Assuring Bridge Safety and 

Serviceability in Europe

International Technology Scanning Program

Sponsored by:

In cooperation with:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

August 2010 
NOTICE

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public 

in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-10-014

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe

5. Report Date

August 2010

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Susan Hida, Firas I. Sheikh Ibrahim, 

Harry A. Capers, Gregory L. Bailey, 

Ian M. Friedland, Jugesh Kapur, Barney T. Martin, 

Jr., Dennis R. Mertz, Gregory R. Perfetti, 

Thomas Saad, Bala Sivakumar

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-99-C-005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway 

 and Transportation Officials

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract

U.S. engineers need advanced tools and protocols to better assess and assure safety and serviceability of 

bridges. The Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, and National Cooperative Highway Research Program sponsored a scanning study of Europe to 

identify best practices and processes to assure bridge safety and serviceability.

The scan team found that the European highway agencies expect their bridge programs to not only ensure 

user safety, but also to meet serviceability expectations and enhance capital investment decisions. The team 

gathered information on safety and serviceability practices and technologies related to design, construction, 

and operations.

Team recommendations for U.S. implementation include developing a national strategy to increase use 

of refined analysis for bridge design and evaluation, encouraging States to use refined analysis combined 

with reliability analysis to avoid unnecessary rehabilitation or replacement of bridges, and encouraging 

adoption of the concept of annual probability of failure to quantify safety in probability-based design 

and rating specifications.

17. Key Words

Bridge inspection, bridge safety, bridge serviceability, finite element method, load and resistance factor 

design, LRFD, QA/QC, quality assurance, quality 

control, weigh-in-motion

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public from the: Office of International Programs, 

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classify. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classify. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

56

22. Price

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Technical Report Documentation Page
ii |

Acknowledgments

The scan team members wish to acknowledge 

the international host transportation agencies and private 

firms for their significant contributions to the success of 

this scan. We also thank them for their gracious hospitality, 

excellent presentations, and willingness to share their 

knowledge and experiences with the team. We truly 

learned much from our interaction with them all.

The team also thanks the Federal Highway Administration 

Office of International Programs and the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

for their leadership, vision, and support of this effort.
Assuring Bridge Safety and

Serviceability in Europe

Prepared by the International Scanning Study Team:

Susan Hida (Cochair)

California DOT

Firas I. Sheikh Ibrahim (Cochair)

FHWA

Harry A. Capers (Report Facilitator)

Arora and Associates

Gregory L. Bailey

West Virginia DOT

Ian M. Friedland

FHWA

Jugesh Kapur

Washington State DOT

Barney T. Martin, Jr.

Modjeski and Masters, Inc.

Dennis R. Mertz

University of Delaware

Gregory R. Perfetti

North Carolina DOT

Thomas Saad

FHWA

Bala Sivakumar

HNTB Corp.

for

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program

August 2010
iv | International Technology Scanning Program

The International Technology Scanning

Program, sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), 

evaluates innovative foreign technologies and practices 

that could significantly benefit U.S. highway transportation systems. This approach allows advanced technology 

to be adapted and put into practice much more efficiently 

without spending scarce research funds to re-create 

advances already developed by other countries.

FHWA and AASHTO, with recommendations from 

NCHRP, jointly determine priority topics for teams of 

U.S. experts to study. Teams in the specific areas being 

investigated are formed and sent to countries where 

significant advances and innovations have been made 

in technology, management practices, organizational 

structure, program delivery, and financing. Scan teams 

usually include representatives from FHWA, State 

departments of transportation, local governments, 

transportation trade and research groups, the 

private sector, and academia. 

After a scan is completed, team members evaluate 

findings and develop comprehensive reports, including 

recommendations for further research and pilot projects 

to verify the value of adapting innovations for U.S. use. 

Scan reports, as well as the results of pilot programs and 

research, are circulated throughout the country to State 

and local transportation officials and the private sector. 

Since 1990, more than 80 international scans have been 

organized on topics such as pavements, bridge construction and maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, 

organizational management, winter road maintenance, 

safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning, 

and policy. 

The International Technology Scanning Program has 

resulted in significant improvements and savings 

in road program technologies and practices throughout 

the United States. In some cases, scan studies have 

facilitated joint research and technology-sharing projects 

with international counterparts, further conserving 

resources and advancing the state of the art. Scan 

studies have also exposed transportation professionals to 

remarkable advancements and inspired implementation 

of hundreds of innovations. The result: large savings 

of research dollars and time, as well as significant 

improvements in the Nation’s transportation system.

Scan reports can be obtained through FHWA free of 

charge by e-mailing international@dot.gov. Scan reports 

are also available electronically and can be accessed on 

the FHWA Office of International Programs Web site 

at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov. 

International Technology

Scanning Program
International Technology Scanning Program: 

Bringing Global Innovations to U.S. Highways 

 Safety

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe (2010)

Improving Safety and Mobility for Older Road Users in 

 Australia and Japan (2008)

Halving Roadway Fatalities: A Case Study From Victoria, 

 Australia (2008)

Safety Applications of Intelligent Transportation Systems in 

 Europe and Japan (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, 

 Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Roadway Human Factors and Behavioral Safety in Europe 

 (2005) 

Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and Australia 

 (2004) 

Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe (2003) 

Managing and Organizing Comprehensive Highway Safety 

 in Europe (2003) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Commercial Vehicle Safety, Technology, and Practice 

 in Europe (2000) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in 

 European Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice 

 in Europe (1999) 

Road Safety Audits—Final Report and Case Studies (1997) 

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: 

 Europe and Australia (1996) 

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, 

 and New Zealand (1995) 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany, 

 and the Netherlands (1994) 

 Planning and Environment 

Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability (2010)

Streamlining and Integrating Right-of-Way and Utility 

 Processes With Planning, Environmental, and Design 

 Processes in Australia and Canada (2009)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

 Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives 

 to U.S. Practice (2006)

Risk Assessment and Allocation for Highway Construction 

 Management (2006)

Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, 

 England, and New Zealand (2005)

Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, 

 Japan, and New Zealand (2004) 

European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices (2002) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2002) 

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways 

 (2002) 

Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe (2001) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, 

 and Technology (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

 Policy and Information

Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe 

 and Asia (2009)

European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development 

 (2003) 

Intelligent Transportation Systems and Winter Operations in 

 Japan (2003) 

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and 

 Services (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information From Abroad

 (1994) 

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information

 (1994) 

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality 

 Enhancement (1994) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and 

 Technology (1994) 

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | v

International Technology

Scan Reports
vi | International Technology Scan Reports

 Operations 

Freight Mobility and Intermodal Connectivity in China (2008)

Commercial Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Enforcement in 

 Europe (2007)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

 Management (2007)

Effective Use of Weigh-in-Motion Data: The Netherlands 

 Case Study (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives 

 to U.S. Practice (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: 

 Safety, Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and Specifications 

 in Europe (2004) 

Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market (2003) 

Meeting 21st Century Challenges of System Performance 

 Through Better Operations (2003) 

Traveler Information Systems in Europe (2003) 

Freight Transportation: The European Market (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in 

 European Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe 

 (1999) 

European Winter Service Technology (1998) 

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems (1997) 

European Traffic Monitoring (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

Winter Maintenance Technology and Practices—Learning from

 Abroad (1995) 

Advanced Transportation Technology (1994) 

Snowbreak Forest Book—Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure 

 Manual (1990) 

 Infrastructure—General 

Public-Private Partnerships for Highway Infrastructure: 

 Capitalizing on International Experience (2009)

Audit Stewardship and Oversight of Large and Innovatively 

 Funded Projects in Europe (2006)

Construction Management Practices in Canada and Europe 

 (2005) 

European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development

 (2003) 

Contract Administration: Technology and Practice in Europe

 (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2001) 

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe 

 (1999) 

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing (1993) 

 Infrastructure—Pavements

Warm-Mix Asphalt: European Practice (2008)

Long-Life Concrete Pavements in Europe and Canada (2007)

Quiet Pavement Systems in Europe (2005)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and Specifications 

 in Europe (2004)

Asphalt Pavement Warranties: Technology and Practice in 

 Europe (2004)

Pavement Preservation Technology in France, South Africa, 

 and Australia (2003) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999) 

South African Pavement and Other Highway Technologies 

 and Practices (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

European Concrete Highways (1992) 

European Asphalt Technology (1990) 

 Infrastructure—Bridges 

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)

Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe (2008)

Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems in Japan and 

 Europe (2005) 

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe (2005)

Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in Europe and 

 South Africa (2005) 

Innovative Technology for Accelerated Construction of Bridge 

 and Embankment Foundations in Europe (2003)

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges 

 in Europe (2001) 

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan 

 (2001) 

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability 

 Countermeasures (1999) 

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan (1997) 

Asian Bridge Structures (1997) 

Bridge Maintenance Coatings (1997) 

Northumberland Strait Crossing Project (1996) 

European Bridge Structures (1995) 

All publications are available on the Internet 

at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | vii

Executive Summary ...................... 1

 Background ............................. 1

 Summary of Initial Findings .................. 2

 Recommendations......................... 2

Implementation Activities.................... 2

Chapter One: Introduction .................. 3

 Background ............................. 3

 Scan Team .............................. 3

 Amplifying Questions ...................... 4

 Host Countries ........................... 4

Chapter Two: Findings on Assuring Bridge 

Safety and Serviceability .................. 7

 Eurocodes .............................. 7

 Background ........................... 7

 Vehicular Live Loads and Live Load Factors ..... 9

 Refined Methods of Analyzing, Designing, 

and Assessing Bridges ..................... 10

Finite Element Analysis of New Bridges ....... 10

Finite Element Analysis of Existing Bridges..... 13

Weigh-in-Motion Data................... 14

Use of Enhanced Reliability Analysis to 

 Assess Safety ............................ 14

Quantification of Safety .................. 14

 Bridge Operations ...................... 15

Quality Assurance/Quality Control ............ 15

Design Checks ........................ 15

Inspection ........................... 16

 Laser Scanning ........................ 17

QA/QC in the United Kingdom............. 17

Processes and Practices to Provide Serviceability 

and Durability........................... 18

Chapter Three: Recommendations 

and Implementation Activities ............. 25

 Recommendations........................ 25

Implementation Activities................... 26

Appendix A: Amplifying Questions............. 29

Appendix B: Scan Team Members.............. 33

Appendix C: Host Country Contacts ............ 37

Appendix D: Finnish Statistical Process Controls 

in the Bridge Inspection Program ............... 45

Figures

Figure 1. Scan team members. .................. 4 

Figure 2. Hierarchy of Eurocodes on concrete bridge 

design.................................... 8

Figure 3. German live load. .................... 9

Figure 4. Finnish live load used for rating.......... 11

Figure 5. Change management. ................ 12

Figure 6. Weigh-in-motion data. ............... 13

Figure 7. Contractual relationship of the check 

engineer. ................................ 16

Figure 8. Finnish statistical process control......... 17

Figure 9. Laser scanning of structures in Finland..... 17 

Figure 10. Detail of drag plate used in Austrian 

integral bridges. ........................... 19

Figure 11. Crack width control................. 20

Figure 12. External post-tensioning.............. 21

Figure 13. Typical two-girder system in Europe. .... 21

Figure 14. Maximum allowed values for the deviation 

PL and relative deviations SP and SPkust. ......... 46

Figure 15. Plot of divergence indicator from Finnra 

quality reports. ............................ 46

Figure 16. Example calculation of Finnra quality 

parameters. .............................. 47

Tables

Table 1. Scan itinerary. ....................... 5

Table 2. Eurocode consequence classes. .......... 14

Table 3. Inherent probabilities of failure (Pf

) and 

corresponding reliability indices (ß). ............. 14

Table 4. Quality control inspections in 2005........ 45

Table of Contents
viii | Abbreviations and Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASFiNAG Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- Finanzierungs- Aktiengesellschaft

BASt Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway Research Institute)

CTOA Centre Technique des Ouvrages d’Art 

DOT department of transportation

EU European Union

FEM finite element method

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

Finnra Finnish Road Administration

GIS geographic information system

HA Highways Agency

HGV heavy goods vehicle

LCPC Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées

LRFD load and resistance factor design

LRFR load and resistance factor rating

MR&R maintenance repair and rehabilitation

NBIS National Bridge Inspection Standards 

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NDE nondestructive evaluation

NDPs Nationally Determined Parameters

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

Sétra Service d’Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes

TRB Transportation Research Board

WIM weigh-in-motion

Abbreviations and Acronyms
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 1

Background

U.S. engineers need new, advanced tools and protocols to 

better assess and assure safety and serviceability of highway 

bridges. These tools include an overall, integrated approach 

to bridge analysis, design, evaluation, and load-carrying 

capacity (load rating). Present-day design specifications 

(load and resistance factor design (LRFD)) have assured 

safety by analyzing the effect of heavy, legal trucks 

throughout the United States and applying calibration 

protocol using limited Canadian site statistics. However, 

the calibration did not include serviceability calibration 

to assure bridge serviceability and performance. Therefore, 

it is desirable to identify design practices, design truck 

assessments, and detailed code calibration procedures 

used in other countries to assure the safety and 

serviceability of newly designed bridges.

The new American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Bridge 

Evaluation was developed to assist bridge owners by 

establishing inspection, evaluation, load rating, and 

posting practices and procedures. The load and resistance 

factor rating (LRFR) section of the manual is based on 

reliability theories to assure a certain level of safety for 

members. However, certain serviceability checks were 

left optional because they are not directly related to 

bridge safety, but are geared to protecting the long-term 

serviceability and durability of structures. It is unclear 

whether making these checks optional has an effect on 

the service life of aging U.S. bridges. Therefore, it is 

desirable to identify evaluation (load-carrying assessment) 

best practices and quantify the required level of safety 

and performance used in other countries to avoid failures, 

serviceability concerns, unnecessary expenditures, and 

traffic restrictions.

Knowledge and software have evolved to enable moving 

away from line girder approximate procedures to a 

system approach using advanced finite element analyses. 

However, current U.S. specifications and practice still, for 

the most part, rely on simplified, approximate analyses to 

determine the structural effects of vehicular loading on 

bridge girders. Situations impeding the use of advanced 

analysis in design and evaluation include the cost of 

software, lack of training, lack of guidance materials, 

modeling complexities, and perceived high cost-to-benefit 

ratio. A growing number of U.S. bridge owners and 

engineers seek to expand and mainstream the use of more 

rigorous design and evaluation approaches in everyday 

practice to achieve more economical use of materials, 

a better understanding of the structural system, and 

a better quantified level of safety and serviceability.

The purpose of the scan was to identify best practices and 

processes to assure bridge safety and serviceability for 

implementation in the United States. Specific topics 

of interest included the following:

■

Safety and serviceability—design and construction

■

Safety and serviceability—operations

■

Refined analysis—design, construction, and operations 

The team developed a comprehensive list of technical and 

operational process questions, including topics on safety 

and serviceability concerns and the use of refined analysis 

during the design, construction, and operational phases 

of a bridge’s life (Appendix A).

An 11-member team was formed to conduct the study. 

This team consisted of three representatives from 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), four 

representatives from State departments of transportation, 

one representative from academia, and three structural 

engineering design consultants, one who served as the 

report facilitator. 

The team conducted a series of meetings and site visits 

with representatives of government agencies and private 

sector organizations abroad from May 29 to June 14, 2009. 

The team visited Austria, England, Finland, France, and 

Germany. These five countries were selected through 

a desk scan that identified their use of advanced activities 

in assuring bridge safety and serviceability. 

Executive Summary
2 | Executive Summary

Summary of Initial Findings 

The scan team found that, as in the United States, the 

European host agencies put a tremendous value on bridge 

programs not only to ensure highway user safety, but also 

to ensure that durability and serviceability expectations are 

met and to enhance capital investment decisions on the 

existing bridge inventory. They place major emphasis on 

ensuring that there is no service interruption because of 

a bridge failure or major repair, and that appropriate 

sophisticated methods are used to evaluate structural 

safety. Most of the agencies visited had major programs 

aimed at assuring accuracy of design and rating of 

highway structures on their systems.

The scan team also identified many practices and 

technologies related to the topics of interest. The order 

in which they are presented in this report is for clarity 

of presentation and does not reflect the priority 

recommended by the team.

Recommendations

Based on the above findings, the recommendations of the 

team are as follows:

1. Develop a nationally accepted strategy for promoting 

and increasing the practicing bridge engineer’s use of 

refined analysis for design and evaluation. 

2. Encourage States to use refined analysis for evaluation 

in combination with reliability analysis to avoid 

unnecessary posting, rehabilitation, or replacement 

of bridge structures.

3. Encourage the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges 

and Structures to adopt the concept of annual 

probability of failure (exceedance) as the quantification of safety in its probability-based design and 

rating specifications rather than the reliability 

index for a 75-year design life. 

4. Conduct research to create the basis to systematically 

introduce increasing levels of sophistication into 

analyses and load models with the objective of 

assessing bridges more accurately.

5. Encourage owners to periodically and routinely 

reassess traffic highway loading, using recent weighin-motion data, to ensure that their live load model 

adequately provides for bridge safety and serviceability 

for the desired service life and level of safety. 

6. Encourage States to develop an overweight permit 

design vehicle and design for the associated AASHTO 

Strength II load combination, the load combination 

meant to consider special permit truck loads during 

the design of a bridge, particularly in high-load 

corridors.

7. Initiate and maintain a database documenting bridge 

failures around the world, including sufficient 

information and data to assist in assessing the causes 

of failure, for the purpose of proactively examining 

U.S. practices and avoiding similar problems in the 

United States.

8. Continue efforts to develop guidelines and training 

for proper use of nondestructive techniques to detect 

corrosion and breakage of cables of cable-supported 

bridges and internal and external tendons of posttensioned bridges. 

9. Explore independent check engineering and check 

engineer certification to augment quality assurance 

and quality control of bridge designs.

10. Initiate an investigation and technology transfer of 

selected best practices and emerging technologies 

identified during the scan. Potential candidates 

are outlined in this report.

Implementation Activities

The scan team developed a detailed implementation plan 

for the recommended initiatives and practices. Included in 

the plan are technical presentations and written papers at 

national meetings and conferences sponsored by FHWA, 

AASHTO, the Transportation Research Board, and other 

organizations to disseminate information from the scan. 

Also included in the plan is coordination with AASHTO 

and FHWA to advance these initiatives and practices and to 

assist with the development of new FHWA and AASHTO 

standards and guidelines governing bridge design and 

analysis. These and other planned activities are discussed 

in Chapter 3.
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 3

Background

New, advanced tools and protocols are available to help 

bridge engineers better assess and assure safety and 

serviceability of highway bridges. These tools include 

an overall, integrated approach to bridge analysis, design, 

evaluation, and determination of load-carrying capacity 

(load rating). Present-day design specifications (load and 

resistance factor design (LRFD)) assure safety by analyzing 

the effect of heavy, legal trucks throughout the United 

States and comparing that effect to a protocol calibrated 

using limited but very reliable Canadian site statistics. 

However, the calibration did not include serviceability 

calibration to assure bridge serviceability and performance, 

and it did not use comprehensive statistics available in 

the United States because the available weigh-in-motion 

(WIM) data was deemed unreliable. Therefore, it is desirable to identify design practices, design truck assessments, 

and detailed code calibration procedures used in other 

countries to assure the safety and serviceability of newly 

designed bridges.

The American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Bridge 

Evaluation was developed to assist bridge owners by 

establishing inspection, evaluation, load rating, and posting 

practices and procedures. The load and resistance factor 

rating (LRFR) section of the manual is based on reliability 

theory to assure a certain level of safety for members. 

However, certain serviceability checks were left optional 

because they are not directly related to bridge safety, but 

are geared to protecting the long-term serviceability and 

durability of structures. It is unclear whether making 

these checks improves the service life of aging U.S. 

bridges. Therefore, it is desirable to identify good evaluation (load-carrying assessment) practices, including 

a quantification of the corresponding level of safety and 

performance, used in other countries to avoid failures, 

serviceability concerns, unnecessary expenditures, 

and traffic restrictions.

In addition, knowledge and software have evolved to 

enable moving away from line girder, one-dimensional 

approximate analytical models to a system analysis using 

refined two-dimensional (2-D) or three-dimensional 

(3-D) analytical models. However, current U.S. 

specifications and practice still rely heavily on simplified, 

approximate analyses to determine the structural effects 

of vehicular loading on bridge girders. Situations impeding the use of advanced analyses in design and evaluation 

include lack of adequate software training, lack of guidance material, specifications, complexity, and perceived 

high cost-to-benefit ratio. A migration to the use of more 

rigorous design and evaluation approaches in everyday 

practice for both simple and complex bridges may 

result in a more economical use of materials, a better 

understanding of structural reliability, and a better 

quantification of safety and serviceability.

Scan Team

An 11-member team was formed to study European 

practices (figure 1). This team consisted of three representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

four representatives from State departments of transportation (DOTs), one representative from academia, and three 

structural engineering design consultants, one who served 

as the report facilitator (see Appendix B). 

The purpose of the team’s study was to identify best 

practices and processes to assure bridge safety and 

serviceability for consideration by U.S. engineers. 

The team generated a comprehensive list of technical 

and operational process questions, including safety and 

serviceability concerns and the use of refined analysis 

during the design, construction, and operational phases 

of a bridge’s life. (Refined analysis is defined as analysis 

beyond one-dimensional structural analysis using lateral 

live-load distribution factors.) These questions were 

forwarded to the hosts for their use in preparing for 

the team’s visit.

Specific topics of interest to the team included the following:

■

Use of advanced refined methods of analyzing, 

designing, and assessing highway structures for safety 

and serviceability during design and construction

Introduction C hapt e r

1
4 | Introduction

■

Use of enhanced reliability analysis to assess safety 

and serviceability during operations 

■

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) 

■

Use of performance-based approaches for durable 

structures 

■

Use of refined analysis during design, construction, 

and operations 

Figure 1. Scan team members.

Amplifying Questions

Amplifying questions were developed to help the foreign 

experts more fully understand the topics of interest to the 

scan team members. These questions, in Appendix A, 

were provided to the host countries before the scan. 

The contacts in each country are in Appendix C, and 

the scan itinerary is in table 1.

Host Countries

The team conducted a series of meetings and site visits 

with representatives of government agencies and private 

sector organizations abroad from May 29 to June 14, 2009. 

The panel visited Austria, England, Finland, France, and 

Germany. These five countries were selected through a 

desk scan of their advanced activities in assuring bridge 

safety and serviceability. Details of the team’s meetings 

are shown in table 1.
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 5

Table 1. Scan itinerary.

Date Location Activities

Monday, 

June 1, 2009

Helsinki, 

Finland

Meeting at the Finnish Road Administration (Finnra). Heard presentations on Finnra bridge 

management system, bridge inspections, bridge design and building processes and methods, 

implementation of Eurocodes, bridge loading tests, bridge monitoring, and bridge bearing 

capacity calculations.

Tuesday, 

June 2, 2009

Vienna, 

Austria

Meeting at the Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation, and Technology. Heard presentations on 

safety inspection and investigation of bridges, training and certification of bridge inspectors, asset 

management of bridges, bridge WIM and reliability assessment of existing bridge structures, research 

on load-carrying capacity of existing bridges, and experiences and research on bridge monitoring.

Wednesday,

June 3, 2009

Vienna, 

Austria

Meeting at the Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation, and Technology. Heard presentations on 

integrated approach to the evaluation of the capacity of existing bridges, bridge life-cycle costing, 

new requirements for strengthening bridges with top concrete, state-of-the art design and maintenance of bridges without joints and bearings, and monitoring and numerical simulation of bridges 

without joints and bearings. 

Thursday, 

June 4, 2009

Graz, 

Austria

Meeting at Graz University of Technology. Heard presentations on an approach for improving safety 

and serviceability from the design phase through the life cycle using bridge information modeling, 

investigation of high-speed suitability of existing and new railway bridges, lessons learned on 

highway bridges in Slovenia, and bridge design using ultra high-performance concrete. Visited the 

Laboratory for Structural Concrete and the construction site of the Traismauer Bridge across the 

Danube River.

Friday, 

June 5, 2009

Cologne,

Germany

Meeting at the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt). Heard presentations on bridge inventory 

and condition, traffic on German highways, heavy goods vehicle (HGV) weights and dimensions, HGV 

traffic with special permission, traffic load models, calibration, use of WIM data, future developments, 

Eurocodes for bridges, QA/QC procedures for bridge analysis and design, assessment of bridges, and 

refined analysis.

Monday, 

June 8, 2009

Paris, 

France

Meeting at the Center for Technical Studies of Highways and Motorways (Sétra). Heard presentations 

at the Central Laboratory for Bridges and Highways (LCPC) on Sétra and the Technical Center for 

Bridges (CTOA), Eurocode principles of safety verification, concrete durability, fatigue assessment of 

steel bridges, existing methodologies of assessment, and a case study on assessment of the loading 

resistance of the Pont d’Aquitaine.

Tuesday, 

June 9, 2009

Paris, 

France

Meeting at LCPC. Received an overview of LCPC research units, including highlights of research 

activity on bridges. Heard presentations on bridge WIM for load assessment and load effect 

calculations, CESAR-LCPC finite element code, and reassessment of bridges affected by alkaliaggregate reaction and delayed ettringite reaction. Visited the Large-Scale Structural Testing 

Laboratory and learned about structural investigation methods and specific techniques for portland 

cement bridges, dynamic investigation, structure durability and reliability, and risk analysis on 

multispan post-tensioned girder bridges.

Wednesday, 

June 10, 

2009

London, 

United 

Kingdom

Meeting at the Institute for Civil Engineers (ICE). Heard presentations by the U.K. Highways Agency 

(HA) on structure assets, key processes, standards, design and operational framework, inspection 

and technical approval, design (including innovative structures), loading, operations (including 

assessment), inspection, information systems, integrated asset management, and maintaining 

agents. A case study focused on the Midland Links motorway elevated structures. 

Thursday, 

June 11, 

2009

Cambridge, 

United 

Kingdom

Meeting at King’s College at Cambridge University. Heard presentations on U.K. bridge management, 

findings of an audit of the assessment program and management of substandard structures, 

probabilistic approaches, advanced assessment and analysis techniques, monitoring and sensor 

technologies, procurement strategies, and an overview of Eurocodes and new materials for bridges.

Friday, 

June 12, 

2009

London, 

United 

Kingdom

Meeting at ICE. Heard presentations by software providers on developments and trends in software 

use for U.K. bridges, HA input on the analysis of bridges through the technical approval process, role 

of design and analysis software in assuring bridge safety, testing and validation of bridge design 

and analysis software, and Eurocodes and software applications. 
6 |
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 7

The scan team found that the European

host agencies place tremendous value on their bridge 

programs not only to ensure highway user safety, but also 

to ensure that durability and serviceability expectations 

are met and to enhance capital investment decisions on 

the existing bridge inventory. They place major emphasis 

on ensuring that there is no service interruption because 

of a bridge failure and that appropriate methods are used 

to evaluate structures to ensure structural safety. Virtually 

all of the agencies visited had major programs aimed at 

assuring accuracy of design and rating of highway 

structures on their systems.

Specifically, the team noted the following:

■

The Finnish Ministry of Transport and Finnra set 

condition targets each year, based on a weighted 

sum of damage points.

■

Austria has a goal of no more than 5 percent of its 

bridge inventory with a rating of 4 or 5 (on a scale 

of 1 to 5) by 2012.

■

France sets its maintenance budget to assure that 

less than 2 percent of its bridges are in the worst 

category.

The scan team identified many practices and technologies 

related to its topics of interest. These topic areas are 

discussed in this chapter. The order in which they 

are presented is for clarity of presentation and does 

not reflect the team’s recommendation for priority.

Eurocodes

The European Union (EU) is in the process of making 

major revisions to its codes to provide more uniform 

bridge standards across member countries. This event has 

provided an opportunity for EU member states to take a 

critical look at past practices and perform various studies 

to improve the overall performance of bridges on their 

roadways. Two of the countries visited had help desks 

to assist users during this transition time.

Background

In 1975 the Commission of the European Communities 

began actions to develop a new building code for use 

by EU nations based on Article 95 of the Treaty of Rome. 

The objective, established by Article 95, was to eliminate 

technical obstacles to trade and harmonize technical 

specifications across its member states. As they pertain 

to structural design, these harmonizing technical rules 

establish a set of common codes for the design of buildings 

and civil engineering works that replace a variety of 

differing rules being followed across the continent 

(figure 2, see next page). The intention is for the structural 

Eurocodes to be implemented by the various member 

states by the end of 2010.

The Structural Eurocodes consist of several parts:

EN 1990—Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design

EN 1991—Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures

EN 1992—Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures

EN 1993—Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures

EN 1994—Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel 

 and Concrete Structures

EN 1995—Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures 

Bridge Serviceability and Durability

Source: Pascal Charles, Centre Technique des Ouvrages d’Art

Bridge serviceability and durability are defined in Eurocode 2 

on concrete structures as follows:

“A durable structure shall meet the requirements 

of serviceability, strength and stability throughout 

its intended working life, without significant loss 

of utility or excessive unforeseen maintenance.

“The required protection of the structure is 

established by considering its intended use, service 

life, maintenance programme and actions. The 

possible significance of direct and indirect actions, 

environmental conditions and consequential effects 

are also considered.” 

C hapt e r

2 Findings on Assuring Bridge 

Safety and Serviceability
8 | Findings on Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability

EN 1996—Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures

EN 1997—Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design

EN 1998—Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for 

 Earthquake Resistance

EN 1999—Eurocode 9: Design of Aluminium Structures

For bridges, the service life is set at 100 years. The 

Eurocodes allow national choices in design, mainly 

through the selection of the numerical values for partial 

safety factors and other allowables, referred to as 

Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). These 

national choices are published in a National Annex for 

each nation. In this way, the nations are allowed, within 

limits, to choose the level of safety, considering local 

conditions, applicable to bridges in their countries. 

Justifications for these national choices include 

the following:

■

Differences in geographical or climatic conditions

■

Differences in traffic loads

■

Different levels of safety provided or desired in 

the jurisdiction

The determination of safety levels, including aspects of 

durability and economy, has always been considered to be 

Figure 2. Hierarchy of Eurocodes on concrete bridge design.

EN 1992

Traffic loads 

on bridges

EN 1992-1.1

Common rules for 

buildings and civil 

engineering structures

EN 1992-1.2

Structural fire design

EN 1992-2

Bridges

EN 1992-3

Liquid retaining and 

containment structures

EN 1991-3

Actions induced 

by cranes and 

machinery

EN 1991-1.6

Actions during 

execution

EN 1991-1.7

Accidental actions 

due to impact and 

explosions

EN 1991-1.3

Snow loads

EN 1997-1

General rules

EN 1997-2

Design assisted by laboratory 

testing

EN 1997-3

Design assisted by field testing

EN 1990: EUROCODE

Basis of Structural Design

Structural

Safety

Loading

EN 1992: EUROCODE 2 (EC2)

Design of Concrete Structures

Design 

and 

Detailing

EN 1997: EUROCODE 7

Geotechnical data Foundations

EN 1991-1.1

Densities, self 

weight and 

imposed loads

EN 1991-1.2

Actions on 

structures 

exposed to fire

EN 1991-1.4

Wind loads

EN 1991-1.5

Thermal 

actions

EN 1991-4

Actions on 

silos and tanks

EN 1991: EUROCODE 1

Actions on Structures
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 9

within the competence and authority of individual member 

nations. Possible differences in geographical or climatic 

conditions, as well as different levels of protection that may 

exist at national, regional, and local levels, can be taken 

into consideration at the national level through specific 

design parameters, which are identified in each Eurocode 

part as NDPs. Therefore, member nations have choices in 

the codes on safety levels, including aspects of durability 

and economy that may pertain in their territory. Reliability 

levels for a member nation may be based on past successful 

design practice. Member nations are encouraged to use the 

recommended values for the design parameters in the 

Eurocodes unless divergence is essential. Malaysia and Viet 

Nam are expected to adopt the Eurocode; China, Russia, 

South Africa, and Thailand have held Eurocode seminars. 

