Next Article in Journal
Improving Safety Culture in Pakistan’s Construction Industry Through Regulatory Reforms and Training Interventions
Previous Article in Journal
Contemporary Dwelling in Serbia: Insights from a Survey Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Review

Scoped Review and Evaluation of Ontologies in Operation and Maintenance of Bridge Facilities

Technical University of Denmark, DTU Construct Brovej 118, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2026, 16(1), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16010081
Submission received: 19 May 2025 / Revised: 14 August 2025 / Accepted: 27 August 2025 / Published: 24 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Construction Management, and Computers & Digitization)

Abstract

Operation and maintenance of civil infrastructure facilities such as bridges is the most extended period of the entire lifetime of the structures. This phase provides many opportunities that benefit society. However, such a wide span of operation also exposes bridges to various threats and risks. Therefore, knowledge domains such as Bridge Management System and life-cycle management are crucial ingredients for maintaining the level of performance of bridges and their components. Bridge Management System (BMS), since its emergence in 1975, has been constantly evolving to meet the needs of the industry with advancements in technology through new paradigms. To accelerate the process of creating and managing the data and information about bridge structures, the terms Bridge Information Modeling (BRiM) and Civil Information Modeling have appeared more frequently. Inspired by Building Information Modeling, the incentive is to manage the information better, from the concept until the end-of-life. The amount of created data is extensive and versatile. To address the issue of potential unstructured and heterogeneous information, academic and industrial researchers have been developing classifications, categories, and taxonomies. Given the advancements and growth of Semantic Web technologies, and qualities such as interoperability, machine-readable format, and extensibility, ontology development has become prominent. Current experience and success in creating and adapting ontologies into BIM workflow set examples for other branches in the built environment like civil engineering. Ontologies describing various areas of the bridge domain have been developed. However, proposals of how such information models could be aligned and integrated are seldom seen. This paper presents scoped evaluation of ontologies from bridge operation and maintenance domain. It gives an overview of how well different subjects are compliment entire topic, and it provides recommendations on modeling and evaluating ontologies related to a particular use case. It proposes a methodology that can be used for further development, alignment, and finding ontology gaps in the bridge domain.
Keywords: bridge; operation and maintenance; ontology; infrastructure bridge; operation and maintenance; ontology; infrastructure

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Smolira, P.; Karlshøj, J. Scoped Review and Evaluation of Ontologies in Operation and Maintenance of Bridge Facilities. Buildings 2026, 16, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16010081

AMA Style

Smolira P, Karlshøj J. Scoped Review and Evaluation of Ontologies in Operation and Maintenance of Bridge Facilities. Buildings. 2026; 16(1):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16010081

Chicago/Turabian Style

Smolira, Piotr, and Jan Karlshøj. 2026. "Scoped Review and Evaluation of Ontologies in Operation and Maintenance of Bridge Facilities" Buildings 16, no. 1: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16010081

APA Style

Smolira, P., & Karlshøj, J. (2026). Scoped Review and Evaluation of Ontologies in Operation and Maintenance of Bridge Facilities. Buildings, 16(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16010081

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop