Advertisement

Abstract

The importance of infrastructure for economic development of countries and, it opens up the economy to grander, and bigger opportunities. Maintenance should be well-thought-out and be regarded as vital part any infrastructure development in a country. The main goal of infrastructure maintenance is life sustainability of major assets. The right planning of maintenance is necessary for right moment of investment, as its premature or late implementation will lead to unnecessary costs and it may compromise the asset’s economic life duration. Different management systems developed across Europe leading to different choices and recommendations regarding maintenance actions. In order to overcome this issue a COST Action TU 1406 has proposed a guideline for standardization and development of quality control plans for roadway bridges. As in all management systems the starting points is collection of available data, defining element identification and grouping, recognition of vulnerable zones, damage processes and failure modes. On the basis of the identified damage processes identification and evaluation of performance indicators (PIs) is conducted, followed by the selection and identification of key performance indicators (KPIs), taking into account owners’ demands, and finally creating Quality Control Plans (QCP) scenarios and comparing them by spider diagrams. The recommended procedure is applied on an arch concrete bridge in Czech Republic.

References

  1. 1.
    Tao, Z., Zophy, F., Wiegmann, J.: Asset management model and systems integration approach. Transp. Res. Rec. 1719(00–1162), 191–199 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der Velde, J., Klatter, L., Bakker, J.: A holistic approach to asset management in the Netherlands. Asset Manage. Civil Eng. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. Maint. Manage. Life-Cycle Des. Perform. 9(4), 340–348 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO (International Organization for Standardization): General principles on reliability of structures. ISO 2394 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stipanovic, I., Chatzi, E., Limonggelli, M., Gavin, K., Allah Bukhsh, Z., Skaric Palic, S., Xenidis, Y., Imam, B., Anzlin, A., Zanini, M., Klanker, G., Hoj, N., Ademovic, N.: COST TU 1406, WG2 technical report – performance goals for roadway bridges (2017Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kedar, A., Sein, S., Panetsos, P., Ademović, N., Duke, A., Ryjacek, P.: COST TU 1406, WG4 technical report – preparation of a case study (2019)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strauss, A., Mandić Ivanković, A., Matos, J.C., Casas, J.R.: COST TU 1406, WG1 technical report – performance indicators for roadway bridges (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiang, M., Sinha, K.C.: Bridge service life prediction model using the markov chain. Transportation Research Records 1223. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunker, K.F., Rabbat, B.G.: Highway bridge type and performance patterns. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 4(3), 161–173 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kallen, M.J., Van Noortwijk, J.M.: Statistical inference for Markov deterioration models of bridge conditions in the Netherlands. In: Cruz, P.J., Frangopol, D.M., Neves, L.C. (eds.) Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Life-Cycle Performance and Cost: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management, pp. 535–536. Taylor & Francis, London (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, Y.J., Yoon, D.K.: Identifying critical sources of bridge deterioration in cold regions through the constructed bridges in North Dakota. J. Bridg. Eng. 15, 542–552 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ČSN 73 1317 (731317): Stanovení pevnosti betonu v tlaku. The Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing (ÚNMZ) (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guthrie, G.D., Carey, J.W.: A simple environmentally friendly, and chemically specific method for the identification and evaluation of the alkali–silica reaction. Cem. Concr. Res. 27(9), 1407–1417 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EN 196-21:2005: Methods of testing cement. Determination of the chloride, carbon dioxide and alkali content of cement. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    EN 206:2013+A1:2016: Concrete – Part 1: Specification, performance, production and conformity. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hajdin, R., Kušar, M., Mašović, S., Linneberg, P., Amado, J., Tanasić, N., Close collaborators: Ademović, N., Costa, C., Marić, M., Almeida, J., Galvão, N., Sein, S., Zanini, M., and Pendergast, L.: COST TU 1406, WG3 technical report – establishment of a quality control plan (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ČSN ISO 13822:2005: Bases for design of structures – assessment of existing structures. The Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing (ÚNMZ) (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Partial factor methods for existing concrete structures: recommendation. Bulletin FIB –80 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koteš, P., Vičan, J.: Reliability levels for existing bridges evaluation according to Eurocodes. Procedia Eng. 40, 211–216 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lenner, R., Sýkora, M., Keuser, M.: Partial factors for military loads on bridges. In: Proceedings of the ICMT13 International Conference on Military Technologies 2013, Brno, Czech Republic, pp. 409–419. University of Defense, Brno, 22–23 May 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naida Ademović
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pavel Ryjáček
    • 2
  • Milan Petrik
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversity of SarajevoSarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Steel and Timber StructuresCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations