‘structure in general’, based on worst condition rating for deck,

bearings, piers, abutments or beams/girders. Can be overruled by

inspector in exceptional circumstances.

Safety Safety may be considered within the condition rating. Inspecting

engineer to contact NRA if condition rating = 4 or 5.

Load carrying capacity Assessment for load-carrying capacity can be requested as a ‘Special

Inspection’ based on visual inspection.

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional Repair costs are stored for damaged components.


60



Predefined standard A list of standard intervention types for each element is included in the

Principal Inspection manual

User defined/custom Inspector can define custom interventions if the standard list does not

adequately address the damage in question.

Intervention strategy Inspector chooses the appropriate strategy from the list of standard

intervention types, or can enter customized intervention strategy if

required.


User defined/custom Comprises information provided at element level.

Predefined standard No

Intervention strategies Intervention strategy for each structure is heavily influenced by

information provided at element level.


User defined/custom Information entered for archive only

Predefined standard Information entered for archive only

Intervention strategies Information entered for archive only

Costs description

Inspection cost Not stored on the database. The system does provide a list of

inspections required per year, which may be used to predict annual

inspection costs.

Intervention cost Estimate of repair cost is entered during inspection. Facility exists for

entering actual intervention costs after work is complete.

Traffic delay cost Costs not stored on the BMS, but may be considered when comparing

repair strategies for major schemes. Guidelines exist.

Indirect user cost Costs not stored on the BMS, but may be considered when comparing

repair strategies for major schemes. Guidelines exist.

Life-cycle costing Costs not stored on the BMS, but may be considered at a structure

level when comparing repair strategies for major schemes. Guidelines

exist. LCC not considered at network level.


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Advanced prioritization methods are not used. Prioritization of

structural interventions is heavily influenced by condition ratings from

inspection reports combined with traffic volumes and route

importance.


61


Aspect description

Deterioration Deterioration is not modeled in the system.



Improvements are not modeled in the system.

Cost There is no effective way of using the system to provide intervention

costs to reasonable accuracy. Annual intervention costs based on

repairs stated in inspection reports and unit rates of repair can be

provided for up to 6 years, but are inaccurate given the associated

uncertainties.

Planning time-frame Inspections only, years 1 to 6.

Use description

For budget preparation A facility exists but it is inaccurate (see ‘cost’ above)


standards

No

For matching funding sources No

Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional None


Inventory National Roads Authority and engineering consultancy firms

Inspection/assessment National Roads Authority and engineering consultancy firms

Intervention/planning National Roads Authority only

Additional


Education for inspectors Minimum qualification degree in civil engineering or equivalent

Certification of inspectors Minimum experience 4 years bridgeworks including 1 year bridge

inspections. Must also attend 4-day bridge inspection workshop in

order to be an inspection Team Leader.

Education for users Regional bridge managers must have degree in civil engineering or

equivalent.

Certification for users Regional bridge managers must have 7 years satisfactory engineering

experience.

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other …

Ad

d-

itio

na

l Note: National Roads Authority responsible for national road bridges

only. Non-national bridges are managed by local authorities.

Bridge is categorized as 2.0m span or greater.


62

11.7 APT-BMS, APTBMS

Name (version) APT-BMS (2008)

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Provincia Autonoma di Trento (Autonomous Province of Trento)

(http://bms.heidi.it/ - guest access: user: guest; passwd: dims425)


version)

2008 / 2004

Developer(s) (webpage) University of Trento, Department of Mechanical and Structural

Engineering

(http://www.ing.unitn.it/dims)


at - languages)

3 User manuals and 11 procedures

(http://bms.heidi.it/ – available at the front page; in Italian)

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Provincia Autonoma di Trento (Autonomous Province of Trento) /

None

Aspect description

Platform Microsoft SQL

Architecture Client, Application Server, Database, Data Anlysis Server

Data collection capabilities 800 Gb (can be expanded)

Reporting capabilities Reports, graphical, tabular, GIS

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Yes





barriers

Piers



structures


Construction data Any digital design document can be uploaded into the database;

reference to hard paper archives is also included

Inspection reports Current and past inspection report are generated on demand

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Past intervention are listed, design document can be uploaded


63



Element level Each SU and C (see below) includes a set of Standard Elements (SE),

which are specified in terms of quantity and Condition State.

Structure level Inspection report and summary. In addition, the bridge is broken

down into Structural Units (SU), such as deck, piles, abutments, which

are defined as conceptual entities characterized by common attributes

(such as length, material, typology, spatial location…). The spatial

arrangement of SUs is defined through logical entities labeled

connections (C).


Condition Evaluated at the element level on the basis of a procedure that

acknowledges AASHTO Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Standard

Element System (3 to 5 possibly conditions identified based on visual

inspection.

Safety, vulnerability, risk Safety evaluated at the structural unit level, based on formal safety

evaluation procedures.

Load carrying capacity Recorded at the structure level.


Condition Different condition indices (overall CS, apparent age) computed from

the condition of the single elements.

