You are on page 1of 8

Proceedings

of the
ITRN2011

31st August 1st


September,
University College Cork

Hand, Bruton, Foley, Bekic, McKeogh


: SELF-INFORMED BRIDGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

A SELF-INFORMED BRIDGE ASSESSMENT, MAINTENANCE AND


MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR BRIDGE MONITORING
Stephen Hand
University College Cork

Aoife Foley
University College Cork

Gillian Bruton
University College Cork

Damir Bekic
University of Zagreb, Croatia

Eamon McKeogh
University College Cork

Abstract
The continual inspection, assessment and maintenance of bridges requires a
multidisciplinary approach. Beyond a good understanding of structural engineering, a bridge
inspector must have a good knowledge and appreciation of geotechnics, hydraulics,
hydrology, materials and even transport management. A number of international standards
and guidelines exist based on experience, historical events and best practice in industry.
However, the risk-informed decision-making process in bridge monitoring is complex. Thus,
the application of intelligent assessment measures built using Bayesian Logic controls can
assist in ensuring a failsafe bridge inspection programme. This paper provides a review of
some existing bridge assessment, maintenance and monitoring guidelines and standards. In
addition, the Self-Informed Bridge Inspection, Assessment and Maintenance Management
Tool (SIBIAM) developed using a Bayesian Logic approach is presented. SIBIAM uses a GIS
(Geographic Information Systems) specialised software tool. The purpose of SIBIAM is to
provide for bridge owners, an up-to-date inventory of bridge condition and maintenance
information by collecting and monitoring relevant bridge and river parameters for input to a
management database.

1. Introduction
A number of bridge management systems are currently in use worldwide. In 2010 the
IABMAS Bridge Management Committee prepared an overview of the existing bridge
management systems [1]. This report assessed a total of 18 bridge management systems, in
operation across 15 countries being used to manage 900,000 objects. The systems all show
a strong focus on the structural health monitoring of bridge structures, managing this facet of
bridge stability to varying degrees. Although infrastructure managers are increasingly using
management systems to support their decision making process, most of the owners of these
systems lacked an up to date view of the capabilities of the most advanced systems and how
these could be adapted and further enhanced to support their requirements [1].

Hand, Bruton, Foley, Bekic, McKeogh


: SELF-INFORMED BRIDGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

31st August 1st


September,
University College Cork

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

In general the mandate of a Transportation Network is to provide a safe, economical and


effective network to allow the transportation of people and goods. A risk that has come to
prominence in recent times is the risk of structural damage to a bridge as a consequence of
river flooding and the resulting scouring that can occur due to these increasing flood risks.
Unfortunately many bridge management systems do not place enough emphasis on this risk
and some systems disregard the risk entirely.
2. Objectives
The implementation of a bridge management system allows the co-ordination and
management of both cyclical and non-cyclical activities and inspections. If the right bridge
management system is used, it will facilitate the management of the integrity of the bridge
and the associated budgets. The primary objectives of this current work are to:
Integrate all bridge management activities from inventory and inspection to bridge
maintenance and repair decisions into a single system with appropriate links to
systems.
Improve the current systems in terms of on-line availability, integrity, accurate data
entry, security, integration with other systems and accurate reporting and system
interface so that the system can be accessed and easily used by staff members.
Incorporate the intricacies associated with the bridge scour process such as river
hydrology, morphology, historical flood event data etc into the enhanced bridge
management system.
Supply management and staff with the appropriate tools and information to assist in
decision making and to recognise the risks involved in the decisions being made.

3. The Scour Problem


Bridge scour is defined as the erosion or removal of streambed or bank material from bridge
foundations due to flowing water [2]. The hazards associated with bridge scour are
significant. Bridge scour is the leading cause of bridge failures in the United States. From
1966 to 2005, there have been at least 1,502 documented bridge failures in the US; 58%
were the result of hydraulic conditions [3]. The probability of a bridge damage or failure is
related to the probability of having a flood event, the effect of that flood event on scour and
the effect that the scour can have on the bridge stability. The problem is relevant both to
existing bridges and to the economical design of new bridges to ensure they are resistant to
the effects of hydrological hazards.

Natural scouring can cause dramatic changes in the plan shape, cross-sectional shape and
even location of a river. Different riverbed materials scour at different rates and variations are
difficult to measure after a flood event as the peak scour depth usually occurs at or near the
peak of the flood and may subsequently refill as the flood flows recede. Figure 1 illustrates
the different types of scour. General scour occurs as a result of the natural energy of the
flow, constriction scour occurs if a structure causes the narrowing of a watercourse or the
return of floodplain flow to the main channel, and local scour occurs directly from the impact
of the structure on the flow [4].

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

31st August 1st


September,
University College Cork

Hand, Bruton, Foley, Bekic, McKeogh


: SELF-INFORMED BRIDGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

Figure 1. Types of Scour at a bridge [4].

Figure 2. Sketch of typical bridge and immediate environment [5].

Figure 2 shows the flow through a bridge site involving complex interactions between the
bridge structure, floodplain and the main channel especially during high flow conditions [5]

4. Existing Assessment Methods


In the United States the Federal Highway Administration offers guidelines for the monitoring
of scour at bridges. There are three Hydraulic Engineering Circulars, of which we are most
interested in HEC-18 Evaluating Scour at Bridges [6]. The guidelines offered in this
document relate directly to the bridge structure, namely their design, evaluation and
inspection. The departments of transport of states across the U.S. carry out scour
evaluations of their bridges using these guidelines. While each state can develop their own
inspection program, the general approach (Figure 3) used is outlined below:

Hand, Bruton, Foley, Bekic, McKeogh


: SELF-INFORMED BRIDGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

31st August 1st


September,
University College Cork

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

Step 1. All bridges over waterways are screened into five categories:
(1) low risk
(2) scour susceptible
(3) scour critical
(4) unknown foundations
(5) tidal
Bridges which are particularly vulnerable to scour failure are identified immediately and the
associated scour problem addressed.
Step 2. Scour susceptible bridges and bridges with unknown foundations are prioritised by
conducting a preliminary office and field examination of the list of bridges compiled in Step 1,
using the following factors as a guide:
a) The potential for bridge collapse or for damage to the bridge in the event of a major
flood
b) The functional classification of the highway on which the bridge is located, and the
effect of a bridge collapse on the safety of the travelling public and on the operation
of the overall transportation system for the area or region.
Step 3. Field and office scour evaluations are conducted on the bridges prioritised in
Step 2 using an interdisciplinary team of hydraulic, geotechnical, and structural engineers:

Step 4. Bridges identified as scour critical from the office and field review or during a bridge
inspection in Step 2 should have a plan of action developed for correcting the scour problem.
This plan of action should include:
a) Specific instructions regarding the type and frequency of inspections to be made at the
bridge, particularly in regard to monitoring the performance and closing of the bridge,
if necessary, during and after flood events.
b) A schedule for the timely design and construction of scour countermeasures
determined to be needed for the protection of the bridge.

Step 5. After completing the scour evaluations for the list of potential problems compiled in
Step 1, the remaining waterway bridges included in the state's bridge inventory should be
evaluated.

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

31st August 1st


September,
University College Cork

Hand, Bruton, Foley, Bekic, McKeogh


: SELF-INFORMED BRIDGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

Figure 3. Flow chart of the US FHWA inspection procedure.

In the United Kingdom, the Highways Agency has issued an advice note, BA7406 [7], which
offers guidelines for assessing the susceptibility of bridges to scour damage. While the
Highways Agency developed this note primarily for use on road bridges across waterways in
the UK, they indicate that it may also be applied to other types of bridges.

There are two stages in the approach they suggest, an initial assessment and gathering of
information, followed by analysis. Their outline of these stages is quoted below.

Stage 1 Assessment
This involves the collection of data regarding the bridge, its foundations and the river and, if
possible, any information on the history of the bridge and any problems experienced. This
stage should always include a site inspection.
The principal element of Stage 1 is the site inspection and an assessment by the Inspector
as to whether the bridge could suffer from scour damage at all. If there are features that
make the risk of scour endangering the bridge very low, then the analysis need proceed no
further. Otherwise, the assessment should proceed to Stage 2.

Hand, Bruton, Foley, Bekic, McKeogh


: SELF-INFORMED BRIDGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

31st August 1st


September,
University College Cork

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

Stage 2 Analysis
Stage 2 involves a calculation of the potential scour depths and then an assessment of
Priority Rating. The steps in the calculation are as follows:
(i) An estimation is made of the magnitude of the 200-year flood at the bridge site.
(ii) For that flood the depths and velocities of flow in the upstream river channel and at
the bridge are calculated.
(iii) With those flow parameters, the potential depths of scour adjacent to the bridge
piers and abutments are determined.
(iv) Finally, the Priority Rating is established. This is based on a number of parameters
including the relative depth of scour to the depth of the bridge foundation, the type of
foundation, whether there has been a history or scour problems, the stability of the
river within its channel, and the importance of the road measured in terms of the
traffic volume.
Comparing the two approaches reveals strong similarities. The assessment of a bridges
vulnerability to scour requires a greater detail and range of data than a site inspection can
provide. Additional information sources, such as orthophotos and hydrological station
reports, are required to more accurately predict the river channels behaviour. Historic
mapping, channel soundings, and previous inspection records are essential to understanding
the development of any issues at the bridge site. These are the minimum further sources of
information required to adequately assess the scour vulnerability of a bridge structure.
Storing, maintaining and accessing a physical catalogue of these documents are expensive
and complicated, yet crucial, tasks for the bridge owner.

The analysis of the information gathered in both the field and office is an onerous task which
requires a panel of qualified professionals. The appraisals and calculations involved in
assigning a risk rating to a bridge are time-consuming. This limits the anticipative element of
bridge scour protection, as predicting the outcome of real-time events is rarely cost-effective.

5. SIBIAM
There is an opportunity, and furthermore a need, to develop either a bridge management
system or a plug-in module for existing software, which includes scour as a factor in the
monitoring of the bridge. This would significantly extend the effectiveness of bridge
monitoring, and aid labour-intensive tasks such as the analysis and scheduling processes.
Such a tool would require the continued input of field and office research, but would offer
distinct improvements on the current state of the art.

Risk Analysis methods will form an integral part of the system. Estimating the risk of failure
involves correlating historic rates of failure with the potential for a given hazard at a site, in
addition to indicators of a bridges vulnerability to failure [8]. A bridges vulnerability to failure
is generally influenced by two basic factors, the degree of stress or degradation that a bridge
can safely withstand and the corresponding severity of the hazardous event required to
induce this degree of stress or degradation. Components of the risk determination will
involve the product of the estimated probability of failure (which includes hydrological,
hydraulic and geomorphological factors) and the total cost of failure (bridge replacement,
workarounds, loss of life) A screening analysis technique will be used to select the most
appropriate prioritisation plan for the sample size of bridges which will be used i.e. those with
known vs. unknown foundations, previous history of failure etc. Once the risk of failure has
been quantified, the estimated risk will be used to select an appropriate course of action.

