The deterioration module (DM) is one of the four major modules necessary for any bridge management system (BMS). Environmental conditions, structural systems, bridge configuration, geographic location, and traffic data are some of the major factors that affect the development of deterioration modules. This emphasizes the need for the development of deterioration models that reflect the local conditions.
Region | Comments |
---|---|
North America | Although PONTIS and BRIDGIT were mainly used in the U.S., some other states and provinces in North America such as New York, Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Denver, and Ontario have developed their own bridge management systems [3][5][7][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. |
Europe | Denmark developed a BMS, which includes six modules, called DANBRO (DANish Bridges and Roads) in 1988 [13][23]. Although DANBRO does not include a condition deterioration module, it has been implemented in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Croatia, and Malaysia [24]. A bridge management software named SIHA was developed in Finland. At the beginning, the system included inventory data only [25]. The latest version of the system included a deterioration module that optimizes the maintenance and repair costs using a probabilistic Markov Chain model [3][26]. Another BMS named Highway Structural Management Information System (HiSMIS) was developed in the UK [27]. Belgium, Norway, and Sweden operated a functionally complete BMS that included inventory, inspection, and maintenance modules. However, only Belgium’s BMS included a deterioration model [28]. The BMS applied in Belgium and Sweden lacks a life-cycle cost analysis module to plan for optimal maintenance planning [13][29]. Finally, France, Germany, Hungary, and Italy have developed basic BMSs to manage the bridge activities. Their BMSs basically involve inspection and condition ratings [30][31]. A maintenance decision support system is implemented in Germany and Italy [28][32]. |
Africa and Asia | The South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) developed a BMS named STRUMAN by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) [33]. The first BMS in Japan was developed in 1995 and it was mainly for bridge condition ratings and rehabilitation strategies [3]. Miyamoto et al. [34] proposed a comprehensive bridge management system for Japan called J-BMS. The Indonesian Directorate General of Highways developed a bridge management system that contains modules to store inspection data, rank the bridges, prepare a report with annual and five-year programs of bridge work, and optimize the required repair works [13]. |
Australia and New Zealand | A report was initiated with the proposed BMS by Steele et al. [35] that included four modules: activities, engineering inputs, management inputs, and outputs. The engineering inputs module provides a set of feasible actions that can be taken [12]. The output module provides data on the bridge condition prediction, options for maintenance, and estimated costs [13]. |
Category | Factor | No of Times Mentioned | References |
---|---|---|---|
Dimensional factors | Bridge elevation | 1 | [65] |
Span length | 8 | [38][44][45][46][55][73][74][75] | |
No of spans | 15 | [3][10][14][38][42][44][49][53][57][59][67][71][76][77][78] | |
Bridge width | 13 | [3][38][44][46][57][59][65][66][67][70][74][75][79][80] | |
Bridge length | 18 | [3][10][14][46][47][49][53][57][59][65][67][70][71][74][75][76][78][81] | |
Factors related to geographic location | Services under the bridge | 6 | [11][14][48][53][60][78] |
State or interstate | 6 | [8][14][44][51][53][78] | |
Region or location | 7 | [48][50][54][55][56][70][76] | |
Traffic | ADT | 31 | [3][8][10][11][38][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][55][57][58][60][65][67][70][71][73][74][75][76][77][79][80][82] |
ADTT | 18 | [3][10][11][14][42][46][51][52][53][54][55][65][67][70][71][73][77][78] | |
Others | Wearing surface type | 5 | [8][44][49][52][55] |
Time of rehabilitation | 5 | [43][59][60][76][82] | |
Inspection gap | 3 | [3][47][68] | |
Defect type | 2 | [60][83] |
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/designs7060126