Safety Risk computed from unit level

Load carrying capacity Recorded into the database when formally assessed for sub-standard

bridges.

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional No


Predefined standard User can define the effect of interventions

User defined/custom Effect of standard interventions are predefined, can be customized by

user

Intervention strategy User define the routine maintenance policy




Intervention strategies No





Costs description

Inspection cost Yes


Traffic delay cost No (will be implemented in 2010 version)

Indirect user cost No (will be implemented in 2010 version)

Life-cycle costing Yes for repair and replacement scenarios.


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Automatic evaluation of two priority indices for replacement and

repair scenarios. On-demand cumulative-time risk and cost analysis of

specific MR&M scenarios.


64


Aspect description

Deterioration Based on Markovian models



Based on Markovian models

Cost LCC evaluated based on intervention scenario and maintenance

strategy.

Planning time-frame 5-year time span for short term intervention scenarios and 50- year

time span for strategic planning.

Use description



standards

Available, but not exploited so far.


Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional For performing risk analysis under specific scenarios, including

earthquake and natural disasters.


Inventory Assigned to professional engineers.

Inspection/assessment Owner (APT) for 1-year routine inspection. Assigned to professional

engineers for 3-year principal inspections and formal safety

evaluation.

Intervention/planning Owner (APT)

Additional


Education for inspectors Mandatory training course offered by university. On-site support at

the first inspection.

Certification of inspectors No

Education for users Yes


Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … Posterior quality control of inspectors activity.

Ad

d-

itio

na

l


65

11.8 BMS@RPI, RPIBMS

Name (version) BMS@RPI

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Kajima Corporation（http://www.kajima.com）

Regional Planning Institute of Osaka（http://www.rpi.or.jp/）


version)

2009/2006

Developer(s) (webpage) Kajima Corporation （http://www.kajima.com）


at - languages)

Users manual and administration manual are available in Japanese

language.

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Aomori Prefectural Government , Ibaraki Prefectural Government/

other cities

Aspect description

Platform Microsoft Windows XP/Vista, Microsoft Access

Architecture Desktop application

Data collection capabilities Pen tablet PC, Digital Camera

Reporting capabilities Graphical inspection report

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access N/A





barriers

0 Piers 0

Cut and cover tunnels 0 Support structures 0


structures

0


Construction data Construction data can be stored in the form of PDF.

Inspection reports Inspection data are updated periodically.

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Inspection data after the intervention can be recorded.


66



Element level The element level visual inspection are performed and damage

description, type of deterioration with the degree of deterioration

progress can be recorded at the bridge inspection site using tablet

PC. Damage drawing and the place of photo taken can be also

recorded at the bridge site using tablet PC

Structure level


Condition Condition state criteria (1-5) based on visual inspection are

established on 35 different type of element and deterioration.

Safety, vulnerability, risk According to the level of damage, the element which needs prompt

action for the safety reason are designated based on the visual

inspection.

Load carrying capacity No


Condition Each element is divided into unit, and the inspection is performed on

unit basis. The condition of the structure can be assessed as an

aggregation of unit.

Safety Assessment of safety is not performed on structure level, but the

safety of the structure can be assessed if there is any heavily

damaged unit in the structure.

Load carrying capacity Load carrying capacity is not assessed on structure level.

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional none


Predefined standard Standard intervention for each type of element and deterioration is

pre-determined.

They can be modified by the users.

User defined/custom User can define the intervention.

Intervention strategy Several intervention strategies are implemented.


User defined/custom User can choose replacement of the structure.

Predefined standard Replacement of the structure is predefined for particular type of

damage of the element and the structure.

Intervention strategies Cathodic protection can be chosen as a structure level intervention

against salt damage of the concrete.





Costs description

Inspection cost Not included in the BMS.




Life-cycle costing LCC are obtained for the structure level as well as unit or element

level.


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Different interventions are predetermined according to the


67

performance target levels.


Aspect description

Deterioration The deterioration model curves are established with four

deterioration speeds for each type of element and deteriorations.



The level of improvement after repair, rehabilitation and

replacement for each type of element and deterioration are provided

together with the deterioration model curve after the interventions.

Cost Cost is not variant according time.

Planning time-frame Up to 100 years.

Use description

For budget preparation Yes.

Our BMS has budget simulation function.


standards

User can set performance standard for each bridge by selecting

appropriate Maintenance Scenarios which indicate performance level

of element.

For matching funding sources Yes. By using the budget simulation function, user can easily find the

best suitable intervention strategy for multi bridges which matches

funding resources.

Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional No


Inventory Owner.

Can be assigned to engineering companies.

Inspection/assessment Owner.


Intervention/planning Owner.


Additional No


Education for inspectors Training course is provided for users by RPI.

Certification of inspectors RPI will provide the certificate of finishing standard BMS inspection

course.

Education for users Training course is provided for users by RPI.

Certification for users RPI will provide the certificate of finishing standard BMS education

course

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … User can share information through user meeting of BMS@RPI.

