Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance

ISSN: 2470-5314 (Print) 2470-5322 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tstr20

Bridge inspection practices and bridge

management programs in China, Japan, Korea, and
U.S.

Yoseok Jeong, WooSeok Kim, Ilkeun Lee & Jaeha Lee

To cite this article: Yoseok Jeong, WooSeok Kim, Ilkeun Lee & Jaeha Lee (2018) Bridge
inspection practices and bridge management programs in China, Japan, Korea, and U.S., Journal
of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 3:2, 126-135, DOI: 10.1080/24705314.2018.1461548

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2018.1461548

Published online: 18 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tstr20
Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 2018
VOL. 3, NO. 2, 126–135
https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2018.1461548

Bridge inspection practices and bridge management programs in China, Japan,

Korea, and U.S.
Yoseok Jeonga, WooSeok Kima, Ilkeun Leeb and Jaeha Leec
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea; bConstruction & Environment Research Group, Expressway &
Transportation Research Institute, Hwaseong, Korea; cDepartment of Civil Engineering, Korea Maritime and Ocean University, Busan, Korea

ABSTRACT
The present study reviews bridge inspection practices and bridge management programs in China, KEYWORDS
Japan, Korea, and U.S. Bridges play an essential role in transportation systems and in the economic Bridge; maintenance;
production process. Transportation agencies should maintain bridges in acceptable conditions to provide inspection; serviceability;
a desirable level of service to the public within limited budgets. In addition, a number of bridges are management
aging rapidly in these four countries. Fortunately, since several countries have experienced deteriorated
bridges due to aging, the countries considered in this study have already developed comprehensive
bridge management system (BMS) and bridge inspection practices. Therefore, the goal of this paper
is to search for and synthesize useful knowledge on BMSs and bridge inspection practices of the four
countries. Finally, recommendations that will serve as guidance to transportation agencies for potential
enhancements to BMS and bridge inspections are presented.

Introduction Land, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Tourism [MLIT], 2013).

The transportation system is the most fundamental contribu-
tion to a nation’s economy. All countries invest a great deal of
resources and efforts into developing transportation systems.
The economic vitality of a region or country is heavily affected
by the quantity and quality of its transportation system because
it provides mobility and accessibility for people and goods. The
transportation system comprises many infrastructure elements
(e.g. railways, bridges, highways, etc.). Among them, bridges play
an important role in the transportation system and in the eco-
nomic production process. The transportation agency should
strive to keep bridges in an acceptable condition so as to offer
adequate services in the most cost-effective manner and within
limited funds. Otherwise, disastrous collapses of degraded
bridges such as the Silver Bridge in Ohio, U.S. in 1967 and the
Seongsu Bridge in Korea in 1994 can occur, potentially causing
huge losses of lives and blockages in the transportation net-
work. Optimum maintenance and inspection programs that can
minimize maintenance and repair costs while maintaining an
adequate safety level for bridges are necessary (Shepard, 2005).
In the U.S., the average age of the nation’s 614,387 bridges is
42 year (American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE], 2017). This
implies that most bridges were originally designed and built to
last at least 50 years. More than 40% of bridges have exceeded
their 50-year design lives, meaning that maintenance, repair,
and rehabilitation programs require significant investment. The
most recent estimate indicates that the U.S. domestic backlog
of bridges rehabilitation needs approximate $123 billion (ASCE,
2017). In Japan, the infrastructure developed since its period of
economic boom has been aging rapidly. Approximately, 18%
of the nation’s 400,000 highway bridges are more than 50 years
old and 43% of the bridges will be 43 year or older (Ministry of
China has also experienced increasing demand for bridge main-
tenance because infrastructure expansion resulted in a rapid
increase in the number of bridges, which now amount to
658,100 (Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China
[MOT], 2011a). With more deteriorated bridges, maintenance
needs far outpace available resources. This situation reflects
the need for a comprehensive bridge management including
inspection practice as well as for improved repair and rehabil-
itation techniques.
Since 2001, the number of highway bridges in Korea has
increased from 2865 to 8490 (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
and Transport [MOLIT], 2015). It is expected that the number
of bridges will increase to 11,000 by 2022 and the number of
bridges that are more than 30 years old will rapidly increase
(Korea Expressway Corporation [KEC], 2013). It is thus necessary
to maintain bridges at a desirable level of conditions for public
safety and the nation’s economy. Maintaining bridges requires
clearly defined performance criteria, condition ratings, stand-
ards for structural assessment, global and local damage descrip-
tions corresponding to rates of deterioration, maintenance work
procedures, and prediction of future deterioration. Fortunately,
transportation administrators, engineers, and researchers
in Korea currently have not yet faced problems, which other
countries already experienced. There is information on nearly
every subject of concern to highway/expressway transportation
administrators and engineers. The objective of this paper is to
identify the bridge management systems (BMS) used for main-
tenance of highway/expressway bridges and bridge inspection
practices of China, Japan, Korea, and U.S., which can be applied
to current BMS and inspection practices in many other countries.
To fulfill this objective, this paper searches out and synthesizes
useful knowledge from BMS applied for managing highway/

