This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]

On: 27 October 2014, At: 17:34

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and
Performance
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

A risk and criticality-based approach to bridge

performance data collection and monitoring
a b b a
Simon Bush , Piotr Omenzetter , Theunis Henning & Peter McCarten
a
Opus Consultants , Auckland , New Zealand
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering , The University of Auckland ,
Auckland , New Zealand
Published online: 07 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Simon Bush , Piotr Omenzetter , Theunis Henning & Peter McCarten (2013) A risk and criticality-based
approach to bridge performance data collection and monitoring, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance,
Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance, 9:4, 329-339, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2011.638143

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.638143

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Vol. 9, No. 4, April 2013, 329–339

A risk and criticality-based approach to bridge performance data collection and monitoring
Simon Busha, Piotr Omenzetterb, Theunis Henningb and Peter McCartena*
a
Opus Consultants, Auckland, New Zealand; bDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
(Received 25 March 2011; final version received 19 October 2011; accepted 2 November 2011; published online 7 December 2011)

Bridges constitute a substantial and vital part of any transport infrastructure system. The functionality of the system
is therefore reliant on the asset management strategies adopted for its bridges. To understand and manage bridge
performance, data of appropriate quality has to be collected in a cost-efficient way and closely linked to the decisions
made with it. To ensure a coherent approach, a data collection strategy for asset management of road bridges has
been developed in this study. In the strategy, a combined risk and criticality-based approach is used to prioritise each
bridge and to assign it to one of three data collection levels comprising core, intermediate and advanced. For each
collection level, the strategy provides guidance on the type of data to collect, the accuracy and precision required in
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014

the data collection process, the frequency of inspections, and the recommended collection techniques to be used,
including visual inspection, non-destructive evaluation and structural health monitoring. The strategy will help asset
managers to develop a deeper level of knowledge on the bridges that have the greatest impact on the system
functionality and to collect data of the required quality needed for the decisions they make.
Keywords: bridges; asset management; risk; criticality; performance; data collection; monitoring

and mitigation discussed in the context of bridge asset

Introduction
Bridges are important, often critical, and expensive
components of transportation network infrastructure.
This fact together with an increasing pressure to satisfy
stringent requirements of the benefits from the invest-
ment into these structures creates the need to manage
bridges using formalised processes. It is accepted that
infrastructure, including road bridges, should be
managed using the asset management approach
(NAMS Group 2006, New Zealand Society of Local
Government Managers 2007). A well-recognised stan-
dard, PAS 55-1:2008: Specification for the Optimised
Management of Physical Assets (British Standards
Institution 2008) defines asset management as systema-
tic and coordinated activities and practices through
which an organization optimally and sustainably man-
ages its assets and asset systems, their associated
performance, risks and expenditures over their life cycles
for the purpose of achieving its organizational strategic
plan. This definition clearly emphasises the need to
manage performance and risks in an optimal way
considering the costs of the mitigation strategy. This is
the key focus of this article and the data collection and
monitoring strategy proposed herein.
In order to facilitate and focus the subsequent
discussions, a number of basic definitions are intro-
duced first, and aspects of risk perception, assessment
management. The commonly adopted definition, also
used in this study, quantifies risk by multiplying the
probability of bridge failure with overall consequence
or impact of the failure. ‘Failure’ is here understood
broadly as any situation when a bridge does not fulfil
its performance expectations. This may, in extreme and
rare cases, be the same as structural collapse or
damage but also includes non-catastrophic failures
where, e.g. vehicle load or speed are restricted to
manage structural element fatigue or because of bridge
functional deficiency. It is useful to break the overall
consequences of failure into the following two
categories:
. direct consequences including bridge mainte-
nance, repair or replacement costs;
. wider, whole network or regional level conse-
quences including traffic delays, service interrup-
tion, loss of business, lowered community
resilience to natural hazards, and even loss of
heritage or iconic status assigned to the structure.
From the point of view of risk perception, events of
low probability and high consequences prove to be a
challenge for risk assessment and risk-based decision
making, as in such cases risk is a small number
multiplied by a large number with a somewhat

