Quality Specifications and Performance Indicators ENES

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Fo
rP
Quality specifications and performance indicators for road

bridges in Europe
ee
rR
Journal: Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Manuscript ID NSIE-2017-0241
Manuscript Type: Original Paper

ev
Date Submitted by the Author: 11-Jun-2017
Complete List of Authors: Strauss, Alfred; University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Civil
engineering and Natural Hazards
ie
Fernandes, Srgio; ANSER, Lda., ;

Matos, Jos; University of Minho, Institute for Sustainability and Innovation
in Structural Engineering
w
Casas, Joan Ramon; UPC - Technical University of Catalonia,
Assessment, Bridges, Decision making, Degradation, Maintenance &

Keywords:
inspection, Optimization
On
ly
URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nsie
Page 1 of 42 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
1
2
3 Quality specifications and performance indicators for road
4
5
6
bridges in Europe
7
8
9
Alfred Strauss a*, Srgio Fernandes b, Jos C. Matos c, Joan R. Casas d
10
11 a
Department of Civil Engineering and Natural Hazards, University of Natural
12
13 Resources and Life Sciences, Peter-Jordan-Strae 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria;
14
alfred.strauss@boku.ac.at
Fo
15
16
17 b
ANSER Lda., Jardim Dr. Rodrigues Ferreira 50 1 C, 4780-367 Santo Tirso,
18
rP
19 Portugal; sergio.cd.fernandes@gmail.com
20
21 c
22
Civil Engineering Department, Campus de Azurm, Minho University, 4800-058
ee
23 Guimares, Portugal; jmatos@civil.uminho.pt
24
25 d
26 UPC-BarcelonaTech, Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain;
rR
27
joan.ramon.casas@upc.edu
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
*corresponding author
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 1
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering Page 2 of 42
1
2
3 Abstract
4
5
6 Across Europe, multiple management systems were developed with the aim of
7 managing roadway bridges in an efficient manner. Although being generically
8
9 similar, the condition assessment process, based in the assessment of
10 performance indicators which are compared with performance goals in order to
11
12 evaluate the accomplishment of established quality control plans, can be
13
identified as one difference among them. This leads to the existence of multiple
14
Fo
15 different methodologies for assessing the bridge condition, and consequently to a
16
considerable variation in roadway bridges quality. COST Action TU1406 aims to
17
18 achieve the European economic and societal needs by standardizing the condition
rP
19
assessment and maintenance level of roadway bridges. For such purpose it would
20
21 be required the establishment of specific recommendations for the quantification
22
of performance indicators, the definition of standardized performance goals and,
ee
23
24 finally, the development of a guideline for establishing quality control plans.
25
26
rR
27 Keywords: performance indicator, performance goal, quality control plan,

28 roadway bridge, asset management.
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34 Introduction
ie
35
36
37 In the past few years, significant worldwide research has been done regarding
w
38
39 condition assessment of roadway bridges, namely through the use of non-destructive
40
On
41
tests, monitoring systems and visual inspection techniques. Obtained values, which
42
43
44 provide information regarding the assessed bridge condition state, are then compared
45
ly
46 with previously established goals. As a result, there are currently several methodologies
47
48 to assess the bridge condition. A similar problem was addressed with roadway
49
50 pavements in the past. Although this was a worldwide problematic, in Europe it was
51
52
53 solved through COST Action 354 (performance indicators for pavements) (COST 354,
54
55 2004).
56
57
58
59
60 2
1
2
3 More recently, the concept of performance indicators was introduced, simplifying
4
5 the communication between consultants, operators and owners. However, large
6
7 deviations continue to exist on how these indicators are obtained and, therefore, specific
8
9
10 actions should be undertaken in order to standardize this procedure. It is verified that
11
12 Quality Control (QC) plans should always address the assessed performance indicators
13
14 and pre-specified goals. However, these latter values are even more difficult to obtain as
Fo
15
16 they are highly subjective.
17
18
rP
19
An overview of the current measuring approaches and methods along with the
20
21
22 most critical aspects of bridge performance is given in the report by Hooks and
ee
23
24 Frangopol, (2013). In addition, an overview of bridge performance measures in relation
25
26 to the goals of bridge projects is available in Adams and Kang (2009). Table 1 shows
rR
27
28 and describes a list of performance indicators (PI), including a classification depending
29
30
on the level of analysis: cross section (CS), component (CO) or/and system (SY). It
ev
31
32
33 should be pointed out that some of these performance indicators are fully operational at
34
ie
35 the present time and widely used by operators, whereas others are still in progress to be
36
37 adopted in the near future by roadway agencies. In the work by Ghosn et al. (2016), a
w
38
39
complete and comprehensive description of the available reliability-based performance
40
On
41
42 indicators is presented.
43
44 Table 1 near here
45
ly
46
47 Recently, COST Action TU1406 emerged with the main ambition of developing a
48
49 guideline for the establishment of Quality Control plans in roadway bridges, by
50
51
52
integrating the most recent knowledge on performance assessment procedures with the
53
54 adoption of specific goals (Matos, 2016; Matos, Casas, & Fernandes, 2016). This
55
56 guideline will focus on bridge maintenance and life-cycle performance at two levels: (i)
57
58
59
60 3
1
2
3 performance indicators, (ii) performance goals. The assessment of suitable performance
4
5 indicators, where the QC plans will be based, will take into account the described list of
6
7 existing and proposed performance indicators, mainly developed in the US. However,
8
9
10 the initial list will be updated and adapted to take into account the actual state of the art
11
12 on bridge performance indicators available and most used in European countries. This
13
14 will be developed with the aim of obtaining a guideline on QC plans that could be easily
Fo
15
16 implemented by the majority of European countries.
17
18
rP
19
The possibility to incorporate new indicators related to sustainable performance
20
21
22 will also be considered. By developing new approaches to quantify and assess bridge
ee
23
24 performance, as well as quality specifications to assure expected performance levels, it
25
26 is expected that bridge management strategies will be significantly improved, enhancing
rR
27
28 asset management of ageing structures in Europe.
29
30
ev
31
32
The target groups and end users who will exploit the outcome of this Action are
33
34 (Matos, 2016; Matos et al., 2016): (i) public/private owners, as their assets will be
ie
35
36 maintained in an upscale level; (ii) operators, as standardized procedures for reducing
37
w
38 maintenance costs, guaranteeing the same quality-level, will be introduced; (iii) design
39
40
and consultant engineers, as the assessment of roadway bridges performance will be
On
41
42
43 established in a uniform way, according to the developed guideline; (iv) equipment and
44
45 software companies, as a new perspective will be given, regarding the most suitable
ly
46
47 equipment and software for the assessment of roadway bridges; (iv) academics and
48
49 researchers engineers, as they will take an advantage of their involvement in the
50
51
52
guideline preparation; (v) students, as they will benefit from COST tools (e.g. training
53
54 schools) and from the contact with different stakeholders involved in this Action; (vi)
55
56 relevant European, international and national associations, with which the main
57
58
59
60 4
1
2
3 outcomes of this Action will be shared; and (vii) standardization bodies and code
4
5 writers, which will benefit from the developed guideline.
6
7
8
9 Objectives
10
11
Based on the issues presented, the objectives of the COST Action TU1406 were
12
13
14 set as:
Fo
15
16
17 1. The main objective is to develop, for the first time in Europe, a guideline for the
18
rP
19 establishment of QC plans in roadway bridges at a European level. The Action aims
20
21 to achieve the European economic and societal needs by standardizing the condition
22
ee
23
24
assessment and maintenance level of roadway bridges;
25
26
rR
27 2. Moreover, it will be also analysed the possibility of incorporating new indicators

