Performance-Based Ranking of Existing Road Bridges

Abstract

Bridge condition assessment in most European countries is based on visual inspection in combination with damage assessment of bridge components. For adequate bridge management, the assessment needs to be further developed to move from the bridge component level to the system functionality level and finally to the priority ranking level for repairs in the network. Although visual inspection provides only qualitative insights into bridge condition and cannot predict load-carrying capacity, it is still very often the only way to collect data on existing bridges and can provide very important information for evaluating structural safety, traffic safety, durability, and overall bridge condition. Therefore, this paper presents a unique procedure that establishes a relationship between a country-specific bridge condition assessment procedure based on visual inspection and the systematization of key bridge performance indicators developed within the European integrated management approach at three complementary and interrelated levels—component, system, and network levels. The assessment procedure for existing bridges initiates with damage assessment based on visual inspection of bridge components and runs through weighting at component, system, and network levels to the six most important key performance indicators (KPIs) for road bridges, which are organized as graphical and numerical inputs for ranking priority maintenance. These are bridge condition assessment, structural safety, traffic safety, durability indicator, availability, and the importance of the bridge in the network. The procedure is validated on a case study set of five real bridges, using the decision-making process as an example for the small sample size. The case study bridges differ in cross-section, type, and span (which vary from 9.5 to 72 m). The bridges were built between 1958 and 2001 and are located either on state or municipal roads in Croatia. The results, in terms of condition classification and priorities of future interventions within the representative group of bridges, justify the application of the described assessment procedure. Additional digitization efforts could easily implement the described assessment approach at the infrastructure network level.

Seismic Assessment and Retrofitting of Existing Road Bridges: State of the Art Review

“…The cost–benefit analysis of bridge assessment, maintenance, and repair is a topic that has been studied by a number of authors, and will not be further developed in this paper as it is beyond our scope. For more information on estimating the value of bridges as part of the transportation network, see, e.g., [ 51 ]; for the cost optimization algorithm for bridge repairs, see, e.g., [ 1 ].…”

Assessment of Performance Indicators of a Large-Span Reinforced Concrete Arch Bridge in a Multi-Hazard Environment

“…Assessment of a single bridge and a management system for all bridges in the network is still a challenge, although much research has been carried out and implemented in existing infrastructure networks over the last four decades [1]. Most standard bridges in the road or rail network are assessed based on visual inspection.…”

“…On the other hand, bridges with large spans or structures of high strategic importance usually have a longer service life and an extended assessment that includes not only a visual inspection but also several in-situ and laboratory tests, structural health monitoring, and optionally, a numerical analysis of the structural assessment, remaining service life and life cycle cost [1]. However, most of the published research papers address only one or a few aspects: e.g., structural assessment of bearing capacity in the combination of numerical analysis and experimental testing [4,5], experimental testing of a specific structural element or detail [6][7][8][9], evaluation and effectiveness of non-destructive testing [3,9,10], analytic models on failure modes [11], and numerical and experimental analysis of the main degradation mechanisms [12][13][14].…”

“…However, most of the published research papers address only one or a few aspects: e.g., structural assessment of bearing capacity in the combination of numerical analysis and experimental testing [4,5], experimental testing of a specific structural element or detail [6][7][8][9], evaluation and effectiveness of non-destructive testing [3,9,10], analytic models on failure modes [11], and numerical and experimental analysis of the main degradation mechanisms [12][13][14]. A comprehensive assessment of road bridges is included in [1], but in this case, the assessment is based on visual inspection and standard bridges of small and medium spans are analyzed.…”

“…The identification of performance indicators for bridge structures from European countries and their harmonization at the European level has been a complex, extensive, and time-consuming process [55]. In the end, about 100 filtered-out PIs were linked to one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) [1,59]. The categorization process aim is the final overall rating of each of the five most important groups of key performance indicators (KPIs) [59]:…”