ABSTRACT
During the implementation of asset management strategies, maintenance actions are required in order to keep assets at a desired performance level. It is verified that there is a large disparity in Europe regarding the way performance indicators are quantified and how performance goals are specified. In case of roadway bridges, specific performance indicators are established for their components. Obtained indicators are then compared with performance goals, in order to evaluate if the quality control plan is accomplished. These goals may vary according to technical, environmental, economic and social factors.
In the road sector, performance can be measured from a number of different perspectives and for a number of reasons, e.g. network level, object/structure level and component level.
The required network performance is related to functional requirements and to policy goals applied to the network as a whole. For example in the Netherlands, the required network performance is defined on a 4-yearly basis in a Service Level Agreement. Indicators are categorized in: availability, traffic safety and sustainability. Based on the Service Level Agreement, a set of Performance Indicators for structures (or objects) are defined. These indicators are based on a set of reference criteria – the RAMS SHEEP aspects – which are the acronym for Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Safety, Security, Health, Environment, Economic and Politics, respectively. Although for each category, a number of indicators have been specified, many of them are difficult to be quantified and are still assessed rather subjectively.
The implementation of asset management will increase the integration of network and structure performance requirements. In doing so, bridge managers and road agencies face a number of challenges:
How to quantify the performance goals and related performance indicators?
How to translate from network to the object level and vice versa?
How to set a complete set of performance indicators?
Network or even societal goals tend to be rather broad in their definition. Furthermore, there is often no exclusive relationship between performance indicators set at a lower level and goals at a higher level. An important notion is that in many countries, the main focus of bridge management is still the condition assessment of the particular objects or elements thereof.
At this moment, there is a large disparity in Europe regarding the way performance indicators are quantified and how performance goals are specified. Therefore, COSTTU 1406 Action aims to bring together, for the first time, both research and practicing community in order to accelerate the establishment of a European guideline in this subject. In Working Group 2 within COST TU 1406 Action performance goals related to roadway bridges are analyzed, based on the international research cooperation and open discussion within the experts’ network in this field.