28
29 related to sustainable performance of roadway bridges as well as research
30
ev
31 performance indicators which are still in the process of definition, analysis and
32
33 checking. The final purpose is to establish detailed recommendations for assessing
34
ie
35
36 them as well as for the definition of specific goals, in a similar way as for the other
37
w
38 indicators, and then integrating it in the developed guideline.

39
40
On
41 The main goal regarding the future implementation in European countries is to

42
43 develop a performance indicator data base for Europe with flexibility to accommodate
44
45
ly
country-specific requirements. Therefore, the following partial objectives are of interest

46
47
48 (Matos, 2016; Matos et al., 2016):
49
50
51 1. Systematize the available knowledge on QC plans for bridges at an European level,
52
53 which will help to achieve a state-of-art report that includes performance indicators
54
55 and their respective goals;
56
57
58
59
60 5
1
2
3 2. Collect and contribute to up-to-date knowledge on performance indicators,
4
5 including technical, environmental, economic and social indicators;
6
7
8 3. Establish a wide set of quality specifications through the definition of performance
9
10
11
goals, aiming to assure an expected performance level;
12
13
14 4. Develop detailed examples for practicing engineers on the assessment of
Fo
15
16 performance indicators as well as in the establishment of performance goals, to be
17
18 integrated in the developed guideline;
rP
19
20
21 5. Create a database from COST countries with performance indicator values (both at
22
ee
23
24 the operational and research levels) and respective goals, that can be useful for
25
26 future purposes.
rR
27
28
29 To achieve these objectives, it was decided to structure the work in several
30
ev
31 Working Groups (WG), as presented in by Casas (2016) and Matos et al. (2016):
32
33
34
WG1: Performance indicators. The goal is to explore those performance indicators
ie
35
36
37 of bridge structures, in the course of international research cooperation, which
w
38
39 capture the mechanical and technical properties and its degradation behaviour,
40
On
41 already partly covered by code specifications. Considerations also include: natural

42
43 aging, quality of the material; service life design methods; sustainable indicators;
44
45
ly
46 environmental, economic and social based indicators, performance profiles. The

47
48 final result is the implementation of a performance indicator data base for Europe
49
50 with flexibility to accommodate country-specific requirements. Further information
51
52 on this WG can be found in Strauss and Ivankovi (2016). Objectives of Working
53
54
Group 1 are therefore, among others, the characterization of bridge performance
55
56
57 indicators, which can address: (a) the safety: the load factor, and the reliability index
58
59
60 6
1
2
3 to ULS; (b) the serviceability: the condition index, and the reliability index to SLS;
4
5 (c) the availability, and robustness; (d) the costs: the total LCC, and values related to
6
7 durability aspects; and (e) aspects of environmental efficiency: CO2 foot-print;
8
9
10
11
WG2: Performance goals. The objective is to provide an overview of existing
12
13 performance goals for the indicators previously identified in WG1, and to develop
14
Fo
15 technical recommendations which will specify the performance goals. These goals
16
17 will vary according to technical, environmental, economic and social factors.
18
rP
19
Further information on this WG can be found in Stipanovic and Klanker (2016).
20
21
22 Objectives of Working Group 2 are therefore, among others, to identify existing
ee
23
24 performance goals (where the term goal pertains to quantifiable requirement and/or
25
26 threshold value) for the indicators previously identified in WG1. The performance
rR
27
28 goals will vary according to technical, environmental, economic and social factors;
29
30
ev
31
32
WG3: Quality Control plans. Bridge quality control is actually restricted to the
33
34 design and construction phases and are achieved by complying with existing design
ie
35
36 code requirements. When it comes to existing bridges, despite the age, location or
37
w
38 even the current condition state, quality control is performed according to existing
39
40
design codes or the owner/operator expertise. There is no uniform procedure to
On
41
42
43 assess existing bridge state condition. Therefore, there is a real need to establish a
44
45 guideline for performing the quality control plans for existing bridges. This plan
ly
46
47 should be based on multilevel procedures, from simple visual inspections to in-
48
49 depth investigations, and on the level of doubts with regard to bridge performance.
50
51
52
It should also define at which time intervals quality control is necessary, and which
53
54 condition the more detailed investigations or corrective actions are necessary. Based
55
56 on the results of WG1 and WG2, as well as on survey of existing approaches in
57
58
59
60 7
1
2
3 practice, the objective of WG3 is to provide a methodology with detailed step-by-
4
5 step explanations for the establishment of QC plans for different bridge types. The
6
7 QC plan has to establish performance goals, which are user/society related, e.g.:
8
9
10 Traveling time; Traffic allowance; Safety level; Comfort/Serviceability; Further
11
12 information on this WG can be found in Hajdin (2016).
13
14
Fo
15
16
Screening Process
17
18 Based on the main objectives described at chapter 2, and within WG1, a technical
rP
19
20 survey was planned among the participating countries with a double objective: 1) to
21
22
collect what is being done across Europe regarding the quality specifications for
ee
23
24
25 roadway bridges; and 2) to collect proposals for enhancement. Then, it was mandatory
26
rR
27 to look over both application and research documents, or in other words, to both
28
29 performance indicators already in use by highway agencies and those which are still in a
30
ev
31
developing stage, i.e., where research work is on the way before they can be fully
32
33
34 adopted and implemented in real world.
ie
35
36
37 In order to establish a standardization procedure for the assessment of
w
38
39 performance indicators, namely, those that should be considered in a QC plan, as well
40
On
41 as to define performance goals, a network of experts was established. Such network

