Transport for London

Surface Transport

TfL Good Practice Guide

Risk Based Inspection of Highway

Structures

December 2011
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

Document Control

DOCUMENT DETAILS:

NAME: TfL Good Practice Guide: Risk Based Inspection for Highway Structures

VERSION: 1.0

OWNER: Transport for London

PREPARED BY: Atkins

DATE OF ISSUE: 09 December 2011

/

VERSION HISTORY:

Version Purpose Description Date

0.1 First issue for review 03/06/11

0.2 Second review issue 01/09/11

1.0 Final 09/12/11

i
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

Table of Contents
Glossary ..................................................................................................................... iii

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. iv

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 The Need for Risk Based Inspection Planning .............................................................. 1
1.4 Layout of the Good Practice Guide ............................................................................... 1

2 The Evolution of Risk Based Asset Management .............................................. 2

2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Why use a risk based approach? .................................................................................. 2
2.3 Risk Based Inspection ................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Risk Based Maintenance ............................................................................................... 3
2.5 Prioritisation and Value Management ........................................................................... 4

3 Framework for Risk Based Inspections .............................................................. 5

3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................ 5
3.2 Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 5
3.3 Steps in Determining the Risk based Inspection Intervals ............................................ 6
3.4 Identification of Structure Type and Inspection Type .................................................... 9
3.5 Probability of Rapid Deterioration, Damage or Failure Score ..................................... 11
3.6 Consequence of Failure .............................................................................................. 19
3.7 Risk Score and Risk based Inspection Intervals ......................................................... 21
3.8 Develop Unsmoothed PI Programme.......................................................................... 23
3.9 Determine Target Annual Cost of Inspections ............................................................ 23
3.10 Develop Provisional Smoothed PI Programme ........................................................... 23
3.11 Develop Final Smoothed RBI Programme .................................................................. 23
3.12 Risk Profiling ................................................................................................................ 24

4 References .......................................................................................................... 27

Appendix A................................................................................................................ 28

ii
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

Glossary
[1]
Asset Physical highway infrastructure and other items that have a distinct
value to a highway authority, e.g. carriageway, footway, structures,
tunnels, lighting, etc.
[2] The purpose of a General Inspection is to provide information on the
General Inspection
physical condition of all visible elements on a highway structure. A
General Inspection comprises a visual inspection of all parts of the
structure that can be inspected without the need for special access
equipment or traffic management arrangements
[3]
Lifecycle Plan A considered strategy for managing an asset, or group of similar
assets, from construction to disposal. A lifecycle plan should give due
consideration to minimising costs and providing the required
performance.
[3]
Maintenance Activities and operations undertaken to manage and maintain an
asset, e.g. inspection, assessment, renewal, upgrade, etc.
[2] The purpose of a Principal Inspection is to provide information on the
Principal Inspection
physical condition of all inspectable parts of a highway structure. A
Principal Inspection is more comprehensive and provides more
detailed information than a General Inspection. A Principal Inspection
comprises a close examination, within touching distance, of all
inspectable parts of a structure.

Prioritisation See ‘Value Management’.

[4]
Risk An event or hazard that has the potential to hinder the achievement of
business objectives.
[2]
Special Inspection The purpose of a Special Inspection is to provide detailed information
on a particular part, area or defect that is causing concern, or
inspection of which is beyond the requirements of the
General/Principal Inspection regime. A Special Inspection may
comprise a close visual inspection, testing and/or monitoring and may
involve a one-off inspection, a series of inspections or an ongoing
programme of inspections.
[4]
Value Management A systematic approach for identifying, assessing, prioritising and
optimising a portfolio of projects, based on an agreed set of Value
Criteria, which maximises contribution to the business objectives for a
defined budget.
[1]
Whole Life Cost The cost of all items/activities that need to be considered in a whole
life costing analysis, such as the costs of acquiring (includes design
and construction costs), operating and maintaining an asset over its
whole life through to its eventual disposal.

iii
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

Abbreviations
CCS Current Condition Score

CF Consequence of Failure

CPI Condition Performance Indicator

CSS County Surveyors Society (currently known as ADEPT)

DfT Department for Transport

DLI Date of Last Inspection

DSI Date of Scheduled Inspection

FMS Failure Mode Score

FPII Principal Inspection Interval Adjustment Factor

GI General Inspection

GPG Good Practice Guide

IS Inspectability Score

MOFS Magnitude of Failure Score

PI Principal Inspection

PPII Proposed Principal Inspection Interval

PrddfS Probability of rapid deterioration, damage or failure score

RBI Risk Based Inspection

RODS Rate of Deterioration Score

SEIS Socio-Economic Importance

TfL Transport for London

iv
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

1 Introduction
1.1 General
This Good Practice Guide has been prepared for Transport for London (hereafter
referred to as TfL) by Atkins. This Good Practice Guide describes the methodology
developed for the risk based inspection planning for Highway Structures.

1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this guide is to provide a step-by-step guide to risk based inspection
planning for Highway Structures on the Transport for London road network.

1.3 The Need for Risk Based Inspection Planning

Highway structures are subject to a regime of General Inspections (GIs) and Principal
Inspections (PIs) every two and six years respectively (and to Special Inspections as
and when required). These inspection regimes are clearly defined in:
• Management of Highway Structures: A Code of Practice (2005) ;
[3]

• Inspection Manual for Highway Structures (2007) ;

[5]

• BD 63: Inspection of Highway Structures (2007) .

[2]

However, the above documents also allow structures owners to increase or decrease
the inspection intervals based on a robust and fully documented risk assessment, i.e.
Risk Based Inspection. The aforementioned documents do not describe the specific
details of the risk assessment that should be undertaken, as such, the majority of
highway structures owners have tended to retain the standard two and six year cycle.
Previous work has shown that whilst there is a general consensus that the time-based
two year General Inspection regime is effective, some organisations feel that the six
year Principal Inspection regime could be tailored using a risk assessment in order to
improve the risk profile, minimise the liability to the structures owner and utilise
inspection resources more effectively.

1.4 Layout of the Good Practice Guide

The layout of the Good Practice Guide is summarised in Table 1.

Section Description

2. The Evolution of Risk Describes how risk based methodologies are utilised to
Based Asset Management support objective and optimum management of Highway
Structures.