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

31st August 1st


September,
University College Cork

Hand, Bruton, Foley, Bekic, McKeogh


: SELF-INFORMED BRIDGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

As data is gathered on a bridge, it would be input to a database. This database would collate
reports and inspection records compiled on the bridge. Outside data sources, such as the
OPW for hydrological station data, could be monitored to maintain a continuous log of
relevant data for the bridge (Figure 4). This would both make the information easily available,
and provide a log of changes at the bridge site. The costs and effort associated with storing
and retrieving this data would be significantly reduced due to the centralised database.
A large proportion of the analysis that is carried out when considering a bridges
susceptibility to scour would be automated and accelerated by SIBIAM. While further
consideration of the results will still be required by the appropriate professionals before
assigning a final scour risk rating, the key data would now be prepared and highlighted.
Once the bridge has been fully assessed, a PoA and inspection schedule is normally
outlined. There is now an opportunity to add key criteria to monitor at the bridge structure
and site. Calculations can be carried out real-time, and the system can flag parameters
which exceed constraints determined during the bridges assessment. Depending on the
urgency set for the flag, the system may issue a notice for action to the relevant personnel,
or simply log the event as information to be considered during the next bridge assessment.
One example of SIBIAMs potential application involves inspection scheduling. The
frequency of inspections for each bridge is set during its assessment. Keeping track of this is
a complicated task, particularly when the number of individual bridges becomes significant.
Planning the inspections once they are due holds further challenges and require
considerable manpower. SIBIAM would address this by cataloguing and automating a range
of processes. As a suggested inspection date approaches, the system will begin planning
the range of tasks involved. Firstly, it will consider the inspection dates of any other bridges
on the system which are located in close proximity to the flagged bridge. If an inspection is
due on any of these bridges within two years, or if it is close and the schedule has leeway,
they will be added to the inspection list for that day. This will optimise the use of resources.
The system will then notify the relevant individuals, such as the inspectors, the engineering
department of the transport authority, and the local supervisors for the bridge structure. It will
prepare a schedule based on optimal travel times between the bridges flagged for
inspection, and list the necessary resources and personnel. This automated planning is one
example of the extensive labour savings SIBIAM could make on crucial yet low-impact
decisions. This leaves the management and engineering teams free to concentrate on fully
assessing the comprehensive bridge data collated by SIBIAM.

Figure 4. Outline of potential database inputs and outputs.

Hand, Bruton, Foley, Bekic, McKeogh


: SELF-INFORMED BRIDGE ASSESSMENT TOOL

31st August 1st


September,
University College Cork

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

6. Conclusion
An effective bridge management system must recognise that all bridges over watercourses
are potentially at risk of scour. The assessment of the level of risk and appropriate action put
in place to reduce that risk are crucial to the success of the system. It is not economically
feasible for a bridge owner to protect a bridge from all conceivable flood events and potential
scour related risks. It is crucial however that every bridge over a watercourse is appropriately
assessed and risk mitigation measures are put in place. The need to ensure public safety
requires us to continually improve and provide the most state of the art practises needed for
designing, monitoring and maintaining our bridge structures to ensure that they resist the
effects of scour. The system may not prevent failures due to scour during the more extreme
events but it will ensure that the bridge owner has fulfilled its duty of care to users

References
1. The IABMAS Bridge Management Committee Overview of Existing Bridge Management
Systems 2010, July 2010.
2. Kattell, J and Eriksson, M., Bridge Scour Evaluation: Screening, Analysis and
Countermeasures. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service San Dimas California.
3. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Monitoring Scour Critical
Bridges. Washington D.C. : s.n., 2009.
4. Whitbred et al, Cost Effective Management of Scour Prone Bridges., Proceedings of the
Institute of Civil Engineers, Transportation, May 2000.
5. National Co-operative Highway Research Program, Evaluation of Bridge Scour
Research, Pier Scour Processes and Predictions, NCHRP Project 24-27 (01), March
2011.
6. Richardson, E.V., and Davis, S.R., 2001, Evaluating scour at bridges, fourth edition:
Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, FHWA-IP-90017.
7. Highways Agency. Assesment of Scour at Highway Bridges. Department for Transport
UK. [Online][Cited:4 August 2011.]
http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol3/section4/ba7406.pdf.
8. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Risk-Based Management
Guidelines for Scour at Bridges with Unknown Foundations., NCHP Project 24-25,
October 2006.

You might also like