Vehicular Live Loads and Live Load Factors

Of particular interest to the scan team were vehicular live 

loads and NDPs for the vehicular live load factor. Figure 3 

is an example of live loads used in Germany. The National 

Annex allows individual nations to adjust the design live 

load for local legal and permit load levels, as well as for 

desired levels of operation, maintenance, and enforcement 

practices. 

Figure 3. German live load.

Road traffic approval regulations

Gross vehicle weight

vehicle or trailer with 2 axles 18,0 t

vehicle or trailer with 3 axles 24,0 t – 28,0 t

vehicle with more than 3 axles 32,0 t

vehicle combinations with less than 4 axles 28,0 t

vehicle combinations with 4 axles 35,0 t – 38,0 t

vehicle combinations with more than 4 axles 40,0 t (44,0 t)
10 | Findings on Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability

Austria and the United Kingdom use an NDP of 1.0 factor 

on the 44-ton truck, and France is considering a smaller 

five-axle 40-ton truck (44-ton if a double-hauler is used). 

The 44-ton truck in Eurocode 1-2 (EN 1001-2) can be 

adjusted as it is in Finland, where a 60-ton truck with 

seven or eight axles is used in the logging industry (figure 

4). This load model is used in the evaluation of loadcarrying capacity for existing bridges. In Finland the local 

legal and permit load level is not given in the National 

Annex, but in the special statute for motor vehicles.

Refined Methods of Analyzing, Designing, 

and Assessing Bridges

Finite Element Analysis of New Bridges

The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

categorize analysis methods as approximate or refined. 

The approximate methods of analysis, specified in LRFD 

Article 4.6.2.2, are those for which a live-load distribution factor is quantified through tabularized equations 

and used in the analysis of single beams (sometimes 

termed one-dimensional analysis). These lateral live-load 

distribution factors and the tributary dead-load areas are 

applied to a one-dimensional model. Refined methods of 

analysis, discussed in LRFD Article 4.6.3.3, are all other 

methods in which distribution factors are not used and 

the bridge is represented as a 2-D or 3-D model. In the 

United States, their application is limited to unique or 

complex bridges, bridges deemed substandard using 

approximate analysis, analysis of nonstandard permit 

loads, and other special cases. While developing the 

lateral live-load distribution factors of the LRFD 

Specifications, Zokaie et a11

 found little benefit in the 

application of 3-D models beyond simpler 2-D models.

Bridges in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, and the 

United Kingdom are typically analyzed using refined 

methods of analysis, defined as analysis using 2-D or 3-D 

models. Approximate methods of analysis such as load 

distribution factors are not covered in the Eurocodes and 

are used only occasionally to check calculations in the 

countries the scan team visited. The U.K. BD 79, in fact, 

prohibits the use of line-girder analysis. Austria, Finland, 

and Germany typically use 2-D models and reserve 3-D 

1 Zokaie, T., T. A. Osterkamp, and R. A. Imbsen. 1991. 

Distribution of Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges, NCHRP Report 

12-2611. Transportation Research Board, National Research 

Council, Washington, DC.

models for special cases. Modeling using beam, plate, and 

shell elements is most common; volume (brick) elements 

are not commonly used except in research. 

Grillage or beam-shell analysis appeared to be routine in 

the countries visited because of the following:

■

Decades of acceptance in the European bridge 

design community

■

Cultural emphasis on understanding the structural 

behavior and graphics capabilities with refined analysis 

to provide visual confirmation of model correctness

■

Software availability specifically for bridge analysis 

■

Training by software vendors 

■

Perception by designers of not being a monumental 

task

■

On-the-job-oversight, especially of young engineers’ 

models (A European engineer who had spent time at 

a U.S. university, as well as a scan team member who 

had studied a year in Europe, noted that the expertise 

level of young engineers was more homogeneous in 

the European Union than in the United States, which 

could play a role in the widespread feasibility of 

refined analysis.)

■

No overly prescriptive guidelines or restrictions in 

the Eurocode

The LRFD Specifications do not differentiate between force 

effects determined through approximate or refined analysis. The LRFD Specifications inherently assume that the 

results of analysis, whether approximate or refined, are 

correct. Thus, if force effects determined through refined 

analysis are more accurate, the use of refined analysis in 

applying the LRFD Specifications yields reliability indices, 

ß’s, closer in agreement to the target reliability index, ßT

, of 

3.5. While this is a satisfying result from an academic point 

of view, it is not a compelling reason for owners to mandate refined analysis if additional analysis effort is required.

During the development of the first edition of the

LRFD Specifications, the concept of an analysis factor was 

considered. Such an analysis factor could differentiate 

between force effects from approximate or refined analysis 

by considering the uncertainty of the various methods. 

Theoretically, more effort in analysis could be rewarded 

through an analysis factor. These analysis factors would 

be analogous to the load modifier of Article 1.3.2.1 of the 

LRFD Specifications. Ultimately, the concept of an analysis 

factor for the LRFD Specifications was dismissed because 

of a lack of data on the uncertainties of the various 

analysis methods.
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 11

Normal heavy vehicle, truck with trailer, 60 t

Placing of vehicles (special heavy + normal) Placing of controlled transportation

Load safety factors y (normal) y (lowered safety)

Permanent loads 1,20 or 0,90 1,10

Traffic loads, weight limit assessment

• 1 AA-vehicle

• 2 AA-vehicles

• 1 AA vehicle + UDL kN/m2

1,45

1,30

1,30

1,30

1,10

1,10

Traffic loads, capacity for special heavy transportations

a) Controlled transportation EK 1,20 1,10

b) General transportation

• 1 EK-vehicle

• AA + EK -vehicles

• EK + UDL 3 kN/m2

EK

EK

AA

EK

UDL

1,30

1,20

1,30

1,20

1,30

1,15

1,00

1,15

1,00

1,15

Figure 4. Finnish live load used for rating.
12 | Findings on Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability

In the countries visited, design was not always integrated 

with analysis and code checks. The following are additional 

scan team observations:

■

The Finnish estimated that finite element models are 

used in probably 80 percent of their designs.

■

In Austria it was noted that load distribution on 

routine bridges using 2-D finite element method 

(FEM) analysis had been practiced for about 40 years. 

Austrian engineers specifically indicated that they 

model substructure and foundations as an integral 

part of the entire bridge model when designing 

integral and semi-integral bridges. 

■

In the United Kingdom, the standard for bridges 

designed for HA is an elastic grillage model, but 

industry is increasing its use of even more advanced 

analysis methods. This is being driven by improvements in software capabilities and the introduction of 

Eurocodes. Industry representatives said they believe 

that the use of more advanced analysis methods can 

provide significant benefit to industry, provided that 

designers are competent and proper QA procedures 

are followed, for the following reasons: 

—

It allows for a more rigorous approach that provides 

much more accurate results.

—

British Standard Codes allow for departure from 

codified approach and support FEM use.

—

Eurocodes are better suited to using refined 

analysis methods than past national codes 

because Eurocodes are more performance based. 

—

The use of FEM often saves clients money on initial 

design because future changes in design of the 

structure are more easily addressed. Even more 

money is saved on assessment and load rating of 

the structure because the model for this analysis 

is already available for use by the engineer.

FEM was developed to solve complex elasticity and 

structural analysis problems. Development of FEM can be 

traced back to the mid to late 1950s, but U.K. developers 

refer to roots in the development of the stress (stiffness) 

method by the U.S. Department of Defense at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1960s. This method 

became public domain in the 1970s and led to several 

spinoffs of 2-D modeling techniques in the late 1970s 

and the beginning of development of 3-D applications. 

While a novelty at the time, FEM became more feasible 

for bridges after publication in 1974 of a book by E.C. 

Hambly2

 that described the underlying behavior of bridge 

decks and provided guidance on how structures could be 

analyzed using relatively simple computer models. FEM

allowed detailed visualization of where structures bend 

or twist and indicated the distribution of stresses and 

2 Hambly, E.C. Bridge Deck Behaviour. ISBN: 9780419172604. 

Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2nd revised edition.

Figure 5. Change management.

Cost Considerations PRODUCTIVITY

TIME

Eurocode Introduced Normal Productivity

Current Process

Target Implementation

Designers’ Concerns

Software Industry Aims

In-House Development
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 13

displacements. Development was spurred by efforts of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration during the 

1970s to address aeronautical and marine needs. Applications became available commercially for mainframes late in 

that decade. Microcomputer applications became available 

in the 1980s and Windows applications in the 1990s. 

The conclusion the scan team reached from discussions 

with the agencies visited was that the initial use of 

advanced analysis might present a steeper learning curve, 

but similar levels of effort required might be achieved over 

time (see figure 5). Practitioners, working for the Austrian 

Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation, and Technology, estimated that they could model and design a simple 

bridge analysis in about 40 labor-hours and generate a 

routine design for a two-span, 50-meter continuous 

prestressed concrete bridge in about 4.5 labor-months. 

Finite Element Analysis of Existing Bridges

EU software developers and structural engineers agree 

that the analysis models developed during preliminary 

bridge design can be used throughout the bridge’s life, 

from design through operations and management to 

decommissioning. They also pointed out that, when 

analyzing a bridge for load capacity, increased model 

sophistication, if applied correctly, provides a more 

accurate and often higher load-carrying capacity. 

The enhanced accuracy of refined analysis can be 

more significant in the rating of existing bridges 

than in the design of new bridges. Typically, 

force effects from approximate methods are 

conservative and more uncertain compared 

to those from refined analysis. For example, 

live-load moments derived using distribution 

factors are typically greater in magnitude 

than those of refined analysis. Rating bridges 

using live-load and dead-load moments from 

refined analysis should yield higher rating 

factors, allowing heavier permit loads and 

fewer posted, rehabilitated, or reconstructed 

bridges. The conservatism of rating through 

one-dimensional analysis has a high cost in 

terms of rehabilitating or reconstructing 

bridges with potentially safe load-carrying 

capacities.

Unfortunately, permit-load rating of existing 

bridges through the application of refined 

analysis in the United States is limited to 

the allowable stress rating and load factor rating 

methodologies. The live-load load factors of Table 

6A.4.5.4.2.1-1 of the AASHTO Manual for Bridge 

Evaluation (MBE) are applicable only to the rating of 

existing bridges using approximate analysis, as the 

table inherently requires the use of distribution factors. 

Thus, refined analysis cannot be used in conjunction 

with the LRFR methodology for permit-load rating. 

This limitation in the MBE permit load factors should 

be removed by providing guidance for use of refined 

analysis methods for permit load ratings.

The use of 2-D and 3-D models in evaluation calculations 

is common in Finland. Finnra indicated that bridge 

operations personnel are well educated in the use of 

modern analysis tools. For load-rating calculations of 

existing bridges, more sophisticated means are also used 

because more is at stake. Further, for critical bridges on 

the road network, load tests are performed to confirm 

actual structural behavior and to verify models used 

in calculations. Finnra indicated that its intent was to 

maintain bridge models as part of the bridge record over 

the life of the structure, updated with information of 

condition and repair actions for future analysis needs. 

Weigh-in-Motion Data

Germany and France use WIM data to calibrate their 

NDP for live load factor. Germany also uses current 

WIM data and Monte Carlo simulations to study 

future traffic (figure 6). 

Figure 6. Weigh-in-motion data.
14 | Findings on Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability

Use of Enhanced Reliability Analysis 

to Assess Safety

Quantification of Safety

The team’s conclusion was that the countries visited 

quantify safety in a manner similar to the United States, 

but it is stated as probability of failure rather than as 

a reliability index, return period, or factor of safety. In 

general, the team found an increasing emphasis on risk 

analysis for both design and rating. The French allow 

use of reliability analysis in lieu of specifications. 

Structural safety of the Eurocode, soon to be mandated 

for bridge design in all of the European countries visited 

during the scan, is quantified by a reliability index, ß, 

just as in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

The Eurocode is calibrated to three levels of consequence 

class (CC1, CC2, and CC3) and three levels of reliability 

class (RC1, RC2, and RC3), as defined in table 2.

The vast majority of bridges are designed to CC2 (or 

RC2), with CC3 (RC3) a possibility only for bridges with 

very high consequences of failure, such as a signature 

bridge. The target annual probabilities of failure are 

1.00E-06 and 1.00E-07 for CC2 and CC3, respectively. 

While a target reliability index is tabulated in the 

Eurocode for each probability of failure, the Europeans 

quantify safety more often as probability of failure than 

as a target reliability index.

In the United States, the target reliability index, ßT

, of 

the LRFD Specifications is about 3.5 with a corresponding 

probability of failure of 2 in 10,000 over the 75-year

design life of the bridge. Important bridges with higher 

consequences of failure can be designed for higher loads by 

applying the load modifier of Article 1.3.5 acknowledging 

operational importance, ηI

 = 1.05. The commentary to 

Article 1.3.2.1 suggests that a load modifier of 1.05 

results in an increased safety index of about 3.8. 

The bases of the design methodologies of the Eurocode 

and the LRFD Specifications are quite similar. At first 

glance, each code appears to be calibrated to a different 

level of reliability. Careful consideration shows that 

these levels of safety are fairly comparable. To reach this 

conclusion, similar reference periods must be considered. 

Table 3 summarizes the probabilities of failure, PF

, inherent to the Eurocode and the LRFD Specifications, along 

Table 3. Inherent probabilities of failure (PF) and corresponding reliability indices (ß).

Code Reference Period (Years)

1 50 75 100 120

Eurocode

CC2

1.00E-06 5.00E-05 7.50E-05 1.00E-04 1.20E-04

4.75 3.89 3.79 3.72 3.67

CC3

1.00E-07 5.00E-06 7.50E-06 1.00E-05 1.20E-05

5.20 4.42 4.33 4.26 4.22

LRFD

Typical 

bridges

2.67E-06 1.33E-04 2.00E-04 2.67E-04 3.20E-04

4.55 3.65 3.50 3.46 3.41

Important 

bridges

9.60E-07 4.80E-05 7.20E-05 9.60E-05 1.15E-04

4.76 3.90 3.80 3.73 3.68

Table 2. Eurocode consequence classes (adapted from Table (B1)–EN1990).

Consequence Class Description Related to Consequences Reliability Class

CC1 Low consequence for loss of human life; economic, social, or 

environmental consequences small or negligible RC1

CC2 Moderate consequence for loss of human life; economic, social, or 

environmental consequences considerable RC2

CC3 Serious consequences for loss of human life or for economic, social, 

or environmental concerns RC3
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 15

with the corresponding reliability indices, ß, in italics. 

The defining probabilities of failure in the case of 

the Eurocode and the defining reliability indices for 

the LRFD Specifications are shown in boldface.

For an important bridge, the Eurocode has a smaller 

probability of failure associated with CC3 and correspondingly a higher reliability index than the LRFD Specifications. 

This observation is not surprising because the load modifier for important bridges in Article 1.3.5 was chosen rather 

subjectively. A load modifier greater than 1.10 would be 

necessary for important bridges to yield safety levels in the 

LRFD Specifications comparable to CC3 of the Eurocode.

Bridge Operations

The Eurocodes currently have no formal rating 

procedures or specifications for bridge rating, although 

development work is underway. Nevertheless, it was 

apparent to the scan team that assuring safe and reliable 

highways systemwide was a priority in all of the countries 

visited. These countries were willing to take additional 

measures to ensure service is not disrupted, as illustrated 

by the U.K. HA’s stated objectives of “safe roads; reliable 

journeys; informed travelers.” The team observed that 

one reason behind this philosophy is the apparent 

lack of alternate routes in European highway systems 

compared to the United States, which makes 

network resilience extremely important. 