3. Framework for Risk Based Defines the approach which should be used to determine
Inspections the Risk based Inspection intervals in a step-by-step
manner.

4. References Relevant documents referred to for the purpose of this

study.

Appendices Provide supporting information.

Table 1: Layout of the Good Practice Guide

1
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

2 The Evolution of Risk Based Asset Management

2.1 Overview
Asset Management was first defined in the Framework for Highway Asset Management
[6]
as:
Asset management is a strategic approach that identifies the
optimal allocation of resources for the management, operation,
preservation and enhancement of the highway infrastructure to
meet the needs of current and future customers.
There is a growing movement to develop methodologies that support formal asset
[3]
management of highway structures. The publication of the Code of Practice has given
further impetus to this.
An important component of Risk-Based Asset Management is categorisation of assets
by level of risk which enables asset owners to objectively assess asset condition,
evaluate maintenance and inspection programs, study operating protocols, and
estimate the remaining life of assets – in relation to or considering the likelihood and
consequences of structural and/or other failure. This information is then used to modify
and optimise inspection and maintenance programs, audit procedures, operating limits,
and other risk mitigation measures.

2.2 Why use a risk based approach?

Until recently, the structural safety of most highway structures has been assured by two
factors:
• Design, assessment and maintenance in accordance with codes or rules
incorporating empirical safety factors; and
• Regular inspections to provide assurance that no accidental damage or
unanticipated deterioration has occurred.
However, it is prudent to accept that operational loads may vary beyond design levels,
and that material degradation may be greater than anticipated. The safety factors used
at the design stage may not, therefore, guarantee through-life structural safety. Hence
periodic inspection is also carried out to determine the actual levels of deterioration, and
to check the adequacy of the design loads (e.g. inspection for assessment) and identify
appropriate maintenance actions.
Both inspection and maintenance strategies should take account of the risk of structural
failure. Using traditional approaches to inspection planning, risk tends only to be
considered implicitly and is not assessed in an auditable manner. There is thus a real
concern that ‘high-risk’ and ’low-risk’ assets may not be clearly identified and
distinguished for management purposes. This may then mean that ‘low-risk’ assets are
inspected more frequently than is necessary which leads to needlessly high inspection
costs, while ‘high-risk’ assets may not all be afforded sufficient attention and priority.
Without the explicit consideration of risk, resources may not be appropriately targeted.
An inspection strategy based on risk overcomes the limitations of the traditional
approach and ensures that resources are appropriately targeted. The concept of risk
takes into account, not only the probability of failure, but also the consequences of
failure. These may encompass consequences in terms of lost profits, repair and re-
justification costs, human casualties and environmental costs. Such a strategy ensures
that inspection effort is targeted appropriately to optimise costs and benefits, and
provides an auditable demonstration that this has been done with due diligence.
The maintenance and inspection strategies have evolved, as shown in Figure 1.

2
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

Time- Condition- Risk-

Based Based Based

• Calendar-based • Trending • Holistic risk-based

intervals (e.g. every (likelihood) approach
2 years, 6 years, • Inspection intervals • Balance between
etc.) based on condition risk and inspection
• Prescriptive effort
Regulatory / Rule • Proactive approach
requirements

[7]
Figure 1: Evolution of Inspection and Maintenance Planning Strategies
Clearly risk is an important consideration in the asset management of highway
structures. Available guidance for three principal areas of application is reviewed below.

2.3 Risk Based Inspection

[2]
The intervals for General and Principal Inspections are mandated in BD 63 and they
are largely the same for all structures regardless of their strategic importance and risk
of failure. There has been considerable interest in applying a risk based approach to
setting inspection intervals or seeking departures from standards for low risk structures
which are difficult to inspect, however, practical guidance is not yet available.
[3]
The Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures provides some basic
guidance for varying the Principal Inspection intervals based on risk considerations.
[16] [17]
Recently, Network Rail and Welsh Assembly introduced flexibility in their
inspection regimes to alter the inspection intervals based on qualitative estimate of risk.
Further work is needed in producing guidance for wider application in practice.

2.4 Risk Based Maintenance

Risk based Maintenance is widely used in a number of sectors but its application to
highway structures is rather limited. The Highways Agency has applied risk based
methods in developing maintenance regimes for Midland Links Viaducts and for half
joints and hinge joints.
The Highways Agency commissioned Atkins to develop optimum maintenance
strategies and plans (i.e. lifecycle plans) based on risk and whole life cost approaches.
The lifecycle plans will be utilised to develop a long term Asset Management Plan for
the entire stock of the Highway Agency’s highway structures. It is intended that the
project will also produce some guidance for use by the Highway Agency’s maintaining
Agents (MAs & MACs) to apply risk and whole life cost approaches to individual bridges
to determine optimal maintenance interventions.

3
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

2.5 Prioritisation and Value Management

The Highway Agency’s Value Management process already takes account of risk in
prioritising maintenance needs. A simple risk scoring procedure is given for scoring a
range of maintenance and upgrade works. TfL has also developed suitable Value
Management process for all asset types.
Following the Selby incident the DfT has issued a risk ranking procedure for ranking
road/rail intersections. A risk based system has been used by the London Bridges
Engineering Group (LoBEG) to prioritise bridges for strengthening. A similar system
has recently been developed by the UK Bridges Board for prioritising road over rail
bridges for strengthening.
Atkins is currently developing end-to-end maintenance prioritisation processes, which
take full consideration of risk, for LoBEG and Transport Scotland.

4
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

3 Framework for Risk Based Inspections

3.1 Overview
The aim of the framework is to provide TfL with a practical approach and guidance for readily
and objectively determining Risk based Inspection intervals for its highway structures in order
to identify and adopt an inspection regime that minimises liability. In developing the
framework, a classic risk approach has been adopted whereby the risk of an event (e.g. defect
occurring and/or progressively getting worse over a period of time) is assessed through
Likelihood and Consequence of the event, i.e.:

Risk = f (Likelihood of Event, Consequence of Event)

Where the probability and consequence of event are defined as:
• Probability of Rapid Deterioration, Damage or Failure – given the current condition, i.e.
the condition at the last recorded General or Principal Inspection, the rate of deterioration,
the inspectability, etc., what is the likelihood that a structure or part of a structure will
deteriorate further or even fail?
• Consequence of Failure – given that deterioration or damage remains undetected what
are the likely consequences of damage or failure in terms of traffic disruption, casualties
and other socio-economic impacts.