42
43
44
incorporated people from different stakeholders (e.g. universities, institutes, operators,
45
ly
46 consultants and owners) and from various scientific disciplines (e.g. on-site testing,
47
48 visual inspection, structural engineering, sustainability, etc.)
49
50
51 As a starting point it was decided to look into available guidelines and documents,
52
53 in use by roadway bridge owners and operators across Europe. The reason for such
54
55
56 decision looks quite evident since:
57
58
59
60 8
1
2
3 1. In most countries the bridges performance is good. Therefore, the agencies, at least
4
5 in these countries, are doing a good job;
6
7
8 2. It is important to exactly know what are the stakeholders doing in order to improve
9
10
11
and enhance (if required) their procedures and rules;
12
13
14 3. The implementation of a common methodology across Europe, with flexibility to
Fo
15
16 accommodate country-specific requirements, needs to know what is being done
17
18 now. Too many changes will reluctance bridge owners and operators to process the
rP
19
20
harmonized methodology in their daily work. In addition, the new harmonized
21
22
methodology cannot disregard all the accumulated knowledge by owners/operators
ee
23
24
25 along many years of bridge inspection and maintenance.
26
rR
27
28
29 First survey phase
30
ev
31 In the first survey round (see Figure 1), a questionnaire was drawn up with
32
33 predefined performance indicators based on aforementioned characteristics and the
34
ie
35
36 country-specific situations. The following aspects served for the definition of feasible
37
w
38 performance indicators:
39
40
On
41 The widely agreed performance goals are the following: any bridge should be safe,
42
43 functional (serviceable), available (to the user), cheap (looking at the total life-cycle
44
45
ly
cost) and environmentally friendly. In this sense, some possible performance

46
47
48 indicators could be adopted in the following way:
49
50
51 1. Concerning the safety goal: the load factor, the safety factor, and the reliability
52
53 index to ULS;
54
55
56 2. Concerning the serviceability goal: the condition index, and the reliability index
57
58
59
60 9
1
2
3 to SLS;
4
5
6 3. Concerning the availability goal: robustness (the bridge should be minimally
7
8 affected by external conditions not specifically foreseen during design), and
9
10
11
resilience (the bridge should be quickly recovered from any undesired
12
13 disruption);
14
Fo
15
16 4. Concerning the goal of being cheap: the total life-cycle cost, and the durability
17
18 aspects values (a more durable bridge will be a cheaper bridge to maintain), such
rP
19
20
as the diffusivity coefficient of chlorides in concrete, and the permeability of
21
22
concrete cover;
ee
23
24
25
26 5. Concerning the goal of being environmentally friendly: CO2 foot-print.
rR
27
28
29 The following findings and important aspects associated with this first PI survey
30
ev
31 process (Casas, 2016; Strauss et al., 2016) were identified:

32
33
34
1. A request for replying the questions in the questionnaire, and for up-loading the
ie
35
36
37 relevant parts of the document, both the original and the translated versions was
w
38
39 regarded as very significant. It supports to objectify the language translations, since
40
On
41 (a) it was revealed that many times the same operation or concept has different
42
43 English translations or wording, and (b) to avoid subjectivity in some way;
44
45
ly
46
47
2. Because of the objective to propose enhancements to the existing practice of
48
49 performance assessment by the different owners and showing recent advances and
50
51 new performance indicators, two types of documents are asked for: (a) operator
52
53 documents (actually in use by the different Agencies in the form of guidelines or
54
55 recommendations); and (b) research documents.
56
57
58
59
60 10
1
2
3 Second survey phase
4
5
6
As mentioned in Casas (2016), the COST TU1406 Geneva Workshop in
7
8 September of 2015 served to establish the essential steps of the WG1 in order to gather
9
10 more information related to performance indicators used in practice and under research.
11
12 Each WG member was asked (a) to participate in the workshop, and (b) to prepare a
13
14
poster or oral presentations with the following objectives:
Fo
15
16
17
18 Extract from the available documents in each country the most important (> 8)
rP
19
20 performance indicators;
21
22
ee
23 Show the formulation and the procedure on how to obtain the PI;
24
25
26 Show the thresholds with respect to each PI, if available;
rR
27
28
29
Show the goals with respect to each PI, if available;
30
ev
31
32
33 Characterize, based on their experience, if the indicated or proposed PI are already
34
ie
35 applied by owners, operators, experts, , and in which project phases;

36
37
w
38 Characterize those groups that are important PI, but not applied now, or not applied
39
40 now and needing further research in order to become fully implementable.
On
41
42
Figure 1 near here
43
44
45
ly
46 Based on the findings from the first survey stage, it was decided in the Geneva
47
48 meeting to carry out a systematic screening on practical national inspection and
49
50 evaluation documents, and on research documents in order to discover in a
51
52 comprehensive way the use of PI, PG, PT. For these screening processes Excel
53
54
55 templates had been developed to support the nominated persons in their screening.
56
57 There were two persons per country involved in this process, related with the practical
58
59
60 11
1
2
3 national documents, being one a MC member that had the responsibility to build up the
4
5 contact and activate the national roadway agency to support in the screening, and other
6
7 the national nominated person who performed the screening.
8
9
10
11 Structure and development of the database
12
13
14 Through WG1 activities, the development of a performance indicators database
Fo
15
16 has been defined as an essential component of COST TU1406. The core of the survey
17
18 process for obtaining performance indicators and corresponding key performance
rP
19
20 indicators (KPI) is given in Figure 2. The involved countries should choose beforehand
21
22
the relevant documents (e.g. inspection, evaluation, research etc.) from which the PI-s,
ee
23
24
25 and related information, are going to be extracted. To support this process, a user
26
rR
27 interface is necessary. Here, it must be mentioned that the amount and level of
28
29 information varies between documents, even in those of the same type. Thus, one of the
30
ev
31
main requirements in the survey was to allow an unrestricted data input.
32
33
34 Figure 2 near here
ie
35
36
37 The user interface for the survey is structured in MS Excel (see Figure 3 and
w
38
39 Figure 4), where the information may be stored in four groups: (i) Performance Level;
40
On
41 (ii) Damage Processes; (iii) Performance Indicator/Index; and (iv) Performance