The team found that most countries have a multiplelevel rating process in place that employs an increasing 

sophistication in analyzing traffic loads. Reliability 

analysis techniques may be used to rate substandard 

bridges. In France, a probabilistic assessment is being 

done to determine residual capacity in suspension 

cables. Risk analysis is being done of 116 multispan 

post-tensioned girder bridges to develop an efficient 

plan of surveillance. The analysis involves radiography 

in some cases, exposing the damage in others, curvature 

or cross-bow measurements, more detailed analysis, etc. 

The United Kingdom uses reliability-based analysis for 

the highest level of bridge assessment and hopes in the 

future to have assessment standards that reflect target 

reliability-based consequences of failure.

The Austrians will perform reliability analysis and accept 

a reduced level of safety in some cases. Nonlinear analysis 

is acceptable to the Austrians and can be coupled with 

reliability analysis to maximize remaining service life 

in existing structures. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Design Checks

In the European Union, independent bridge design 

checks are commonly, although not always, required. 

These checks are often performed by engineers not 

employed by the original designer and, in some cases, 

appointed by the owning agency to assure a full independent check of the bridge design. Usually only the siterelated design data are provided and no actual design 

calculations are provided to the checker. Where assumptions are made, a discussion and agreement between 

checker and designer are conducted before the check is 

started. While the scan team found this was a standard 

practice in all countries visited, the degree to which 

independent checks were conducted varied from being 

dependent on the complexity of the work and risk to 

the owner (United Kingdom) to being a mandatory 

requirement in the national building code for all 

designs (Germany). 

In Germany, the task of the check engineer, or 

Prüfingenieur, is to ensure that public safety—especially 

life, health, and natural conditions—is not endangered 

by the performance of civil structures. The use of 

check engineers is dictated by national building codes 

administered by local building authorities. In the 

structural engineering field, the scope of work of the 

check engineer is to check the structural analysis and 

the corresponding design, detailing, and drawings to 

identify any engineering errors or omissions. Specific 

tasks of the check engineers include assuring a 

positive response to the following: 

■

Have all of the actions, load combinations, and 

other influences that may affect the structure during 

construction and its service life been anticipated 

and considered? 

■

Are the structural models for analysis correct?

■

Are the internal forces correctly calculated? 

■

Are the design and detailing of the members 

correctly done? 

■

Are the drawings correct? 

The check engineers verify the design work of others, 

regardless of credentialing. The Germans referred to this 

level of checking as the “four-eyes principle.” The check 

engineer is appointed directly by the owner to ensure 

his or her independence from the economic interests 

of the contractor and the design engineer. The check 

engineer makes a complete and independent structural 
16 | Findings on Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability

analysis of the bridge and ensures that all calculations 

and drawings of the design engineer are free of errors. 

As previously stated, standardization of software verification was not considered a necessity. Typically, it is left to 

the vendor. Also, design offices make efforts to conduct 

in-house training and establish proper technical management of the work of junior staff. Caution is exercised 

when integrated software is used because it can lead 

the engineer to a “black-box” approach, in which the 

data being input are not verified as accurate. Integrated 

software that transfers data may avoid data transfer issues 

that can occur when using separate analysis and design 

software packages, but care must be taken to ensure the 

original data are error free.

In general, practices in Austria vary. The Austrian national 

railroad agency performs design checks in-house. The 

Austrian national highway agency checks plans, but does 

not check calculations. The practice of the city of Vienna 

is to hire two different consultants for all but the simplest 

bridges, one to design the structure and a second to 

check the design. The city determines whether a check 

engineer is required, typically basing the decision on the 

complexity of the bridge. Austrian bridge designers are 

held responsible for design errors and omissions. Austrian 

consultants may hire an outside check engineer to check 

their work similar to practices in Germany, as shown in 

figure 7. City engineers stated that the expectation is 

that designers are registered engineers and, as such, are 

responsible for design. A checker is not needed for a 

small bridge. For larger bridges, an independent check 

is expected to be performed, but the decision appeared 

to be that of the designer.

Owners in Austria do not dictate the analysis procedure. 

Consultants may use hand calculations to check their 

colleagues’ work. The Austrians have no formal definition 

of failure, but in general it is considered as not meeting the 

design criteria. Such failures are usually the responsibility 

of the designer, but an investigation, typically by a university professor, is used to determine responsibility.

Inspection

As noted in past scans, Finnra’s annual certification procedure for bridge inspectors is noteworthy. Inspectors are 

required to perform a field inspection of a minimum 

of two reference bridges, and their resulting condition 

assessment is compared to ratings determined by Finnra 

staff. Consultant inspectors desiring to inspect numerous 

bridges annually may be required to inspect and be 

evaluated on as many as four reference bridges. The 

results of these quality control inspections are used to 

determine personal quality points assigned to an inspector. These quality points are used as part of Finnra’s 

procurement process to select inspectors and to develop 

refresher training for inspectors when large differences 

from control ratings are noted (figure 8).

Figure 7. Contractual relationship of the check engineer.

 contractual relation functional link

subcontractor 1

contractor

Client/Authority

check engineer

designer B

coordinator

subcontractor 2 subcontractor 3

designer sub 1 designer sub 2 designer sub 3
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 17

Additional information on Finnish statistical process 

controls in the bridge inspection program is in 

Appendix D.

Laser Scanning

To assist in developing the models for existing structures 

in Finland, structures without plans are sometimes laserscanned to determine actual dimensions. The resulting point 

cloud is used to establish the structures’ surfaces (figure 9). 

Laser-scanning techniques are also used on existing 

bridges to document dimensions of existing surface 

conditions in connection with larger repairs. Laser 

scanning is also used to develop as-built records for 

new structures. The structure is scanned at several points 

during construction: after the substructure construction is 

completed, after the superstructure formwork is erected, 

after reinforcement is installed, after the concrete deck 

slab is poured, and when construction is completed. 

QA/QC in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, calculations become the 

property of HA. 

The United Kingdom also makes a special effort to study 

failures worldwide to determine possible preventive 

actions that may be required to avert similar events 

within its inventory. HA studies published documentation 

on bridge failures, reviews practices to ensure similar 

risks to its structures do not exist as a result of standard 

practices, and develops revisions to its standards should 

a vulnerability be identified. 

The U.K. “approved in principle” process helps by requiring that the analysis method be submitted for review and 

acceptance along with assumptions and a description and 

diagram of the idealized structure before a private firm is 

allowed to proceed with design and analysis. 

Construction compliance certificates were another method 

of assuring quality in the United Kingdom.

Figure 8. Finnish statistical process control.

Figure 9. Laser scanning of structures in Finland.

Development 

of Guidelines 

and Bridge 

Register

Advanced training,

Selection of inspectors

Quality

measurement

Network and Project Level 

BMS, Bridge Engineer...

Bridge 

Register

Bridge Inspection

Inspector, Machine, Method, 

Material, Environment, 

Measurement

Bridge Inspector Examination

The Control System of the Bridge Inspection Process in FinnRA
18 | Findings on Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability

Processes and Practices to Provide 

Serviceability and Durability

The EU agencies visited shared many practices, details, 

and standards that they believed contributed to durability 

of highway bridges in their inventory. The scan team 

considers the following noteworthy:

1. As reported by several previous scan teams, the use 

of a properly designed, installed, and maintained 

waterproofing membrane system has provided 

excellent service in all countries visited. Bare concrete 

decks or decks reinforced with epoxy-coated, clad, 

or stainless steel bars are built rarely. Waterproof 

membrane on concrete deck for corrosion protection 

with epoxy underneath to seal cracking in the young 

concrete is standard practice throughout Europe. 

The use of membrane waterproofing on integral 

and continuous bridges is mandatory in the United 

Kingdom. U.K. engineers are highly confident of the 

enhanced performance that membrane waterproofing 

can provide and do not believe that the use of 

membranes can be eliminated by the use of other 

means to waterproof concrete. The standard deck 

design in the United Kingdom is 8- to 10-inch 

(203- to 254-millimeter (mm)) thick decks with 

membrane waterproofing overlaid with asphalt.

2. The use of integral and semi-integral bridges is 

practiced in some EU countries and is very popular 

in two countries visited, Austria and the United 

Kingdom. Every effort is made to move all joints off 

the bridges to eliminate the damage that results from 

leaky joints or the need for bearings. The Austrians 

are so confident in the decreased rate of deterioration 

of integral bridge designs that they stated they have 

extended the interval between detailed checks 

(hands-on inspection) from 6 to 10 years. The 

Austrian details include an inclined drag plate behind 

the abutment (figure 10). The Austrians favor use of 

an inclined drag plane because in their experience it 

avoids the “bump at the end of the bridge” issue. 

Also, when the drag plate is attached to the structure, 

which is typically the detail used in Austria, the area 

where cracks may arise because of thermal effects is 

not directly at the bridge. This protects the structure 

from water penetration through possible cracks and 

further protects the structure itself. When a sliding 

drag plate (not attached to the structure) is used, 

Austrian engineers try to distribute the changes in 

length to two distinct areas: one at the end of the 

structure and a second at the end of the drag plate. 

Thus, the total elongation is taken by two distinct 

areas where cuts in the pavement are provided to 

prevent uncontrolled cracking. Austrian engineers 

use the total length of the drag plate to distribute the 

thermal effects. In doing so, they hope to eliminate 

the need for providing expansion joints at any 

location in the pavement. Austrian engineers believe 

that the use of either horizontal or inclined drag 

plates greatly reduces issues normally encountered 

in transitioning from the roadway section to the 

bridge deck.

3. The German method of calculating minimum 

reinforcement to prevent brittle failure was of interest 

because of issues with similar provisions in the 

AASHTO LRFD specifications. 

4. Allowable stresses were noted in the various 

countries visited because the design values 

play a role in serviceability. Source: Pascal Charles, Centre Technique des Ouvrages d’Art

Processes and Practices to Provide

Serviceability and Durability

The main items to provide a sufficient service life are the 

following: 

1. Density, quality, and thickness of concrete cover (for 

corrosion protection of steel bars)

2. Crack control (for corrosion protection of steel bars)

3. Stress limitation (for concrete and steel bars)

4. Appropriate detailing of the reinforcement

5. Appropriate detailing of the bridge to limit external 

attacks (waterproofing layer, waterspouts, sufficient 

cross and longitudinal slope)

6. Taking into account the evolution of material properties 

during the prescripted lifetime of the bridge: concrete 

(shrinkage, creep), prestressing (stress relaxation, 

prestress loss)

7. Precautions and recommendations to avoid alkali-aggregate reaction in concrete and delayed ettringite formation (internal sulfate attack) (type of aggregate, 

temperature of the concrete)

8. Avoidance of abrasion and erosion with coated macadam

9. Checking of the fatigue behavior of prestressed tendons 

when concrete is in tension under frequent live loads 

(partially prestressed structures)
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 19

5. In Germany, the allowable tensile stresses of 

concrete bridges under service conditions are zero. 

In general, the limit state of decompression must 

be fulfilled at the edge of a section under the 

quasi-permanent combination: 

σc,perm = 0

quasi-permanent combination (perm): 

Ed = E{ Gk,j ; Pk ; ψ2,i · Qk,i }

Gk,j self-weight loads

Pk prestressing action

Qk variable actions

ψ2 = 0.2 traffic loads on bridges

ψ2 = 0.5 thermal actions

All actions are characteristic values with partial factors 

E = 1.0. Partial factors are basic indicators, which 

determine structural dimensions in relation to loading. 

The probabilistic assessment of reliability is performed 

as a parametric study in the first part of the numerical 

analysis. The probability of failure is analyzed in 

dependence on values of partial factors of material, 

permanent loading, and long-time variable loading. 

Partial safety factors are considered fuzzy numbers.

Under the state of construction the allowable tensile 

stress for bridges with bonded tendons is 85 percent 

of the characteristic tensile strength fctk;0.05 of the 

concrete (5 percent–quantile):

σc < 0.85·fctk;0.05

For concrete bridges with unbonded tendons only 

significant higher values are allowed (4.0 up to 

6.5MN/m2).

In Austria, the allowable stresses must not exceed 

0.6fck or exposure classes XD (exposure to chlorides 

other than seawater), XF (exposure to freezing), and 

XS (exposure to seawater) under their normal load 

combination. To avoid nonlinear and excessive creep 

deformations under the quasi-permanent combinations, the allowable stresses must not exceed 0.45fck. 

For the reinforcement under the normal load combination, the allowable stresses must not exceed 0.8fyk 

to avoid plastic deformation and large cracks. These 

requirements are also valid for reinforced bridges, but 

normally are not relevant because the ultimate limit 

states govern. For post-tensioned, prestressed concrete bridges these rules might be crucial. In general, 

crack widths for reinforced concrete shall not exceed 

0.3 mm, but this depends on the exposure class. For 

Figure 10. Detail of drag plate used in Austrian integral bridges.
20 | Findings on Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability

post-tensioned, prestressed concrete, crack width 

depends on exposure class and type of posttensioning and prestressing.

The French limit compression to 0.6fck for DL+LL

and 0.45fck for DL only. They limit crack width to 

0.3 to 0.4 mm under full live load for reinforced 

concrete and to 0.2 mm under full live load.

6. The German design code, DIN-Fachbericht 102, 

requires that an appropriate amount of reinforcing 

steel be provided to limit the crack width to 0.2 mm 

(figure 11). The Austrians generally limit their crack 

widths to 0.3 mm. The French permit 0.3 mm for 

conventional reinforcement, 0.2 mm for conventional 

reinforcement in a salt environment, and 0.0 mm for 

prestressed members in a salt environment. The 

Finns permit 0.35 mm and 0.40 mm for conventionally reinforced bridges for typical and routine permit 

trucks, respectively, and 0.15 mm and 0.20 mm for 

post-tensioned bridges, again for typical and routine 

permit trucks, respectively. The United Kingdom, on 

the other hand, saw no correlation between durability 

and cracks of reasonable widths.

7. The various concrete cover requirements were also of 

interest. The Germans gave consideration to the 

location of the element on the bridge, what environment the concrete was in, and whether the bridge 

carried road or rail traffic. Similar requirements were 

noted in France, where the cover thickness is calculated through a process that takes into account 

parameters such as exposure class, concrete, and 

diameter of the bars. The values for cover do not vary 

considerably from those set by AASHTO. The scan 

team noted that at one construction site it visited, the 

cast-in-place workmanship was outstanding.

8. The use of continuous structures and external 

post-tensioning were preferred in most countries 

visited (figure 12). The following were given as 

reasons given for this preference: 

■ Ease of concreting without tendons in the webs

■ Improved quality of fabrication 

■ Ease of inspecting and maintaining the tendons

■ Ease of replacing the tendons 

■ Ease of retensioning the tendons if provided for in 

the design

■ Better corrosion protection (from deicing salts) 

■ No effect from fatigue on the tendons 

■ Reduction in web thickness, reducing dead load

Integral continuous bridges are mandatory in the 

United Kingdom.

9. The Austrians presented an integrated asset management system that supports bridge management 

decisionmaking from the planning stages through 

decommissioning and demolition. The system also 

provides safety triggers that advise when critical 

issues need to be addressed to ensure the desired 

service life is met. Triggers are established for bridges 

and roadways based on a predetermined condition 

rating for the facility. Triggers are also established to 

prompt actions on noise barriers and highway 

intersections based on performance. The asset 

management program has been used by the Austrian 

motorway operator ASFiNAG and the Federal 

Ministry for Transport, Innovation, and Technology 

for several years. In their opinion, it is very successful, and it is consistently updated to reflect actual 

owner experience to provide more accurate results.

10.Two-girder bridges were commonly used because 

of their cost-effectiveness (figure 13). Conservative 

fatigue design (similar to that in the United States), 

high welding quality and inspection, and 

higher toughness steels (similar to U.S. 

high-performance steels) in France and 

the United Kingdom provided owners 

with confidence in this type of bridge. 