CONTACT  WooSeok Kim  wooseok@cnu.ac.kr

© 2018 Korea Institute for Structural Maintenance and Inspection

Table 1. Bridge management systems (BMSs) of four countries: U.S., Japan, China, and Korea (Mirzaei et al., 2012; MOT, 2007b).
Name Data storage Deterioration model and cost information
Country Condition Safety Risk Deterioration model
China CBMS Y Y Y Y
Japan RPIBMS Y Y Y Y
Korea KHBMS Y N/A N/A Y Y
U.S. Pontis Y Y Y Y
expressway bridges and inspection practices of four countries,
China, Japan, Korea, and the U.S., and presents differences and
similarities. Finally, recommendations drawn from these studies
are presented to be applied to optimize the current BMS and
bridge inspection practices. It should be noted that this paper
refers to “NCHRP synthesis 375: Bridge Inspection Practices” in
many parts (Hearn, 2007).
Bridge management system
With aging infrastructure, developed countries are facing
problems in dealing with infrastructure management issues.
Bridge management, an important part of infrastructure man-
agement, is accordingly attracting more and more attention.
Tools to manage bridges, referred to as the BMS, have been
adopted by transportation administrators in many countries to
provide safety and satisfactory serviceability of bridges in the
most cost-effective way possible (Akgul, 2013; Hanley, Matos,
Kelliher, & Pakrashi, 2017; Shepard, 2005). A BMS is integrated
with all aspects of bridges throughout design, construction,
and operation and maintenance phases. It can help bridge
inspectors evaluate current and future conditions and needs
and determine repair/rehabilitation. It is also a quantitative
tool for transportation administrators to plan and schedule
the best mix of maintenance and improvement work within
budget limitations. In this section, the BMSs of four countries
(China, Japan, Korea, and U.S.) are briefly explained in terms of
the following four categories: (1) data storage, (2) deterioration
model and cost information, (3) optimization model, and (4)
updating function. The American Association of State Highway
Officials (AASHTO) guidelines (1993) for BMS suggests these
components for analysing bridge data for the purpose of pre-
dicting future bridge conditions, fulfilling intervention requests
of transportation agencies, determining optimal strategies, and
recommending projects and schedules within budgets.
(1) Data storage: All bridge data connected to the BMS are
stored from periodical field inspections. Information
recorded and stored in the database is used as input
into the relevant models, the deterioration model, cost
model, and optimization model.
(2) Deterioration model and cost information: Deterioration
models predict the condition of an individual bridge
at any given time point in the future. Typically, a BMS
estimates two different types of cost, the improvement
cost and the user cost, based on the cost information.
The improvement cost is estimated to determine the
cost of administrators’ actions to improve bridge condi-
tions. The user cost is used for safety and serviceability
improvement.
(3) Optimization model: Based on the results of dete-
rioration and cost models, an optimization model
determines the optimal strategies for least-cost main-
tenance, repair, and rehabilitation. When the opti-
mization model is applied to multi-year and bridge
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE   127
Cost information Optimization model Updating function
Y Y Y
Y N/A Y
N/A Y
Y Y Y
network-level analyses, agencies can evaluate the
impacts of implementing or deferring repairs in the
future.
(4) Updating function: The BMS generates reports and
summaries for planning and programming processes,
and uses the information from actions taken to update
the deterioration and cost models.
The bridge management committee of International
Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety (IABMAS) pub-
lished a synthesis report on BMSs based on completed ques-
tionnaires on 21 BMSs from 16 countries (Mirzaei, Adey, Klatter,
& Kong, 2012). According to the IABMAS report (2012), transpor-
tation agencies throughout the world tend to take into account
bridge safety and risk, cost models for follow-up actions corre-
sponding to deterioration types, and improvement in deterio-
ration models focusing on the probabilistic process in order to
establish the optimal bridge maintenance strategy (Orcesi &
Frangopol, 2011; Saydam, Bocchini, & Frangopol, 2013). From
Table 1, the BMSs of four countries follow global trends.
The types of BMSs adopted by countries are dependent upon
the levels of bridge design, construction, and operation and
maintenance of each country. However, fundamental roles and
functions as a means of managing bridges are similar among
countries. Although the use of a BMS is accompanied by a tedi-
ous process of recording and coding bridge inspection data, the
utility value anticipated from utilizing a BMS in bridge manage-
ment compensates for the laborious bridge data updates. Since
IT (Information Technology) and NT (Networking Technology)
are being developed, the BMS should be sophisticated enough
to predict all aspects in relation to decision-making of trans-
portation administrators (e.g. risk/safety predictions or optimi-
zation model) and easily accessible for bridge inspectors and
decision makers.
Inspection practices
Transportation agencies
Most countries have transportation agencies at the national,
state/provincial, and local levels. For the sake of clarity, in the
following discussions this paper mostly deals with road agen-
cies at the national and state/provincial levels.
China’s bridges are under the jurisdiction of the MOT. The
current MOT was established in 2008 by merging several depart-
ments of the Ministry of Communications, the Civil Aviation
Administration, and the State Postal Bureau (Dai, Smith, Chen, &
Sun, 2014). The provincial and municipal highway departments
under the MOT and expressway bureaus are responsible for
bridge maintenance in China. These agencies perform bridge
inspection and maintenance practices according to official
inspection manuals discussed in the following section.
The Japan Highway Public Corporation (JH) manages nation-
wide toll expressways. In 1956, the Japan Highway Public
Corporation Law was enforced, and the legislation resulted
128   Y. JEONG ET AL.
Table 2. Bridge inspection personnel in U.S. (Hearn, 2007; FHWA, 2004).
Staff Position Responsibilities
Program Manger • administrative tasks,
• inspection policies,
• inspector training,
• inspection work
Team Leader • administrative inspection tasks,
• plan for field inspections,
• assign personnel to inspection teams
Load Rater • analysis of bridge,
• bridge inspection
Underwater Bridge Inspection Diver • underwater inspection,
• channel inspection
in the establishment of JH (Kimura & Maeda, 2005). The JH
managed all expressways until it was split into three private
enterprises, East Nippon Expressway Co., Ltd., Central Nippon
Expressway Co., Ltd., and West Nippon Expressway Co., Ltd. in
2005 (Mizutani & Uranishi, 2006). These three private companies
are responsible for planning, construction, and inspection of
bridges in all toll expressways throughout Japan.
In 1969, the KEC, which is a government-controlled enter-
prise, was founded for expressway construction, expansion,
repair, and maintenance. The KEC has performed operation
and maintenance of expressway bridges in Korea since 1969.
In the U.S. the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is
concerned with the infrastructure of public roads throughout
the nation. The FHWA performs bridge inspection programs
for federal-owned bridges on public roads and regulates the
inspection practices of bridges on these roads. The U.S. state
Departments of Transportations (DOTs) execute bridge inspec-
tion programs for state-owned bridges, and regulate and review
inspection programs for bridges owned by others within each
state.
Based on the bridge inspection manuals of transportation
agencies in four countries, there are three administrative levels:
(1) government-controlled companies; (2) government agen-
cies; and private companies (3). A government-controlled com-
pany in Korea performs expressway bridge inspections with toll
revenues and government funds. In China and the U.S., govern-
ment agencies (MOT in China and FHWA and the DOTs in the
U.S.) manage national bridges with local and national funds. The
transportation agencies in Japan (NEXCO Central, NEXCO East,
NEXCO West) are private companies that manage all expressway
bridges with toll revenues.
Inspection program personnel
This section reviews the inspector title, responsibilities, and
qualifications of personnel in bridge inspection programs. For
the bridge inspection procedure in China, leading bridge engi-
neers are responsible for bridge inspection, maintenance, and
management. These engineers should complete the specific
training program approved by the Ministry of Transportation
(Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China’s,
2007a). The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development
(MOHURD) also specifies the qualifications for bridge inspection
managers at each inspection level (MOHURD, 2003). Qualified
management technicians can perform routine and periodic
inspections only. Fracture critical and structural inspections
are conducted by an agency possessing the proper license
with enough staff members who have completed the training
Qualifications
• complete comprehensive bridge inspection program and either
• be a professional engineer (PE) or
• have a minimum 10 years of bridge inspection experience
• complete comprehensive bridge inspection training and
• have professional certification and two years of bridge inspection experi-
ence or
• have five years of bridge inspection experience without professional
certification
a professional engineer (PE)
complete bridge inspection or underwater bridge inspection
required for bridge maintenance, management, design, and
construction. The staff leader must have five or more years of
experience in bridge engineering for periodic inspections at
the structural level (MOHURD, 2003).
According to the manual for bridge periodic inspection
(MLIT, 2014) in Japan, bridge inspections are executed by a
bridge inspection unit consisting of a bridge inspector, a bridge
inspector assistant, a bridge inspection technician, and a bridge
inspection helper. The bridge inspector must have field expe-
rience and fundamental knowledge of bridge design and con-
struction. The manual does not impose specific requirements
for education or qualification for other inspectors. However, the
manual ensures that all staff for bridge inspection work should
have enough knowledge and expertise in bridge inspection
(MLIT, 2014). The bridge database is maintained by a bridge
inspection manager based on bridge inspection data obtained
from field work. Bridge condition ratings and the bridge data-
base are responsibilities of the bridge inspection manager. The
manual for bridge periodic inspection requires that the bridge
inspection manager be either registered as a professional
engineer (PE) or equivalent field experience to PE license. In
addition, the manager should have expertise in bridge design,
construction, and management (MLIT, 2014).
In Korea, the inspection program manager must complete
more than 70-h training course on bridge inspection programs
(MOLIT, 2012c). The inspection program manager’s role in
bridge inspection programs includes responsibilities of com-
prehensive inspection works such as planning, scheduling,
execution, repair/rehabilitation, and reporting. The manager
therefore must have comprehensive knowledge of bridge
engineering and technology. The bridge inspector is responsi-
ble for the administration of inspection work both in the office
and at field under control of the inspection program manager.
The bridge inspector must also complete a 70 h training course
on bridge inspections (MOLIT, 2012c). The inspection program
manager and bridge inspector must routinely take a refresher
course on bridge inspections every three years (Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure, & Transport, 2012a).
In the U.S., the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)
identify four staff positions for bridge inspection practices: pro-
gram manager, team leader, load rater, and underwater bridge
inspection diver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA],
2004). The responsibilities and qualifications of staff involved
in bridge inspections program in U.S. are summarized in Table 2.
Much of the bridge inspection work for these countries is
done by qualified inspectors who have expertise and experi-
ence in bridge inspections. Since most bridge inspections are
done by visually examining the bridge members, the success
 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE   129