42
43
44
Assessment. Besides this data, there is an opportunity to add additional references and
45
ly
46 specific information about a group element (e.g. evaluation process, formula, Figure,
47
48 etc.). The background for this structure comes from screening of the Austrian national
49
50 document (Bundesministerium fr Verkher, Innovation und Technologie, 2011) and two
51
52
documents from United Kingdom (County Surveyors Society CSS, 2004).
53
54
55
56 The database is divided into several documents as shown in Figure 4. In order to
57
58 support on the interface in the screening process, a Glossary of key terms is required to
59
60 12
1
2
3 store the information and terminology related to PI, PG, PT and PM. Such Glossary has
4
5 been prepared on the basis of the information from German and Austrian documents
6
7 (BASt, 2015, Bundesministerium fr Verkher, Innovation und Technologie, 2011).
8
9
10 During the screening process it was essential to update it. The main idea was that every
11
12 COST TU1406 country should add national specific information in their own language,
13
14 and translate them into English. The Glossary is acting as a background document,
Fo
15
16 whose definitions are used to support the database.
17
18
Figure 3 near here
rP
19
20
21
22 Beside the Glossary, a "Damages Sheet" was applied. In this sheet the nominated
ee
23
24 persons were able to fill in the national damages which are not comprised in the
25
26 Glossary. All prepared interfaces for the screening of national relevant documents were
rR
27
28 prepared with the aim of being user friendly and allowing the free input. In the Glossary
29
30
this was made possible by adding the sheet "New terms". Here, the users were free to
ev
31
32
33 add additional concepts, definitions, explanations and keywords in relation to
34
ie
35 performance indicators, goals, thresholds, criteria and methods (Figure 4). Furthermore,
36
37 it was possible to fill in new country specific terms into the sheet "New Terms". This
w
38
39
information was, amongst other things, used for further analyses and categorizations.
40
On
41
42 The country specific terms sheet was also used for translating Glossary sheet contents
43
44 (terms, definitions, keywords ...) to the user's native language. For the successful use of
45
ly
46 the Glossary file, as well as the Database interface, a Tutorial (Strauss, Vidovic,
47
48 Tanasic, & Zambon, 2015) was prepared to give instructions on how to perform
49
50
51 extraction of information from relevant documents (Figure 4).
52
53
54 After achieving the comprehensive quantification of key performance indicators
55
56 KPIs, and respective PG, in the Database, the establishment of the QC plan will follow.
57
58
59
60 13
1
2
3 In the data surveying process, 36 countries are included, which will bring the KPI
4
5 database on a standardized European level.
6
7
8
9 Homogenization Process
10
11
After collecting input from different countries based on surveying of inspection
12
13
14 and evaluation documents related to bridge maintenance, assessment and management,
Fo
15
16 it was concluded that results are partly heterogeneous with a number of overlaps. This
17
18 mainly results from a free interpretation leeway and different know-how of experts in
rP
19
20 visual inspections, performance evaluation, performance assessment and decision
21
22
making. Therefore, a critical overview of contributions from different countries, with
ee
23
24
25 respect to the content and definitions, was necessary. Accordingly, the nominated
26
rR
27 persons from each country, were asked again to verify their performance and damage
28
29 specific inputs, by comparing them with the homogenized and categorized terms of the
30
ev
31
document Indicators & Goals, which were available by a drop-down list in the
32
33
34 extended homogenization field. This procedure, with the extended homogenized fields,
ie
35
36 by retaining the databases original information, allows an effective comparison of
37
w
38 performance quantities between countries.

39
40
On
41
42 From performance indicators to key performance indicators
43
44
As a basis for the classification of PI and KPI, the document Indicators & Goals
45
ly
46
47 for the homogenization and categorization serves as a Background Document. For each
48
49 defined category in the document, additional columns are added to establish the
50
51 performance indicator properties, the goals, and to group them into pre-defined KPIs.
52
53
54 The afore sketched preparation of data allows the discussion:
55
56
57
on KPIs (framework) and performance indicators, in particular, the obtained results
58
59
60 14
1
2
3 from country to country. For example, which are the more appropriate indicators
4
5 e.g. for concrete structures?
6
7
8 on umbrella indicators that can be gathered according to their characteristics or their
9
10
11
membership to the KPIs;
12
13
14 on similar PIs user by operators and researchers;
Fo
15
16
17 on the importance of PIs in the assessment procedure for operators, for researchers,
18
rP
19 and for owners;
20
21
22 on the importance of PIs in the assessment process, regarding the structure type and
ee
23
24
25 used material;
26
rR
27
28 on the interaction of PIs and their combination;
29
30
on research associated with PIs as well as their acceptance and applicability in
ev
31
32
33 practice;
34
ie
35
36 on practical examples from the data base.
37
w
38
40
On
41
42 Findings from WG1
43
44
45 The survey and collecting of terms related with Performance Indicators (PIs) from
ly
46
47 different national documents, conducted by WG1, resulted in a list of more than 700
48
49 terms, later clustered and homogenized. From this process resulted a shorter list of 385
50
51
52 terms, grouped in 11 clusters from defects to rating and loads.
53
54
55 The list was considered, not as a final list of PIs, but as a list of terms that can be
56
57 related with PIs (PI related terms as addressed in WG1 Report). Assuming that not all
58
59
60 15
1
2
3 the 385 terms can be considered as PIs a new categorization of the terms was put into
4
5 practice. For this purpose 4 categories of terms were considered, corresponding to the
6
7 main entities of the common framework for the establishment of QCPs: Performance
8
9
10 Indicators, Damage Processes, Observations and Other Data. Although part of the
11
12 referred framework, the term Key Performance Indicator was not considered once its
13
14 definition is being developed within Working Group 2 of this Cost Action.
Fo
15
16
17 A fifth category was considered, related with non-interceptable processes, once
18
rP
19
they are out of the scope of this group. The sixth category considered was labelled as
20
21
22 Combined Performance Indicator, trying to cluster terms that reflect general properties
ee
23
24 of a structure and may be derived, among other ways, from the combination of several
25
26 Performance Indicators. As an example the term Condition of a Bridge was considered
rR
27
28 in this category once one can assume that it can be derived from all the other
29
30
Performance Indicators. Finally, in order to clearly list the redundancies found two
ev
31
32
33 other categories were considered, namely: Performance Indicators-Redundant and
34
ie
35 Damage Processes-Redundant (Amado & Hajdin, 2017; Strauss & Ivankovi, 2016).
36
37 The distribution of the 385 PI related terms through the 8 categories above defined is
w
38
39
shown in Table 2 (Amado & Hajdin, 2017).
40
On
41
43
44
45 The complete categorization of terms can be found in the COST TU1406 WG1
ly
46
47 report. Matos et al. (2016) proposed a list of Performance Indicators regarding masonry
48
49 arch bridges based on the survey conducted by WG1. This list, shown in Table 3,
50
51
52
included a total of 8 terms that can be compared with the general proposal of this report
53
54 that broadens the aim for all types of arch bridges.
55
57
58
59
60 16
1
2
3 Regarding Damage Processes, Bie and Gadysz-Bie (2016) proposed three main
4
5 groups of the degradation mechanisms in arch bridges, related with physical, chemical
6
7 and biological phenomena. In Table 4 the list of Degradation Mechanisms considered
8
9
10 by these authors was compared with the list of Damage Processes resulted from the
11
12 categorization of terms proposed in this report. A correlation could also be found for
13
14 most of the terms. One single term referred in the bibliography could not find a
Fo
15
16 synonym in the present proposal, which was the term Leaching. In fact leaching leads to
17
18
crystallization (of salts), a term referred as a Degradation Mechanisms, which was
rP
19
20
21 aligned with the term Calcification, proposed as a Damage Process. Its also important
22
to note that, in some cases, several Damages Processes related terms could be found for
ee
23
24
25 the same Degradation Mechanism, suggesting a more detailed approach.
26
rR

28
29
30
ev
31 Assessment of Performance Indicators

32
33
34 As shown in the framework for the establishment of QCPs (Hajdin, 2016), its
ie
35
36 intended to translate the assessment made for each Performance Indicator through a
37
w
38 Performance Value, based in a qualitative approach that can be applicable also for in a
39
40 quantitative manner. Independently from the tool used to achieve this goals, event trees,
On
41
42
43 fault trees, Bayesian Networks or others, it was understood that each Performance
44
45 Indicator is related with certain Damage Processes and that this latter category is related
ly
46
47 with certain Observations. The conjugation of these relations with other information
48
49 such as level of assessment, structure type, element, time and other data (comprising
50
51
measurements, material properties, etc.) will allow to determine a certain Performance
52
53
54 Value.
55
56
57
58
59
60 17
1
2
3 From Performance Indicators to Key Performance Indicators
4
5
6
It was agreed, among the TU1406 community, that Performance Indicator is a
7
8 measurable and quantifiable parameter related to the bridge performance that can be
9
10 compared with a target measure of a performance goal or can be used for ranking
11
12 purposes among a bridge population in the framework of a Quality Control Plan or life-
13
14
cycle management (which includes decisions and actions involving economic
Fo
15
16
17 resources).To evaluate certain performance indicator, performance thresholds or criteria
18
rP
19 must be set. A threshold value constitutes a boundary for purposes such as: a)
20
21 monitoring (e.g. an effect is observed or not), b) assessing (e.g. an effect is low or high),
22
ee
23 and c) decision-making (e.g. an effect is critical or not). A criterion is a characteristic
24
25
26 that is relevant for the choice between processes e.g. such as maintenance actions or
rR
27
28 others. Although the interaction of different performance indicators is inevitable, their
29
30 categorization into technical, sustainable and socio-economic indicators through
ev
31
32 component, system and network level is proposed in order to more easily identify level
33
34
of their influence to a certain key performance indicator related to performance goal.
ie
35
36
37
w
38 In order to move on with the reduction of the list of Performance Indicators, an

39
40 Expert Group was asked to specify PIs (YES/NO) according to the following points:
On
41
42 Measurable?; Quantifiable?; Target value available?; Valid for ranking?; Allow
43
44 decision with economic implications?. At the end, approximately 100 extricated PIs are
45
ly
46
47
further related with one or more Key Performance Indicators (KPI): Reliability (R),
48
49 Availability (A), Maintainability (M), Safety (S), Security (Se), Environment (E), Costs
50
51 (C), Health (H), Politics (P), Rating/Inspection (I). Further the process required the
52
53 categorization of Performance Indicators in relation to Performance Goals (PG) and
54
55
Performance Thresholds (PT) at different levels: component (CL), system (SL),
56
57
58 network (NL); taking into account different aspects: technical (Tech), sustainability
59
60 18
1
2
3 (Sust) and socio-economic (SoEc). Each experts feedback was systemized as shown in
4
5 the cut out example at Figure 5.
6
8
9
11
12
13 Further process will require allocation of rating value (1-5, as in table 1) and
14
Fo
15 weighting factor (whose values are still to be defined) to each PIs related to five main
16
17 groups of Key Performance indicators which are established in relation to requirements
18
rP
19
of the Working Groups 2 and 3 (Figure 4). The final rating and weighting will reveal
20
21
22 overall rating (with rating factors rSRS, rAM, rC, rE and rHP) of each of the five most
ee
23
24 important KPIs groups. Example is presented with the Figure 5. Green areas represent
25
26 the most favourable rate and the red areas should alarm the bridge operator and require
rR
27
28 immediate intervention.
29
30
Figure 7 near here
ev
31
32
33
34 Relational Database Structure
ie
35
36
37 A relational database is a set of tables containing unique instances of data fitted in
w
38
39 predefined categories, which, due to the established relations, allows users to view
40
On
41 information as needed. From the screening process a considerable amount of

42
43
44
information was provided. Although this data was gathered in a structured manner, it is
45
ly
46 dispersed through multiple files, becoming rather difficult to manage, to analyse and to
47
48 compare. Therefore, in order to overcome such restrictions, a relational database with an
49
50 organization based in the structure presented in Figure 2 was developed.
51
52
53 The information included in the GeneralData sheets, concerning the documents
54
55
56 titles from where the data was retrieved, was introduced in the srv_op_doc table. This
57
58 data is related to its respective country through the foreign key country_id. The
59
60 19
1
2
3 Cou_num sheets from the Excel workbooks contains the screened data, organized per
4
5 document chapter. In the relational database, this information was inserted in the
6
7 srv_op_chapter table, concerning the documents chapters, and in the
8
9
10 srv_op_record, that contains all the findings. The homogenization data was inserted in
11
12 the srv_hmg table. All the remaining tables concern the data given in the
13
14 Names_Table sheet which feed the dropdown lists included in the Cou_num sheets
Fo
15
16 and are linked to the main tables through foreign keys.
17
18
Figure 8 near here
rP
19
20
21
22 In addition to the database development, and due to the high number of
ee
23
24 documents provided by the countries involved, several routines were developed. They
25
26 allow to read the information from the Excel files and insert it in the database in a
rR
27
28 systematic way.
29
30
ev
31
32 User interface
33
34
ie
35 The development of a database by itself brings many advantages to any

36
37 organization. However, given that the management of such tool is not very user friendly
w
38
39 to those with no experience in such field, a visual interface is required. From this
40
On
41 perspective, a user interface capable of displaying the information contained in the

42
43
44
database was also developed. Given all technologies available, and considering those
45
ly
46 currently in use by COST Action TU1406 (e.g. website, facebook, linkedin, youtube), a
47
48 web application environment was considered appropriate. This type of application
49
50 makes it easier to disseminate information and may eventually be integrated in the
51
52
action website itself.
53
54
55
56 Given the work performed within COST Action TU1406 and also the database
57
58 purpose, the RStudio software was used. This is a free tool devised for teams to scale
59
60 20
1
2
3 and share their work through the development of free and open tools for R language.
4
5 This software allows to develop web based applications that can be shown in any
6
7 browser. Initially the screened documents from where the data was retrieved is shown.
8
9
10 This information can be filtered by each field, for example, per country or a specific
11
12 word in the document title (see Figure 9). In order to see the detailed information, a
13
14 document should be selected.
Fo
15
17
18
rP
19
20 Discussion and further development
21
22
After an exhaustive analysis of the data obtained in the research carried out, it was
ee
23
24
25 concluded that different countries have different meanings on performance indicators
26
rR
27 and, therefore, how they are obtained. Due to the existence of different interpretations it
28
29 was required an additional clustering and homogenization process. From this procedure
30
ev
31
it was possible to verify that all countries have a performance indicator, named
32
33
34 condition index, condition rating or deterioration index, mainly obtained through visual
ie
35
36 inspections. Although in some cases this is the only existing performance indicator
37
w
38 used, there are countries, like Denmark or The Netherlands, in which operators and
39
40 bridge owners are currently using other relevant indicators. In Denmark, concepts like
On
41
42
43 remaining service life, robustness, safety index-reliability and vulnerability are
44
45 addressed. On the other hand, in The Netherlands, the performance is evaluated by the
ly
46
47 RAMSSHEEP (reliability, availability, maintainability, safety, security, health,
48
49 environment, economics and politics) approach, where risk is used to obtain social,
50
51
environmental, economic and political indicators.
52
53
54
55 From the review of the screening documents some general facts associated with
56
57 the definition of performance indicators can be identified:
58
59
60 21
1
2
3 inspections are mainly based on visual examinations;
4
5
6 inspections may be sub-dived in four time-related categories:
7
8
9
10
Routine inspections, e.g. yearly basis;
11
12
13 Periodic simple checks;
14
Fo
15
16 Periodic in-depth main inspections or examinations;
17
18
rP
19 Special inspections, following exceptional incidents or
20
21
22
occurrences.
ee
23
24
25 monitoring doesnt replace detailed structural inspections and should be
26
rR
27 always complementary to inspections and add additional information;

28
29
30 rating systems are widely used for the assessment of performance.
ev
31
32
33
The next step is to deliver a set of performance goals varying from technical,
34
ie
35
36 environmental, economic and social factors. These goals will be established for
37
w
38 indicators identified by WG1 which in turn will be linked to key performance indicators
39
40 that summarize the state condition of bridges. The defined goals will take into account
On
41
42 different aspects of performance such as technic, sustainable and socio-economic
43
44
45 factors. The considered approach is based on the Dutch model RAMSSHEEP, a risk-
ly
46
47 driven maintenance concept. It is verified that for a bridge performance analysis some
48
49 of these aspects are related to each other and can therefore be clustered, resulting in 5
50
51 different big groups: (i) Reliability, Safety, Security; (ii) Availability, Maintainability;
52
53
(iii) Health, Politics; (iv) Environment; and (v) Economic. This grouping makes it
54
55
56 simpler to present the necessary information, in particular by means of multi-criteria
57
58
59
60 22
1
2
3 plots, thus facilitating the analysis of possible scenarios for assessing the performance
4
5 of bridges.
6
7
8
9 Conclusions
10
11
In this paper it was presented an overview of COST Action TU1406 with
12
13
14 incidence in the work and the methodology adopted within WG1 to achieve the purpose
Fo
15
16 of collecting performance indicators used across Europe, with the aim of establishing
17
18 good practices on the definition of quality control plans for roadway bridges. This
rP
19
20 should be the basis for the future proposal of the definition of performance indicators
21
22
that could be adopted and used all over Europe.
ee
23
24
25
26 The methodology is based on a deep analysis of the existing bridge management
rR
27
28 policies existing in European countries and the main performance indicators used with
29
30 the objective to define a common group of quality specifications and control plans that
ev
31
32
can be assumed by all these countries. The gathered data from European countries was
33
34
ie
35 further analysed and systematized. This, with the aim of managing the existing roadway
36
37 bridges from a European and not only a country-specific perspective. Although showing
w
38
39 an European initiative, the proposed methods in this paper can be also applied to other
40
On
41 parts of the World, where homogeneity in quality control of existing roadway bridge
42
43
44
stock is needed, in order to facilitate the existence of a roadway network that allows the
45
ly
46 communication and transportation from one region to another in a safe, reliable and
47
48 cost-effective way.
49
50
51 Although it was possible to reach a high level of satisfaction with the obtained
52
53 results, more work is still needed. It will be necessary to have a selection of the most
54
55
56 relevant performance indicators for achieving key performance indicators for an optimal
57
58 Quality Control Plan within the bridge management and also to allocate them with
59
60 23
1
2
3 appropriate weights to set different levels of importance between them. The next step is
4
5 the definition of the technical recommendations for the specification of performance
6
7 goals based on existing ones for the indicators identified in the work here presented.
8
9
10
11 Acknowledgements
12
13
14 This article is based upon work from COST Action TU-1406, Quality
Fo
15
16 specifications for roadway bridges, standardization at a European level (BridgeSpec),
17
18 supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
rP
19
20
21
22 References
ee
23
24 COST 354 MoU: European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical
25
26 Research COST. (2004). Memorandum of Understanding for TUD COST
rR
27
28 Action 354.
29
30 County Surveyors Society CSS. (2004). Addendum to: CSS Guidance Note On Bridge
ev
31
32
33 Condition Indicators. Volume 2: Bridge Inspection Reporting. Lincoln, United
34
ie
35 Kingdom.
36
37 Adams, T.M., & Kang, M.K. (2009). Sensitivity Analysis of Bridge Health Index to
w
38
39 Element Failure and Element Conditions, Project completed for the Midwest
40
On
41
Regional University Transportation Center with support from the Wisconsin
42
43
44 Department of Transportation.
45
ly
46 BundesministeriumfrVerkher, Innovation und Technologie. (2011). Quality Assurance

47
48 for Structural Maintenance; Surveillance, Checking and Assessment of Bridges
49
50 and Tunnels; Road Bridges. Vienna, Austria. (in German)
51
52
53 Hooks, J., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013). Bridge Performance Primer, Report of the Long-
54
55 Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program of the Federal Highway
56
57 Administration FHWA
58
59
60 24
1
2
3 COST Action TU1406 MoU: European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and
4
5 Technical Research COST. (2014). Memorandum of Understanding for COST
6
7 Action TU1406.
8
9
10 Berichte der Bundesanstalt fr Straenwesen (BASt). (2015). Intelligente Brcke
11
12 Schdigungsrelevante Einwirkungen und Schdigungspotenziale von
13
14 Brckenbauwerken aus Beton, Schnemann Verlag. Germany (in German)
Fo
15
16 Ghosn, M., Frangopol, D., McAllister, T., Shah, M., Diniz, S., Ellingwood, B., Manuel,
17
18
L., Biondini, F., Catbas, N., Strauss, A., & Zhao, X. (2016). Reliability-Based
rP
19
20
21 Performance Indicators for Structural Members. Journal of Structural
22
Engineering, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001546.
ee
23
24
25 Strauss, A., & Ivankovi, A. M. (2016, April). Performance indicators for road bridges
26
rR
27 categorization overview. Paper presented at the WG meeting of COST Action

