 Good morning, everyone. So I'm presenting a fact sheet related with performance indicators for road bridges. This is a work developed with two more colleagues and Mandika and Alfred Strauss. So as an overview of this presentation, I will try to explain how performance indicators and performance goals they are framed and they interact. Then our performance indicators are closer than categorized. I should say that this work is highly related with the other cost action that is ongoing. Professor Honkas was presented yesterday. And this is a work that is still ongoing and the database is still under progress. Then I will try to link this with damaged assessment and finally explain what are the further steps in this structure. So basically the idea and suggested in this fact sheet is that performance indicators and performance goals should be framed in this structure. So we have two columns. So the first one with the performance indicators and the second one, the performance goals which they are interconnected. And they are, let's say, the performance indicators are grouped in different indicators related to the technical indicators, sustainable indicators and socioeconomic indicators. On the other side, we can look to this framework as divided in three levels. So at the component level, system level and the network level. So regarding these levels, at the component level, the inspections are many carried out by components and format by three main subsystems. So the sub-structure as presented in the left, the sub-structure, and the roadway and the equipments. Regarding the second level, the system level, the importance of the component is important about the impact to the entire structure. And this is mainly suggested to do in three main criterias, the total safety, traffic safety and durability criteria. And finally, at the network level, what is most important is try to prioritize the repair ranking, based on the bridge importance in the network, mainly based in five criteria, the road category, annual average daily traffic, the distance, and the total length. And also, related to the bridge condition assessment, which is based on four criteria, the structural safety and stability, traffic safety, durability, and the general bridge condition. So looking in another perspective, it is also important to try to cluster these performance indicators, so it becomes more easily to identify their origin, methods and procedures for the revealing and quantification, and level and the extent of their influence to a certain structural performance type. For example, related to the damage assessment, normally this implies a procedure that is related to the damage detection, damage identification, evaluation of the damage and damage rituals, and finally the damage assessment. Concerning the damage detection, this can be conducted mainly by four options, visual inspection, non-destructive testing, provenance, structural monitoring techniques. So, given an example of a damage categorization, what we present in this table is that we can group the damage type by characteristics, try to identify a damage indicator for each damage type, a damage detection, a damage threshold, and a damage evaluation. Under the scope of this cost action, what we are aiming to try to, based on this categorization, identify the performance indicators that might be detected, evaluated, and possibly quantified with available SAGEM technologies. For example, for the deflections, we could try to monitor the deflections a long time, but we are trying to identify those types of systems, for example, we are based on a pipe water systems or video or other options. But this is, as I said in the beginning, ongoing and we are trying to go to the further step which is identifying those technologies to support these assessments. So finally, as for the steps, we want to identify all performance indicators that might be detected, evaluated, and possibly quantified with available SAGEM technologies, and also to extend their application to the performance and assessment of structures in general. Quantify relations between indicators and levels of their contribution to a certain structural performance indicators. So we give special attention to these factors. We are trying to make a survey on the research-based performance indicators, mainly those that may be put in practice, and those at least development is worth investing. And finally, improving existing structural performance assessment methods under this framework. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much.