Bridge Management Systems: Literature Review

Bridge Management Systems
LITERATURE REVIEW Bridge management addresses all bridge-related activities from the construction stage through maintenance and repair to the replacement of the bridge. According to OECD 1, a Bridge Management System (BMS) encompasses all engineering and management functions that are necessary to efficiently carry out bridge operations. These include data collection and management, inspection, planning, programming , construction and maintenance. An ideal railway bridge management system should consist of both network level as well as project level. Network level BMS focuses on overall bridge network, prioritize bridges for repair purposes and consider the budget limits and planning periods. Project level focuses on the individual bridge and the best repair methods for all bridge components 2. By combining of both these levels, its more precise to say that this system should comprise guidelines and management tools to be used at all levels of bridge operation and maintenance, executive, planning, administration and maintenance levels which are essentially contribute to the performance. The development of technology and the available knowledge for bridge management systems has increased dramatically in recent years. System reporting and research into analysis techniques has grown threefold in the past eight years. In general terms, computerized systems for bridge management began to appear around 1980, initially as databases for storage and simple evaluation of deficiencies. Optimization of maintenance programs became an established part of management systems in the late 1980s and early 1990s 3. AASHTO Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems suggest that a bridge management system include four basic components: data storage, cost and deterioration models, optimization models for analysis, and updating functions. Information gathered from field inspection and stored in the data base attached to the system. That information used as input in the modelling process. There are three types of models, namely deterioration, cost and improvement models (optimization models) 3. Deterioration models predict the future condition of bridge elements at any given point in the future. They may deterministic or probabilistic in nature. There are different types of Deterioration models. The Markov process, Regression Models, Bayesian estimation and Fuzzy set theory are some of them. Most Deterioration models are using Markov process which can predict future bridge condition in a probabilistic fashion on the basis of the current and not historical condition of the element4. Two types of cost are obtainable from cost model, maintenance cost and repair cost. Optimization may be either a top-down or a bottom-up approach. Optimization procedures exist in the form of classical mathematical formulations of many types, neural networks and genetic algorithms 5. The updating function provides reports for planning and programming, and uses input from actual maintenance repairs to update the prediction and cost models 6. PONTIS and BRIDGIT are the bridge popular management systems developed in 1991 in US. PONTIS with its top-down analysis approach 7 more suited for larger network while BRIDGIT has been developed for bottom-up analysis system better suited to smaller bridge stocks. Deterioration models are developed in both systems. However, some of the Limitation of both systems have been identified as maintenance is generated without regard to the expected remaining life of the structure , only two actions, to do or not to do , the influence of defects on member reliability is ignored and no load capacity evaluation has been carried out.
Although Structure capacity is assessed as part of the process in SMIS system in UK, Deterioration and optimization is not considered in the development of the system. J-BMS in Japan is a highly computerised system using probabilistic deterioration curves to construct optimal maintenance plans for repair or strengthening measures based on minimum life cycle cost. But, this system is more suitable for project level than network level. However, J-BMS consists of geographic, design, inspection, maintenance, image and earthquake information which important in life cycle management of bridges8. OBMS in Canada is a bridge management system which develops to incorporate better project level capabilities than existing systems. But, probabilistic optimization model is not fully developed in OBMS. BRUTUS in Norway having basic modules in network level and project level but, not a deterioration model. WYO_BMS in Wyoming, SIHA in Finland are the bridge management systems which used for project level without considering deterioration modelling. The next generation bridge management systems will be based upon life time reliability and whole life costing 9. The primary objective of bridge management is to maintain the reliability of the bridge asset at an optimum level by forecasting future needs sufficiently in advance in order to use the best maintenance strategy possible given the available resources. Although deterioration is an important factor in setting that policy, risk and reliability considerations for the network should govern 10. The concept of Bridge Condition Index (BCI) has been proposed as a logical step to translate bridge condition rating in to a meaningful indicator11. The Risk Factor (Safety index) has been introduced for an element is derived from an assessment of its condition, how critical the element is, the exposure to public safety should the element fail, and the urgency for repair. A complete bridge rating system, BRUFEM, was developed in 1990 to be able to do complete rating of the vast majority of the bridges in Florida using finite element model for analysis 12. From finite element analysis, the bridges load carrying capacity can be calculated to define the Inventory Rating that can be directly used for a more complete calculation of the Structural Safety Index 11. Bridge management systems record basic inventory data such as the bridge type and material, orientation, and continuity. This information forms the basic input for determining the type of analysis tool to be used to determine the bridge rating. The following list describes the structure information, which is commonly available in the BMS that is required to select a rating program and is then used by the rating programs12.

Orientation: straight, curved and skew Continuity: simple, continuous and cantilever spans Type: slab, beam, girder, truss, frame and arch Material: reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, steel and composite steel.
Field Non-Destructive Tests (NDTs) can be used to collect more reliable information and reduce the BMS database subjectivity. As an example, rebar corrosion in reinforced concrete, a very common damage, is only visually noticeable in advanced stages of degradation (after concrete delamination or rust stains) but, with a Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) that problem can be detected in an earlier stage . In addition to NDT, load carrying capacity predicted by finite element models can be used to risk mitigation process. Risk mitigation will help to select optimal solution for Life Cycle Management of bridges11.
References 1. OECD (1992)., Bridge management systems. , Road transport research, Organization for
economic cooperation and development (OECD), Paris

2. Hegazy T., Elbeltagi E., and Elbehairy H. (2004). Bridge Deck Management System with Integrated Life Cycle Cost Optimization. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1866, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., ( pp. 44-50 ). 3. Austroads (2002) . Bridge management System The State of the Art, ( pp. 1- 45) 4. James, R. W., Stukhart, G., Garcia-Diaz, A., Bligh R. and Sobanjo, J. (1991). Analytical Approach to the Development of a Bridge Management System. Transportation Research Record 1290 (pp 157-170). 5. Bevc, L., Perus, I., Mahut, B. and Grefstad, K. (2001, January). Review of Existing Procedures for Optimization. Deliverable D3 for the BRIME Report Project PL97-2220. 6. Vassie, P. R. (1996). In J. E. Harding (Ed.); G. A. R. Parke (Ed); M. J. Ryall (Ed), Bridge Management 3: inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair ( pp 195-202 ). 7.Guttkowski M.R, Nicholas D.A, Investigation of PONTIS -a Bridge Management Software, www.mountain-plains.org/pubs/pdf/MPC98-95.pdf, downloaded on 22-01-2011 ( pp 3-67 ). 8.Itoh.Y, Hammad A., Liu C. and Yoji S., (1997), Network Level Bridge Life Cycle Management System, Journal of Infrastructure Systems ( pp 31-39 ). 9. Frangopol, D. M., Kong, J. S. and Gharaibeh, E. S. (2000). Bridge management based on lifetime reliability and whole life costing: the next generation ( pp 392-399 ). 10. Blakelock, R., Day, W. and Chadwick, R. (1999). Bridge Condition Index. In P. C. Das (Ed) Management of Highway Structures ( pp 130-138 ). 11. Fernando A.B., Jorge B., (2004), Handbook of concrete bridge management, volume 2,( pp 129-130 ). 12. Sousa C.V., Almeida J.O, Delgado R.M.(2009), Bridge Management System as an Instrument of Risk Mitigation, 3rd International Conference on Integrity, Reliability and Failure, Porto/Portugal, ( pp 20-24 ).

Bridge Management Systems: Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Management Systems: Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Management Systems: Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Management Systems

economic cooperation and development (OECD), Paris

You might also like