Table 3. Standard manuals and guides used in four countries (China, Japan, Korea, and U.S.).
Country Publisher Document
China MOHURD 1 • Technical Code of Maintenance for City Bridge, CJJ99–2003, 2003
MOT 2 • The Guidance for Road and Bridge Maintenance, 2007
• Manual for China Bridge Management System v. WEB20 (MCBMS), 2007
• Standards for Technical Condition Evaluation of Highway Bridges, JTG/T-H21–2011, 2011
• Specifications for Inspection and Evaluation of Load-bearing Capacity of Highway Bridges, JTG/T-J21–2011, 2011
Japan MLIT3 • Manual for Bridge Periodic Inspection, 2014
Korea MOLIT4 • Guidelines and Commentary for Safety Inspection and In-depth Safety Inspection for Structures-Bridge, 2012
U.S. AASHTO5 • Manual for Bridge Element Inspection, 1st Edition, 2013
• Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation, and Maintenance Manual, 1st Edition, 1998
FHWA6 • Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual, FHWA-NHI-12–049, 2012
• Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridge, FHWA-PD-96–001, 1995
• Underwater Bridge Inspection Manual, FHWA-NHI-10–027, Pre-Publication Edition
• Underwater Bridge Repair, Rehabilitation, and Countermeasures Manual, FHWA-NHI-10–029, Pre-Publication Edition
Notes: In the second column,1MOHURD: Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China.
2
MOT: The Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China.
3
MLIT: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
4
MOLIT: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport.
5
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
6
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration.