3.2 Assumptions
The risk based inspection framework has been developed to aid TfL in establishing its current
risk profile (i.e. while the time-based inspection regime is adopted) and to allow comparisons
to be made with the risk profile that would result from the application of this framework. It is
anticipated that by using the risk based inspections framework TfL will be reducing its overall
level of risk exposure and hence minimise liability.
It is considered that the framework can be applied at any time to assist in the identification of
the level of risk that may be posed by different assets including parts of a structure, e.g. very
[8]
high importance elements (as defined by the CSS inspection procedure ), individual
structures or a group of structures with similar characteristics. Subsequently, this can be used
to determine appropriate Principal Inspection intervals, thus focussing effort and resources
where these are most needed to ensure that any risks identified can be mitigated and/or
eliminated effectively.
It has been assumed that as a baseline, TfL will hold suitable condition data, inventory and
other relevant data, e.g. structure dimensions, exposure conditions, etc., that can be used to
inform the risk based inspections framework. It is essential that all structures in TfL’s stock
have undergone at least one General Inspection and that the data from this inspection has
been recorded and is readily available.
It is noted that inspection alone is not sufficient to mitigate risk even when it is undertaken at
the intervals identified under this framework. Appropriate action arising from inspection
findings will also be required.
The following were excluded when formulating the risk based inspection framework for the
reasons outlined below:
• Live loading capacity – The inspection intervals that will be identified under the proposed
framework will enable significant deterioration to be identified at an optimum time. As such
it is likely that the appropriate maintenance needs will be identified and the relevant
maintenance activities undertaken so that the structural integrity and the live loading
capacity of the structure will remain un-affected during the service life of a structure.
Where a structure had undergone structural assessment and was found to be
[9]
substandard, it is assumed that it would be managed in accordance with BD79 , i.e. its

5
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

risk is managed through weight/width restrictions or monitoring, as appropriate. Any

reserve capacity above the assessment live load would clearly have an influence on risk
and could, in principle, be taken into account in setting inspection intervals. However,
information on reserve capacities of major structural elements is typically not recorded.
Hence it was decided not to consider ‘capacity’ as a factor in developing the RBI
methodology.
• Monitoring systems – Where a monitoring system is present on a structure, the level of
monitoring applied is commensurate with the level of risk posed by the critical element in
[9]
accordance with BD 79 . Where a monitoring system may be required for a structure
and/or element of a structure but is not present and the structure is analysed under the
risk based inspection framework, it should yield ‘very high’ likelihood and consequence
values indicating ‘very high’ levels of risk which would suggest that Principal Inspection
intervals should be reduced.
• Impact and/or vandalism damage – Safety inspections and General Inspections will
identify obvious deficiencies which represent, or might lead to, a danger or may pose a
safety risk to the public.

3.3 Steps in Determining the Risk based Inspection Intervals

An overview of the process for determining the risk based inspection intervals is shown in
Figure 2.

6
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

1. Select Structure Type (Section 3.4)

2. Identify Inspection Type (Section 3.4)

No
Risk-based PI? Schedule time-based GI

Yes
3. Evaluate the Probability of Rapid
Deterioration, Damage or Failure (Section 3.5)

4. Evaluate the Consequence of Failure Repeat the analysis

(Section 3.6) until an acceptable
level of risk is
determined for the
proposed PI interval
5. Determine the Risk score and the Risk
based Inspection Interval (Section 3.7)

6. Develop Unsmoothed RBI Programme

(Section 3.8)

7. Determine Target Annual Cost of PIs

(Section 3.9)

8. Develop Provisional Smoothed RBI

Programme (Section 3.10)
Revise the
programme until an
acceptable level of
risk is determined for
No all structures
All structures within
acceptable risk limit?

Yes

9. Develop Final Smoothed RBI Programme

(Section 3.11)

Figure 2: Flowchart for Determining the Risk based Inspection Intervals

Step 1: Select Structure(s) Type

The risk based inspections framework can be adopted to determine the appropriate Principal
Inspection intervals for parts of a structure, i.e. very high importance elements (as defined by
[8]
the CSS inspection procedure ), individual structures or a group of structures with similar
characteristics. In all three cases the structure type of the structure(s) under evaluation is

7
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

initially selected from Table 3 in Section 3.4.

Step 2: Identify Inspection Type

For the selected structure(s) type from Step 1, the appropriate inspection type, i.e. time-based
or risk-based, is identified from Table 3 in Section 3.4. If the inspection type is identified as
risk-based Principal Inspection (PI), proceed to Steps 3, 4 and 5 below. If the inspection type
is identified as time-based General Inspection (GI), schedule a 2 yearly General Inspection. In
the majority of instances both a risk-based PI and a time-based GI are required.

Step 3: Evaluate the Probability of Rapid Deterioration, Damage or Failure

The probability of rapid deterioration, damage or failure is a function of the current condition of
a structure and/or element of a structure, the rate of deterioration, the potential failure mode,
the inspectability, and the Principal Inspection interval, i.e. time-based every 6 years vs. risk
based decreased/increased interval.

Step 4: Evaluate the Consequence of Failure

The consequence of failure is based on the magnitude of failure and the socio-economic
importance of the structure(s).

Step 5: Determine the Risk Score and the Risk based Inspection Interval

The analysis is initially undertaken for the time-based 6 year Principal inspection Interval and
the Risk score for this scenario is selected from the Risk Score Matrix in Section 3.7 (see
Table 13) by combining the outcomes from Steps 3 and 4 above. The Principal Inspection
interval is then altered, if deemed appropriate; by using the Risk based Inspection Intervals
Matrix in Section 3.7 (see Table 14). The analysis is then undertaken for the proposed
Principal Inspection Interval until an acceptable risk score and risk-based inspection interval is
obtained. The acceptable risk score can be defined considering factors, such as accuracy of
the analysis, level of refinement required, etc. In the current study acceptable risk is defined as
equal to or better than the ‘moderate’ category, i.e. risk score < 60 (see Table 13).