28
29
30 TU1406 Quality specifications for roadway bridges, standardization at a
ev
31
32 European level, Belgrade, Serbia
33
34
ie
35
36
Casas, J.R. (2016). Maintenance, Monitoring, Safety, Risk and Resilience of
37 Bridges and Bridge Networks: European Standardization of Quality
w
38
39 Specifications for Roadway Bridges: an Overview. London: Taylor and
40
Francis.
On
41
42 Hajdin, R. (2016). Maintenance, Monitoring, Safety, Risk and Resilience of Bridges and
43
44
45 Bridge Networks: Quality control plans on roadway bridges. London: Taylor
ly
46
47 and Francis
48
49 Matos, J.C., Casas, J.R., & Fernandes, S. (2016). Maintenance, Monitoring, Safety, Risk
50
51 and Resilience of Bridges and Bridge Networks: COST Action TU1406 Quality
52
53
54
Specifications for Roadway Bridges (BridgeSpec). London: Taylor and Francis.
55
56
57
58
59
60 25
1
2
3 Stipanovic, I., & Klanker, G. (2016). Maintenance, Monitoring, Safety, Risk and
4
5 Resilience of Bridges and Bridge Networks: Performance goals for roadway
6
7 bridges. London: Taylor and Francis.
8
9
10 Strauss, A., Vidovic, A., Zambon, I., Dengg, F., Tanasic, N., & Matos, J.C. (2016).
11
12 Maintenance, Monitoring, Safety, Risk and Resilience of Bridges and Bridge
13
14 Networks: Performance indicators for roadway bridges. London: Taylor and
Fo
15
16 Francis.
17
18
Bie, J., & Gadysz-Bie, M. (2016, October). Gerontology of Arch Bridges. Paper
rP
19
20
21 presented at the proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Arch
22
Bridges, Wroclaw, Poland.
ee
23
24
25 Casas, J.R. (2016, October). Quality control plans and performance indicators for
26
rR
27 highway bridges across Europe. In proceedings of the 5th International

28
29
30 Symposium on Lifecycle Civil Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands.
ev
31
32 Matos, J.C. (2016, October). An overview of COST Action TU1406, Quality
33
34 Specifications for Roadway Bridges (BridgeSpec). In proceedings of the 5th
ie
35
36 International Symposium on Lifecycle Civil Engineering, Delft, The
37
w
38
Netherlands.
39
40
On
41 Amado, J., & Hajdin, R. (2017). Proceedings of the Joint COST TU1402 COST
42
43 TU1406 IABSE WC1 Workshop: Basis for the development of Quality Control
44
45
ly
Plans for Arch Bridges. Zagreb: University of Zagreb.

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 26
1
2
3 Tables caption list
4
5
6 Table 1. Performance indicators and measures according to Hooks & Frangopol, (2013)
7 and Adams & Kang (2009)
8
9
10 Table 2. Distribution of the 385 PI related terms through 8 different categories
11
12
Table 3. Performance Indicators for masonry arch bridges by Matos et al. (2016)
13
14
Fo
15 Table 4. Degradation Mechanisms and Damage Processes
16
17
18 Figures caption list
rP
19
20
21 Figure 1. Technical survey on performance indicators
22
ee
23
24
Figure 2. Database; Core of the survey process
25
26 Figure 3. Database; Data structure of the user interface in EXCEL sheets
rR
27
28
29 Figure 4. Database and related documents
30
ev
31
Figure 5. Cut out of the categorization of performance indicators at different levels,
32
33 taking into account different aspects
34
ie
35
36 Figure 6. Rating and weighting scheme related to five main groups of key performance
37
w
indicators
38
39
40 Figure 7. Overall rating example of each of the five most important KPIs groups
On
41
42
43 Figure 8. Established relations in the database
44
45
ly
Figure 9. User interface

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 27
1
2
3 Table 1. Performance indicators and measures according to Hooks and Frangopol
4
5 (2013) and Adams and Kang (2009)
6 Bridge Condition Combines not only the individual defect indices to SY
7 Index provide an overall measure for a certain bridge, but also
8
9
for all structures in the prioritization process. It gives a
10 combined indicator of the importance of defects with the
11 importance of the bridge.
12 Collapse Load Factor multiplying service load to cause structure to SY
13 Multiplier collapse in the plastic analysis of structure.
14 Condition Rating Describes existing bridge component (deck, CO
Fo
15 superstructure, substructure) condition compared to as-
16 built condition.
17
18
Condition State Assigns condition states for bridge components based on CO
damage level evaluated by visual inspection.
rP
19
20 Damage Factor Represents the loss in cross-sectional area of the bridge CS
21 component.
22 Defect Condition Describes condition for each defect based on extend CS/
ee
23 Index degree and relevancy of defect. CO
24 Ductility Ability of the bridge or its components to sustain large CO/
25
deformations without collapse. Determined as the ratio of SY
26
rR
27
deformation at collapse and deformation associated with
28 the elastic range limit.
29 Functional Describes bridges that have sub-standard geometric SY
30 Obsolescence features (for example narrow traffic lanes).
ev
31 Geometric Rating Overall deck geometry rating based on bridge roadway CO

32 width and vertical over-clearance.
33 Health Index Indicates structural health of the bridge or its component. CO/
34
Health index of the individual component depend on the SY
ie
35
36 quantity of the element in the possible condition states.
37 Health index of an entire bridge is calculated as a
w
38 weighted average of the health indexes of its elements,

39 which are weighted by their quantity and relative
40 importance.
On
41 Lack of Capital Defined as a fraction of the bridge replacement cost. SY

42 Value Deterioration is forecast as a continuing loss in capital
43 value.
44
45
Life-Cycle Cost Expected life cycle cost comprising initial design and SY
ly
46 construction cost and expected cost of routine

47 maintenance, performing inspection, repairs and failure. It
48 may include additional expected costs of monitoring
49 system (design, construction, operational costs, inspection
50 and repair costs of the monitoring system). The difference
51 of the life cycle cost with and without monitoring
52 determines the value of monitoring.
53
Load Modifier Additional load modifier factor related to ductility, CO/
54
55 Factor redundancy and operational maintenance within the Load SY
56 and Resistance Factor Design.
57 Load Rating Determines the live load weight that a structure can safely SY
58
59
60 28
1
2
3 carry.
4 Safety Margin Represents reserve capacity of the bridge cross section, CS/
5 component or system as a difference between resistance CO/
6 effect variable and load effect variable (at a certain point SY
7
in time or time-dependent).
8
9 Partial Factors Factors associated with nominal resistance and load CS/
10 effects within the limit state design approach (or Load and CO
11 Resistance Factor Design).
12 Probability of Failure and survival as complementary events based on CO/
13 Failure structural reliability theory covering random resistance SY
14 Probability of and load effect in the same failure mode. When computed
Fo
15 Survival within a certain period of time they are called Cumulative
16 Time Probability of Failure and Cumulative Time
17
18
Probability of Survival.
rP
19 Redundancy Factor Deterministic factor as 1 over (1 minus residual strength SY
20 factor); varies between 1.0, when the structure has no
21 capacity, and 0.0, when the damaged structure has no
22 reduction in its capacity.
ee
23 Redundancy Index Redundancy as a measure of reserve capacity may be SY
24 expressed through probabilistic based index, which
25 evaluates the availability of warning before collapse. It
26
may be presented as a time-variant measure.
rR
27
28 Rehabilitation Responds to functional deficiencies, and can indicate a CO/
29 Index need for improvement rather than repair. SY
30 Reliability Index Reliability may be defined as the probability that a system CS/
ev
31 or component meets its performance requirements under CO/