of the bridge inspection is largely dependent on the qualifica-
tions of bridge inspectors. Transportation agencies therefore
need to recruit qualified bridge inspectors and continuously
improve the training/refresher programs and regulations for
bridge inspectors in order to guarantee quality and reliability
of bridge inspectors and inspection reports.
Inspection manual
Transportation agencies in most countries inspect bridge
conditions and safety according to their own bridge inspec-
tion manuals. Standard manuals and guides in four countries
(China, Japan, Korea, and U.S.) used in bridge inspections are
summarized in Table 3.
Inspection types and intervals
Regulations and inspection manuals of countries define inspec-
tion types and intervals to maintain bridge conditions at desir-
able levels of services efficiently. Generally, bridge inspection
types are categorized into routine inspection, in-depth inspec-
tion, and special inspection. Intervals also vary with transpor-
tation agencies or inspection types range from 6  months to
5 years. In this section, inspection types and inspection intervals
of four countries are reviewed.
China identified three types of bridge inspections: routine,
periodic, and special (Ministry of Transport of the People’s
Republic of China’s, 2011b). The routine inspection is a visual
inspection performed every month. In a routine inspection,
bridge structural elements, coating, joints, drainage systems,
retaining walls, etc., defined in the manual are visually inspected
for unusual changes. Periodic inspections are scheduled to be
executed once in at least three years. Tools for visual aid are
used to quantify bridge conditions in detail. The manual sug-
gests that continuous monitoring of long-span bridges be con-
ducted using sensing technology to measure records of bridge
characteristics under routine traffic conditions, during and after
extreme events (Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic
of China, 2011b). In addition, bridge inspections are conducted
depending on the importance of the bridges, (e.g. 1 to 2-year
intervals for Class I bridges, 6- to 10-year interval for Class II
bridges) (MOHURD, 2003).
Japan defines only routine bridge inspection. According
to the Manual for Bridge Periodic Inspection (MBPI) protocol
(2014), the initial inspection should be performed less than
2 years after being opened to the public and routine inspec-
tion is performed every 5 years (MLIT, 2014). The MBPI protocol
does not define any inspections periodically executed except
the routine bridge inspection. However, further detailed inspec-
tions are needed depending on deterioration types, severity,
and extent (MLIT, 2014).
In Korea, the inspection manual defines one routine inspec-
tion conducted every 6  months. Other inspections such as
in-depth, emergency, and in-depth safety inspections can be
scheduled independently of a routine inspection, although
generally at a longer interval, or it may be a follow-up for other
inspection types. Figure 1 presents a flow chart of bridge inspec-
tion performed in Korea.
In the U.S., there are various types of bridge inspections
to reflect the intensity of inspection required at the time of
inspection. The AASHTO manual defines seven types of bridge
inspections, which allows a bridge owner or state DOTs to
establish their own appropriate inspection levels consistent
with AASHTO- and FHWA-defined inspection frequency and
type of structure (AASHTO, 2013; FHWA, 2004; FHWA, 2012).
Table 4 lists inspection types and brief descriptions defined in
the AASHTO manual (AASHTO, 2013).
Condition rating system
This section reviews bridge condition measures and indices used
by transportation agencies for bridge maintenance. Condition
measures are essential for a successful BMS. The condition rat-
ing system allows transportation agencies to assess and to pre-
dict bridge conditions as well as to diagnose the deterioration
mechanism and to determine maintenance and preservation
treatments accordingly. The optimal treatments corresponding
to the problem originate from an accurate bridge condition
rating by proper condition measurement (Patidar et al., 2007;
Shim, 2004).
In China, the bridge condition rating Dr is derived from the
weighted condition measures of bridge components, as shown
in the following equation (Ministry of Transport of the People’s
Republic of China, 2011b).
130   Y. JEONG ET AL.

Figure 1. Flow chart of bridge inspections in Korea (MOLIT, 2012c).

Table 4. U.S. inspection types and intervals (AASHTO, 2013; FHWA, 2004).
Inspection Description Interval
Initial • First inspection of a bridge as it becomes a part of the bridge inventory to provide all subsequent inspections with At bridge open
relevant data to determine baseline structural conditions.
Routine (Periodic) • Regularly scheduled inspection consisting of observations and/or measurements needed to determine the physical ≤24 months
and functional conditions of the bridge.
Damage • An unscheduled inspection to assess structural damage resulting from environmental factors or human actions. Various*
In-depth • A close-up inspection of bridge to identify any deficiencies not readily detectable using routine inspection proce- Various
dures.
Fracture-critical • A hands-on inspection of a fracture-critical member or member components that may include visual and other ≤24 months
nondestructive evaluation.
Underwater • Inspection of the underwater portion of a bridge substructure and the surrounding channel. ≤60 months
Special • An inspection scheduled at the discretion of the bridge owner, used to monitor a particular known or suspected Various
deficiency.
*Various: A bridge owner or state DOTs can determine intervals for damage, in-depth, and special inspection.

Dr = BDCI × WD + SPCI × WSP + SBCI × WSB
where Dr is the bridge condition rating, BDCI is the bridge deck
condition index, WD is the weighting factor for bridge deck,
SPCI is the bridge superstructure condition index, WSP is the
weighting index for the superstructure, SBCI is the bridge sub-
structure condition index, and WSB is the weighting factor for
the substructure. In addition, another rating system is based on
a weighted bridge condition index (BCI), which is calculated by
the following equation (MOHURD, 2003).
BCI = BCId × 𝜔d + BCIsp × 𝜔sp + BCIsb × 𝜔sb
where BCId is the deck condition index, ωd is the scale factor for
(1) the bridge deck, BCIsp is the superstructure condition index, ωsp
is the scale factor for the superstructure, BCIsb is the substructure
condition index, and ωsb is the scale factor for the substructure.
A bridge condition can fall into a category from A to E and the
corresponding recommendation depending on the bridge con-
dition index (BCI), as shown in Table 5. Dr was developed by the
MOT in China, and therefore, it is expected to be used to eval-
uate the conditions of bridges located in the national highway
network. On the other hand, BCI is a rating formula issued by
MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development
(2) of the People’s Republic of China) for city bridge inspections.
 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE   131