Step 6: Develop Unsmoothed RBI Programme

The PI interval, derived from Step 5 above, is used in combination with the last known PI date
to produce a PI programme. For a structure, this means adding the proposed inspection
interval to the last inspection date in order to determine when the next PI should be
conducted.

Step 7: Determine the Target Annual Cost of PIs

The resulting programme from Step 6 can be expected to produce an uneven distribution of PI
costs over time, i.e., more resources being required in some years than others. A smoothing
process is introduced in order to smooth the PI cost profile with time. As the first step in the
smoothing process, a desirable target annual cost of PIs needs to be identified. The average
cost required to undertake PIs over a 30 year programme is set as the initial target annual cost
of PIs for each financial year (see Section 3.9).

Step 8: Develop Provisional Smoothed RBI Programme

A provisional smoothed PI programme is developed by comparing the cost of PIs due in a

financial year, including any moved forward from previous years, against the initial target cost
of PIs.

8
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

Step 9: Develop Final Smoothed RBI Programme

The revised risk score of each structure, resulting from the provisional smoothed programme,
is checked against the acceptable risk level. If it falls within the acceptable range then the PI
will be programmed according to the provisional smoothed PI programme. Otherwise, the
inspection programme will be revised until all structures fall within the acceptable risk range.

3.4 Identification of Structure Type and Inspection Type

A simplified risk assessment is undertaken using the criteria contained in Table 2 to identify
the appropriate inspection type(s) for the generic structure types listed in Table 3, i.e. Time
based GI only or Time based GI and Risk Based PI. This acts as a high-level ‘filter’ that
enables the identification of structure types (i) that do not require more in-depth risk analysis;
and (ii) that do require more in-depth risk analysis to be readily identified.
The simplified risk assessment criteria cover:
• Inspectability, i.e. ease of access, and whether or not a General Inspection provides all
the necessary information for decision making; and
• Consequences, i.e. assessing whether there are any significant safety/service
consequences (in particular to identify those asset types with low consequences that as
such do not merit a Principal Inspection regime).

Inspectability *

Consequence ^ Yes No

Very Low Time Based GI Time Based GI

Low Time Based GI Time Based GI + Risk Based PI

Moderate Time Based GI Time Based GI + Risk Based PI

High Time Based GI + Risk Based PI Time Based GI + Risk Based PI

Very High Time Based GI + Risk Based PI Time Based GI + Risk Based PI

Criteria Definitions:
* Inspectability
Can the necessary information about the condition of the structure(s) and any significant
safety concerns be readily obtained without any access difficulties?
^ Consequence
• Very Low – No fatalities, no injuries and no/minor disruption to service
• Low – No fatalities, fewer slight injuries and minor disruption to service
• Moderate – Fewer serious injuries, and some slight injuries and moderate disruption to
service
• High – Possibility of a fatality, some serious injuries and a significant number of slight
injuries, and major disruption to service
• Very High – One or more fatalities and widespread disruption to service

Table 2: Criteria for the Identification of the Inspection Type(s)

9
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

No. Structure Type Inspection Type Comments

Time Based GI + Risk

1. Bridge
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

2. Cat Lighting 25m in height
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

3. Chamber
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk For culverts with width >

Based PI 2m.
4. Culvert
For culverts width ≤ 2m and
Time-based, GI’s only
fill > 1.5m

Treat as Retaining These are actually retaining

5. Embankment
Walls walls.

Time Based GI + Risk

6. Footbridge Treat as a ‘Bridge’.
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

7. Gantry
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

8. Mast Less than 20m in height.
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

9. Pipe Subway Treat as ‘Subway’
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

10. Retaining Wall
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

11. River Wall Treat as ‘Retaining Wall’
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

12. Subway
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

13. Tunnel
Based PI

Time Based GI + Risk

14. Vault Treat as a ‘Bridge’.
Based PI

Table 3: Identification of Structure Type and Inspection Type

10
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

3.5 Probability of Rapid Deterioration, Damage or Failure Score

3.5.1 Overview of the Probability of Rapid Deterioration, Damage or Failure Evaluation
Process
The probability of rapid deterioration, damage or failure is a function of the following:
• Current condition of a structure and/or element of a structure, i.e. the condition of the
structure and/or element of the structure at the last recorded General or Principal
Inspection (Section 3.5.2).
• Rate of deterioration, which is dependent on the structure specific characteristics and the
severity of exposure to external influences (Section 3.5.3).
• Potential failure mode, e.g. brittle or ductile failure (Section 3.5.4).
• Inspectability, i.e. the ability to adequately inspect all parts of the structure (Section 3.5.5)
• Principal Inspection Interval, e.g. time-based every 6 years or risk based
decreased/increased interval (Section 3.5.6)
The probability of rapid deterioration, damage or failure score is calculated using Equation 1:

PrddfS = (CCS + RoDS + FMS + IS) x FPII but not < 1 or > 100

Equation 1

Where PrddfS = Probability of rapid deterioration, damage or failure score

CCS = Current Condition Score for the entire structure and/or the critical element,
whichever has a lower Condition Performance Indicator (CPI)
RoDS = Rate of Deterioration Score
FMS = Potential Failure Mode Score
IS = Inspectability Score
FPII = Principal Inspection Interval adjustment factor

3.5.2 Current Condition Score, CCS

The current condition score is selected from Table 4 below based on the Condition
Performance Indicators (CPI) for an individual structure, i.e. CPIAv (All Structure Elements) or
CPICrit (Worst Critical Element) whichever is lower, established during the most recent General
Inspection. The analysis can also be undertaken for a group of structures with similar
characteristics, for which the current condition score is based on the CPI of the structure in the
worse condition in the group.
CPI values of less than 40 are not permissible under the RBI framework. In these cases it is
recommended that the maintenance needs of the structure should be identified (if not already
known) and duly addressed.
Unknown CPI values are not permissible under the RBI framework. In these cases it is
recommended that a General Inspection is scheduled and undertaken so that the relevant
information may be obtained prior to carrying out an analysis of any structure(s) with unknown
CPI values.
The interpretation of the CPI Range shown in Table 4 was adopted from the Guidance
Document for Performance Measurement of Highway Structures, Part B1: Condition
[8]
Performance Indicator and is contained in Appendix A.