*Corresponding author. Email: Peter.McCarten@opus.co.nz

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.638143
http://www.tandfonline.com
 330 S. Bush et al.
‘arbitrary’ result (Stewart and Melchers 1997). How-
ever, events with large consequences or impacts
warrant a special treatment, as the public’s risk
tolerance decreases as the consequences increase,
irrespective of the failure occurrence probabilities
involved (Faber and Stewart 2003). Some proposed
approaches to risk management of transportation
systems are even primarily consequence driven (Trans-
portation Research Board 2009). In the context of
transportation networks and bridge asset management,
bridges with large failure consequences will be herein
referred to as ‘critical’. It is traditionally assumed in
road asset management that criticality assessment
takes into account only the wider, network and
regional level consequences (Theoharidou et al. 2009)
and a similar approach is also adopted in this study. It
can be seen that risk and criticality are different factors
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014
and both are important for bridge asset management
decision making. This article therefore argues that it is
essential for bridges to be managed in a two dimen-
sional, risk and criticality, domain.
In order to understand performance, undertake risk
assessment and analysis, and carry out life-cycle
planning, an asset manager has to collect data which
are linked to decisions made with it. For example,
Rücker et al. (2006b) discusses several levels of
assessment of performance and reliability of existing
structures. These levels range from simple assessments
based on inspection and engineering judgement
through to full probabilistic analyses, and have
increasing data requirements related to material and
structural properties, loads and responses. Improve-
ments to bridge asset management therefore need to
start with improvements to data collection (Transpor-
tation Research Board 2011). The need for developing
robust performance knowledge and linking data to the
decision-making process is evidenced by comments and
critique from the United States Government Account-
ability Office (USGAO 2008) and the New Zealand
Office of the Auditor General (NZOAG). These
documents note that bridge asset managers should
identify how the decisions they make help to deliver on
national policy directives (USGAO 2008) and that
authorities need to create comprehensive performance
frameworks, thereby allowing communities to under-
stand the reason for each service (Brady 2004).
The issues surrounding data collection are there-
fore twofold, firstly the data has to be present and
linked to the decision-making framework, and sec-
ondly the data have to be of sufficient quality.
Improved data collection is important as it leads to a
better understanding of asset performance, improved
knowledge of current risks and criticalities, and
facilitates forecasting and long-term planning. Risks
can then be managed within the available budget by
applying targeted and planned interventions, such as
maintenance, repairs, strengthening and replacements,
to those structures that present the largest risk or are
the most critical. Secondly, the availability of reliable
data itself leads to immediate gains in terms of risk
management and mitigation (Omenzetter et al. 2011).
This is because lack of data or its inadequate accuracy
or precision has to be compensated by overly
conservative assessments of failure probabilities or
consequences. This compensation may particularly
strongly inflate risk assessment outcomes for bridges
that are already considered high risk.
Collection of higher quality, more detailed, accu-
rate and precise data will, however, incur additional
costs. In the current economic climate, it is unlikely
that significant additional funding will be available for
bridge asset management. Changes and improvements
to data collection should therefore be cost neutral,
such that enhanced data collection approaches are
used where they deliver the largest benefits from the
point of view of risk management.
The above arguments suggest that a strategic
approach is required which would prioritise bridges
for data collection based on their criticality and risk
their condition poses to the operations of transporta-
tion networks. This improvement to current practice is
urgently required, as evidenced, e.g. by a study by Bush
et al. (2011) that found that although there is significant
data collection taking place on bridges, the value of the
data and its usefulness is sometimes questionable. One
of the issues that were identified suggested that there
may be too detailed data collected on lower risk
structures while more information is needed on more
critical or higher risk bridges on the network.
The purpose of this study is to develop a data
collection and monitoring strategy for bridge struc-
tures with the following specific aims:
. collecting the appropriate data that is closely
linked to its end purpose in the asset manage-
ment process, taking into account that there are
different levels of asset management processes
that require different data volumes, collection
frequency, accuracy and resolution;
. prioritising bridges for data collection realising
that these structures may not have the same
criticality or may not present the same level of
risk;
. providing guidelines on data types, detail,
collection frequency, accuracy, resolution, and
collection and monitoring techniques that are
linked to bridge risk and criticality.
The outline of the article is as follows. Firstly, a
strategy that differentiates bridge performance data
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 331

collection into three levels depending on the bridge
risk and criticality is outlined. Secondly, it is
demonstrated how this strategy fits into the wider
asset management philosophy and process. Thirdly,
the justification for the approaches adopted in the
strategy is provided and the requirements of each
data collection level, including data types, level of
detail, accuracy, precision, and collection frequency,
resolution and techniques are described. An example
of bridge classification for tiered data collection using
several existing bridges is provided to illustrate the
strategy. Finally, a set of conclusions summarises the
discussion.
Risk and criticality-based bridge performance data
collection and monitoring strategy
Strategy outline
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014
have increasing risk and/or criticality as further
illustrated in Figure 1. Each regime differs in terms
of the type of data collected, level of detail, accuracy,
precision and frequency of collection, resolution and
collection and monitoring techniques. The following
sections describe firstly how the proposed data
collection strategy fits into more general asset manage-
ment approaches, and secondly discusses in more
detail the requirements of each regime.
Linking data to its purpose in asset management process
In the proposed data collection strategy, there is an
emphasis on strengthening the link between the
collected data and its purpose in the asset management
process, and on providing a decision-making frame-
work that can be used to justify the specific data

collection approach adopted.