Table 5. Bridge condition ratings in China, Dr and BCI (MOHURD, 2003; MOT, 2011b).
JTG/T-H21–20111 CJJ99–20032
State Rating Descriptions State Rating Descriptions
1 95 ≤ Dr < 100 Perfect A 90 ≤ BCI Perfect, routine maintenance
2 80 ≤ Dr < 95 Minor damage, no effects on its function B 80 ≤ BCI < 90 Good, routine maintenance or small
repair
3 60 ≤ Dr < 80 Mediate damage, but still functional C 66 ≤ BCI < 80 ‘Pass’, small repair
4 40 ≤ Dr < 60 Great damage, affecting bridge functions D 50 ≤ BCI < 66 ‘Unqualified’, major repairs
5 0 < Dr < 40 Major loss of bridge’s main member, E BCI < 50 Dangerous, rehabilitation/rebuilding
dangerous state
1
Standards for Technical Condition Evaluation of Highway Bridges, JTG/T-H21-2011, 2011 (MOT, 2011b).
2
Technical Code of Maintenance for City Bridge, CJJ99-2003, 2003 (MOHURD, 2003).

Table 6. Maintenance urgency rating for the bridge element (MLIT, 2014).
n
State Descriptions 1 ∑
DI = CR × WFi (3)
A No repair needed 100 i=1 i
B No immediate repairs needed
C1 Immediate repairs needed from standpoint of preventative main-
tenance n
C2 Immediate repairs needed from standpoint of structural safety
∑
WFi = 100 (4)
E1 Immediate actions needed from standpoint of structural safety
i=1
E2 Immediate actions needed in tandem with other factors
M Repairs needed during regular maintenance work
S1 In-depth investigations needed where DI is the bridge damage index, CRi is the average con-
S2 Follow-up investigations needed dition rating of the elements, and WFi is the weighting factor
of elements. Descriptions for each condition rating are given
in Table 8.
Table 7. Bridge soundness (MLIT, 2014). Caltrans (California DOT) developed the Bridge Health Index
Sate Condition Descriptions
(BHI) from an element-level inspection as a ratio of the current
I Good No problems in bridge’s functions to the initial value of all elements on the bridge. The BHI pro-
II Preventative maintenance No problems in bridge’s functions but vides a mean to compare a bridge in its best possible condition
maintenance required from stand- with its current condition. The BHI may range from 0%,
point of preventive maintenance
III Early action Possibility of problems in bridge’s ­corresponding to the worst health, to 100% for the best health
functions, need for early action (Shepard & Johnson, 2001). The BHI is estimated by the f­ ollowing
IV Emergency action Possibility of problems or existing equation:
problems in bridge’s functions,
need for emergency actions
�∑ �
CEV
BHI = ∑ × 100 (5)
TEV

In Japan, bridge condition data collected from bridge inspec-
tors are evaluated into one of the maintenance urgency rat-
ings in Table 6. Maintenance urgency ratings are determined
by experienced bridge inspectors in a subjective manner,
recommending to bridge owners the needs for actions to be
completed by the next inspection. No numerical criteria such
as crack width and length are defined for maintenance urgency
ratings. Using the maintenance urgency ratings of individual
bridge elements, the condition rating of the entire bridge is
determined as one of the states of bridge soundness shown
in Table 7.
In Korea, transportation agencies use a Damage Index, which
is the normalized sum of the weighted condition rating of indi-
vidual elements, as delineated in the following equation. The
damage index of an entire bridge is evaluated based on condi-
tion data of elements collected by bridge inspectors to provide
an overall rating for the bridge.
TEV = TEQ × FC (6)
∑( )
CEV = QCSi × WFi × FC (7)
where CEV is the current element value, TEV is the total element
value, TEQ is the total element quantity, FC is the failure cost
of element, QCS is the quantity in a condition state, and WF
is the weighting factor for the condition state. The BHI is used
for measuring performance, allocating resources, budget deci-
sion-making, and measuring improvement (Shepard & Johnson,
2001).
In the U.S., the state DOTs report the National Bridge
Inventory (NBI) data as required by the National Bridge
Inspection Standards (NBIS) and describe the nation’s bridges.
The NBI conditions reflect the range of the physical conditions
of major bridge components such as the deck, superstruc-
ture, substructure, culvert, and sub-elements. The NBI defines

Table 8. Bridge condition ratings in Korea (MOLIT, 2012b).

State Rating
A 0 ≤ DI <0.13
B 0.13 ≤ DI < 0.26
C 0.26 ≤ DI < 0.49
D 0.49 ≤ DI < 0.79
E 0.79≤ DI
Descriptions
Perfect, no problems
Minor problems in secondary elements, need for small repairs for improvement in durability
Minor problems in primary elements or extensive problems in secondary elements, need for repairs in primary elements or of
rehabilitation of secondary elements
Problems in primary elements, need for emergency repairs/rehabilitation
Serious problems in primary elements, out of service, need for rehabilitation/replacement
132   Y. JEONG ET AL.

Table 9. NBI condition state rating (FHWA, 2012).

State Condition
9 Excellent
8 Very good
7 Good
6 Satisfactory
5 Fair
4 Poor
3 Serious
2 Critical
1 Imminent failure
0 Failed
Physical descriptions
A new bridge
No problems noted
Some minor problems
Structural elements show some minor deterioration
All primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour
Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling, scour
Loss of section, etc., has affected primary structural components; Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks
in concrete may be present
Advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour
may have removed structural support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is
taken
Major deterioration or loss of section in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting struc-
tural stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may allow it to be returned to light service
Out of service. Beyond corrective action

Table 10. Appraisal rating guidelines (FHWA, 2012).
State Descriptions
N Not applicable
9 Superior to present desirable criteria
8 Equal to present desirable criteria
7 Better than present minimum criteria
6 Equal to present minimum criteria
5 Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left
in place as is
4 Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is
3 Basically intolerable, requiring high priority of corrective action
2 Basically intolerable, requiring high priority of replacement
1 This value of rating code not used
0 Bridge closed
condition states ranging from 0 to 9 (see Table 9) (FHWA, 2012).
The NBI condition rating does not represent the overall condi-
tion of the entire bridge. The condition rating, however, shows
the localized condition of the primary elements of the bridge.
In other words, the NBI condition rating indicates how well the
major elements of a bridge function, but not how well the entire
bridge functions.
In addition, an appraisal rating is also defined by the FHWA
to evaluate a bridge in relation to the level of service of the
transportation system. The level of service for a bridge describes
the function that the bridge provides for the transportation sys-
tem carried by the bridge (FHWA, 2012). The following general
appraisal rating guidelines (see Table 10) are used to evaluate
structural evaluation, deck geometry, underclearances, water-
way adequacy, and approach roadway alignment.
In the U.S., the NBI condition rating shows only how well
the major elements of a bridge function, not how the entire
bridge performs. However, based on the NBI condition rating,
bridges can be classified as either “structurally deficient (SD)” or
“functionally obsolete (FO)”. “Structurally deficient (SD)” means
that the condition of the bridge includes a significant defect
due to deterioration and/or damage. “Functionally obsolete
(FO)” means that the design of a bridge no longer meets crite-
ria for the system for which the bridge is a part such as a lack of
safety shoulders or the inability to handle current traffic volume,
speed, size, or weight (FHWA, 2012). The FHWA (2012) classified
a bridge for “structurally deficient (SD)” or “functionally obsolete
(FO)” based on the results of NBI condition ratings and appraisal
ratings (see Table 11).
The state DOTs in U.S. generally use an agency-custom-
ized inventory computer program that includes a procedure
to calculate a bridge’s Sufficiency Rating (SR) based upon the
inventory data obtained from the bridge inspector. The SR is
evaluated by combining four factors to obtain a numerical value
Table 11. Condition ratings of structural deficiency (SD) and functional obsoles-
cence (FO) (FHWA, 2012).
Structurally Deficient (SD) Functionally Obsolete (FO)
A condition rating of 4 or less for A condition rating of 3 or less for
• Deck; or • Deck geometry; or
• Superstructure; or • Underclearances; or
• Substructure; or • Approach roadway alignment.
• Culvert and retaining walls.
A appraisal rating of 2 or less for A appraisal rating of 3 or less for
• Structural evaluation; or • Structural evaluation; or
• Waterway adequacy. • Waterway adequacy.
that implies the bridge’s sufficiency to remain in service. The SR
is calculated as follows (FHWA, 2012):
SR = S1 + S2 + S3 − S4 (8)
where S1 has a maximum 55% weighting factor on structural
adequacy and safety (i.e. superstructure, substructure or cul-
ver condition and load capacity) and S2 has a maximum 30%
weighting factor that deals with serviceability and functional
obsolescence of items such as the deck condition, structural
evaluation, deck geometry, underclearances, waterway ade-
quacy, and approach road alignment. S3 has a maximum 15%
weighting factor that concerns essentiality for public use such
as detour length, average daily traffic, and highway designa-
tion. S4 has a maximum 13% weighting factor that is a special
reduction based on detour length, traffic safety features, and
structure type. SR is a hybrid measure based on both function
and condition. The FHWA uses the SR for allocating budget
for bridge repairs/rehabilitation and replacement (Shepard &
Johnson, 2001). When a bridge’s SR is less than 50, the bridge
is eligible for replacement. When the SR is within 50 and 80, the
bridge is eligible for rehabilitation.
A comparison of the condition ratings of four countries
(China, Japan, Korea, and U.S.) is presented in Table 12. It is
noted that the ratings in the same row do not necessarily rep-
resent the same rating, but exhibit comparable ratings of four
countries. Since the NBI ratings of U.S. are categorized in greater
detail compared to other countries into nine corresponding to
each condition, the NBI rating system was determined as the
reference for condition ratings of other countries for compar-
ison. For the sake of clarity, the NBI ratings only reflects the
range of the physical conditions of the major bridge compo-
nents such as the deck, superstructures, and substructure, not
the overall bridge condition. Condition rating systems of other
countries presented in Table 12 are applied to the overall bridge
level. However, it is worth using the NBI ratings the reference
for comparison of the condition ratings of the four countries
 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE   133

Table 12. Comparison of condition ratings of four countries: China, Japan, Korea, and U.S (FHWA, 2012; MLIT, 2014; MOHURD, 2003; MOLIT, 2012b; MOT, 2011b).

U.S. China Korea Japan

Descriptions of NBI rating NBI rating1
Dr 2
BCI 3
DI 4
Soundness5
A new bridge 9 1 A A I
No problem noted 8
Some minor problems 7 2 B B II
Structural elements show some minor deterioration 6
All primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, deterioration, spalling 5 3 C C
or scour
Advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling, scour 4
Loss of section, etc., has affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue 3 4 D D III, IV
cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present
Advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in 2
concrete may be present or scour may have removed structural support. Unless closely monitored
it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken
Major deterioration or loss of section in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizon- 1 5 E E
tal movement affecting structural stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put
back in light service
Out of service. Beyond corrective action 0
1
Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual, FHWA-NHI-12–049, 2012.
2
Standards for Technical Condition Evaluation of Highway Bridges, JTG/T-H21–2011, 2011.
3
Technical Code of Maintenance for City Bridge, CJJ99–2003, 2003.
4
Guideline and Commentary for Safety Inspection and In-depth Safety Inspection for Structures-Bridge, 2012.
5
Manual for Bridge Periodic Inspection, 2014.

because the overall condition rating of bridge components may
be directly related to physical deficiencies of a bridge.
In the bridge condition ratings of the four countries, the con-
dition ratings of these countries can fall into three categories in
terms of main considerations: (1) physical conditions of bridge
elements; (2) feasible actions (follow-up actions); and (3) soci-
oeconomic factors. The Dr (China), BCI (China), DI (Korea), and
NBI rating (U.S.) reflect only the range of the physical conditions
of the bridge components such as the deck, superstructure,
and substructures. Therefore, these condition ratings can be
used to allow decision makers to plan and schedule repair/
rehabilitation of deteriorated bridges. In Japan, soundness and
maintenance urgency ratings take into account feasible actions
(follow-up actions) corresponding to deterioration. This type of
condition rating system is suitable for quick repair/rehabilita-
tion without a decision-making process. However, the condi-
tion ratings have problems predicting the future condition of
a bridge due to a lack of information on explicit severity and
extent of deterioration. In the U.S., the BHI and SR are used as
performance measures and indices for managing bridges. These
rating systems consider asset values, serviceability, or essenti-
ality for public use. It is useful for decision makers to use the
SR or BHI for allocating funds for bridge repair/rehabilitation
or replacement (Shepard & Johnson, 2001). The SR is intended
as a combined performance measure based on both function
and condition. The SR rating emphasizes the functional and
geometric characteristics of a bridge and is not meant for deter-
mining a bridge’s overall condition or for maintenance decisions
(Wolfgram, 2005). Therefore, when combined with deterioration
rates, these rating systems can be useful to predict the health
of an inventory in the future and to quantify benefits of bridge
intervention actions (Robert, Marshall, Lin, Shepard, & Aldayuz,
2002).
Inspection recording and reporting
A good bridge inspection reporting system is essential to ensure
the public’s safety with minimum cost with respect to bridge
structures. Therefore, bridge inspection data should be well
documented in a clear, accurate, and complete manner. In the
U.S., the FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges (FHWA Coding
Guide) is used for defining the bridge inventory and the items
to be used to collect information on the overall condition of
the deck, superstructure, substructure, and channel. The FHWA
Coding Guide is the basis of the U.S. BMS. All state DOTs are
required to submit bridge inspection results to the FHWA in
accordance with the FHWA Coding Guide, even if they are able
to customize the generic guide (FHWA, 2012). On the other
hand, bridge inspection manuals in Japan, China, and Korea
specify that all data obtained and found from bridge inspec-
tions should be recorded and kept in an appropriate manner
(MLIT, 2014; MOHURD, 2003; MOLIT, 2012c). A summary sheet of
bridge data is used to effectively record and report data. Using
the recording sheet, bridge records are kept as cumulative and
up-to-date information on each structure. Bridge inspection
manuals require records to be kept about individual bridge
construction, maintenance, inspection, testing, and technical
specifications in electronic databases. A thorough study of the
available historical information would be valuable in identify-
ing possible damage or deterioration and in planning repair/
rehabilitation.
Quality programs
Quality of current BMS is dependent upon the accuracy and pre-
cision of bridge inspection. Generally, the BMS relies on visual
assessment, which is the primary method of bridge inspection.
In this section, four countries’ quality programs to improve the
quality of visual assessments are presented.
In China, new methods such as structural health monitoring
(SHM) and nondestructive testing (NDT) techniques are being
integrated into current BMS (Dai et al., 2014). When the process
of integrating new techniques of SHM and NDT into the BMS
is completed, SHM and NDT techniques can be a major part of
transportation agencies’ efforts to prevent human error from
visual inspection (Dai et al., 2014; Kim, 2001; Lee & Kim, 2016;
Shim & Hearn, 2007; Soga & Luo, 2018). Japan uses standard
inspection forms and the existing bridge record to guide inspec-
tors and ensure that all required inspection tasks are com-
pleted. There is no independent review of inspection reports
(MLIT, 2014). In Korea, quality control (QC) verifies that reports
134   Y. JEONG ET AL.
of in-depth and in-depth safety inspection are accurate and
complete (Korea Infrastructure Safety Corporation [KISC], 2013);
that there are sufficient notes of photographs of conditions;
and that recommendations for maintenance are appropriate.
QC is performed by the Evaluation Committee of In-depth and
In-depth Safety Inspection (KISC, 2013). At most state DOTs in
the U.S., the inspection program manager guides quality control
(QC) policies and execution. U.S. state DOTs make QC reviews of
inspection reports (Hearn, 2007). Most state DOTs use peer team
leaders for reviewing inspection reports. Generally, the QC pro-
gram includes field activities such as peer reviews by peer team
leaders, joint audit of the current inspection report by a peer
team and the inspector of record, site visits by an inspection
manager of inspection team work, and inspection of control
bridges as part of periodic workshops or training (Hearn, 2007).
Summary and recommendations
This paper reviewed bridge inspection practices and bridge
management programs in China, Japan, Korea, and U.S. The key
finding is that the bridge inspections and management pro-
gram in four countries are similar to each other and are different
in some regards. The review findings are summarized below:
(1) The four countries show similarities in the overall pro-
cess of bridge inspection practices and bridge man-
agement programs such as the use of a BMS in quality
control programs. However, differences are shown in
each section in terms of detailed aspects.
(2) In all four countries, the bridge inspection process,
which comprises inspection types and intervals,
inspection personnel, inspection data recording and
reporting, and a quality program, is well organized.
(3) The BMSs of most countries have the capability of per-
forming essential functions (e.g. data storage, deteri-
oration model/cost information, optimization model,
and updating function) but the BMSs of some countries
have not yet prepared for all features. For instance, the
KHBMS, which is the BMS in Korea, does not include
information on bridge safety or a risk optimization
model dealing with the optimal strategies for least-
cost maintenance.
(4) The administrative levels of transportation agencies are
different: government agencies in China and the U.S., a
government-controlled company in Korea, and private
companies in Japan.
In light of the findings of the present study, with regard to
BMS, future BMS should include features of better life-cycle
models and tools to quantify risks, and optimization models
of cost/benefit associated with bridges, which would help in
decision-making of transportation administrators. In addition,
the BMS has become easily accessible for bridge inspectors
and decision makers because of IT (Information Technology)
and NT (Networking Technology) advances. A BMS featuring
these factors is required for decision makers to identify prob-
lems, prioritize repair/rehabilitation work, allocate budget,
and program bridge preservation, improvement, and replace-
ment work. In order to improve the accuracy and precision of
bridge inspection, a quality control (QC) program should be
emphasized because bridge inspection is dependent upon
visual observation by bridge inspectors. For example, peer
reviews/joint audits and uses of structural health monitoring
(SHM) and nondestructive testing (NDT) techniques can reduce
human errors and ultimately improve the reliability of bridge
inspections.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Korea Expressway Corporation.
References
Akgul, F. (2013). Development of a bridge management system incorporating
a newly developed model for element condition evaluation based on
damage effects. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(12), 1206–
1224.
American Association of State Highway Officials. (1993). Guidelines for bridge
management systems. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of State Highway Officials. (2013). Manual for bridge
element inspection. Washington, DC: Author.
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). 2017 Report card for American’s
infrastructure. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
bridges/
Dai, K., Smith, B.H., Chen, S.-E., & Sun, L. (2014). Comparative study of bridge
management programmes and practices in the USA and China. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(5), 577–588.
Federal Highway Administration. (2004). National bridge inspection standards
(NBIS). Washington, DC: Author.
Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Bridge Inspector’s reference manual
(BIRM), FHWA-NHI-12-049. Washington, DC: Author.
Hanley, C., Matos, J.C., Kelliher, D., & Pakrashi, V. (2017). Integrating
multivariate techniques in bridge management systems. Journal of
Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 2(3), 143–151.
Hearn, G. (2007). NCHRP synthesis 375: Bridge inspection practices.
Washington, DC
Kim, S. (2001). Intelligent health monitoring system for a cable-stayed
bridge. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 5(1), 35–41.
Kimura, F., & Maeda, M. (2005, November 21–22). Transport infrastructure
development in Japan and Korea: Drawing lessons for the Philippines.
Regional Conference on Investment Climate and Competitiveness in
East Asia: From Diagnostics to Action, Kuala Lumpur.
Korea Expressway Corporation. (2013). Improvement of bride inspection
system by the damage analysis. Gimcheon: Author.
Korea Infrastructure Safety Corporation. (2013). Evaluation Manual for
reports of in-depth and in-depth safety inspection. Jinju: Author.
Lee, J.H., & Kim, S.-C. (2016). Mobile technology in the field data collection
and management. Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 1(3),
140–145.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. (2003). Technical code
of maintenance for city bridges, CJJ99-2003. Beijing: Author.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. (2012a). Construction
Technology Promotion Act. Sejong: Author.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. (2012c). Guideline of safety
inspection and in-depth safety inspection for structures. Sejong: Author.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. (2015). Status of the Nation’s
bridges and tunnels in republic of Korea. Sejong: Author.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Tourism. (2013). White
paper on land, infrastructure, transportation, and tourism in Japan, 2013.
Tokyo: Author.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Tourism (2014). Manual
for Bridge Periodic Inspection. Tokyo: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transportation, and Tourism.
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (2007a). The Guidance
for Road and Bridge Maintenance. Beijing: Author.
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (2007b). Manual for
China Bridge Management System. Beijing: Author.
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (2011a). Public statics
data about road and water transportation in 2010. Beijing: Author.
Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China. (2011b). Standards
for Technical Condition Evaluation of Highway Bridges, JTG/T H21–2011.
Beijing: Author.

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. (2012b). Guideline and
Commentary of Safety Inspection and In-depth Safety Inspection for
Structures-Bridge. Sejong: Author.
Mirzaei, Z., Adey, B. T., Klatter, L., & Kong, J. S. (2012). Overview of existing
bridge management systems. The IABMAS Bridge Management
Committee.
Mizutani, F., & Uranishi, S. (2006, August). Privatization of the Japan Highway
Public Corporation: Policy assessment. 46th Congress for the European
Regional Science Association, Volos.
Orcesi, A.D., & Frangopol, D.M. (2011). A stakeholder probability-based
optimization approach for cost-effective bridge management under
financial constraints. Engineering Structures, 33(5), 1439–1449.
Patidar, V., Labi, S., Sinha, K.C., Thompson, P.D., Shirolé, A., & Hyman, W.
(2007). Performance measures for enhanced bridge management.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1991(1), 43–53.
Robert, W.E., Marshall, A.R., Lin, S.S., Shepard, R.W., & Aldayuz, J. (2002).
Integration of agency rules with the preservation optimization model in
the pontis bridge management system. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1795(1), 74–81.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTENANCE   135
Saydam, D., Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D.M. (2013). Time-dependent risk
associated with deterioration of highway bridge networks. Engineering
Structures, 54, 221–233.
Shepard, R.W. (2005). Bridge management issues in a large agency. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, 1(2), 159–164.
Shepard, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (2001). California bridge health index: A
diagnostic tool to maximize bridge longevity, investment. TR News (215),
pp. 6–11.
Shim, H. (2004). Condition assessment of bridge elements using field tests.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 8(3), 307–312.
Shim, H., & Hearn, G. (2007). Bridge management system with NDE. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering, 11(5), 253–259.
Soga, K., & Luo, L. (2018). Distributed fiber optics sensors for civil engineering
infrastructure sensing. Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance,
3(1), 1–21.
Wolfgram, L. (2005). Optimization of bridge management and inspection
procedures (National Science Foundation Grant # EEC 0139017), Newark,
DE: University of Delaware