Austria has no regulations on redundancy 

or fracture criticality. Its position is that 

with the use of properly designed and 

constructed waterproofing membranes, 

the superstructure will last the entire life 

of the bridge and deck replacement will 

Figure 11. Crack width control. not be an issue. Two-girder bridges are 

wk= 0.2 mm
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 21

Figure 12. External post-tensioning.

Figure 13. Typical two-girder system in Europe.
22 | Findings on Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability

routinely built in France. The French believe that 

this type of bridge is very competitive in the 18- 

to19-meter span range.

11. Emphasis was placed on using nondestructive 

evaluation (NDE) techniques to detect wire 

breakage and reinforcement corrosion.

12. The Austrians provided the following reasons for 

instrumenting and monitoring bridges:

■ As a means of postconstruction quality control

■ To monitor for traffic incidents or other natural 

or manmade events

■ To monitor for security or vandalism

■ To monitor and guide permitted or illegal loads

■ To continuously gather reliable performance 

data on bridge structures for maintenance and 

management decisionmaking

■ To provide a variety of information to designers 

on the behavior of a bridge

■ To gather information on the characteristics of 

vehicles using a bridge (e.g., types, weights, axel 

loads, and speeds)

13. Health monitoring was used in the countries visited 

more for bridge maintenance, compared with 

the United States where it is perhaps more of an 

academic exercise.

Finnra staff members stated they believe that monitoring programs are of value not only to provide data 

for immediate needs, but also to provide data for 

future evaluation needs. Finnra believes that reliable 

monitoring sensors and measuring devices are already 

available to instrument bridges and that the price of 

sensors and measuring devices is quite low. The 

agency’s experience is that the greatest cost is in 

maintaining the measuring devices and storing and 

processing data. Finnra also recognizes the use of 

monitoring devices for emergency alerts and to 

control the quality of the work and materials. Finnra 

recognizes that it is not necessary to instrument all 

bridges. It focuses on special bridges, such as longspan bridges and new types of bridges with which it 

has limited experience. It also uses instrumentation 

to study bridges with a history of issues. 

Finnra has installed monitoring systems on several 

new bridge projects. Officials noted that the power 

supply and cable conduits must be included in the 

design plans because sensors such as strain gauges on 

bar reinforcement and optical fibers must be installed 

before concrete is cast. 

Finnra sees a future in instrumenting bridges to 

provide data for asset management purposes, provide 

better data on long-term structural behavior and 

reliability, and refine life-cycle models it uses for its 

bridge inventory.

14. In France, permanent instrumentation may be 

installed for surveillance of bridges with significant 

deficiencies and reduced load-carrying capabilities. 

When significant deficiencies are noted, the local 

bridge manager may determine that increased levels 

of monitoring are warranted. This increased monitoring, or enhanced surveillance, is designed to evaluate 

the consequences of further damage to the structure. 

When the deficiencies recorded on a bridge appear 

likely to affect safety, the manager may require even 

more intense monitoring, referred to as safety monitoring. The load-carrying capacity of the bridge is 

evaluated to check or limit the acceptable level of 

traffic and to alert the manager of potential danger. 

When either type of monitoring is employed, the 

bridge is usually under permanent instrumentation. 

For safety monitoring, the data are transmitted 

continuously to a remote location. Examples of this 

are the Merlebach and Aquitaine suspension bridges, 

which have been put under permanent sound 

monitoring to alert French authorities of wire 

breaks within the cables.

15. Bridge load testing has been practiced in Finland 

since the 1950s, but it has become less popular in the 

past 20 years. Finnra required load testing on 1950s 

bridges designed for a lower live load (40 tons). 

Finnra uses load tests to determine the load-carrying 

capacity and need for strengthening existing bridges, 

study the influence of strengthening performed, 

verify the structural behavior of new bridges, and 

study the structural behavior of different bridge types. 

The data obtained are also used to supplement the 

results from computational methods and calibrate 

the calculation models used for analysis. 

Finnra has performed load tests to failure on six 

different types of bridges:

■ Two reinforced concrete girder bridges

■ One reinforced concrete slab bridge
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 23

■ Two steel girder bridges with concrete decks

■ One timber bridge

These tests were performed to determine structural 

behavior and capacity in the ultimate limit state, 

observe the failure sequence, and determine the 

distribution of forces during failure. The test was 

performed by loading the bridge using hydraulic 

jacks supported by a loading frame. 

Finnra’s experiences with conducting bridge load 

tests were positive. It concluded the following:

■ In many cases “hidden” safety could be identified, 

allowing permitting of higher traffic loads.

■ Better determination of the risk of damage can be 

determined by taking measurements of critical 

details.

■ Actual load-carrying capacity can be determined, 

providing better results than calculations only.

■ In some cases expensive strengthening or rehabilitation of a bridge can be avoided.

■ Valuable data on the behavior of different bridge 

types and their elements have been gathered to 

develop better analysis methods.

Austria uses bridge load testing, but limits it to 

problematic bridges (about two per year) in potential 

need of strengthening or where trucks need to be 

permitted for travel.

16. Bridge weigh-in-motion (B-WIM) was reported on in 

Austria and France. B-WIM differs from WIM in that 

the bridge is used as a scale by measuring strains. 

B-WIM was the subject of a past European scan. 

B-WIM can improve on codified values for dynamic 

load allowance, but is limited to integral bridge types. 

The French are doing field tests and hope to use it 

more in the future. 

17. WIM is used for law enforcement in the United 

Kingdom in conjunction with a camera. The French 

hope to do the same.
24 |
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 25

Recommendations

Based on its findings during the scanning study, the team 

recommends the following:

1. Develop a nationally accepted strategy for promoting and increasing practicing bridge engineers’ use 

of refined analysis. The team believes such a strategy 

would improve uniformity and consistency in 

design and analysis across transportation agencies, 

improve mobility, and expand commerce on the 

highway bridge network. The strategic plan should 

address training, perhaps through development of 

a National Highway Institute training course, to 

provide background on grillage and finite element 

modeling methods available for analysis of highway 

bridges. The strategic plan might also entail developing standardized curricula that universities can 

offer as graduate-level and continuing education 

courses throughout the United States. The strategy 

must also include partnering with the software 

industry to ensure that supporting tools become 

available with integration of computer-aided 

design and drafting (CADD) systems for both 

rating and design. 

2. States should be encouraged by entities other 

than the software industry to use refined analysis 

(properly checked and verified) and reliability 

assessment as a measure to avoid posting, rehabilitating, or replacing bridge structures that affect 

commerce, schools, and the traveling public. 

Advanced tools, techniques, and training need to 

be developed and provided for design engineers so 

they can more accurately predict structural system 

behavior on a routine basis. Better predictions of 

system capacity will lead to more accurate predictions of load capacity and reduce the number of 

posted bridges, increasing mobility and commerce. 

The AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation should 

introduce structural safety assessment levels in 

which each additional assessment level adds 

increasing sophistication with the objective of 

assessing the safety of a bridge more accurately, 

commensurate with risk and the need to verify 

adequate capacity. 

3. The AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures should consider adopting the concept 

of annual probability of failure (exceedance) as 

the quantification of safety in its probability-based 

design and rating specifications rather than the 

reliability index for a 75-year design life. Probability 

of failure is a more intuitive measure of safety than 

the reliability index. Also, annual probability of 

failure, instead of the probability of failure during 

the 75-year design life, would put the risk due to 

the strength limit state force effects in a format 

comparable to the extreme event limit states, which 

are typically quantified by annual probability of 

failure. In other words, the reference period in the 

table would be 1 year. The specification of a 1-year 

reference period, or annual probability of failure, 

is standard practice in other probability-based 

specifications, such as the Eurocode. 

4. A synthesis project should be initiated to develop 

the basis to systematically introduce increasing levels 

of sophistication into analysis, load models, and 

reliability assessments with the objective of assessing 

bridges more accurately.

5. Owners should periodically and routinely reassess 

traffic highway loading to ensure that the AASHTO 

LRFD Bridge Designs specification design load model 

adequately provides for bridge safety and serviceability for a 75-year service life or greater. 

6. The AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and 

Structures should consider requiring States to 

develop an overweight permit design vehicle for the 

Strength II load combination, the load combination 

meant to consider special permit truck loads during 

Recommendations and

Implementation Activities

C hapt e r

3
26 | Recommendations and Implementation Activities

the design of a bridge, particularly in high-load 

corridors. This is to avoid design and construction 

of structures that do not rate.

7. Develop and maintain a database of bridge failures 

domestically and internationally that provides 

detailed information and data on the causes of 

failure. A protocol should be established to initiate 

necessary actions owners and code-writing bodies 

should take to ensure that bridge design guidance 

addresses these failures. 

8. Continue efforts to develop guidelines and training 

for proper use of NDE techniques to detect corrosion and breakage of cables of cable-supported 

bridges. Identify or develop new NDE technologies 

to actually quantify the amount and severity of 

corrosion and breakage in hidden elements 

(prestressing strands, ducted cables, mild steel 

reinforcement, etc.).

9. Independent check engineering and check engineer 

certification should be explored for the purpose of 

augmenting QA/QC processes and practices already 

in place for bridge designs and analyses.

10. Initiate the investigation and possible technology 

transfer of selected best practices and emerging 

technologies identified during the scan. Potential 

candidates include the following: 

■ Development of an integrated bridge asset 

management process from planning through 

decommissioning and demolition

■ Development of guidance on the use of waterproofing membranes and asphalt overlays

■ Expansion of the use of continuous concrete box 

girders with external post-tensioning for new 

bridges and retrofit and repair of existing 

structures using external post-tensioning 

■ Use of drag plates in the design of integral 

abutment bridges, as practiced in Austria 

Implementation Activities

In summary, the scan team found many similarities, as well 

as significant differences, between the United States and 

the host countries in bridge design and analysis practices 

and bridge management and operating procedures. The 

team identified several key findings that it considers best 

practices, outlined in this report. The team believes that the 

best practices should be mainstreamed into practice in the 

United States by making the information available on Web 

sites, seeking demonstration or pilot projects, and holding 

workshops in association with the pilot projects. In 

addition, the team has planned papers and presentations at 

national and local meetings and conferences over the next 

several years. The purpose of the papers and presentations 

is to describe the overall results of the scanning study and 

details of specific technologies that participants should 

consider implementing in their States.

The results of this scan will support ongoing activities by 

FHWA, the AASHTO Subcommittee on Highway Bridges 

and Structures, and TRB/NCHRP to improve U.S. bridge 

design and analysis codes and specifications. This scan 

report contains many detailed findings that will enhance 

U.S. understanding of bridge design safety and serviceability and will lead to pursuit of further practices that will 

improve bridge design, analysis, and operations nationwide. The scan team is convinced that implementing the 

key findings of this study will improve design and operational safety standards of U.S. bridges, enabling them to 

provide longer service life with less maintenance. Changes 

to the bridge design and analysis codes will provide 

operational improvements that will increase mobility 

and help preserve the Nation’s highways.
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 27

A Possible Approach to Risk-Based Assessment

and Prioritization of Existing Bridges

Risk evaluation considers the likelihood and consequences 

of failure. Bridge safety is measured in terms of the risk 

level rather than the conventional failure probability level. 

In assessing risk to public safety, relevant factors such as 

the consequence of failure, structural system, indications of 

distress, possibility of hidden distress, bridge hits, extreme 

event data, traffic load history of the structure, and level 

of previous assessments completed should all be taken into 

account. Standards should provide guidance on appropriate 

inspections, safety assessment measures (load ratings, 

fatigue), intermediate mitigation measures (load posting, 

monitoring), and long-term strengthening or replacement 

strategies that may be used to manage the risks 

associated with structures. 

The decision to take interim measures should be based on 

an assessment of the risks associated with the continued 

use of the structure without imposing any interim measures. The strengthening or replacement of all substandard 

structures is an ongoing process, and the work needs to be 

prioritized. Prioritization of strengthening or replacement 

should take into account the relative risk of each structure 

to public safety. A further enhancement would be to adopt 

a whole-life risk approach to maintain an acceptable level 

of risk over the life cycle of the bridge.

Of specific interest to scan team members was information 

the European hosts provided on assessment and prioritization of their existing bridge stock. The following is derived 

and combined from countries visited during the scan and 

attempts to capture their best practices in bridge assessment. It is described as an implementable process that 

includes several worthwhile concepts instead of presented 

as stand-alone ideas. This will be an iterative process.

Levels of Assessment Concept

Assessment of an existing structure should be carried out 

in stages of increasing complexity tied to the level of risk 

associated with the structure and with the objective of 

efficiently determining its adequacy. Early stages may 

contain conservative means of evaluating force effects. 

Provided that a structure is shown to be adequate at early 

stages, no further analysis is required. However, if a 

structure is found to be inadequate at an early stage and 

is considered to pose an unacceptable level of risk, assessment work should continue and later stages should seek to 

remove any conservatism in the assessment calculations. 

The levels of assessment introduce increasing sophistication with the objective of assessing the safety of a bridge 

more accurately.

Each additional level of assessment may involve considerably more time and cost. The bridge owner should consider 

these implications and approve the progress of the assessment through the various levels.

 Level 1

Level 1 is the simplest level of assessment, based on a 

conservative estimate of load capacity. At this stage, only 

simple analysis methods are necessary.

 Level 2

Level 2 assessment involves the use of more refined 

analysis and better structural idealization. More refined 

analysis may include grillage or finite element analyses 

whenever these may result in more accurate capacities. 

Nonlinear and plastic methods of analysis may also be used 

for the substructure; actual measured material properties 

may be used for the superstructure. 

 Level 3

Level 3 assessment includes the option to use bridgespecific live loading. Recent WIM data could be used to 

characterize truck load models (or calibrate load factors) 

specific to the site. Use of bridge WIM systems should be 

investigated on small structures because more accurate 

dynamic amplification factors can be obtained. Level 3 

assessment may use material testing to determine 

characteristic strength or yield stress. 

 Level 4

In Level 4 assessment, probability-based system methods 

are used in conjunction with an owner-specified level of 

safety. Such methods require in-depth knowledge of and 

expertise in reliability analysis techniques. (Levels 1 

through 3 account only for element failures in bridge 

assessment. However, in many cases, element failures may 

not cause system failures. In other words, a bridge may 

have a smaller chance of failure than the corresponding 

system value.) A technical approval process should be 

implemented for the owner and assessment team to concur 

(continued)
28 | Recommendations and Implementation Activities

A Possible Approach to Risk-Based Assessment and Prioritization of Existing Bridges

(continued)

on the method of analysis and how the uncertainties of 

the specific bridge condition and the local traffic situation 

are considered. Structures believed to pose an immediate 

or high risk to the public may be candidates for a 

Level 4 assessment.

Note: In Level 1 and 2 assessments, extremes of normal 

traffic are represented by notional load models. Site-specific 

load models are used for Level 3 and 4 assessments. 

Note: Traffic WIM data can be obtained by mounting 

sensors in the road pavement or on an existing bridge 

structure and estimating the corresponding static loads 

using appropriate algorithms. It is clearly desirable to collect 

as much data as possible, but 1 or 2 weeks of continuously 

recorded data may be sufficient for assessment purposes. 

It is important to ensure that these data are representative, 

so consideration should be given to seasonal variation 

patterns when scheduling a measurement period. The COST 

(European Cooperation in Science and Technology) 345 

report does not specify the required accuracy of WIM data. 

However, some guidance is given by specifying the required 

accuracy with reference to the COST 323 WIM specification. 

Bridge loading is not overly sensitive to WIM system 

accuracy, and a system with accuracy that corresponds 

to about 95 percent of gross vehicle weights within 15 

percent of the exact static value is considered sufficient. 

Extreme value distributions, such as those contained in 

the Gumbel family, are fitted to measured data recorded 

over a period of time. Subsequent extrapolation of these 

fitted distributions for a specified return period yields 

the characteristic value.

Note: Level 1 to 3 assessments, as described, are based 

on code-implicit safety levels, incorporating the nominal 

values of loads and resistance parameters and the corresponding load and resistance safety factors. To ensure that 

the assessment rules are simple for routine use, the format 

and values of the load and resistance factors are chosen to 

accommodate a wide range of structure and component 

types. Level 4 is a departure from these sometimes 

conservative assessment techniques.
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 29

Safety and Serviceability—

Design and Construction

Quantification of Safety

In the United States, structural safety is measured through 

a reliability-based uniform safety index (reliability index) 

for individual structural members and is based on live 

load data (frequencies and weights). In current design 

specifications, the index is selected on an average value 

of reliability indices of existing bridges, not on a desired 

level of safety. The reliability index is achieved by specifying calibrated load amplification factors and capacity 

reduction factors. Neither the live load data nor 

the reliability index has been revisited since the 

development of the present specifications.

■

What is the philosophical basis of safety for your 

design and evaluation requirements for bridges, 

including superstructure, substructure, and foundation (e.g., working stress; uncalibrated partial factors; 

reliability theory expressed through calibrated partial 

factors, a target reliability index, annual probability 

of failure, or other means)?

■

How do you define bridge failure? Have you had any 

failures of bridges due to overload? 

■

Are your safety measures element or system based?

■

How (why) did you determine to use those measures? 

■

How do you quantify those measures?

■

How do you maintain your measures? Do you consider 

future increases in vehicular volume and weight and 

deterioration of components? If so, how? 

■

Are your measures different for different routes, sizes, 

or types of bridges or specific bridge components? 

■

Have weigh-in-motion data been used to develop your 

design specifications and, if so, how? 

■

What are your current design live loads and how were 

they developed?

■

Do you use a different live load model on your 

longer span bridges (cable-stay, arch, or suspension 

bridges)? 

■

Do you consider the probability of multiple heavy 

trucks being on your bridges simultaneously 

(side-by-side trucks, not all trucks being fully 

loaded, or caravan of trucks)? 

■

Please describe your current and planned efforts to 

support future advances in quantifying and assuring 

safety and service life through proper design codes.

■

What are your quality assurance and quality control 

(QA/QC) procedures for bridge analysis and design? 

Are they published? 

■

Do you have published guidelines for bridge capacity 

evaluation QA/QC?

■

What are your procedures for detecting and/or preventing design errors? Do you have bridge design firm QC

procedures for designing bridges, and owner/agency 

procedures for reviewing and approving bridge design 

plans and calculations?

Serviceability

In the United States, serviceability considers deformation, 

cracking, and stress limits of components. These criteria 

are based on past practices. Serviceability criteria are 

intended to give 75 years of service life, but the criteria 

used are not based on scientific evidence or research.

■

How do you define bridge serviceability and

service life? 

■

What are your performance measures for serviceability? 

■

What are your goals for bridge service life?

■

What design checks and measures have you taken in 

the design of new bridges to achieve this performance? 

■

Are live load deflection, vibration, or resonance limits 

a consideration? 

■

Do you check bridges for fatigue?

 

Safety and Serviceability—Operations 

In the United States, structural safety of existing bridges is 

measured through two uniform safety indices for individual structural members that are based on live load data 

and the structural condition of members. Load capacity 

evaluations can be done at a higher national screening level 

Amplifying Questions APP E NDIX

A
30 | Amplifying Questions

(inventory level) or a local screening level (operating level). 

The index for the national inventory level is based on the 

design level of safety. The local operating level is based on 

a lower level of safety determined by the local jurisdiction’s 

experience with its existing bridges through smaller live 

load amplification factors. 

Laws and Regulations Governing In-Service 

Bridges 

■

Are there laws governing the maximum legal load on 

bridges, and is the maximum legal load different from 

your design and evaluation vehicles? 

■

Have you had or do you predict any increase in legal 

truck weights? If so, how do you assess the state of 

your bridge inventory to support the legal load 

increase? 

■

How do you enforce that loads crossing your bridges 

do not exceed the safe load capacity of the structure? 

■

Which agency (and at what level of government) 

is responsible for approving overload permits? 

What is its review and approval process? 

Load-Carrying Assessment 

(Evaluation and Rating) of Bridges

■

What initiates the evaluation process (e.g., initial 

design, deterioration of the bridge, change in 

legal load, operating load, specification changes)?

■

Do you have a separate unit to perform bridge 

assessment, or do you use the design unit to 

perform assessments? 

■

In evaluating a bridge, do you evaluate the entire 

bridge system (all members, connections, bearings, 

substructures, including foundations), or do you 

evaluate a limited number of elements? 

■

What are the serviceability checks when evaluating 

existing bridges? 

■

Do you use the same or different safety factors (load 

and resistance factors) for the design of new bridges 

and evaluation of existing bridges, and does it vary 

depending on the type of bridge? 

■

Do you use load testing (full-scale field testing) to 

check bridge safety? If so, what are the criteria for 

selecting a bridge for load testing? 

■

How often do you use permanent instrumentation 

of bridges for assessment? Why?

■

Do you have bridges with elements of unknown 

structural capacity (no plans or records) and, if so, 

how do you evaluate their load-carrying capacity? 

■

What are your procedures for restricting trucks from 

crossing a bridge with diminished load-carrying 

capacity? What are your practices for putting up 

signs with load restrictions?

■

Do you restrict loads on a bridge because of serviceability issues in addition to safety? Please elaborate.

■

Do you permit trucks heavier than the legal load limit 

to cross bridges and, if so, how are operations of these 

vehicles controlled (escorts, route restrictions, vehicle 

speed, etc.)? 

■

What level of structural analysis do you use to evaluate 

posting and permitting of bridges? Do you base the 

evaluation on certain elements or the entire bridge 

(including foundations)?

■

In evaluations of legal loads and overweight vehicles, 

what combinations of possible loads are considered 

(e.g., live load, wind, braking forces)?

Record Keeping

■

Do you maintain electronic records (analytical software files as well as bridge plans) for use in future 

evaluations? 

■

What records are kept during construction and 

how are they used during the life of the bridge? 

For example, is a baseline chloride measurement 

taken to assess service life of the bridge deck?

Refined Analysis—Design, Construction, 

and Operations

In the United States, bridge code longitudinal effects are 

uncoupled from transverse effects using empirical formulas 

for live load distribution. This uncoupling process allows 

simplified analysis of single members or sections. For 

complex bridges refined analysis (grillage and finite 

element analysis) may be used.

Guidelines 

■

To what extent is simplified analysis of single members 

used for design and/or evaluation? 

■

Do you use refined analysis in your evaluation and 

design (grid or three-dimensional analysis)? 

■

Do you consider the accuracy of your analysis technique in the design and evaluation of your bridge? 

If so, how?

■

Do you have guidelines for bridge modeling and 

performing structural analysis to assure the production 

of efficient designs while minimizing iteration? 

If so, what are they? 

■

Do consultants need to obtain special permission 

from the bridge owner before performing a refined 

analysis? Do you specify the software for the designer 
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 31

(consultant) to use when performing a refined 

analysis?

■

How do you verify the results of the refined analysis 

in terms of modeling and output to ensure that the 

results are valid? 

■

What software is allowed for bridge analysis and 

design? How is it validated and accepted for use?

■

What information does the software developer 

provide to assure that the design engineer understands how the analysis is being done and how any 

design recommendations were arrived at? 

■

Describe the educational background of the design/

analysis software user. 

■

Do you use nonlinear analysis? If so, when?

Research and Development 

■

Please describe your current and anticipated future 

efforts to support any advances in refined analysis.

■

Please describe your current and anticipated future 

efforts to support advances in quantifying and assuring 

safety through proper evaluation guidelines. 

■

Please describe your current and anticipated future 

efforts to support advances in quantifying and assuring 

service life through proper evaluation guidelines.
32 |
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 33

Susan Hida (AASHTO Cochair)

Assistant State Bridge Engineer

California Department of Transportation

Division of Engineering Services, Office of Structure Design

1801 30th St., MS 9-3/1h

Sacramento, CA 95818

Telephone: 916-227-8738

Fax: 916-227-9576

E-mail: susan_hida@dot.ca.gov 

Firas I. Sheikh Ibrahim (FHWA Cochair)

Senior Bridge Engineer–Codes and Specifications

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Bridge Technology

HIBT-10, Room E73-123

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590-9898

Telephone: 202-366-4598

Fax: 202-366-3077

E-mail: firas.ibrahim@dot.gov 

Harry A. Capers, Jr. (Report Facilitator)

Vice President (Corporate Bridge Engineer)

Arora and Associates, P.C.

3120 Princeton Pike, 3rd Floor

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2372

Telephone: 609-844-1111, ext. 1176

Fax: 609-844-9799

E-mail: hcapers@arorapc.com 

Gregory L. Bailey 

Director, Engineering Division

West Virginia Department of Transportation

Building 5, Room A-317

1900 Kanawha Blvd. E

Charleston, WV 25305-0430

Telephone: 304-558-2885

Fax: 304-558-0605

E-mail: gregory.l.bailey@wv.gov 

Ian M. Friedland 

Technical Director

Bridges and Structures Research and Development

Federal Highway Administration

HRDI-03, Room F-211

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

Telephone: 202-493-3023

Fax: 202-493-3086

E-mail: ian.friedland@fhwa.dot.gov 

Jugesh Kapur 

State Bridge and Structures Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation 

Bridge & Structures Office, 2nd Floor

7345 Linderson Way SW

Tumwater, WA 98501

PO Box 47340

Olympia, WA 98504

Telephone: 360-705-7207

Fax: 360-705-6814

E-mail: kapurju@wsdot.wa.gov 

Barney T. Martin, Jr.

President

Modjeski and Masters, Inc.

301 Manchester Rd.

Poughkeepsie, NY 12603

Telephone: 845-471-2630

E-mail: btmartin@modjeski.com 

Representing: American Council of Engineering Companies

Dennis R. Mertz

Professor of Civil Engineering

University of Delaware

358B DuPont Hall

Newark, DE 19716

Telephone: 302-831-2735

Fax: 302-831-3640

E-mail: mertz@udel.edu 

Scan Team Members APP E NDIX

b
Gregory R. Perfetti 

State Bridge Design Engineer

Structure Design Unit

North Carolina Department of Transportation

1581 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1581

Telephone: 919-250-4037

Fax: 919-250-4082

E-mail: gperfetti@ncdot.gov 

Thomas Saad 

Structural Design Engineer–Codes and Specifications

Federal Highway Administration

FHWA Resource Center

HRC-BAL

19900 Governors Dr., Suite 301

Olympia Fields, IL 60461

Telephone: 708-283-3521

Fax: 708-283-3501

E-mail: thomas.saad@fhwa.dot.gov 

Bala Sivakumar

Vice President

Director–Special Bridge Projects

HNTB Corp.

5 Penn Plaza, 6th Floor

New York, NY 10001-1810

Telephone: 212-915-9532

Fax: 212-947-4030

E-mail: bsivakumar@hntb.com

Representing: American Council of Engineering Companies 

34 | Scan Team Members

 Biographic Sketches

Susan Hida (AASHTO cochair) is the assistant State 

bridge engineer for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in Sacramento, CA. Hida is responsible for Caltrans’ bridge design specifications, technical 

guidance material, and technical committees. She chairs 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) T5 Loads Technical Committee 

and acts as a liaison to MCEER/FHWA (Multidisciplinary 

Center for Earthquake Engineering Research/Federal 

Highway Administration) multihazard research. Before 

her current position, Hida designed bridges and served as 

project engineer for a $24 million seismic retrofit project. 

Hida has master’s degrees in civil engineering from 

Purdue and Princeton Universities. She also studied civil 

engineering for a year at the University of Hannover in 

(West) Germany under sponsorship of the German 

Academic Exchange Service. She is a licensed professional 

engineer in Oregon and California and serves on several 

research panels for the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program (NCHRP).

Dr. Firas Sheikh Ibrahim (FHWA cochair) is the 

program manager for bridge codes and specifications for 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in Washington, DC. He directs FHWA’s technology development and 

deployment teams for bridge analysis, design, evaluation, 

and extreme events. He serves as a bridge expert and has 

provided expert assistance on numerous complex projects. 

Before joining FHWA, he served as a lead engineer with 

Parsons Brinkerhoff, a project engineer with HDR Engineering, and a faculty member at Clarkson University in 

New York. Sheikh Ibrahim is a graduate of the University 

of Damascus, and has a master’s degree in structural 

engineering from South Dakota State University and a 

Ph.D. in structural engineering from the University of 

Texas at Austin. He is a licensed professional engineer in 

Pennsylvania and serves on several national executive, 

oversight, and technical committees, including AASHTO 

and the Transportation Research Board (TRB). He is 

assistant secretary of the Executive Committee of the 

AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures.

Harry A. Capers, Jr. (report facilitator) is vice president 

and corporate bridge engineer for Arora and Associates, 

P.C., a regional transportation engineering firm in the 

northeastern United States. He is responsible for oversight 

of all highway bridge work in the firm’s six offices. He also 

manages several initiatives with various universities 

conducting research on bridge topics and is the principal 

investigator for the NCHRP 20-68A Project, “U.S. Domestic Scan Program.” In addition, he is the firm’s quality 

assurance manager. He chairs TRB Committee AFF10 on 
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 35

General Structures and Subcommittee AHD35 (1) on 

Safety and Security of Bridges and Structures. He is a 

member of the AFF50 Committee on Seismic Design and 

AHD35 Committee on Bridge Management. He chairs 

several NCHRP expert panels and serves as an industry 

advisor to the Stevens Institute of Technology. Before 

retiring from public service in 2006, Capers spent more 

than 32 years with the New Jersey Department of Transportation as chief bridge engineer and was responsible for 

all highway structures and geotechnical design work. 

Capers served as a member of AASHTO’s Subcommittee on 

Bridges and Structures, chair of its Technical Committee on 

Loads and Load Distribution and Committee on Tunnel 

Design, and vice chair of the Technical Committee on 

Seismic Design before his retirement, and he remains active 

in many of these committees. He serves on several professional committees, including the American Society of Civil 

Engineers Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) 

Bridge Management, Inspection, and Rehabilitation 

Committee. He received bachelor’s and master’s degrees in 

civil engineering from Polytechnic University, and a master 

of public administration degree from Rutgers University. 

He has authored or coauthored more than three dozen 

papers for national and international publications and has 

received many awards for professional and lifetime achievement from various organizations. Capers is a registered 

professional engineer in New Jersey and New York.

Gregory L. Bailey is the director of the Engineering 

Division for the West Virginia Division of Highways (DOH) 

in Charleston, WV. He is responsible for developing and 

implementing statewide policies and procedures for bridge 

design and structural design issues used in DOH programs. 

He also has a consultative role in developing evaluation 

and rating policies and procedures. Bailey has served with 

the DOH for more than 16 years and has more than 31 

years of experience in structural and bridge engineering for 

State highway administrations, local government entities, 

and private engineering firms. He has a bachelor’s degree in 

civil engineering from West Virginia Institute of Technology 

and a master’s degree in civil engineering (structural 

emphasis) from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University. He is a licensed professional engineer in West 

Virginia and serves as the DOH voting representative on 

the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures. He 

is chair of the T-16 Timber Structures Committee and vice 

chair of the T-5 Loads and Load Distribution Committee.

Ian M. Friedland is technical director of bridge and 

structures research and development for FHWA’s TurnerFairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, VA. 

Friedland provides national leadership and expert technical 

advice on developing and delivering new technologies in 

bridge engineering to FHWA field offices and State transportation agencies. Before joining FHWA, Friedland was 

associate director for development with the Applied 

Technology Council. Before that, he was assistant director 

for transportation research at the Multidisciplinary Center 

for Earthquake Engineering Research and a senior program 

officer with TRB, in charge of all bridge research conducted 

in the AASHTO-sponsored NCHRP. During his tenure with 

NCHRP, a number of major bridge initiatives were completed for AASHTO, including the development of the 

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Manual for Condition 

Evaluation of Bridges, Guidelines for Bridge Management 

Systems, and Guide to Metric Conversion. He has been a 

member of numerous national task forces and advisory 

committees, including those responsible for developing 

Pontis and BRIDGIT bridge management system software. 