11
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

Current Condition Score

CPIAv CPICrit
CPI Range
(All structure elements) (Worst Critical Element)

90 ≤ x ≤ 100
5 5

80 ≤ x < 90
15 10

65 ≤ x < 80
30 20

40 ≤ x < 65
50 30

0 ≤ x < 40
Not Permissible: Appropriate maintenance is required

Table 4: Current Condition Score, CCS

3.5.3 Rate of Deterioration Score, RoDS
Many defects are known to take many years to develop to the point where they require
maintenance or present a risk to structural integrity or public safety. However, the structure
specific characteristics, i.e. construction form, details susceptible to deterioration and the
overall construction material are significant considerations in determining the rate of
deterioration for observed deterioration mechanism(s). Table 5 provides the anticipated
deterioration rates for typical construction forms for bridges, culverts, gantries, retaining walls,
subways and masts and their respective construction material types. Three classifications
were used to distinguish between the different deterioration rates as follows:
• Slow (S) – Given mild exposure circumstances structural forms and materials with a slow
rate of deterioration would require over 120 years to reach a condition score of 40 or
below.
• Medium (M) – Given mild exposure circumstances structural forms and materials with a
medium rate of deterioration would require between 60 – 120 years to reach condition
score 40 or below.
• Fast (F) – Given mild exposure circumstances structural forms and materials with a fast
rate of deterioration would require less than 60 years to reach condition score 40 or
below.
Note: The list presented in Table 5 is not exhaustive. Where a particular combination of
material and structural form is not available, a close approximate combination can be selected
or engineering judgement can be used in estimating the rate of deterioration.
In addition to the structure specific characteristics the rate of deterioration is significantly
influenced by the exposure severity, i.e. external influences that may cause rapid or
progressive deterioration, damage or failure. Four classifications are used to distinguish
between the different severities of exposure, i.e. mild, moderate, severe and very severe, and
a detailed description of these is provided in Table 6.
Structures that are not currently included in Table 5 will be treated as follows:
• ‘Cat Lighting’ will be treated as ‘Mast’,
• ‘Chamber’, ‘Pipe Subway’ and ‘Tunnel’ will be treated as ‘Subway’,
• ‘River Wall’ will be treated as ‘Retaining Wall’, and
• ‘Vault’, ‘Footbridge’ will be treated as ‘Bridge’.

12
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 1.0

The Rate of Deterioration Score, RoDS, takes account of the above considerations and can be
selected from Table 7 which is implicitly based on a 6 year PI interval and distinguishes
between the different deterioration rates and exposure severities.

13
 TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

Table 5: Rate of Deterioration Depending on Structure Characteristics

Structure Type Bridge Culvert Gantry Retaining Wall Subway Mast

Cantilever Truss

Cantilever Beam

U-base & Slab

Beam & Slab

Embedded
Cantilever
Gravity
Portal
Truss

Truss

Beam

Walls
Arch

Arch

Pipe
Slab

Slab
Box

Box

N/A
Structural Form

Masonry S N/A N/A N/A S N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A S M N/A N/A S N/A
N/A

Mass Concrete S N/A N/A N/A S N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A S N/A N/A N/A S N/A
N/A

Reinforced Concrete S M M N/A S M M M M N/A M N/A M M M M M M M

N/A

Prestressed Concrete
N/A S S N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A S N/A S N/A N/A S N/A N/A N/A
(Pre-Tensioned) N/A
Material Types

Prestressed Concrete
N/A S S N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A S N/A N/A N/A
(Post-Tensioned) N/A

Steel (regularly painted S S S S S S N/A N/A N/A S N/A S N/A S N/A S N/A N/A N/A F
and maintained)

Weathering Steel N/A S S N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cast Iron / Wrought Iron

(regularly painted and N/A S S N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
maintained)

14
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

Exposure Exposure Description Examples

Severity

Structure and/or elements of a structure: Elements protected from salt spray with
cladding or by a protective enclosure.
Generally exposed to mild weather
conditions, i.e. may be sheltered or in an Deck soffit and piers of integral bridges
environment that results in little or no where the obstacle crossed is not a
exposure to severe weather conditions; road, i.e. elements are not subjected to
and spray from salted road.
Not exposed to any aggressive agents, e.g. Tenanted arch bridges.
Mild no exposure to road de-icing salts or 10 m
Half-joints or hinge joints overlaid with
away from traffic spray, not exposed to or
functional expansion joints
buried in aggressive soil agents, no
exposure to contaminated water, etc.; and
With no ventilation or condensation
problems or where poor ventilation or the
level of condensation are unlikely to
increase the rate of deterioration.

Structure and/or elements of a structure Top of roadside bridge pier or abutment

exposed to: subject to light vehicle spray from salted
road.
Moderate (normal) weather conditions, e.g.
direct rain, moderate humidity or Bridge deck soffit subject to light vehicle
condensation, some freeze-thaw action spray from salted road.
etc.; and/or
Structural elements, e.g. piers,
Moderate de-icing salt spray and airborne subjected to abrasion/erosion.
Moderate
chlorides; e.g. within 3 to 10m of traffic
spray on routes with de-icing salts; and/or
Low to moderate river flow.
But elements are not exposed to or buried
in aggressive soils that are contaminated
with acidic water or water containing
sulfates.

Structure and/or elements of a structure Roadside bridge abutment, Parapet

exposed to: upstand or deck edge beam subject to
heavy vehicle spray from salted road.
Continuous or regular severe/extreme
weather conditions, e.g. hot and cold Section of bridge deck near a leaking
extremes, high freeze-thaw action, severe expansion joint or gutter, e.g. deck end
humidity or condensation, etc.; and/or or crosshead.
Severe de-icing salt spray, e.g. within 3m Half joints or hinge joints overlaid with
of traffic spray on routes with de-icing salts; non-functional expansion joints.
and/or
Severe Top surfaces of unwaterproofed bridge
Run-off and/or ponding on routes with de- decks.
icing salts; and/or
Areas where corrosion or spalling of
Aggressive soils, i.e. completely or partially surface concrete is evident.
buried in aggressive soils that are
Structural elements, e.g. piers,
contaminated with acidic water or water
susceptible to scour.
containing sulfates.
Medium to rapid river flow and flooding.

15
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

Exposure Exposure Description Examples

Severity

Surfaces directly affected by sea water

Structure and/or elements of a structure
spray, e.g. surfaces adjacent to the sea
exposed to:
Surfaces directly affected by airborne
Marine environment and/or abrasive action
salts, e.g. deck, walls, parapet edge
of sea water or completely immersed in sea
beams, etc.
Very water; and/or
Severe Completely/partially submerged marine
Tidal splash and spray zone; and/or
structures
Airborne salt but not in direct contact with
Structures near to or on coastal areas
sea water; and/or
Structures in industrial areas with high
Corrosive fumes in industrial areas
humidity and aggressive atmosphere

Table 6: Exposure Severity Descriptions

Exposure Severity

Mild Moderate Severe Very Severe

Slow (S)
5 15 30 40
Deterioration
Rate of

Medium (M)
15 30 45 60

Fast (F)
20 45 60 80

Table 7: Rate of Deterioration Score, RoDS

3.5.4 Potential Failure Mode Score, FM S
The potential failure mode score, FMS, takes account of the potential mode of failure
e.g. brittle or ductile failure. The scores shown in Table 8 should only used when the
CPICrit is selected from Table 4. If CPIAv is used then FMS = 0.

Failure Mode Score

Brittle 10

Ductile 0

Table 8: Potential Failure Mode Score, FMS

Brittle, or non-ductile, materials will not undergo significant plastic deformation before
breaking. Failure of a brittle material occurs suddenly, with little or no warning.
Structural materials that are generally brittle include concrete, cast iron, stone and
timber.
Ductility is the measure of plastic (permanent) strain that a material can endure. A
ductile material will undergo a large amount of plastic deformation before breaking. It
will also have a greatly reduced cross-sectional area before breaking. Structural
materials that are generally ductile include steel and aluminium.

16
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

3.5.5 Inspectability Score, IS

The Inspectability Score, IS, takes account of the ability of the inspector to adequately
inspect all the elements that are significant to structural integrity during a General
Inspection. Table 9 simply distinguishes between structures where elements that are
significant to structural integrity can be adequately inspected and those that cannot be
adequately inspected.
Table 10 provides a list of elements that are significant to the structural integrity of
different structure types.

Inspectability Considerations Score

All elements significant to structural integrity (except foundations) are visible (not
0
hidden) and can be adequately inspected during a General Inspection

One or more element(s) significant to structural integrity (except foundations) are

not visible or hidden and/or cannot be adequately inspected during a General 20
Inspection

Table 9: Inspectability Score, IS

17
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

Elements Significant to Structural Integrity (excludes

Structure Type
foundations)

• Primary deck element

• Transverse Beams
• Secondary deck element
• Half joints
• Tie beam/rod
• Parapet beam or cantilever
Bridge
• Deck bracing
• Abutments (incl. arch springing)
• Spandrel wall/head wall
• Pier/column
• Cross-head/capping beam
• Bearings

Cat Lighting See ‘Mast’ Group below

Chamber See ‘Bridge’ Group above

Culvert See ‘Bridge’ Group above

Footbridge See ‘Bridge’ Group above

• Truss/beams/cantilever
• Transverse/horiz. bracing elements
Gantry • Columns/supports/legs
• Base connections
• Support to longitudinal connection

Mast
Mast
Base Connection

Pipe Subway See ‘Bridge’ Group above

• Retaining wall (Primary/Secondary)

Retaining Wall • Parapet beam/plinth
• Anchoring system

River Wall See ‘Retaining Wall’ Group above

Subway See ‘Bridge’ Group above

Tunnel See ‘Bridge’ Group above

Vault See ‘Bridge’ Group above

Table 10: Elements Significant to Structural Integrity

18
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

3.5.6 Principal Inspection Interval adjustment factor, FPII

The Principal Inspection Interval adjustment factor, FPII, takes account of the current
and/or proposed Principal Inspection Interval. The Principal Inspection Interval
adjustment factor can be calculated using Equation 2:

PPII
FPII =
6 years

Equation 2

Where FPII = Principal Inspection Interval adjustment factor

PPII = Proposed Principal Inspection Interval in years (between 1 – 12 years)
The analysis should be initially undertaken for the time-based 6 year inspection interval
to determine the current level of risk. Based on the outcome of the initial analysis the
inspection interval should be increased/decreased or maintained as appropriate and the
resulting level of risk for the second run of the analysis be calculated accordingly. This
should enable risk profiling to be undertaken that compares the time-based inspection
intervals to the risk-based inspection intervals (also see Section 3.12).

3.6 Consequence of Failure

3.6.1 Overview of Consequence of Failure
The consequence of failure is evaluated as a combination of the:
• Magnitude of Failure of the structure or its elements (Section 3.6.2); and
• Socio-Economic importance based on the features importance, i.e. the route
carried/obstacle crossed and the structure importance, i.e. which parts of the
community it services (Section 3.6.3).
The scores for each of these criteria are combined using Equation 3 below:

CF = 0.6 x MoFS + 0.40 x SEIS but not < 1 or > 100

Equation 3

Where CF = Consequence of Failure

MoFS = Magnitude of Failure Score
SEIS = Socio-Economic Importance
3.6.2 Magnitude of Failure Score, MoFS
The consequence of failure of a structure and/or its element(s) depends on a wide
range of factors; significant criteria where data is readily available are the condition and
dimensions of the structure and/or the elements of a structure.
Failure is not necessarily the collapse of the element/structure, but may be failure of
drainage elements or expansions joints which affect the function and durability of the
structure.
As such, the Failure Score of a structure is based on:
• The size of the structure, i.e. span length for a bridge, footbridge, culvert, gantry,
chamber, pipe subway, subway, tunnel and vault; and the height for a retaining wall
river wall, mast and catenary lighting.
• The potential extent of failure, e.g. local damage or global collapse.

19
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

The Failure Scores are shown in Table 11 below.

