# Comparison of Condition Rating Systems for Bridges in Three European Countries
## 4 Portugal
### Inspection and Decision-Making Process in Portugal
#### 4.1.2 Inspection  
This phase consists of a visual inspection, where a team--usually composed of an engineer and a technician--register the most relevant damages, by writing on a predefined checklist the description, location and photographic record for each component with damages. Nowadays, the inspection can be complemented using unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that cover the structure and take photos. Moreover, specific tests or monitoring actions can also be requested. The condition state of the components is evaluated through five parameters: (i) functionality of the component, (ii, iii and iv) severity, extension and prediction of the development of the damage, and (v) possible consequences of the damage for other components (see Table 6), each one graded between 0 and 1. The sum of the previous parameters gives the condition state of the component, going from 0 (excellent condition) to 5 (bad condition), according to the grading scale presented in Table 7. In addition to these, a NI (not inspected) level exists for those situations in which it was not possible to inspect the component (e.g., a component completely covered by vegetation). Moreover, an IC epithet was added to the 6-level scale for those situations in which it was not possible to inspect the component entirely also exists (e.g., a component partially covered/hidden by vegetation). The global condition state of the structure corresponds to the worst condition state (with a higher value) among the fundamental structural components. Moreover, during this phase the analysis of the damages with the consequent selection of the causes and consequences, taking into account the structural behavior, is performed. Also, the necessary actions are established. These can be (i) complementary actions (specific inspection, studies, monitoring  
Figure 7: Framework followed by IP. or tests), (ii) restrictions to the operation of the bridge and (iii) intervention actions (current maintenance/repair, repair/rehabilitation and reinforcement/replacement). Abnormal situations that may impact the operation of the bridge or the integrity of its structural components in the immediate and short term should be identified via established alerts (structural safety, traffic safety, anti-corrosion protection or protection of the foundations). According to the type of alert, different intervention periodicities exist (see Table 8). The intervention actions are proposed to be performed during the next 2 to 5 years after the inspection, with the exception of those structures with a critical to imminent ruin state, global or at the component level (EC \(\geq\) EC4), where it should be between 1 and 2 years. Regular inspections are performed every 6 years. For those cases where a component has a deficient condition state (EC 3) or a critical to imminent ruin state (EC \(\geq\) EC4), an intermediate inspection after 3 years or 1 year, respectively, is necessary (see Table 9). Whenever an EC4 or EC5 is assigned, as well as an alert situation is identified, the owner/manager should be informed. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Values**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **0** & **1** \\ \hline Functionality & Fulfils the component function & Do not fulfil the component function \\ Severity & Low severity & Severe \\ Extension & \textless{}50\% of the maximum admissible value & \textgreater{}50\% of the maximum admissible value \\ Prediction & Small, being expected a small or no evolution & Big or with a fast evolution expected \\ Consequences & No consequences for the other components & With consequences for the other components \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Classification parameters, according to the IP specifications (adapted from: [25]).