| Summary: | 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 (<i>KPIs</i>) 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.
|
|---|