Span Length or Height

Extent of Failure ≤ 3m > 3 to ≤ 10m > 10 to ≤ 25m > 25m

Local damage 10 10 10 10

Structural collapse 40 45 65 85

Table 11: Magnitude of Failure Score, MoFS

When the analysis is undertaken for groups of structures with similar characteristics, the
structure size and potential extent of failure of the structure that has the worse condition
in the group should be used.
3.6.3 Socio-Economic Importance Score, SEIS
If deterioration or damage remains undetected and subsequent appropriate
maintenance activities are not identified and undertaken, it has potential to impact on
social and economic factors relating to the local and wider community, e.g. accessibility
to community services, business deliveries, access to leisure facilities, etc. These are
important considerations and can lead to adverse public opinion and “bad press” if not
managed accordingly.
The Socio-Economic Importance Score is used to evaluate consequence in terms of:
• Inconvenience to the community due to diversions, delays and restrictions.
• Inconvenience to businesses due to diversions, delays and restrictions.
These effects can be difficult to quantify but it is considered that there is a close
relationship between these and the route supported by or crossed by the structure.
The Socio- Economic Importance Score is therefore selected from Table 12 based on
the route supported or adjacent to and the obstacle crossed by a structure.
When the analysis is undertaken for groups of structures with similar characteristics, the
route supported by and obstacle crossed by the structure that has the worse condition
in the group should be used.

20
 TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

Route supported by or adjacent to the structure

Unclassified,
B and C Class A Class /
Disused Cyclist and
Road Principal Road
Pedestrian

Waste
Ground/disused/non-
Obstacle crossed by the structure

0 20 30 50
navigable watercourse

Unclassified, Cyclist
and Pedestrian 10 30 50 70

B and C Class (local

access / distributor)
Road and Business 30 50 70 90
Premises

Navigable watercourse
and A Class / Principal 50 70 90 110
Road

Railway
70 90 110 120

Table 12: Socio-Economic Importance Score, SEIS

3.7 Risk Score and Risk based Inspection Intervals

The risk posed by a group of structures, an individual structure and/or an element of
[8]
very high importance (as defined by the CSS inspection procedure ) due to
deterioration or damage is evaluated as a function of the probability and consequence
of rapid deterioration, damage or failure.
The risk score and associated rating is obtained from Table 13 below while the risk
based inspection intervals are derived based on the risk rating and Table 14 below.

21
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

Probability of Rapid Deterioration, Damage or Failure

Consequence
of Failure Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
1 – < 30 30 – < 50 50 – < 70 70 – < 90 90 – 100

Very Low
Very Low Very Low Low Moderate Moderate
1 – < 10
1 15 25 40 60

Low
Very Low Low Moderate Moderate High
10 – < 30
15 25 40 50 70

Moderate
Low Low Moderate High High
30 – < 50
25 30 50 70 80

High
Low Moderate Moderate High Very High
50 – < 70
30 40 60 80 90

Very High
Moderate Moderate High Very High Very High
70 – 100
40 60 80 90 100

Table 13: Risk Score and Ratings Matrix

Risk Rating Alterations to Principal Inspection Interval

Very Low Increase the Principal Inspection interval

Low Increase the Principal Inspection Interval

Moderate Maintain the Principal Inspection Interval

High Reduce the Principal Inspection Interval

Very High Reduce the Principal Inspection Interval

Table 14: Risk based Inspection Matrix for Amending Principal Inspections Intervals

A risk rating of ‘Very Low’, ‘Low’ and ‘Moderate’ is considered to represent structures
that have inspection intervals which are broadly acceptable or negligible in terms of risk
mitigation. This does not preclude the analysis being repeated for structures with ‘Very
Low’ and ‘Low’ risk ratings with an appropriately increased inspection interval so that
the associated resulting risk rating would be ‘Moderate’. A risk rating of ‘High’ and ‘Very
High’ represents structures that pose critical risk(s) and are considered to have
inappropriate inspection intervals. For these structures the analysis should be repeated
with an appropriately decreased inspection interval so that the associated resulting risk
score would be ‘Moderate’.

22
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

Note: The RBI process described through Sections 3.4 to 3.7 can result in an uneven
distribution of the PI costs over time, i.e., more resources being required in some years
than others. This leads to difficulties in resource management and securing budget for
inspections. A smoothing process is introduced in order to smooth the PI cost profile
over the programme and hence ensure that there is not wide variation between
inspection resource requirements between different years.

3.8 Develop Unsmoothed PI Programme

The PI interval, derived from the RBI approach, is used in combination with the last
known structure PI date to produce an unsmooth PI programme, i.e., by adding the
proposed inspection interval to the last inspection date in order to determine when the
next PI should be conducted (see Equation 4).

DSI = DLI + PII

Equation 4

Where, DLI = Date of Last Inspection

PII = Proposed Inspection Interval
DSI = Date of Scheduled Inspection
Note: If a structure’s Date of Last Inspection is unknown, then the Date of Scheduled
Inspection is set as the next financial year. In addition, if the DSI calculated from the
above equation indicates a date in the past, then also the structure is set to undergo a
PI in the next financial year.

3.9 Determine Target Annual Cost of Inspections

The average cost required to undertake PIs over a 30 year programme is set as the
initial target annual cost of PIs for each financial year.

Total cost of PIs required for the stock over 30 years

Target Annual Cost of PIs =
30
Equation 5

A 30 year period is considered to get a reasonable estimate for the annual average cost
of inspections. However, the PI planning can be done for a shorter time frame (e.g. 12
years) using this target value, if preferred.

3.10 Develop Provisional Smoothed PI Programme

A provisional smoothed PI programme is developed by considering the initial smoothing
requirements for the financial year. These are determined by comparing the cost of PIs
due in that financial year, including any PIs moved forward from previous years, against
the initial target cost of PIs. If the unsmoothed cost of PIs is higher than the target
annual cost of PIs, then the structures with lower risk scores (calculated from Step 5 in
Figure 2) are moved forward to the following financial year. If the unsmoothed cost of
PIs is lower than the target annual cost of PIs, then structures with the higher risk
scores in future financial years are moved back into the current financial year.

3.11 Develop Final Smoothed RBI Programme

For each structure, the interval between the last PI year and the proposed PI year from
the provisional PI programme is taken as the revised PI interval and the risk score is
recalculated. If it falls within the acceptable range, i.e. in very low, low or moderate risk
category in Table 14, then the PI will be programmed according to the provisional

23
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

smoothed PI programme. If the risk score is outside the acceptable range, i.e. in high or
very high risk category in Table 14, then structures will undergo Step 8 in Figure 2 (i.e.
provisional RBI programme). This process will be repeated until all structures fall within
the acceptable risk range.
Note: If it is not possible to maintain the target annual average cost without exceeding
the acceptable risk level in a particular year, then all the structures, which are identified
as requiring a PI in that year, need to be inspected in that year (or in earlier years). This
ensures that the methodology gives the higher priority for the safety over the cost.