Ad

d-

itio

nal


68

11.9 Korea Road Maintenance Business System, KRMBS

Name (version) Korea Road Maintenance Business System

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Korea Road Maintenance Business System

(http://www.fims.mine.nu) - Facil Information Management System


first version)

2009/2003

Developer(s) (webpage) Korea Institute of Construction Technology (http://www.kict.re.kr)



User Manual KOROMBUS 2007

Administrator Manual KOROMBUS 2007 (in Korean) Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs / Regional

Construction and Management Administration

Aspect description

Platform Oracle 9i, Java/Jsp

Architecture Application & WEB Server, Database, Client

Data collection capabilities Data is entered manually in a desk top computer


IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Yes



Bridges 5,317 Retaining Walls 0 Quays 0


barriers

0 Piers 0



structures

0


Construction data Reference to archives is included in the system


Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports (history is not

complete)


69




Other information can be stored, e.g. test results, plans, photos

Structure level Aggregated from element level


Condition Elements have a condition rating (A - E) based on visual inspection

Safety, vulnerability, risk Safety assessment is performed in case of important bridges or need

Load carrying capacity Load test is performed in case of important bridges or need


Condition Aggregated from all elements in a structure

Safety Safety assessment is performed in case of important bridges or need

Load carrying capacity Load test is performed in case of important bridges or need

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional -




Intervention strategy No









Costs description

Inspection cost Generally on the structure level

Intervention cost No





Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures No


70


Aspect description

Deterioration No



No

Cost No

Planning time-frame No

Use description

For budget preparation No


standards

No


Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional -


Inventory Regional Construction and Management Administration

Inspection/assessment Generally inspectors of Regional Construction and Management

Administration

In case of detailed inspection and assessment, inspectors of

engineering companies

Intervention/planning Regional Construction and Management Administration

Additional -


Education for inspectors No

Certification of inspectors No

Education for users Once a year(about two days)


Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other …

Ad

d-

itio

na

l -


71

11.10 Lat Brutus

Name (version) Lat Brutus (3.1)

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) State Joint Company LATVIAN STATE ROADS (www.lvceli.lv)


first version)

2004/2002

Developer(s) (webpage) Norwegian Public Road Administration (www.vegvesen.no) and

Latvian Road Administration (www.lvceli.lv)



Users manual Lat Brutus – in English ()

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) State Joint Company LATVIAN STATE ROADS ()

Aspect description

Platform Oracle 8i

Architecture Client, Application server, Database.


Reporting capabilities Reports and tabular.

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access No





barriers

0 Piers 0



structures

0


Construction data Reference to archives is included in the system.

Inspection reports Inspection reports originally are archives.

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Intervention is contained in uploaded reports.


72



Element level Visual inspections containing damage description are performed.

Other information can be stored, e.g. test results, plans, photos.

Structure level Aggregated from element level.


Condition Elements have a condition rating (1-4) based on visual inspection.

Safety, vulnerability, risk Elements have a safety rating (1-4) based on visual inspection.

Load carrying capacity Elements have a carrying capacity rating (1-4) based on visual

inspection.


Condition Aggregated from all elements in a structure.

Condition can be assigned by user.

Safety Although not standard. Safety risk aggregated from element level can

be assigned by the user.

Load carrying capacity Although not standard. Risk of insufficient load carrying capacity can

be assigned by the user.

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional -




User defined/custom User can define custom interventions.

Intervention strategy Reference strategies are available. They can be overruled by the user.


User defined/custom Composed by user from element level interventions.






Intervention strategies Composed by the user.

Costs description

Inspection cost No






Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Interventions are characterized with risk level and optimal and

ultimate intervention times.


73


Aspect description

Deterioration No



No

Cost No

Planning time-frame No

Use description



standards

No


Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional -


Inventory Manager (Latvian State Roads) can be assigned to engineering

companies.

Inspection/assessment Inspectors from engineering companies.

Intervention/planning Manager (Latvian State Roads)

Additional -


Education for inspectors Training course at university developed with manager and university.

Certification of inspectors Personal certificate based on minimal requirements.

Education for users No

Certification for users Inspectors: personal certificate based on minimal requirements.

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … User group (Latvian State Roads and engineers from private

companies) discusses problems and solutions to improve quality.

Ad

d-

itio

na

l


74

11.11 DISK

Name (version) DISK (2006)

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport)

(www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgi-

bin/index.cgi?site=13)


version)

2006 / 1985

Developer(s) (webpage) Rijkswaterstaat (www.rijkswaterstaat.nl)

References and Manuals (available at

- languages)

Users manual DISK 2006, Administration manual

(www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/rws/bwd/home/www/cgi-

bin/index.cgi?site=13 – in Dutch)

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch ministry of transport), National highways

and water network / None

Aspect description

Platform Microsoft SQL 2000

Architecture Client, Application Server, Database



IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Yes





barriers

6 Piers 0



structures

0




Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Intervention history is contained in uploaded reports (history is

not complete)


75




Other information can be stored, e.g. test results, plans, photos

Structure level Aggregated from element level (see next section)


Condition Elements have a condition rating (1 - 6) based on visual inspection,

Safety, vulnerability, risk Safety risk assessed from damage, i.e. a risk (RAMS) level based on

the condition ranking is assigned



Condition Aggregated from all elements in a structure; worst condition is

default. It can be overruled by user

Safety Although not standard; safety risk aggregated from element level can

be assigned by the user

Load carrying capacity Although not standard; risk of insufficient load carrying capacity can

be assigned by user

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional -




User defined/custom User can define custom interventions

Intervention strategy Reference strategies are available. They can be overruled by the

user.