The discussion in the introductory part of the article
highlighted the following:
. the need to manage bridge risk by simultaneously
considering both the risk as such and the
criticality of a bridge within its transportation
network, focusing on bridges which present more
risk or are more critical;
. the fact that higher quality data can facilitate
better risk management;
. the need to link closely the data collected to the
decisions made using the data in the overall asset
management process;
. the need to ensure that any improvements to
data collection are cost neutral.
Taking into account these considerations, the
proposed bridge data collection strategy, outlined in
Table 1, envisages core, intermediate and advanced
data collection levels or regimes. These categories are
broadly based on a general road network data
collection framework proposed by Paterson and
Scullion (1990) and adapted herein for the purpose of
bridge data collection. Bridges falling into each regime
The asset management process is usually differ-
entiated into the core asset management and the
advanced asset management (Figure 2). The advanced
asset management is characterised by two capabilities:
(i) the ability to forecast the condition or risk over
time, and (ii) the ability for long-term investment
optimisation. This philosophy was the basis of devel-
oping the proposed data collection framework that is
split into core, intermediate and advanced data
collection regimes. An extra layer of sophistication of
data collection was added in this approach since a need
for more detailed investigation and analysis of most
critical or at-risk structures was perceived. Linking
explicitly the asset management approaches to data
collection regimes will ensure that for high risk and
critical bridges appropriate data are available to
implement the required advanced approach to their
management. On the other hand, for less at-risk or
critical structures, where core asset management is
appropriate, data collection can be simplified. The use
of three data collection levels also allows bridge asset
managers more freedom in developing bridge specific
approaches that can be used to ensure cost neutrality is
maintained.

Table 1. Outline of risk and criticality-based bridge data collection and monitoring strategy.

Data collection Bridge risk and

regime criticality band Risk assessment resolution and reporting Data collection techniques and frequency
Core Low Overall hazard and bridge performance risk Visual inspections every three to six years
and criticality assessment Limited, usually reactive NDE and SHM
Intermediate Intermediate Individual hazard and bridge element Visual inspections every two to three years
performance risk and criticality Some, reactive and proactive NDE
assessment and SHM
Advanced High Individual hazard and bridge component Visual inspections every one to two years
performance risk and criticality Extensive, mostly proactive NDE and SHM
assessment
 332 S. Bush et al.
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014

Figure 1. Risk and criticality-based bridge classification for data collection.

Figure 2. Core and advanced asset management process.