3.12 Risk Profiling

It is anticipated that by using the risk based inspections framework the overall level of
risk and hence the overall level of liability faced by the organisation can be minimised.
The risk profile for the time-based and the risk-based inspection regimes can be
evaluated as follows:
• Determine the risk score for each individual structure and/or groups of structures
with similar characteristics (a histogram such as that shown below could then be
plotted);
• Calculate the Cumulative Risk Score = Sum(Risk Scorei x Number of Structures)
with risk scorei) for both the time-based and the risk-based inspection regimes
• Evaluate the “Risk Change” = Cumulative Risk Score(Time-based – Risk-based)
The risk profiles of a sample data set are compared in Figure 3.

24
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

Risk Profile
Time Based PI Regime Unsmoothed Risk Based PI Regime Smoothed Risk Based PI Regime
300

250

200
Number of Structures

150

100

50

0
1 15 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Risk Score

Risk Band 1: Risk Band 2: Risk Band 3:

• Acceptable level of risk • Optimum level of risk • Critical level of risk
• Acceptable PI Interval • Suitable PI Interval • Unsuitable PI Interval
but may be inefficient • Decrease PI Interval
• Increase PI Interval so so that Risk Band 2 is
that Risk Band 2 is achieved
achieved

Figure 3 : Example showing risk profiles for time based, unsmoothed RBI and smoothed
RBI approaches

Figure 4 shows an example for comparison of the PI programmes, i.e. Time Based,
Unsmoothed RBI and Smoothed RBI, over a 30 year period.

25
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

30 Year PI Programme
Time Based PI Regime Unsmoothed Risk Based PI Regime Smoothed Risk Based PI Regime

£1000k

£900k

£800k

£700k
Annual Cost (£)

£600k

£500k

£400k

£300k

£200k

£100k

£k
12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

17/18

18/19

19/20

20/21

21/22

22/23

23/24

24/25

25/26

26/27

27/28

28/29

29/30

30/31

31/32

32/33

33/34

34/35

35/36

36/37

37/38

38/39

39/40

40/41

41/42
Financial Year

Figure 4 : Example showing PI profiles over 30 years for time based, unsmoothed RBI and smoothed RBI approaches

26
TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

4 References
1. CIRIA C677: Whole-life infrastructure asset management: good practice guide for civil
infrastructure, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, 2009.
2. BD 63 Inspection of Highway Structures, DMRB 3.1.4, TSO.
3. Management of Highway Structures: A code of Practice, TSI, 2005
4. Value Management of the Capital Renewals Programme 2010/11, Part 1: Overview, TfL, 2010.
5. Inspection Manual for Highway Structures, TSO, 2007.
6. Framework for Highways Asset Management, County Surveyors Society, April 2004.
7. A.K. Lee, C. Serratella, G. Wang & R. Basu, ABS a Flexible Approaches to Risk-Based Inspection
of FPSOs, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC 18364), Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 1–4 May
2006.
8. Highways Agency & CSS Bridges Group, Guidance Document for Performance Measurement of
Highway Structures, Part B1: Condition Performance Indicator, Atkins, 2007.
9. BD 79: The Management of Substandard Highway Structures, DMRB.
10. Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works, Volume 1: Specification for Highway Works,
Series 1900: Protection of Steelwork Against Corrosion, TSO, 2005.
11. ISO 9223 Corrosion of Metals and Alloys - Corrosivity of Atmospheres - Classification First
Edition, International Organization for Standardization, 1992.
12. BS EN ISO 12944, Part 2: Paints and varnishes - Corrosion protection of steel structures by
protective paint systems - Classification of environments, British Standards Institution, 1998.
13. BS 5400, Part 4: Steel, concrete and composite bridges - Code of practice for design of concrete
bridges, British Standards Institution, 1990.
14. BS EN 206, Part 1: Concrete. Specification, performance, production and conformity, British
Standards Institution, 2000.
15. BS 8500, Part 1: Concrete - Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 - Part 1: Method of
Specifying and Guidance for the Specifier, British Standards Institution, 2006
16. Handbook for the Examination of Structures – NR/L3/CIV/006, Network Rail, 2010.
17. Risk Based Inspections – Guidance Note, Welsh Assembly Government, February 2010.
18. Risk Based Bridge Evaluations – A Texas Perspective, Kowalik, A., Department of Transportation,
ASCE Structures Congress’ 09, Austin, Texas, 2009.
19. Bridge Asset Management – Reduce Maintenance Costs and Improve Reliability with Risk-Based
Management, Lloyd’s Register.

27
 TfL Good Practice Guide:
Risk Based Inspections for Highway Structures
Version 3.0

Appendix A
Interpretation of the Condition Performance Indicator for Individual
Structures[8]

CPIAv CPICrit
Range
(All Structure Elements) (Worst Critical Element)

▪ Likely to be no significant defects in any

elements ▪ Insignificant defects/damage
90 ≤ x ≤ 100
▪ Structure is in a "Very Good" condition ▪ Capacity unaffected
overall

▪ Mostly minor defects/damage, but may also ▪ Minor defects/damage

80 ≤ x < 90 be some moderate defects
▪ Capacity unlikely to be unaffected
▪ Structure is in a "Good" condition overall

▪ Minor-to-Moderate defects/damage ▪ Minor to moderate defects/damage

▪ Structure is in a “Fair” condition overall ▪ Capacity may be slightly affected
65 ≤ x < 80
▪ One or more functions of the structure may
be significantly affected

▪ Moderate-to-Severe defects/damage ▪ Moderate to severe

defects/damage
▪ Structure is in a "Poor" condition overall
40 ≤ x < 65
▪ Capacity may be significantly
▪ One or more functions of the bridge may be
affected
severely affected

▪ Severe defects/damage on a number of ▪ Severe defects/damage

elements
▪ Failure or possible failure of critical
▪ One or more elements may have failed element
0 ≤ x < 40
▪ Structure is in a "Very Poor" condition ▪ Capacity may be severely affected
overall
▪ Structure may need to be weight
▪ Structure may be unserviceable restricted or closed to traffic

28