PSI - Issue 62

ScienceDirect Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000 – 000 Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000 – 000 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 24–31

II Fabre Conference – Existing bridges, viaducts and tunnels: research, innovation and applications (FABRE24) A comparison of Italian and UK methods for establishing the need for structural assessment of bridges Alessandro Lipari a *, Giacomo Buffarini b , Paolo Clemente b , Niall McKay c , Chiara Ormando b II Fabre Conference – Existing bridges, viaducts and tunnels: research, innovation and applications (FABRE24) A comparison of Italian and UK methods for establishing the need for structural assessment of bridges Alessandro Lipari a *, Giacomo Buffarini b , Paolo Clemente b , Niall McKay c , Chiara Ormando b Abstract This paper compares the risk-based methodologies on the structural assessment of highway bridges underlying two national guidance documents, namely the well-established UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the recent Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s Guidelines. Both documents present risk -based methods for evaluating the need for a structural assessment, while exhibiting fundamental differences. For instance, the Italian methodology uses a qualitative approach combining hazard, vulnerability and exposure classes in order to determine whether a structural assessment is required, whereas the UK methodology uses a quantitative risk appraisal based on reliability and risk scores. Both methodologies are applied to the case study of two bridges, highlighting similarities and differences between the two methodologies. The comparison of these two risk-based approaches may allow for a better understanding of the governing factors and for potential improvement of guidelines. © 2024 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 ) Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific Board Members Keywords: highway bridges; risk-based methods; bridge standards; structural assessment. © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific Board Members a ENEA, Brindisi Research Centre, SS7 Via Appia km 706, 72100 Brindisi, Italy b ENEA, Casaccia Research Centre, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Roma, Italy c AtkinsRéalis, Dunedin House, Columbia Drive, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6BJ, United Kingdom a ENEA, Brindisi Research Centre, SS7 Via Appia km 706, 72100 Brindisi, Italy b ENEA, Casaccia Research Centre, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Roma, Italy c AtkinsRéalis, Dunedin House, Columbia Drive, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6BJ, United Kingdom Abstract This paper compares the risk-based methodologies on the structural assessment of highway bridges underlying two national guidance documents, namely the well-established UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the recent Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s Guidelines. Both documents present risk -based methods for evaluating the need for a structural assessment, while exhibiting fundamental differences. For instance, the Italian methodology uses a qualitative approach combining hazard, vulnerability and exposure classes in order to determine whether a structural assessment is required, whereas the UK methodology uses a quantitative risk appraisal based on reliability and risk scores. Both methodologies are applied to the case study of two bridges, highlighting similarities and differences between the two methodologies. The comparison of these two risk-based approaches may allow for a better understanding of the governing factors and for potential improvement of guidelines. © 2024 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 ) Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific Board Members Keywords: highway bridges; risk-based methods; bridge standards; structural assessment.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-0831-201254; fax: +39-0831-201255. E-mail/ address: alessandro.lipari@enea.it * Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-0831-201254; fax: +39-0831-201255. E-mail/ address: alessandro.lipari@enea.it

2452-3216 © 2024 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4. 0 ) Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific Board Member s 2452-3216 © 2024 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4. 0 ) Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific Board Member s

2452-3216 © 2024 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific Board Members 10.1016/j.prostr.2024.09.012