Bridge Health Index for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. I: Current Methodology
This article is a reply.
VIEW THE ORIGINAL ARTICLEThis article has a reply.
VIEW THE REPLYPublication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 24, Issue 6
Abstract
Current Bridge Health Index (BHI) in Pontis Bridge Management System applied to assess the bridge health conditions for 615 bridges in city and county of Denver (CCD) does not provide CCD engineers a valuable analysis of the health condition of its relatively small bridge network. This paper explores both the calculation results and the computing methodology of the current BHI. The BHI was computed for the entire 615 CCD bridge network using the two current cost-based methodologies. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that the current BHI is subjective to a municipality’s often imprecise cost data. This coupled with the methodology of heavily correlating cost with a bridge’s condition reveals potential for modification to meet the needs of the CCD. The results of this study are used as a basis for developing an alternate BHI methodology.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The CCD bridge management group led by James Barwick is acknowledged for several years of research support. Personnel from the CCD including James Hamblin, Bret Banwart, and William Melton provided valuable input on maintenance management of CCD infrastructure throughout the years and are acknowledged. Dr. Chengyu Li of the URS corporation and UCD assistant professor provided guidance. The writers acknowledge the state of California and the associated publication from the original Bridge Health Index. The UCD-CCD DBHI was built extensively from this original research. It was modified to fit the assessment needs of the CCD. The writers hope that this new methodology can further assist municipalities in infrastructure decision making.
References
AASHTO. (2003). Pontis bridge management release 4 technical manual, Washington, D.C.
Al-Wazeer, A., Harris, B., and Dekelbab, W. (2008). “Applying ‘fuzzy concept’ to bridge management.” Public Roads, 72(1), 2–2.
ASCE. (2009). “Report card for America’s infrastructure.” ⟨http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/bridges⟩ (Apr. 2, 2009).
Darbani, B. M., and Hammad, A. (2007). “Critical review of new directions in bridge management system.” Proc., 2007 ASCE Int. Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Reston, Va.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1995). Recording and coding guide for the structure inventory and appraisal of the nations bridges, Washington, D.C.
Jensen, P. (2007). “Modifying the Bridge Health Index to account for all bridge defects.” ⟨http://rns.trb.org/dproject.asp?n=12755⟩ (Mar. 15, 2009).
Jiang, X., and Rens, K. L. (2010). “Bridge health index for the city and county of Denver, Colorado II: Denver bridge health index.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 24(6) 588–596.
Shepard, R. W., and Johnson, M. B. (2001). “California bridge health index—A diagnostic tool to maximize bridge longevity, investment.” Transportation Research News, 251, 6–11.
Thompson, P. D., and Shepard, R. W. (2000). “AASHTO commonly-recognized bridge elements—Successful applications and lessons learned.” Proc., National Workshop on Commonly Recognized Measures for Maintenance, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 24 • Issue 6 • December 2010
Pages: 580 - 587
Copyright
© 2010 ASCE.
History
Received: Sep 3, 2009
Accepted: Feb 18, 2010
Published online: Feb 26, 2010
Published in print: Dec 2010
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.