ABSTRACT
Bridge asset managers are constantly facing significant challenges with aging bridge stocks, budget constraints and increased pressure from public scrutiny. The industry recognizes there are many technical and economic challenges associated with engineering and managing infrastructure systems. The reality that constructed systems perform differently than envisioned at planning, design, construction and operation phases in conjunction with the limited knowledge of constructed system behavior at different times and under different demand scenarios requires the Bridge Manager to apply a systematic risk based approach to developing maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement programmes.
In order to make good asset management decisions a Bridge Manager needs to:
Understand the bridge management regime
Have the knowledge and skills to challenge the code based design standards
Have the ability to follow a systematic approach to investigating complex system problems
Have the skills to identify the data (field and analytical) scope, extent and quality required to make informed decisions
For Bridge Asset Management Preservation Programmes to be adopted they must be recognized and accepted as credible by both the asset owner (Road Controlling Authority, RCA) and funding agency. A credibility gap occurs when there is a difference in expectation between the Bridge Manager and the approving agencies (in this Preservation Programme case the RCA and funding agency). Credibility gaps can occur in many aspects of bridge management and involve groups other than the RCA and funding agency, for example the freight industry and public community.
This paper provides an overview of bridge risk management and common credibility gaps and hence reinforces the need for good bridge asset management decision making. The recognition that bridge failures are continuing and with the average bridge age at failure being less than the normal design service life shows improvement in risk decision making is necessary.