 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
In Table 2, the core and advanced asset manage-
ment levels are juxtaposed with the respective data
collection needs and levels. In doing so, it allows bridge
asset managers to adapt their data collection regimes
depending on what the data is ultimately used for in
the asset management decision-making processes, and
according to the specific information needs for a
particular bridge based on its risk and criticality
assessment. For the advanced asset management
process, appropriate data is sourced from an inter-
mediate or advanced data collection level. However,
advanced data collection is required when more
detailed analyses, such as diagnostics at the bridge
component level, are to be undertaken.
Data requirements and collection methods
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014
As the bridge risk and criticality increase, higher
quality and more detailed data on its performance need
to be collected. Higher quality data is here understood
as more accurate and precise data, where accuracy
refers to the truthfulness of data and precision to its
repeatability. In other words, accurate data estimates
correctly the mean value (albeit perhaps with large
spread of individual samples), while precise data has
small scatter (Taylor 1999). The requirement for more
detailed data addresses the need to collect data that
enables better understanding and assessment of in-
dividual hazards, vulnerabilities and performance of
bridge elements and components.
When collecting performance data, bridge asset
managers have a range of techniques available to them,
including visual inspections (VIs), non-destructive
evaluation (NDE) and structural health monitoring
(SHM) (Rücker et al. 2006a, b). VI refers to the
process of examination and data collection on struc-
tures and components by the use of the human sensory
systems aided only by simple mechanical enhance-
ments such as magnifiers, dental picks and the like.
NDE and SHM, in this study, encompass a wide range
Table 2. Correspondence of asset management and data collection levels.
Asset management level
Data collection
level Core
Core Basic functionality of asset management can be
a c h i e v e d i n c l u d i n g v a l u a t i o ns a n d
Intermediate prioritisation of annual budget expenditure
Advanced
333
of non-destructive tests that do not rely on human
sensory systems, i.e. use specialist equipment to collect
data. Some examples of NDE and SHM include the
Schmidt hammer, chloride sampling, cover meter
surveys, proof-load testing, forced vibration testing,
and permanent or periodic monitoring using sensors
attached to the structure. These data can subsequently
be used in a range of assessment processes. One
example is structural identification (St-Id) where a
more accurate understanding of the as-built opera-
tional performance of a bridge is developed via
creating and updating of a bridge structural model
(Catbas et al. 2011). An emerging paradigm, St-Id will
be attractive to the bridge engineering community
because it uses well-established and accepted ap-
proaches and tools such as finite element modelling.
Furthermore, underlying the St-Id paradigm is the
strong and logical connection between the collected
data and its ultimate use, aligned with the philosophy
of the strategy proposed in this article that all data
should have a clear purpose.
VIs have a number of issues related to their
accuracy and repeatability (Phares et al. 2001). Other
limitations include lack of quantitative information on
loads and their effects, high manpower demands for
structures that need to be frequently inspected, and
difficulty or impossibility to detect problems in hard to
reach or hidden locations, e.g. corrosion of reinforce-
ment. Bridge asset managers should therefore reflect
on the appropriateness of relying solely on VIs in
bridge data collection, especially for at-risk or critical
bridges. While VIs will likely remain the main data
collection approach, NDE and SHM can offer new
insights into, and provide different, usually quantita-
tive, data on the structural condition and performance.
With proper NDE and SHM application and data
interpretation, e.g. within the St-Id framework, im-
proved understanding can be achieved. By combining
VIs, NDE and SHM, a fuller picture can be developed,
overcoming limitations of the individual techniques.
Advanced
Core data may not be sufficient for advanced asset
management processes
Advanced asset management processes including
network level analysis, forecasting condition/risk
and investment level scenario analysis can be
achieved using intermediate data
Advanced data is utilised for further analyses at a more
detail level (e.g., project detail level) such as
diagnostics and more accurate intervention needs
and costs
 334 S. Bush et al.
The proposed data collection and monitoring strategy
provide recommendations on when each technique
should be used and relates this to bridge risk and
criticality.
Many bridge issues related to deterioration and
aging require periodic reassessment. Because bridge
condition changes with time, the accuracy of old data
when applied to current risk assessment deteriorates as
time passes. Therefore, for more accurate risk assess-
ment more frequent data collection is required.
Additionally, when less precise data collection techni-
ques, such as VI, are used more frequent inspections
may compensate for lower precision too. In the
proposed strategy, for higher risk and more critical
structures data are collected more frequently.
As the bridge risk or criticality increases, it
becomes more important to understand which hazards
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014
and bridge element and component condition and
vulnerabilities contribute the most to the overall risk.
A broad categorisation of hazards would break them
(Moon et al. 2009) into those affecting geotechnical,
hydraulic and structural safety, serviceability, durabil-
ity and maintenance, and functionality of a bridge. A
more detailed assessment will consider what contri-
butes to those broad hazards. For example, hazards to
structural safety may include high seismicity and local
soil type combination, large traffic counts, and
significant proportion of heavy vehicles and associated
probability of overloading. Bridge ‘element’ refers in
this discussion to abutments, decks, piers, handrails,
bearings, etc., while individual ‘components’ make up
elements, e.g. several girders and a slab make up the
deck. There will typically be a range of possible
hazards to be matched with element and component
vulnerabilities. It is often the case that only a limited
number of hazards to be realistically expected at the
bridge site will meet associated vulnerabilities. A more
refined understanding of the resulting risks and
criticalities will therefore facilitate targeted interven-
tions, such as strengthening or repair, to be applied
only to those selected components and elements
leading to cost-effective risk management. The pro-
posed strategy requires risks to be assessed at varying
levels of element and component resolution. An
important aspect of vulnerability is the consideration
of bridge components and elements as parts of the
whole structural system. This enables focusing atten-
tion on those which have low or no redundancy and
whose failure may therefore lead to wide ranging and
catastrophic consequences.
The following sections describe in more detail the
data requirements and approaches to data collection
and monitoring for the core, intermediate and ad-
vanced data collection regimes. These guidelines may
be understood as simplified versions of more rigorous
and advanced approaches to data collection and
maintenance optimisation. For example, Robelin and
Madanat (2006) proposed a joint model for planning
inspection, maintenance and replacement of bridges in
a transportation network, where inspection frequency
was a decision variable. The optimisation aimed at
reducing the total cost of the various actions.
Durango-Cohen and Madanat (2008) studied the
problem of optimisation of inspections and mainte-
nance taking into account performance model uncer-
tainty attributed to different technology used. They
demonstrated that adopting a variable inspection
frequency may lead to savings.
Core data collection regime
Bridges for which the core data collection level will be
adequate have a lower risk and lower criticality profile.
They will not be exposed to severe hazards, will be
operating well within their performance capabilities,
will be in good condition, will have sufficient structural
redundancy and limited number of critical elements
and components, and will only have a limited impact
on network operations if their service performance is
reduced. For these reasons, core bridges can be
managed using a core asset management approach
(Figure 2).
The core asset management process requires
sufficient data to have a basic understanding of the
asset and to manage, through prioritisation, perfor-
mance related risks. More information about the types
of data required at each level of data collection is
provided in Bush et al. (2011) and herein only general
data categories are listed. For core bridges, data will be
collected for key performance criteria and broad
hazard and vulnerability categories, including basic
traffic data, load carrying capability, bridge condition
and defects, and, if required, scour or seismic suscept-
ibility. Past work history data will also be stored,
thereby allowing basic costs estimates to take place.
The outcome of the assessment process will be a
prioritised list of work actions, which have costs
assigned to them.
For core bridges, it is considered acceptable that
the data quality can be lower, and as such VIs will be
the predominant form of data collection, with NDE
and SHM used sparingly and mostly reactively to
understand identified performance weaknesses.
Further, as the bridges are in good condition, it is
considered that the VI program can be altered to
between three and six years compared to the com-
monly adopted biennial cycle. By extending the
inspection cycle, it will enable reallocation of funding
and inspection resources to those assets with increased
risks and criticality ratings.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Intermediate data collection regime
Intermediate bridges will have an increased risk or
criticality profile because they are subjected
to increased levels of hazards, are in a poorer
condition, operating close to performance cap-
abilities, have limited structural redundancy, have
critical components or elements whose failure
may result in the whole system failure, or will have
an increased impact on the functionality of the
network if their performance is lost or reduced.
Intermediate bridges will be managed using an
advanced asset management approach, therefore
facilitating long-term planning and optimisation
of expenditures taking into account a whole-of-
life approach to performance management
(Figure 2).
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014
To effectively carry out advanced asset manage-
ment, an improved level of information will be
required, and therefore a broader range of data
collected. Individual hazards and vulnerabilities will
need to be assessed based on collected data. Data
resolution will also have to be at the bridge element
level if an adequate risk assessment is to be achieved.
To undertake advanced asset management, data will
be collected for the full range of performance criteria
including load carrying capability, bridge condition
and defects, overhead strikes, overweight manage-
ment data, barrier capacities, weigh in motion
data, traffic data, scour data, seismic data and safety
data, e.g. number of traffic accidents. Cost data
will be stored on the past and future bridge
management requirements. This data will be used
to understand future performance states and will be
used to take a long-term view of bridge and network
management.
To manage the increased risk and criticality, it is
proposed that the VI program follows a two- to three-
year cycle, and NDE and SHM have a greater level of
integration into the data collection process. To
improve decisions, NDE and SHM will be used to
both carry out testing on bridge specific defects and
undertaken for a number of typical bridges in the
entire stock to improve the understanding of aspects
such as deterioration models for a wider population of
structures. Further, automatic data collection systems
will also be used to collect network level data such as
ground motion, flooding, traffic, and vehicle loading.
Automatic data collection systems are promoted for
this type of data as they are considered the only
feasible tool available to bridge asset managers. By
collecting this type of data, improved network models
can be developed, and the relationship between bridge
performance, network performance and strategic out-
comes developed.
335
Advanced data collection regime
It is envisaged the advanced data collection regime will
be applied only to a limited number of structures that
have the highest risk or criticality profile as they are
central to the operation of the network, can be
subjected to the most severe hazards, are in poor
condition, lack structural redundancy and have many
critical elements and components whose failure will
trigger a whole system collapse, or are operating close
to their performance capabilities. The advanced asset
management approach (Figure 2) will be used for those
bridges; however, an enhanced level of data detail and
quality will need to be provided for efficient manage-
ment. To that end, the advanced data collection regime
is extended such that individual hazard and vulner-
abilities can be assessed, and a component level
understanding of the bridge performance and condi-
tion is developed. This will allow work optimisation to
take place at a greater level of resolution and therefore
very specific bridge management plans to be put in
place for cost-effective interventions.
These bridges require very well defined reliability-
based performance assessments. It is considered that
extensive and proactive use of NDE and SHM is
required to achieve this level of data quality and is
therefore highly recommended for the management of
advanced bridges. SHM will be used either periodically
to regularly update bridge risk status, or even
continuously especially towards the end of the
structure’s useful life. These bridges will also have
VIs on a one- to two-year cycle to be able to quickly
identify problems as they develop. The high level of
accuracy attained using NDE, SHM and the frequent
VI programme, linked with data collected at the
individual hazard and bridge component level, will
facilitate the development of high resolution long-term
management plans, and will allow asset managers to
more accurately understand the performance capabil-
ities of their high risk and most critical infrastructure.
By providing the level of flexibility in data
collection regime and data collection approach, the
bridge asset manager can tailor the strategy to suit
local network requirements, risk tolerance and budget,
thereby ensuring cost neutrality of strategy
implementation.
Example of risk and criticality-based bridge
classification for data collection
Four bridges taken from the New Zealand highway
network are used in this example, namely a corrugated
steel culvert, a single span timber bridge, the
Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) and Newmarket
Viaduct (Figure 3). It should be noted here that only a
 336
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014
Figure 3. Analysed bridges: (a) corrugated steel culvert, (b)
single span timber bridge, (c) Auckland Harbour Bridge, and
(d) Newmarket Viaduct.
high-level risk and criticality assessment are under-
taken in the example. For high-risk and/or criticality
structures, as suggested by Moon et al. (2009), a more
S. Bush et al.
detailed evaluation should follow taking into account
individual hazards and vulnerabilities of bridge
elements and components. The specific details relat-
ing to each bridge, its hazards, condition, network
criticality and current asset management and data
collection approaches are covered in Table 3. Even
for such a limited sample, the bridges range from
major, key structures of national significance through
to much smaller and simpler bridges with varying
network importance, and represent a variety of
hazards, vulnerabilities and asset management
approaches.
Risk and criticality assessment and quantification
In this research, the method proposed by Moon et al.
(2009) for risk assessment and relative quantification is
used. Risk is calculated as:
R¼HVCU
where H ¼ probability of a hazard, V ¼ vulnerability
to a given hazard, C ¼ consequences resulting from a
failure to perform adequately, and U ¼ uncertainty
premium. For each bridge, risks related to four
broadly defined performance criteria, namely structur-
al safety, hydraulic/geotechnical safety, serviceability,
durability and maintenance, and functionality are
calculated separately. Detailed tables are provided in
Moon et al. (2009) which enable determination of the
factors in the above risk equation. Relative scores
ranging between 1 and 3 for the first three factors, i.e.
H, V and C, are used. For example, the score for
hydraulic/geotechnical hazard probability depends on
design flood return period at the bridge location,
seismic design category, distance from the coast,
possibility of vessel impact, scour potential and history
of hazard occurrence. The uncertainty premium U
takes into account the accuracy of the data available
and approaches used for risk analysis and quality
control measures employed. Five different values are
proposed, ranging from 2.5 for assessments based on
minimum standard VIs and document review to 1.0
when best practice VIs and document review are used
together with best practice NDE and SHM. To obtain
an aggregate bridge level risk, the RMS of the
individual performance criterion risks was calculated.
Doing so ensures that greater emphasis is placed on
specific performance issues that contribute more to the
aggregated risk. However, for bridges with heightened
overall risk, it is recommended that individual
performance risks are also examined to understand
their relative importance.
Bridge criticality is measured by the wider con-
sequences to the network functionality and regional
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 337

Table 3. Risk and criticality considerations for bridges used in the classification example.

Bridge Description
Corrugated A corrugated steel culvert of 4 m diameter supports state highway of national strategic importance
steel culvert Overall good condition; only minor corrosion to the barrel; no scour
Replacement cost low; annual average daily traffic (AADT) 4 50,000 vehicles; heavy commercial vehicle
5%; reasonable level of service could be restored within a few days; temporary measures quickly
available; alternative routes available with only minor reductions to service level
Data collected via regular minimum standard VIs
Single span 12-m span timber bridge carrying a road of local importance over a small river;
timber bridge Designed to outdated load standards; overall moderate condition
Replacement cost moderate between NZ$100K and NZ$1m; AADT is 1000;
Service can be returned after several days with a temporary bridge installed to cross the river
Data collected via regular minimum standard VIs
Auckland Harbour Key link across a harbour supporting state highway of national strategic importance at the heart of the
Bridge (AHB) major economic centre of New Zealand; complex truss bridge with ‘clip-on’ extensions on both sides
Navigable shipping channel; coastal environment
Known fatigue issues in extensions (heavy vehicles prohibited on extensions); extensions recently
strengthened but only limited service life expected
Replacement cost very high 4NZ$750M; AADT for extensions 438,000, centre truss 480,000; major
service would take 41 year to restore; a detour available for long routes, but nothing available locally;
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014

failure will cause significant delays in the region and impact heavily on local, regional, and inter-regional
commerce; a national icon
Individual management plan implemented including best practice VIs, NDE and SHM
Newmarket Key link supporting state highway of national strategic importance at the heart of the major economic
Viaduct centre of New Zealand; completed in 2011; twin post-tensioned bridges with 12 spans, *60 m each
Replacement cost very high 4NZ$200M; AADT 4160,000; service would take 41 year to restore;
detours available but failure will cause significant delays in the region and impact heavily on local,
regional, and inter-regional commerce
Data collected via best practice VIs and technical analyses conducted; a University-operated monitoring
system in place that could be integrated into management plan

economy resulting from a failure. By separately
reporting on criticality, it ensures that the bridge asset
manager takes into account those bridges that have a
significant impact on network functionality, but
because of their low failure probability might not
have the same recognition if only a purely risk-based
outlook were used. The overall bridge criticality score
was assumed as the maximum criticality score for the
individual performance criteria. As with the overall
risk score, for highly critical bridges it is recommended
to examine the individual scores.
Using the outlined risk and criticality assessment
and scoring method, the results for the four bridges are
shown in Table 4. Individual risk and criticality scores
are provided and overall risk and criticality scores
computed. At the bottom, each bridge is assigned to a
data collection regime and asset management level.
Those assignments are indicative only as the decision
to which regime and level a bridge will be eventually
assigned to will have to take into account budgetary
constraints and risk tolerance. This will require
conducting risk and criticality assessment at least for
the majority of bridges in a particular stock. For
example, while it can be argued that the AHB is certain
to receive special attention, whether the culvert will be
a subject of advanced approaches will be up to the
asset manager to decide.
It can be seen from Table 4 that the AHB and
Newmarket Viaduct, while having very different risk
scores, both have the same criticality rating, which
could be anticipated given their importance. The
proposed strategy indicates that both bridges should
be managed using an advanced asset management
process, data should be collected on the full range of
performance criteria, and the data should be collected
using the most accurate techniques. At this point in
time, the AHB is being managed using an up-to-date
data collection and asset management processes, with
SHM and a weigh in motion system used to under-
stand structural performance, and the bridge is also
visually inspected annually. It is also worth noting that
using these best practice approaches to data collection
reduces the overall bridge risk by a factor of 2.5 using
the adopted uncertainty premium scores. However,
given the comparable criticality of Newmarket Via-
duct, it is recommended that for this bridge a detailed
understanding of its reliability be developed. The asset
manager may then decide to defer an advanced data
collection regime, but the review needs at least be
undertaken and a proactive management plan put in
place.
Another important conclusion is that the corru-
gated steel culvert, while being a relatively simple
structure in good condition, still has a high criticality
 338 S. Bush et al.

Table 4. Risk and criticality assessment of analysed bridges.

Newmarket
Culvert Timber bridge AHB Viaduct
Performance criteria Risk Consequence Risk Consequence Risk Consequence Risk Consequence
Structural safety 10.0 2 7.5 1 27.0 3 11.3 3
Hydraulic/geotech. safety 10.0 5.0 22.5 3.8
Serviceability 5.0 1 5.0 1 12.0 2 7.5 2
Functionality 15.0 2 5.0 1 18.0 2 7.5 2
Aggregate: risk (RMS)/ 10.6 2 5.7 1 20.6 3 8.0 3
criticality (max consequence)
Data collection regime (indicative) Intermediate Core Advanced Advanced
Asset management level (indicative) Advanced Core Advanced Advanced

rating and it is therefore suggested that it should be boundaries between the core, intermediate and ad-
managed using an advanced asset management vanced data collection levels, and which bridges fall
approach. A greater data quality will then have to be into each regime. However, a robust and rational
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014