User defined/custom Composed by user from element level interventions







Costs description

Inspection cost Generally on the structure level although the cost of detailed

inspections can be included on element level




Life-cycle costing Partly; all interventions are considered to be cyclic, and LCC is used

to estimate the long term costs of the intervention strategies.

Replacement costs of the structures are, however, not included.


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Interventions are characterized with risk type (RAMS), risk level and

optimal and ultimate intervention times.


76


Aspect description

Deterioration Deterioration is not modeled in the system. Offline models are

available to correspond with information in the system



Improvements, due to interventions, are not modeled in the system.

Cost Intervals are assigned as input to all interventions in the system. This

enables a partial LCC computation. The system does not generate

LCC itself.

Planning time-frame year+ 1 .. – year +10 (later years are in the system, but not used for

operational planning)

Use description

For budget preparation This information is used as advice for basic planning, and a reference

for actual planning; it is also an indicator for structures that do not

comply with the target maintenance level


standards

No


Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional -


Inventory Owner (Rijkswaterstaat), can be assigned to engineering companies

Inspection/assessment Inspectors from engineering companies

Intervention/planning Owner (Rijkswaterstaat)

Additional N/A


Education for inspectors Training course at university developed with owner, university and

engineering companies. Not mandatory for inspectors.

Certification of inspectors Personal certificate based on minimal requirements

Education for users No

Certification for users Inspectors: personal certificate based on minimal requirements Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … User group (Rijkswaterstaat and inspectors from private companies)

discusses problems and solutions to improve quality

Ad

d-

itio

na

l


77

11.12 SMOK

Name (version) SMOK 2000

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. (Polish Railway Lines)

(http://www.plk-sa.pl)


version)

2000/1997

Developer(s) (webpage) Wroclaw University of Technology (www.pwr.wroc.pl )

References and Manuals (available at

- languages)

Computer Inventory of Bridge Structures (Users Manual), 1997

(in Polish) Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. (Polish Railway Lines)

Aspect description

Platform PC/Windows 95 or later

Architecture Desktop, Proprietary Database

Data collection capabilities Manual entry

Reporting capabilities Textual, graphical & tabular reports

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access No



Bridges 7 902 Retaining Walls 771 Quays 0

Culverts 24 189 Storm surge

barriers

0 Piers 0

Cut and cover tunnels 0 Support structures 0 Underpasses 388


structures

0



Inspection reports Various levels of inspection reports are generated by the system

on the basis of inspection type and data

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Intervention history data are collected in the system


78



Element level Inventory and inspection data are collected individually for basic

elements

Structure level General information about the whole structure and aggregated

from element level


Condition Condition rating of elements (scale 0-5) based on visual inspection

and test results. Photos, plans, test results can be also stored in

the system. Condition rating is supported by the expert system

BEEF (Bridge Evaluation Expert System) based on hybrid network

technology.

Safety, vulnerability, risk No



Condition Aggregated from all elements by means of the predefined formula

Safety No

Load carrying capacity Defined by bridge inspector on the basis of inspection results

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional ---



User defined/custom User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions

Intervention strategy Defined by the user



Predefined standard User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions

Intervention strategies Based on the ranking list (ranking priorities are defined by the

user)



Predefined standard User can define interventions using the predefined list of actions

Intervention strategies Based on the ranking list (ranking priorities are defined by the

user)

Costs description

Inspection cost No

Intervention cost Yes, defined by user.





Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Prioritization is based on the ranking list generated by the system

(ranking priorities are defined by the user)


79


Aspect description

Deterioration No



Information collected in the system are used for planning of the

interventions

Cost Information collected in the system are used for assessment of the

intervention cost

Planning time-frame Information collected in the system are used for 1-10 years

planning

Use description

For budget preparation Information collected in the system are used for budget planning


standards

No


Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional ---


Inventory Owner, can be assigned to engineering or consulting companies

Inspection/assessment Certified inspectors (owner or consulting companies)


Additional ---


Education for inspectors Mandatory 2-level training courses for inspectors

Certification of inspectors Personal certification based on education level, experience and

results of the training courses

Education for users Training courses and certification system for users

Certification for users Inspectors & users: personal certification based on education level,

experience and results of the training courses

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … ---

Ad

d-

itio

na

l ---


80

11.13 SZOK

Name (version) SZOK (2009)

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Local road administration in Poland (individual users on regional

levels)


version)

2009/1998

Developer(s) (webpage) Universal Systems s.c. (htpp://universal-systems.pl)

References and Manuals (available at -

languages)

Users Manual SZOK 2009 (in Polish)

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Local road administration in Poland

Aspect description

Platform PC/Windows XP or later

Architecture Desktop, Proprietary Database

Data collection capabilities Manual entry

Reporting capabilities Textual, graphical & tabular reports

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access No


Bored tunnels user

depended

Locks and sluices user

depended

Weirs user

depend

ed

Bridges user

depended

Retaining Walls user

depended

Quays user

depend

ed

Culverts user

depended

Storm surge

barriers

user

depended

Piers user

depend

ed

Cut and cover tunnels user

depended

Support

structures

user

depended

user

depend

ed

Galleries user

depended

Protection

structures

user

depended

user

depend

ed



Inspection reports Various levels of inspection reports are generated by the system

on the basis of inspection type and data

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Intervention history data are collected in the system


81



Element level Inventory and inspection data are collected individually for basic

elements

Structure level General information about the whole structure and aggregated

from element level


Condition Condition rating of elements (scale 0-5) based on visual

inspection and test results. Photos, videos, plans, test results can

be also stored in the system.

Safety, vulnerability, risk No



Condition Aggregated from all elements by means of the predefined

formula

Safety No

Load carrying capacity Defined by bridge inspector on the basis of inspection results

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional ---



User defined/custom User can define interventions

Intervention strategy Defined by the user


User defined/custom Composed by user from element level interventions







Costs description

Inspection cost No

Intervention cost Yes, defined by user.





Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form


82


Aspect description

Deterioration History of deterioration is presented in the graphical form. Can be

used for deterioration process prediction.



Information collected in the system are used for planning of the

interventions

Cost Information collected in the system are used for assessment of the

intervention cost

Planning time-frame Information collected in the system are used for 1-10 years planning

Use description

For budget preparation Information collected in the system are used for budget planning


standards

No


Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional ---


Inventory Owner, can be assigned to engineering or consulting companies

Inspection/assessment Certified inspectors (owner or consulting companies)


Additional ---


Education for inspectors Mandatory 2-level training courses for inspectors developed by two

universities in Poland

Certification of inspectors Personal certification based on education level, experience and results

of the training courses

Education for users Short introduction to the system based on the Users Manual

Certification for users Inspectors: personal certification based on education level, experience

and results of the training courses

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … ---

Ad

d-

itio

nal ---


83

11.14 SGP

Name (version) SGP 2.0

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Ministerio de Fomento http://www.fomento.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/DIRECCION

ES_GENERALES/CARRETERAS/


first version)

2009 / 2005

Developer(s) (webpage) GEOCISA

(www.geocisa.com )



Inventory Manual, Maintenance Manual – Main Inspections and Basic

Inspections –, User Manual, Installation Manual

(Spanish)

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Ministerio de Fomento, Road Demarcations, Road Maintenance

Areas.

Aspect description

Platform Microsoft Visual FoxPro 7.0 – MapObjects (GIS)

Architecture Client / Server Application.

Data collection capabilities Data is entered manually in a desk top computer. It’s not necessary

that the computer is connected to the network. After that, there is a

program that uploads data to the database. You can also enter data

directly into the database.

Reporting capabilities Alphanumeric and graphic reports.

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Yes, web access to the same data.


Bridges 7321 Footbridges 332

Large dimensions

structures

858 Pedestrian underpass 53

Culverts 5979

Pipes 2419

Pontoon bridges 5546


Construction data The application allows the introduction of construction documents.

Inspection reports The application allows the introduction of inspection reports.

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history The application allows the introduction of intervention documents.


84



Element level Damage indexes, damage measurements, damage descriptions, plans,

graphical information, …

Structure level Inspection data are used by a decision algorithm to generate a bridge

state index (structure index).


Condition Elements have an index (0 - 100) based on all their damages (element

index).

Each damage is evaluated by three factors (extension, intensity and

evolution), there are a fixed criteria in order to avoid subjectivity.

The inspector may change this index.

Safety, vulnerability, risk Safety risk assessed from damage depends on the element index.

There are criteria for the index ranges.

Load carrying capacity Only in inventory module is load carrying capacity information.


Condition Structure also has an index (0 – 100) based on all the structure

damages. The application use a decision algorithm.

The inspector may change this index.

Safety Safety risk assessed from damage depends on structure index. There

are criteria for the index ranges. Worst recommends urgent action.

Load carrying capacity Only in inventory module is load carrying capacity information.

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional Principal inspections planning.

It makes possible to follow the maintenance evolution of each

structure using graphs.


85



Predefined standard There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database.

User defined/custom Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions.

Intervention strategy The application recommends intervention strategies (repairs) for each

element. They can be modified by inspector/user.


Predefined standard There are repair recommendations catalogues in the database.

Optimization algorithms exist.

User defined/custom Inspector/user can change any information about the interventions.

Intervention strategies The application recommends interventions for one structure or a set

of structures.