Friedland is a registered professional engineer and is a 

member of ASCE, the Earthquake Engineering Research 

Institute, and TRB. He serves on the Executive Committee 

of the ASCE Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake 

Engineering and as associate editor of the ASCE Bridge 

Engineering Journal. Friedland received a bachelor’s degree 

in civil engineering from Cornell University and a master’s 

degree in structural engineering and structural mechanics 

from the University of Maryland. 

Jugesh Kapur is the State bridge engineer for the 

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

in Olympia, WA. Kapur provides direction, guidance, and 

management for the agency’s bridge engineering design 

and preservation programs, ensures the agency’s compliance with Federal and State laws, and monitors bridge 

design, preservation, and safety for quality control and 

assurance. He has served with WSDOT for more than 17 

years and has more than 25 years of experience in bridge 

engineering. He has a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering 

from the University of Washington. He is a licensed 

professional engineer in civil and structural engineering in 

Washington and Oregon and serves on several AASHTO 

technical committees.

Dr. Barney T. Martin, Jr. is president of Modjeski and 

Masters, Inc. and is based in the firm’s Poughkeepsie, NY, 

office. He is responsible for the general oversight of 

projects involving new bridge designs, bridge rehabilitation, and inspection and ratings for all of the firm’s bridge 

projects in the northeastern United States. He has 
36 | Scan Team Members

extensive experience in the inspection and evaluation of 

parallel wire suspension bridge cables. Until recently, he 

chaired TRB Committee AFF30 on Concrete Bridges. He 

is a member of TRB’s AFF20 Committee on Steel Bridges 

as well as AFF20 (1) Subcommittee on the Analysis of 

Steel Bridges. He has served on several NCHRP expert 

panels and recently coauthored an NCHRP report on Verification and Implementation of Strut-and-Tie Model in LRFD 

Bridge Design Specifications. Martin has a bachelor’s degree 

in civil engineering from Louisiana State University and 

graduate degrees from Tulane University. Martin is a 

registered engineer in 14 States.

Dr. Dennis R. Mertz is a professor of civil engineering 

at the University of Delaware (UD). He is the director of 

UD’s Center for Innovative Bridge Engineering. The study 

of bridge-design methodologies and particularly the 

strength and service limit states are prominent among 

Mertz’s research activities. As co-principal investigator of 

NCHRP Project 12-33, he was one of the authors of the 

first edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. As a consultant to the bridge-design firm Modjeski 

and Masters (where he was an associate before coming to 

UD), he has continued to author annual interim changes to 

the LRFD Specifications. All three of Mertz’s civil engineering 

degrees are from Lehigh University. He is a registered 

professional engineer in Pennsylvania.

Gregory R. Perfetti is the State bridge design engineer 

for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) 

in Raleigh, NC. He is the director of the Highway Design 

Branch’s Structure Design Unit, which serves as the central 

design office for all bridges released for contract in the State. 

He also is responsible for developing and issuing statewide 

policy for all bridge design features used in the State’s 

transportation programs. In addition, he has a responsible 

role in load rating of bridges and the research and implementation of innovative technology in the highway structural field for the North Carolina DOT. Perfetti has served 

with the agency for 25 years, with all of his experience 

in the structural engineering arena. He has bachelor’s and 

master’s degrees in civil engineering from North Carolina 

State University. He is a licensed professional engineer 

in North Carolina and serves on the Research, Joints and 

Bearings, and Steel Technical Committees of the AASHTO 

Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures.

Thomas Saad is a structural design engineer in the 

FHWA Resource Center in Chicago, IL. Saad is responsible for developing and delivering products and services 

to aid State highway agencies nationwide in implementing load and resistance factor design and rating. He is also 

responsible for delivering programs to help State highway 

agencies implement high-performance materials and 

accelerated bridge construction technologies. Before 

joining the FHWA Resource Center, he served as the 

Indiana Division bridge engineer and as a bridge engineer 

in Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, and Missouri. Saad 

graduated from Michigan State University and has a 

master’s degree in civil engineering from the Georgia 

Institute of Technology. He is a licensed professional 

engineer in Indiana and serves on the AASHTO Technical 

Committee for Loads and Load Distribution and the 

AASHTO BridgeWare Virtis-Opis Task Force. 

Bala Sivakumar is vice president and director of 

special bridge projects for HNTB Corporation in New 

York. Sivakumar’s professional practice areas include 

weigh-in-motion studies, site-specific load modeling, 

finite element modeling and advanced structural analysis 

applied to fatigue and fractures investigations, forensic 

investigations, seismic analysis and retrofit, load rating, 

and load testing. Sivakumar was the architect of the load 

and resistance factor rating (LRFR) evaluation philosophy 

and was the primary author of the AASHTO LRFR Manual 

(2003) and the new AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (2008). He served as the principal investigator of 

NCHRP Project 12-63 initiated in 2003 to propose 

revisions to AASHTO’s legal loads and loads for posting of 

bridges. Five new legal load models developed under this 

project were adopted by AASHTO as new national 

posting loads in 2005. He was the principal investigator 

for NCHRP 12-76 for TRB to develop protocols for 

collecting and using weigh-in-motion data for developing 

national design load models for the AASHTO LRFD Bridge 

Design Specifications. He has provided training seminars 

on LRFR to 15 State DOTs and LRFR implementation 

assistance to several States under an FHWA contract. He 

served as the principal investigator for the Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation for the forensic investigation of the Hoan Bridge failure in Milwaukee. He also 

served as an investigator for the Minnesota Department of 

Transportation for the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis. He conducts a 2-day LRFD bridge design course 

for ASCE that is offered nationally four times a year. He is 

frequently invited to make presentations to AASHTO 

technical committees during the group’s annual meetings. 

In 2007, Sivakumar served as technical consultant to 

AASHTO Committee T18 on Bridge Management, 

Evaluation, and Rehabilitation.
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 37

Finland

Timo Tirkkonen

Bridge Specialist, R&D

Finnish Transport Agency

PO Box 33

FI-00521 Helsinki

Finland

Telephone: 011+358 20 637 3616 

Fax: 011+358 20 637 3709

E-mail: timo.tirkkonen@fta.fi

Web site: www.fta.fi

Michail G. Chatzis

Civil Engineer

Finnish Transport Agency

PO Box 33

FI-00521 Helsinki

Finland

Telephone: 011+358 405 061 514 (FI), 011+30 

6947941292 (GR)

E-mail: michail.chatzis@fta.fi

Marja-Kaarina Soderqvist

Bridge Management Services

Finnish Transport Agency

PO Box 33

FI-00521 Helsinki

Finland

Telephone: 011+358 204 22 2632

Fax: 011+358 204 22 2471

E-mail: marja-kaarina.soderqvist@fta.fi

Web site: www.fta.fi/english

Heikki Lilja

Project Manager of Bridge Engineering

Finnish Transport Agency

PO Box 33

FI-00521 Helsinki

Finland

Telephone: 011+358 204 22 2633

Fax: 011+358 204 22 2395

E-mail: hikki.lilja@ fta.fi 

Web site: www.fta.fi 

Matti Piispanen

Head of Department Engineering Services

Finnish Transport Agency

PO Box 33

FI-00521 Helsinki

Finland

Telephone: 011+358 204 22 2385

Fax: 011+358 204 22 2395

E-mail: matti.piispanen@fta.fi 

Web site: www.fta.fi 

Ilkka Hakola

Senior Research Scientist (Steel Structures, 

 Structural Department)

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

PO Box 1000

FI-02044 VTT

Finland

Telephone: 011+358 20 722 6685

Fax: 011+358 20 722 7007

E-mail: ilkka.hakola@vtt.fi

Risto Kiviluoma

Director

WSP Finland, Ltd.

Heikkilante 7

FI-00210 Helsinki

Finland

Telephone: 011+358 207 864 11

Fax: 011+358 207 864 800

E-mail: risto.kiviluoma@wspgroup.fi

Host Country Contacts APP E NDIX

C
38 | Host Country Contacts

Austria

Dr. Eva M. Eichinger-Vill, M.Sc.

Department of Technology and Road Safety Division

Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation, and Technology

Radetzkystraße 2, A-1030 Vienna

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 1 711 62 65-5724

Fax: 011+43 1 711 62 65 2291

E-mail: eva.eichinger-vill@bmvit.gv.at

Markus Radl

Department of International Affairs

Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation, and Technology

Department I/K6–EU Affairs

Radetzkystraße 2, A-1030 Vienna

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 1 711 62-651209

Fax: 011+ 43 1 711 62-1299

E-mail: markus.radl@bmvit.gv.at

Dirk Neuburg

Head of the Structure Assessment Unit

Vienna City Administration

Municipal Department 29

Bridge Construction and Foundation Engineering

Wilhelminenstraße 93, A-1160 Wien

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 01 4000 96981

Fax: 011+43 01 4000 7291

E-mail: dirk.neuburg@wien.gv.at

Web site: www.bruecken.wien.at

Johannes Petz, M.Sc.

Leiter der Gruppe Bauwerksinspektion

Vienna City Administration

Municipal Department 29

Bridge Construction and Foundation Engineering

Wilhelminenstraße 93, A-1160 Wien

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 01 4000 96985

Fax: 011+43 01 4000 7291

E-mail: johannes.petz@wien.gv.at

Web site: www.bruecken.wien.at

Dr. Hans Georg Jodl

Professor of Construction Process and Methods

Vienna University of Technology

Karlsplatz 13/E234-1, 1040 Vienna

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 01 58801 23410

Fax: 011+43 01 58801 23499

E-mail: jodl@ibb.tuwien.ac.at

Web site: www.ibb.tuwien.ac.at

Dr. Markus Petschacher, M.Sc.

CEO

PEC-Petschacher Consulting Ltd.

Am Heugel 4, A-9560 Feldkirchen

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 04276 3378-0

Fax: 011+43 04276 3378-2

E-mail: mp@petschacher.at

Web site: www.petschacher.at

Dr. Helmut Hartl

Referatsleiter

Amt Der Burgenländischen Landersregierung

Technologizentrum Eisenstadt, TechLab

2. Obergeschoß, Bauteil 4, Zimmer 1

Thomas A. Edison Straße 2, 7000 Eisenstadt

Postadresse: Europaplatz 1, A-7000 Eisenstadt

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 057 600-6584 (Sek.-6576)

Fax: 011+43 057 600-6597

E-mail: helmut.hartl@bgld.gv.at

Web site: www.burgenland.at

Karl Wolfgang Gragger

Technische Koordination

ASFiNAG

Rotenturmstrasse 5-9

A-1011 Wien, Postfach 983

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 050 108 10324

Fax: 011+43 050 108 10320

E-mail: karl.gragger@asfing.at
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 39

Dr. Roman Geir

Fillalleiter Wien, Prokurist

Schimetta Consult

Arndtstraße 89/3/19, A-1120 Wien

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 01 907 69 67-14

Fax: DW 22

E-mail: roman.geier@schimetta.co.at

Web site: www.schimetta.at

Mag. Stefan Deix

Transport Routes Engineering

Arsenal Research

Österreichisches Forschungs-und Prüfzentrum Arsenal 

Ges.m.b.H.

Giefinggasse 2, 1210 Vienna

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 050 550 6477

Fax: 011+43 050 550 6599

E-mail: stefan.deix@arsenal.ac.at

Web site: www.arsenal.ac.at

Lutz Sparowitz

Head of Institute

Graz University of Technology 

 (Institute for Structural Concrete)

Lessingstraße 25/1, 8010 Graz

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 0316 873 6190

Fax: 011+43 0316 873 6694

E-mail: lutz.sparowitz@tugraz.at

Web site: www.ibb.tugraz.at

Johann Stampler

Senior Software Product Consultant

Bentley Systems, Inc.

Gleisdorfer Gasse 5, 8010 Graz

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 0316 82 15 31 66

Fax: 011+43 0316 82 15 31 12

E-mail: johann.stampler@bentley.com

Web site: www.bentley.com

Vanja Samec

RM Bridge Product Sales Specialist

Bentley BrIM

Bentley Systems, Inc.

Gleisdorfer Gasse 5, 8010 Graz

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 0316 821 531 61

Fax: 011+43 0316 821 531 12

E-mail: vanja.samec@bentley.com

Web site: www.bentley.com

Dr. Pius Wörle

Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter

Wörle Sparowitz Ingeieure

Karlauergürtel 1, A-8020 Graz

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 0316 32 60 15

Fax: 011+43 0316 32 60 22

E-mail: office@sw.ing.at

Peter Jungbauer

Bauleiter

Alpine Bau GmbH (Internationaler Ingenieurbau)

Inpfdorferstraße 11, 4481 Asten

Austria

Fax: 011+43 732 210 022 9994

E-mail: peter.jungbauer@alpine.at

Web site: www.alpine.at

Erwin Pilch

Graz University of Technology 

 (Institute for Structural Concrete)

Lessingstraße 25/1, 8010 Graz

Austria

Telephone: 011+43 316 823438/15

E-mail: erwin.pilch@kratzengraz.at

Web site: www.kratzengraz.at

Germany

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Reinhard Maurer

Lehrstuhl für Betonbau

Universität Dortmund

August-Schmidt-Strasse 8

44227 Dortmund

Germany

Telephone: 011+49 231 755 5832

E-mail: reinhard.maurer@uni-dortmund.de
40 | Host Country Contacts

Dr. Jürgen Krieger

Head of Division, Bridges and Structural Technology

Federal Highway Research Institute

Brüderstraße 53, D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Germany

Telephone: 011+49 02204 43 800

Fax: 011+49 02204 43 677

E-mail: juergen.krieger@bast.de

Markus Nöldgen

Schüßler-Plan

St.-Franziskus-Straße 148

40470 Düsseldorf

Germany

Telephone: 011+49 0211 61 02-307

Fax: 011+49 02011 61 02-399

E-mail: mnoeldgen@schuessler-plan.de

Web site: www.schuessler-plan.de

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ursula Freundt

Fakultät Bauingenieuwesen

Professur Verkehrsbau

Bauhaus-Universität Weimar

Marienstraße 13 D, Zi. 107

D-99423 Weimar

Germany

Telephone: 011+49 036 43 58 44 72

Fax: 011+49 036 43 58 44 75

E-mail: ursula.freundt@bauing.uni-weimar.de

Web site: www.uni-weimar.de/bauing/vbau/index.html

Ralph Holst

Maintenance of Engineering Structures

Federal Highway Research Institute

Brüderstraße 53, D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Germany

Telephone: 011+49 02204 43 841

Fax: 011+49 02204 43 673

E-mail: holst@bast.de

Erika Borsberg

National and International Research, Management, 

 and Cooperation

Federal Highway Research Institute

Brüderstraße 53, D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Germany

Telephone: 011+49 02204 43 337

Fax: 011+49 02204 43 148

E-mail: borsberg@bast.de

Dr.-Ing. Christine Kellermann-Kinner

Research Management, International Cooperation, 

 Scientific Information

Federal Highway Research Institute

Brüderstraße 53, D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Germany

Telephone: 011+49 02204 43 306

Fax: 011+43 02204 43 673

E-mail: kellermannc@bast.de

Peter Sprinke

Prokurist

Leiter der Abteilung

Brücken-u. Industriebau

Schüßler-Plan

St.-Franziskus-Straße 148,

40470 Düsseldorf

Germany

Telephone: 011+49 0211 61 02 322

Fax: 011+49 0211 61 02 399

E-mail: psprinke@schuessler-plan.de

Web site: www.schuesslerp-plan.de

Dr.-Ing. Gero Marzahn

Abteilung Konstruktiver

Ingenieurbau

Straßenbau Nordhein-Westfolen

Wildenbruchplatz 1, D-45888 Gelsenkirchen

Germany

Telephone: 011+49 209 3808 494

Fax: 011+49 209 3808 380

E-mail: gero.marzahn@strassen.nrw.de

Web site: www.strassen.nrw.de

France

Thierry Kretz

Head of Technical Department for Bridge Engineering

Ministry for Transport, Infrastructure, Tourism, and the Sea

Sétra

46 Avenue Aristide Briand

BP 100-92225 Bagneux Cedex

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 46 11 32 58

Fax: 011+33 01 46 11 33 52

E-mail: thierry.kretz@developpement-durable.gouv.fr
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 41