ensured, likely with the help of techniques such as
NDE and SHM. Based on more traditional bridge
management practices, the culvert would not be
managed using an advanced asset management
approach, as many asset managers would perceive it
to be a low risk and therefore only undertake limited
investigations.
Conclusions
In this article, a risk and criticality-based bridge data
collection strategy has been proposed. In the assess-
ment of bridge failure risk and consequences, a
broader, network and regional economy level outlook
is taken, and bridges are seen as parts of the wider
transportation network. Depending on their risk and
criticality within the network, bridges are considered to
fall within one of the three data collection regimes
comprising core, intermediate and advanced. The data
collection regimes are aligned with the broader asset
management process to ensure that the data collected
is sufficient and appropriate for its purpose in the
decision-making process. The two general levels of
asset management, core and advanced, are linked to
core and intermediate/advanced data collection re-
gimes, respectively.
The strategy provides guidance on the type and
extent of data to collect, its accuracy, precision,
collection frequency, resolution, and inspection, eva-
luation and monitoring techniques. The more ad-
vanced data collection regimes require more detailed
and higher quality data and this will be achieved by
wider integration of NDE and SHM, more frequent
data collection and higher resolution up to the
individual bridge component level.
To ensure that the proposed changes are cost
neutral, bridge managers will have a reasonable
amount of freedom to decide where to draw the
process will underpin the relative assessment of each
bridge risk and criticality in comparison to the whole
stock of assets to be managed.
Collecting the data in the way it is proposed in this
framework will help to close the gaps identified by the
USGAO and NZOAG audits related to linking bridge
asset decisions to national policy directives and
creating comprehensive bridge performance frame-
works. This will allow bridge asset managers to obtain
strategic knowledge of the bridge asset in their care in a
cost-effective way. It is considered that the data
collection and monitoring strategy developed in this
article provides a new framework for asset manage-
ment of road bridges, as it brings together the idea of
network management, criticality and risk to provide a
deeper understanding of a network operational per-
formance capability.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the New Zealand Transport Agency,
Auckland City Council and Waitakere City Council for
providing financial support and the project steering group for
their guidance.
References
Brady, K.B., 2004. Report of the Controller and Auditor-
General on local government: Results of the 2002–03
audits. Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Auditor
General, 52–66.
British Standards Institution, 2008. PAS 55-1:2008: Specifi-
cation for the optimized management of physical assets.
London: British Standards Institution.
Bush, S., et al., 2011. Data collection and monitoring strategies
for asset management of New Zealand road bridges.
Wellington: New Zealand Transport Agency (in press).
Catbas, F.N., et al., eds., 2011. Structural identification (St-
Id) of constructed facilities – approaches, methods and
technologies for effective practice of St-Id. USA: Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers and Structural Engineer-
ing Institute.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Durango-Cohen, P.L. and Madanat, S.M., 2008. Optimiza-
tion of inspection and maintenance decisions for infra-
structure facilities under performance model uncertainty:
a quasi-Bayes approach. Transportation Research Part A,
42, 1074–1085.
Faber, M.H. and Stewart, M.G., 2003. Risk assessment for
civil engineering facilities: critical overview and discus-
sion. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 80(2),
173–184.
Moon, F.L., et al., 2009. A pragmatic, risk-based
approach to prioritizing bridges. In: F. Wu, A. Diaz, P.
Shull and D. Vogel, eds. Proceedings of SPIE conference
on nondestructive characterization for composite materials,
aerospace engineering, civil infrastructure, and homeland
security 2009, San Diego, USA, 72940M-1-11.
NAMS Group, 2006. International infrastructure manage-
ment manual. Wellington: NAMS Group.
New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers, 2007.
Dollars and sense: guidance on financial management
under the Local Government Act 2002. Wellington:
SOLGM.
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:34 27 October 2014
Omenzetter, P., et al., 2011. Risk based bridge data collection
and asset management and the role of structural health
monitoring. In: F. Wu, ed. Proceedings of SPIE’s
conference on smart structures and materials/nondestruc-
tive evaluation and health monitoring. San Diego, USA,
79830K1-13.
Paterson, W.D.O. and Scullion, T., 1990. Information
systems for road management: draft guidelines on system
design and data issues. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Phares, B.M., et al., 2001. Reliability of visual bridge
inspection. Public Roads, 64 (5), 22–29.
339
Robelin, C.A. and Madanat, S.M., 2006. A bottom-up,
reliability-based bridge inspection, maintenance and
replacement optimization model. In: Proceedings of the
85th annual meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Paper no. 06–0381.
Rücker, W., Hille, F., and Rohrmann, R., 2006a. Guideline
for structural health monitoring. Phoenix, AZ: SAMCO.
Rücker, W., Hille, F., and Rohrmann, R., 2006b. Guideline
for the assessment of existing structures. Phoenix, AZ:
SAMCO.
Stewart, M.G. and Melchers, R.E., 1997. Probabilistic risk
assessment of engineering systems. London: Chapman
and Hall.
Taylor, J.R., 1999. An introduction to error analysis: The
study of uncertainties in physical measurements. Sausalito,
CA: University Science Books.
Theoharidou, M., Kotzanikolaou, P., and Gritzalis, D.,
2009. Risk-based criticality analysis. In: C. Palmer and S.
Shenoi, eds. Critical infrastructure protection III. Berlin:
Springer, 35–49.
Transportation Research Board, 2009. Costing asset protec-
tion: an all hazards guide for transportation agencies
(CAPTA). Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board. NCHRP Report 525.
Transportation Research Board, 2011. How we travel: A
sustainable national program for travel data. Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board.
United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO),
2008. Highway bridge program: clearer goals and
performance measures needed for a more focused and
sustainable program. Washington, DC: United States
Government Accountability Office.