@inproceedings{oai:kutarr.kochi-tech.ac.jp:00000893,
 author = {Miyata, Masato and Shiraishi, Takuto and Nishioka, Takashi and Nasu, Seigo},
 book = {Society for Social Management Systems Internet Journal},
 issue = {1},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {In the high economic growth period 1955-1974 in Japan, there were substantial new infrastructure needs, so reinforced concrete structures were built. Now Japan continues to use the same structures, but after the high economic growth period, chloride attack and other deterioration have been detected. In fact reinforced concrete is not permanent without maintenance. Now reinforced concrete structures built in the high economic growth period are approximately 30 to 50 years old and some of them are already deteriorated. In addition, the national and local governments’ financial conditions are tight, so existing operation and haphazard maintenance may not be sufficient for future substantial bridge deterioration. In such a situation, renewed maintenance by the bridge asset management system (BMS) is needed. BMS is expected to include deciding investment timing of maintenance, calculating and minimizing life cycle cost (LCC), and calculating and suggesting maximum maintenance effect. In fact BMS can anticipate decision support systems for consistent bridge safety and quality. In addition, BMS is found to be useful for meeting accountability requirements. In 2007, national and local governments started operation of BMS. However, BMSs are now developing and their functional capabilities are not enough for bridge management, so in Japan BMS is not popular. In Kochi Prefecture there are 2 BMSs, one for a prefectural bridge and another for a national road bridge. However, there is no substantial functional BMS in operation. Therefore this research will clarify the reasons for the smooth operation of the 2 BMS and suggest an improvement element. To improve BMS, it is suggested to use a physical deterioration model with deductive deterioration stage, maintenance methods for relevant stages, renewal periods for each stage and calculation of minimum LCC with maintenance plan for in-service period. For one bridge, implementing a minimum LCC maintenance plan to the limit of the renewal period is best; however, for substantial bridges this is not implemented because there are budget constraints for maintenance. In that situation, it is essential to consider a minimum LCC maintenance plan and renewal period on all stages, setting maintenance priorities and suggesting a total minimum cost for bridges. This research implements 5 bridge priorities under budget constraint.},
 publisher = {Society for Social Management Systems},
 title = {Enhanced Functionality for an Existing Bridge Management System},
 volume = {4},
 year = {2008}
}