Emmanuel Bouchon

Head of the Bridge Division

Ministry for Transport, Infrastructure, Tourism, and the Sea

Sétra

46 Avenue Aristide Briand

BP 100-92225 Bagneux Cedex

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 46 11 32 80

Fax: 011+33 01 46 11 34 74

E-mail: emmanuel.bouchon@developpement-durable.

 gouv.fr

Joël Raoul

Deputy Director, Large Bridges Division

Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development, 

 and Town and County Planning

Sétra

46 Avenue Aristide Briand

BP 100-92225 Bagneux Cedex

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 46 11 32 25

Fax: 011+33 01 45 36 83 25

E-mail: joel.raoul@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Web site: www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Jean-Armand Calgaro

Roads and Bridges General Engineer

Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development, 

 and Town and County Planning

Sétra

Tour Pascal B-92055 La Defense Cedex

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 40 81 21 66

Fax: 011+33 01 40 81 23 93

E-mail: jean-armand.calgaro@developpement-durable.

 gouv.fr

Web site: www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Jean-Michel Lacombe

Bridge Department Project Director

Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development, 

 and Town and County Planning

Sétra

46 Avenue Aristide Briand

BP 100-92225 Bagneux Cedex

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 46 11 32 67

Fax: 011+33 01 45 36 83 67

E-mail: jean-michel.lacombe@developpement-durable.

 gouv.fr

Web site: www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Jean-Marc Philippeau

Responsible du Bureau Actions Internationales

Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development, 

 and Town and County Planning

Sétra

46 Avenue Aristide Briand-92220 Bagneux Cedex

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 46 11 33 84

Fax: 011+33 01 45 36 84 84

E-mail: jean-marc.philippeau@developpement-durable.

 gouv.fr

Web site: www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Christian Cremona

Head of Civil Engineering and Construction Group

Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development, 

 and Town and County Planning

Sétra

Tour Pascal B-92055 La Defense Cedex

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 40 81 29 41

Fax: 011+33 01 40 81 27 31

E-mail: christian.cremona@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Web site: www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Dr. Francois Toutlemonde

Head of Structural Engineering Unit, Division for Structures 

 Behaviour Durability

LCPC (Laboratoire Central)

58 Boulevard Lefebvre-75732 Paris Cedex 15

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 40 43 53 97

Fax: 011+33 01 40 43 54 99

E-mail: francois.toutlemonde@lcpc.fr

Web site: www.lcpc.fr

Patrick Malléjacq

Delegate for International Affairs

LCPC (Laboratoire Central)

58 Boulevard Lefebvre-75732 Paris Cedex 15

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 40 43 50 28

Fax: 011+33 01 40 43 54 92

E-mail: patrick.mallejacq@lcpc.fr

Web site: www.lcpc.fr
42 | Host Country Contacts

Othman Omikrine Metalssi

Researcher, Division for Structures Behaviour Durability

LCPC (Laboratoire Central)

58 Boulevard Lefebvre-75732 Paris Cedex 15

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 40 43 53 63

Fax: 011+33 01 40 43 53 43

E-mail: othman.omikrine-metalssi@lcpc.fr

Web site: www.lcpc.fr

Bernard Jacob

Technical Director (Infrastructures and Road Safety)

LCPC (Laboratoire Central)

58 Boulevard Lefebvre-75732 Paris Cedex 15

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 40 43 53 12

Fax: 011+33 01 40 43 65 20

E-mail: bernard.jacob@lcpc.fr

Web site: www.lcpc.fr

Sylvie Proeschel

Deputy Head for International Affairs

LCPC (Laboratoire Central)

58 Boulevard Lefebvre-75732 Paris Cedex 15

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 40 43 51 99

Fax: 011+33 01 40 43 54 92

E-mail: sylvie.proeschel@lcpc.fr

Web site: www.lcpc.fr

Bertrand Philippot

Chef de la Section Essais et Controles

LCPC (Laboratoire Central)

BP 4129-44341 Bouguenais Cedex

France

Telephone: 011+33 02 40 84 58 94

Fax: 011+33 02 40 84 59 92

E-mail: bertrand.philippot@lcpc.fr

Web site: www.lcpc.fr

Dr. David Remaud, Ph.D.

Sales Engineer, Export Manager

Itech

Tour Orion-12-16, Rue de Vicennes

F-93100 Montreuil/Bois

France

Telephone: 011+33 01 48 70 47 41

Fax: 011+33 01 048 59 12 24

Mobile: 011+33 06 32 98 68 64

E-mail: d.remaud@itech-soft.com

Web site: www.itech-soft.com

United Kingdom

Neil Loudon

Group Manager (Technical Engineering Group)

Highways Agency

Woodlands, Manton Lane, Bedford, MK41 7LW

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 01234 796107

Fax: 011+44 01234 796060

E-mail: neil.loudon@highways.gsi.gov.uk

Ron Ko

Structures Design and Management

Highways Agency

GD Federated House, London Road, Dorking, Surrey RH4 

1SZ

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 01306 878311

Fax: 011+44 01306 878322

E-mail: ron.ko@highways.gsi.gov.uk

Peter G. Hill, BEng, C.Eng, MICE

Structure and Technical Advisor

Highways Agency

Room D2, Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 0121 678 8499

Fax: 011+44 0121 678 8230

E-mail: peter.hill@highways.gsi.gov.uk

Ben Sadka

Technical Engineering Group

Highways Agency

GD Federated House, London Road, Dorking, Surrey RH4 

1SZ

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 01306 878316

E-mail: ben.sadka@highways.gsi.gov.uk

Dr. Campbell Middleton

Senior Lecturer in Structural Engineering

University of Cambridge (Department of Engineering)

Trumpington Street

Cambridge CB2 1PZ

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 1223 332814

Fax: 011+44 1223 332813

E-mail: crm11@cam.ac.uk

Web site: www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~crm11
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 43

Dr. Andrew Jackson

Research Student

University of Cambridge (Department of Engineering)

Trumpington Street

Cambridge CB2 1PZ

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 7762 354457

E-mail: amj35@cam.ac.uk

Dr. Neil A. Hoult

Research Associate 

University of Cambridge (Department of Engineering)

Cambridge CB2 1PZ

United Kingdom

E-mail: nahzs@cam.ac.uk

Dr. Steve Denton, MA, PhD, CEng, MICE

Director of Bridge & Structural Engineering

Visiting Professor, University of Bath

Parsons Brinkerhoff

Queen Victoria House, Redland Hill

Bristol BS6 6US

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 0117 933 9129

Fax: 011+44 0117 933 9251

E-mail: dentons@pbworld.com

Mungo Stacy, MEng, MICE, CEng

Senior Engineer

Parsons Brinkerhoff

Manchester Technology Centre

Oxford Road, Manchester M1 7ED

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 0161 200 5025

Fax: 011+44 0161 200 5001

E-mail: stacym@pbworld.com

Stephen Pottle

Road Network Management–Highways Client

Oyster

Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road

London SEI 8NJ

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 020 3054 1274

E-mail: stephen.pottle@tfl.gov.uk

Barry Skinner, BSc, CEng, MICE

Bestech Systems Limited

2 Slaters Court, Princess Street

Knutsford, WA16 6BW

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 01565 654 300

Fax: 011+44 01565 754 439

E-mail: b.skinner@bestech.co.uk

Web site: www.bestech.co.uk

Terry Cakebread, BSc (Hons), CEng, MICE

Vice President, North America

LUSAS

Forge House, 66 High Street

Kingston upon Thames, Surrey

KT1 1HN

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 020 8541 1999

Fax: 011+44 020 8549 9399

E-mail: terry.cakebread@lusas.com

Web site: www.lusas.com

Julian Moses, MEng, CEng, MISructE

Sales Support Engineer

LUSAS

Forge House, 66 High Street

Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 1HN

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 020 8541 1999

Fax: 011+44 020 8549 9399

E-mail: julian.moses@lusas.com

Web site: www.lusas.com

Rob Wheatley, BEng, CEng, MICE

Senior Group Engineer

Atkins Highways & Transportation

Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road

Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 01372 756606

Fax: 011+44 07803 260065

E-mail: robert.wheatley@atkinsglobal.com

Web site: www.atkinsglobal.com/transportation
44 | Host Country Contacts

Colin George

Highways Agency

GD Federated House, London Road, Dorking, 

 Surrey RH4 1SZ

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 01234 796584

E-mail: colin.george@highways.gsi.gov.uk

Rachel Jones

Atkins Highways & Transportation

Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road

Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW

United Kingdom

Telephone: 011+44 01372 756571

E-mail: rachel.jones@atkinsglobal.com

Web site: www.atkinsglobal.com/transportation

Slovenia

Marjan Pipenbaher

Ponting

Strossmayerjeva 28

200 Maribor

Slovenija

Telephone: 011+386 02 234 40 61

Fax: 011+386 02 0234 40 66

E-mail: marjan.pipenbaher@ponting.si

Web site: www.ponting.si

United States

Dr. Kerop D. Janoyan, Ph.D., P.E.

Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Clarkson University 

Wallace H. Coulter School of Engineering

PO Box 5710

Postdam, NY 13699-5710

Telephone: 315-268-6506

Fax: 315-268-7985

E-mail: kerop@clarkson.edu

Web site: www.clarkson.edu

Ireland

Dr. Alan O’Connor, BA, BAI, MAI, PhD, 

 CEng, MIEI, MICT

Senior Lecturer, Trinity College

Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental 

 Engineering

Museum Building, Trinity College, Dublin 2

Ireland

Telephone: 011+353 01 896 1822

Fax: 011+353 01 677 3072

E-mail: alan.oconnor@tcd.ie

Web site: www.irg.tcd.ie
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 45

As noted in past scans, the Finnish Road Administration’s (Finnra) Reference Bridge Program is noteworthy. 

Finnra uses 106 bridges and 26 steel culverts as a control 

sample or set of bridges from which it gathers baseline data 

using experienced in-house bridge inspection staff to fulfill 

a variety of needs. These needs include the following:

■

Data on bridge serviceability and durability over time

■

Trend analysis of data gathered on similar bridges and 

updating of deterioration models in the bridge management system

■

Quality control of inspection data from nonreference 

bridges, using baseline data for comparison 

■

Identifying training and refresher training needs of 

inspectors

■

Comparing inspector condition ratings against condition ratings provided by in-house staff. This evaluation 

is also used to provide quality points for selection of 

consultant inspectors.

Finnra monitors data quality control through the following:

■

Bridge inspector qualifications

■

Advanced yearly training day

■

Quality measurements

■

Reports from the bridge register

■

Irregularity reports

Bridge Inspector Qualifications

Finnish bridge inspectors are certified upon completion 

of a two-phase training program. The first phase consists 

of a 4-day theoretical course on bridge measures, structural 

behavior, deterioration, maintenance repair and rehabilitation (MR&R), Finnra’s bridge register (management 

system), conduct of the inspection, inspection methods, 

data, and quality control with a written examination. 

The second phase consists of 2 days: 1 day of training 

on the bridge site and a 1-day performance examination 

that includes a written test.

Inspectors must participate in yearly 1-day advanced 

training to renew their certification. Annual certification 

also serves as a calibration day for inspectors to ensure 

uniformity of assessments by all inspectors. The annual 

advanced yearly training day involves inspections of two 

bridges. The bridges used in the evaluation are rated 

beforehand by Finnra staff. The results provided after 

inspection to the candidate are compared to the baseline 

inspection. Finnra maintains records of each inspector’s 

annual test inspection in a central database, and reviews 

and rates the results to determine personal quality points 

for each inspector. These personal quality points are used 

in the selection process for bridge inspection services. 

Repeated weak test results can lead to loss of certification.

Quality Measurements

In addition to the above, each region’s bridge engineer is 

responsible for ensuring the skills of inspectors working in 

his or her region by making quality measurements. Every 

inspector involved in the inspections of the road region 

must participate in at least two control inspections during 

an inspection period.

Quality control inspections consist of general inspection of 

a structure. The actual number of quality control inspections conducted by an individual inspector varies, depending on the number of inspections he or she will perform 

during the period (table 4). The sample bridge must have 

at least 50 damage points (VPS).

 Table 4. Quality control inspections in 2005.

Number of inspected 

bridges

Number of control

inspections

1 ... 100 2

101 ... 300 3

> 300 4

The Finnra regional bridge engineer chooses a bridge with 

known inspection results. The inspectors to be evaluated, 

Finnish Statistical Process Controls 

in the Bridge Inspection Program

APP E NDIX

D
46 | Finnish Statistical Process Controls in the Bridge Inspection Program

who must have no previous knowledge of the bridge, 

inspect the bridge in the presence of the Finnra engineer. 

The Finnra engineer reports the results of the inspections 

in the bridge register as personal quality results of the 

candidate inspectors. An irregularity report is created if any 

inspector’s damage point deviation (PL), relative deviation 

(SP), or relative cost deviation (SPkust) in the quality 

measurement exceeds the maximum allowed values, as 

shown in figure 14.

Damage points (VP) are a function of the bridge structural 

part and the estimated condition of the structural part 

where the damage is located, the damage class, and the 

repair urgency class of the damage. The sum of damage 

points (VPS) describes the degree of bridge deterioration 

and the amount of damage, taking into account the length 

and the width of the bridge. The number is calculated from 

the sum of damage points assigned to nine main groups of 

structural elements. 

Two quality parameters are measured: deviation (PL), 

calculated based on the damage points (VP), and relative 

deviation (SP), calculated based on the sum of damage 

points (VPS) or the sum of repair costs of the bridge. 

Quality Reports Prepared for the Finnra 

Bridge Register

Finnra uses a variety of quality reports to support and 

assist quality control of the inspection program. Finnra has 

published quality reports yearly since 2002 in its internal 

report series. Review of the results of these reports on data 

quality during the past 3 years shows that the inspection 

data quality clearly improved after 2002, but it is partly 

better and partly worse than the 2003 data. Finnra believes 

that these reports have been invaluable in helping it 

identify needs for additional inspector training, revisions to 

inspection methods and procedures, and additional quality 

control activities (figure 15).

Figure 14. Maximum allowed values for the deviation PL and relative deviations SP and SPkust.

Figure 15. Plot of divergence indicator from Finnra quality reports.

Source: Finnish Road Administration
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe | 47

Calculation of Finnra Quality Parameters

1. Each bridge inspector determines damage points (VP) for the bridge.

2. The absolute values of the difference in each pair of inspectors’ VP values are calculated.

3. The quotient of the maximum and minimum absolute values is calculated. If the quotient ≤ 3, 

the mean value of damage points will be the mean of VPs in all three inspections. If the 

quotient > 3, the mean value of damage points will be the mean of VPs of the two 

inspections with the minimum absolute value.

4. The inspector’s results are then compared to the mean value. The assumption: the mean 

value is the right result. The deviation (PL) and the relative deviation (SP) are calculated 

as shown.

PL = ∑ |VPi00-Meani00| / ∑Meani00

SP = |VPSi - ∑Meani00| / ∑Meani00

Figure 16. Example calculation of Finnra quality parameters.

Calculation of the deviation (PL) for the inspector 1 gives

PL = (0+10+25+0+0+17+0+26+0) / 353 = 0,22 < 0,3

and the relative deviation (SP)

SP = | 381-353 | / 353 = 0,08 < 0,2.

As a result, no irregularity report is needed.


Office of International Programs

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP)

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE • Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9636 • Fax: (202) 366-9626

international@fhwa.dot.gov • www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-PL-10-014

HPIP/8-10(3.5)EW