Then application prioritizes repairs according the elements state

(damages state).

User can define what parts of the bridge needs repair regardless of

the state.



User defined/custom No.

Intervention strategies No.

Costs description

Inspection cost No

Intervention cost There are costs catalogues in the database. The application calculates

repair budgets and cost forecast.

Traffic delay cost Traffic delay cost can be included in database and used to calculate

the final cost.

Indirect user cost Indirect user cost can be included in database and used to calculate

the final cost.

Life-cycle costing No, the application tells us how much money we need to repair the

structures, and only evaluate the current damages (the present

structure state).


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures The application can prioritize repairs according the elements state

(damages state), for one structure or a set of structures.


86


Aspect description

Deterioration No. Evolution models are not implemented.



No.

Cost No.

Planning time-frame No.

Use description

For budget preparation No.


standards

No.


Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional ---


Inventory The owner (Ministerio de Fomento) selects engineering companies.

Inspection/assessment Inspector of engineering companies.

Intervention/planning Rehabilitation and construction companies.

Additional ---


Education for inspectors Through training courses.

Certification of inspectors Inspectors have to pass a test.

Education for users Through manuals.

Certification for users No. Op

erati

on

al

info

rm

ati

on

Other … The developer company solves issues by phone and email.

Ad

dit

ion

al

GIS (GEOGRAPHYC INFORMATION SYSTEM) is included.

Photographs (.bmp,.jpg,...formats) AND drawings (.dwg, .dwf,...

formats) can be shown.

Documents are opened automatically (.doc, .xls, .pdf,... formats)

Queries can be customize by the user

Statistical graphics

Special inspections module.


87

11.15 Bridge and Tunnel Management System, BaTMan

Name (version) BaTMan 3.2 (2009) - [Bridge and Tunnel Management]

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Swedish Road Administration [SRA] ( http://www.vv.se and

http://batman.vv.se )


version)

2004 / 1987

Developer(s) (webpage) SRA ( http://www.vv.se )


at - languages)

Available in the system BaTMan [Bridge and Tunnel

Management system] in Swedish ( http://batman.vv.se )

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) SRA, Swedish Rail Administration, Swedish Association of Local

Authorities (about 60 out of 290), City of Stockholm, Stockholm

Transport, State-subsidized private Roads and Port of Göteborg,

Consultants and Contractors.

Aspect description

Platform MS SQL 2005

Architecture Webclient, Applicationserver, Database

Data collection capabilities Data is entered manually in computers


IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Yes


Bored tunnels 1) 800 Locks and sluices - Weirs -

Bridges 2) 28.800 Retaining Walls 1.300 Quays etc 380


barriers

- Piers -

Cut and cover tunnels - Support structures - Others 3.000

Galleries - Protection

structures

-


Construction data In the system - Basic data, type of construction, material, length,

elements, drawings etc. More data is available in physical

archives as original drawings etc.

Inspection reports Inspection data is entered manually. Documents as photo,

reports, drawings etc.

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history In the system and in physical archives.


88



Element level Visual inspections containing damage descriptions. Other

information can be stored – photos, test results, drawings etc.

Structure level Aggregated from element level.


Condition The inspections shall reveal the physical and functional condition of

the bridges and shall provide the basis for the planning and

implementation of measures required to comply with the specified

requirements in both the short and long term.

Physical condition is described using the measurement variable

defined for each method of measurement. Functional condition for

the elements have a condition rating (0 - 3). All based on visual

inspection.

Safety, vulnerability, risk See structural level.

Load carrying capacity The effects of damage on elements load carrying capacity is taken in

consideration – among other demands on the element.


Condition Element level condition is the basis for the structural condition. Used

for planning remedial activities.

Safety Risk analyses for the structures are to be implemented in the system.

Load carrying capacity Yes – for bridges.

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional -

1) All tunnels, concrete, stone 2) The BaTMan system covers bridges with a theoretic span length > 2,0 m.


89



Predefined standard Activity relates to the notional action for the damage found at the

time of inspection and is given with a code according to a separate

code schedule. (The actual action is determined when plans are

drawn up for the whole bridge).


Intervention strategy See structure level.



Predefined standard No.

Intervention strategies Within the object planning module of the BaTMan system, the

activities proposed in connection with the inspections are processed

to an optimal strategy for the bridge concerned. Alternative action

strategies are studied and current socio economic value calculated

with a discount rate of 4 %. Allowance is made for the road user

costs. As the main strategy, the alternative with the lowest current

value cost is chosen.



Predefined standard No.

Intervention strategies No.

Costs description

Inspection cost On structural level.

Intervention cost Yes. A database of unit prices for technical solutions is available.

Traffic delay cost Yes.

Indirect user cost No.

Life-cycle costing The optimal strategy (see above) is calculated on a LCC-basis.


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures (Under implementation in the system): The prioritization between

projects (necessary when the funds are insufficient) is principally

based on the marginal socio-economic cost-benefit method. The

benefit of saving money is compared with the extra cost of

postponing the project one year. Conflicts with existing performance

standards will be considered.


90


Aspect description - The description below refers to a strategic prediction

(simulation) tool of the BaTMan system.

Deterioration A (simple) deterioration model exists.



A (simple) maintenance policy model exists.

Cost A (simple) cost model exists.

Planning time-frame 1-20 years.

Use description

For budget preparation Estimation of total needs and the distribution among organizational

regions.


standards

Not yet directly, but under discussion. But indirectly already, by

supporting the setting of the durability standards, i.e. long term

performance standards.

For matching funding sources Estimation of the consequences of various fund levels.

Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional


Inventory Owner of structures and consultants, contractors etc.

Inspection/assessment Inspectors from engineering companies, consultants and owners.

Intervention/planning Owners and in a small extent consultants.

Additional -


Education for inspectors Theoretical course at SRA. Mandatory for SRA constructions.

Practical, on the field course provided by SRA, not mandatory.

Certification of inspectors Non. Although there is a demand for an examination for the

theoretical SRA course.

Education for users Courses on using the BaTMan system is arranged by SRA.

Certification for users Non. Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … There are groups, with person who represents owners of structures

in the BaTMan system, for discussion of the use and development of

the system.

Ad

d-

itio

na

l


91

11.16 KUBA

Name (version) KUBA 4.0

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Swiss Federal Roads Authority, ASTRA (www.astra.admin.ch


version)

2008 / 1991

Developer(s) (webpage) Infrastructure management consultants (IMC) (www.imc-ch.com);

CAD Rechenzentrum (www.cadrz.com)



Users handbook KUBA-ADM, KUBA-DB, KUBA-MS, KUBA-RP, KUBA-

ST, KUBA-Web, KUBA-Mobile, Operator handbook, Implementation

handbook, Maintenance concept (www.astra.admin.ch – in German,

French and Italian)

Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) Swiss Federal Roads Authority /

Multiple cantons in Switzerland

Aspect description

Platform Oracle 11g, Microsoft.Net Framework 3.5 SP1

Architecture 3 tier – Client, Application Server, Database

Data collection capabilities Entered in desk top computer, on-site with mobile computers, PDF

formulars

Reporting capabilities Reports, graphical and tabular IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Yes (read only)





barriers

0 Piers 0



structures

550


Construction data As built; drawings, design calculations

Inspection reports Entered electronically, can be generated in paper form

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Intervention information is recorded and reports can be generated


92



Element level Visual inspection, other information is considered indirectly, but can

be stored, e.g. Destructive and non-destructive test results, Plans,

Photos

Structure level Aggregated from element level


Condition 5 state condition rating (1-5) based on visual inspection

Safety, vulnerability, risk Deduced from condition rating

Load carrying capacity Not on element level


Condition 5 state condition rating (1-5) based on visual inspection

Safety, vulnerability, risk Deduced from condition rating

Load carrying capacity Estimated from simplified models of resistance and loads

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Other performance information


User defined/custom User can define custom interventions


Intervention strategy All possible condition based intervention strategies are evaluated




Intervention strategies Built from the element level interventions





Costs description

Inspection cost Can be entered on the element and project level, and is estimated on

the element and project level

Intervention cost Can be entered on the project level

Traffic delay cost Can be entered on the project level

Indirect user cost Can be entered on the project level

Life-cycle costing Yes


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Structures with elements in condition state 5 (alarming) are

suggested to receive interventions first to alleviate safety problems,

the remaining structures requiring interventions are listed with

respect to the expected benefit of performing the intervention

strategy


93


Aspect description

Deterioration Probabilistic deterioration models based on the physical processes

affecting the elements are used



Probabilistic improvement models based on the impact of the

interventions likely to be performed are used

Cost Optimal life cycle intervention strategies (based on condition

evolution) on the element level and project level

Planning time-frame Interventions can be generated for up to 100 years but in general it is

not suggested to use more than the first 5 years for planning on the

operation al level.

Use description

Used of system results for

budget preparation

Yes

Used for setting performance

standards

No

Used for matching funding

sources

Yes

Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional None


Inventory Assigned to private companies

Inspection/assessment Inspectors from engineering companies

Intervention/planning Owner (ASTRA)

Additional Assigned to private companies


Education for inspectors Training courses given on demand

Certification of inspectors Controlled through independent checking of samples

Education for users Training courses given on demand

Certification for users No Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other … -

Ad

d-

itio

na

l


94

11.17 ABIMS

Name (version) ABIMS

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) Alabama Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.al.us)

Date implemented

(current / first version)

1994

Developer(s) (webpage) ALDOT(www.dot.state.al.us)

References and

Manuals (available at -

languages)

Bridge Inspection Manual and ABIMS User Manual

(http://www.dot.state.al.us/Docs/Bureaus/Maintenance/Bridge+Maintenance

/Bridge+Inspection.htm) Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) ALDOT, Counties and Cities

Aspect description

Platform IBM Mainframe, ASP.Net

Architecture DB2, CICS

Data collection

capabilities

Data is entered manually using computer

Reporting capabilities Standard reports, Access for adhoc reports

IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Web access is available to outside agencies to the mainframe through an

Apache server

Structure

types

No. Structure types No. Structure types No.

Bored tunnels 2 Locks and sluices Weirs


Culverts 6112 Storm surge barriers Piers

Cut and cover

tunnels

Support structures

Galleries Protection structures


Construction data Stored in Document Management System

Inspection reports Stored in Bridge Management System (ABIMS)

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Stored in ABIMS


95



Element level Visual inspections are performed on a set of agency defined elements

Structure level Plans, photos, maintenance needed is stored by structure


Condition Elements have a condition rating (1-9) based on visual inspection

Safety, vulnerability, risk Safety requirements are based on conditions. Posting

recommendations begin for conditions of 4 or less

Load carrying capacity See above


Condition Based on condition from elements

Safety Same as element

Load carrying capacity Determined by structure analysis or by conditions as listed above

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional


Predefined standard Standard interventions are predefined

User defined/custom Interventions can be user defined but not captured in system

Intervention strategy



Predefined standard Posting recommendation begin when conditions are 4 or less






Costs description

Inspection cost Inspection costs stored by structure

Intervention cost The intervention performed is stored by structure

Traffic delay cost no

Indirect user cost no



Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures


96


Aspect description

Deterioration No



Repair needed is captured in the system for each structure

Cost Cost are estimated by activity and stored for each structure

Planning time-frame Planning for maintenance is yearly, replacement done on 5 year plan

but later years are stored

Use description

For budget preparation Information is used for budget and project planning


standards

no

For matching funding sources no

Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional


Inventory Owner

Inspection/assessment Owner – can be consultant


Additional


Education for inspectors NHI 2-week Safety inspection of In-Service Bridges and ALDOT 2-day

Annual Bridge Inspection Refresher Course

Certification of inspectors Minimum qualifications must be meet and must attend 2-day school

at least every 2 years to keep certification

Education for users ALDOT 2-day Annual Bridge Inspection Refresher Course

Certification for users Must be certified to enter inspection data

Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other …

Ad

d-

itio

na

l


97

11.18 Pontis

Name (version) Pontis (4.5 Client Server & 5.1 Web Version)

Aspect description

Owner (webpage) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AASHTO, www.aashtoware.org and www.transportation.org


version)

Pontis 5.1- 2009

Pontis 4.5- 2009

Pontis 2.0- 1995

Developer(s) (webpage) ( http://pontis.bakerprojects.com)

(http://aashtoware.camsys.com)



Technical Manual, Technical Notes, Users Manual (English) Ba

sic

info

rma

tio

n

Users (Principal / Other) 46 Transportation Agencies in the US (Two International Licenses

Italy)

Aspect description

Platform 4.5 and 5.1 Oracle, Sybase and SQL server compatible

Architecture 4.5 Client Server PowerBuilder, 5.1 .NET

Data collection capabilities Bridge, Element, Inspection and Roadway levels. Open database

architecture and GUI allows for full customization and

internationalization. Multi media, photos, videos, reports

Reporting capabilities Pontis 5.1 Crystal Reports

Pontis 4.5 Infomaker IT i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Web access Pontis 5.1 yes



Bridges About

500,000

Retaining Walls 0 Quays 0

Culverts About

250,000

Storm surge

barriers

0 Piers yes



structures

0


Construction data Yes

Inspection reports Yes

Inv

en

tory

in

form

ati

on

(of

pri

nci

pa

l u

ser)

Intervention history Yes


98



Element level Yes

Structure level Yes


Condition Yes

Safety, vulnerability, risk 4.5 No - Future 5.2 yes

Load carrying capacity Yes


Condition Yes

Safety Yes

Load carrying capacity Yes

Insp

ect

ion

in

form

ati

on

Additional 116 NBI Items required by the FHWA are collected


Predefined standard yes

User defined/custom yes

Intervention strategy It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows

for recommendation from inspectors




Intervention strategies It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows





Intervention strategies It generates interventions recommended by Pontis and it also allows


Costs description

Inspection cost No


Traffic delay cost Yes


Life-cycle costing Yes


Inte

rve

nti

on

in

form

ati

on

Performance measures Yes


99


Aspect description

Deterioration Yes



Yes

Cost Yes

Planning time-frame Yes

Use description



standards

It was designed to set policies


Pre

dic

tio

n i

nfo

rma

tio

n

Additional


Inventory Bridge Maintenance Engineers

Inspection/assessment Bridge Inspectors

Intervention/planning Bridge Maintenance Engineers

Additional Planners


Education for inspectors National Highway Institute (NHI) training, Annual Pontis User Group

Training Meeting

Certification of inspectors NHI

Education for users Annual Pontis User Group Training Meeting


Op

era

tio

na

l in

form

ati

on

Other …

Ad

d-

itio

na

l

IABMAS-BMC-BMS-Report-20100806[1].pdf

Documents

Transcript of IABMAS-BMC-BMS-Report-20100806[1].pdf