32 given conditions and during a given period of time. SY
33 Reliability Index is the most commonly used measure for
34 structural reliability, which takes account of accepted or
ie
35
assumed statistical variability in action effects, resistance
36
37 and model uncertainties.
w
38 Repair Index Weighted combination of condition ratings that CO/

39 establishes priorities for repair projects, and depends SY
40 primarily on defect severity and Average Daily Traffic.
On
41 Reserve Strength Represents the ratio of the load-carrying capacity of the CO/
42 Factor intact structure or component to the applied load on the SY
43 structure or component.
44
Residual Strength Represents the ratio of the capacity of the damaged CO/
45
ly
46 Factor structure or component to the capacity of the intact SY

47 structure or component.
48 Resilience May be quantified by the functionality of a system after SY
49 an extreme event and by the time needed for recovery of
50 the system to the previous performance levels.
51 Return Period Randomness in time of variable loads, such are CS/
52 earthquake or wind, may be described in terms of return CO/
53
period as an average duration between consecutive SY
54
55 occurrences of an event with same magnitude.
56 Risk Defined as the product of the consequences of failure and SY
57 the probability of entering this failure, typically expressed
58
59
60 29
1
2
3 in monetary terms.
4 Robustness Represents the ability of a structure to withstand events SY
5 like fire, explosions, impact or the consequences of
6 human error, without being damaged to an extent
7
disproportionate to the original cause (ability of avoiding
8
9
progressive collapse).
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 30
1
2
3 Table 2. Distribution of the 385 PI related terms through 8 different categories
4
5 Categories Number of PI related Terms
6 Performance Indicator 17
7 Performance Indicator - Redundant 7
8 Damage Process 27
9
10 Damage Process - Redundant 13
11 Observation 245
12 Other Data 33
13 Non-Interceptable Processes 16
14
Combined PI 27
Fo
15
16 Total 385
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 31
1
2
3 Table 3. Performance Indicators for masonry arch bridges by Matos et al. (2016)
4
5 Performance Indicators for
PIs proposed by WG3-T3
6 masonry arch bridges (Matos et
(for all types of arch bridges)
7 al., 2016)
8 Absence/missing Loose of stones/bricks
9 Cracks Cracks
10 Decay Joints deficiency, Spalling
11 Detachment
12
Displacement Displacement
13
14 Erosion
Failure
Fo
15
16 Settlement
17 Water penetrability Joints leaking
18 Corrosion
rP
19 Drainage/dewatering deficiency Dewatering deficiency
20 Equipment fixings deficiency
21 Functionality of device
22
Contamination Contamination
ee
23
24
Deformation Deformation
25 Vibrations/oscillations
26 Movement ability deficiency (prevented
rR
27 movements)
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 32
1
2
3 Table 4. Degradation Mechanisms and Damage Processes
4
5 Degradation Mechanisms Damage Processes
6 (Bie and Gadysz-Bie, 2016) (proposed by WG3-T3)
7 Accumulation of inorganic
8 Blocking / Aggradation (alluviation)
contamination
9
10 Freeze/thaw actions Freeze-thaw
11 Erosion Scour /Abrasion
12 Crystallization Calcification
Physical
13 Extremal temperature influence Temperature

14 Aging of material / Shrinkage-creep /
Fo
15 Rheological processes
Crushing / Debonding
16
Overloading Overloading of an element
17
18 Leaching
rP
19 Fatigue Corrosion fatigue / Fatigue
20 Soil Failure / Hydraulic inadequacy /
Changes of geotechnical conditions
21 Sintering
22 Carbonization Carbonation
ee
23 Pitting / Reinforcement corrosion /
Chemical
24 Corrosion
Oxidation
25
26 Aggressive environmental impact Chloride action / Chemical attack
rR
27 Alkali aggregate reaction / Alkali

Reactions between material components
28 aluminium reaction / Sulphate action
29 Accumulation of organic contamination Biological growth
Biological
30 Influence of microorganisms Idem

ev
31 Influence of plants Idem

32
Influence of animals Idem
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29 Figure 1
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18 Figure 2
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17 Figure 3
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26 Figure 4
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26 Figure 5
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
Figure 6
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18 Figure 7
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36 Figure 8
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25 Figure 9
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 42

Quality Specifications and Performance Indicators ENES

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Quality Specifications and Performance Indicators ENES

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Quality specifications and performance indicators for road

Journal: Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Manuscript Type: Original Paper

Date Submitted by the Author: 11-Jun-2017

Fernandes, Srgio; ANSER, Lda., ;

Casas, Joan Ramon; UPC - Technical University of Catalonia,

Assessment, Bridges, Decision making, Degradation, Maintenance &

27 Keywords: performance indicator, performance goal, quality control plan,

27 2. Moreover, it will be also analysed the possibility of incorporating new indicators

38 indicators, and then integrating it in the developed guideline.

41 The main goal regarding the future implementation in European countries is to

country-specific requirements. Therefore, the following partial objectives are of interest

41 already partly covered by code specifications. Considerations also include: natural

46 environmental, economic and social based indicators, performance profiles. The

41 as to define performance goals, a network of experts was established. Such network

cost) and environmentally friendly. In this sense, some possible performance

31 process (Casas, 2016; Strauss et al., 2016) were identified:

35 applied by owners, operators, experts, , and in which project phases;

41 (ii) Damage Processes; (iii) Performance Indicator/Index; and (iv) Performance

38 performance quantities between countries.

27 Table 4 near here

31 Assessment of Performance Indicators

38 In order to move on with the reduction of the list of Performance Indicators, an

41 information as needed. From the screening process a considerable amount of

35 The development of a database by itself brings many advantages to any

41 perspective, a user interface capable of displaying the information contained in the

27 always complementary to inspections and add additional information;

46 BundesministeriumfrVerkher, Innovation und Technologie. (2011). Quality Assurance

27 categorization overview. Paper presented at the WG meeting of COST Action

27 highway bridges across Europe. In proceedings of the 5th International

Plans for Arch Bridges. Zagreb: University of Zagreb.

Figure 9. User interface

31 Geometric Rating Overall deck geometry rating based on bridge roadway CO

38 weighted average of the health indexes of its elements,

41 Lack of Capital Defined as a fraction of the bridge replacement cost. SY

46 construction cost and expected cost of routine

31 or component meets its performance requirements under CO/

38 Repair Index Weighted combination of condition ratings that CO/

46 Factor structure or component to the capacity of the intact SY

13 Extremal temperature influence Temperature

27 Alkali aggregate reaction / Alkali

30 Influence of microorganisms Idem

31 Influence of plants Idem

S-ar putea să vă placă și