PSI - Issue 62

Alessandro Lipari et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 24–31 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

31

8

4. Conclusions In this paper, the UK and Italian risk-based methodologies for determining the need of a structural assessment are presented and applied to two cases studies. The Italian methodology is qualitative in nature being based on Classes of Attention, whereas the UK methodology is quantitative. The bridge condition level is an obvious input to the process; however, other input data are required and these differ in the two methodologies: for instance, traffic data and structural type are included only in the Italian guidelines; conversely, the presence of hidden critical elements and the confidence level of available documentation are explicitly included in the UK guidelines, while in the Italian guidelines they are not. For Bridge I, in poor conditions with damaged critical elements, both methodologies consistently resulted in assigning the greatest structural risk with a structural assessment to be undertaken in the short term. On the other hand, for Bridge II, in fair conditions with no critical elements, the Italian guidelines resulted again in the greatest structural risk class, mainly due to the impact of the structural type and the assumed traffic volumes, whilst the UK guidelines do not even recommend an assessment to be undertaken. This suggests that parameters other than those related to the structural condition affect the outcome of the Italian methodology much more than the UK. To tackle this, it is proposed to use a simple priorisation strategy for Italian bridges within the top Class of Attention based on the actual level of deterioration. Both methodologies try to reduce variation in decision-making by breaking down the component decisions; however, a certain degree of subjectivity in the parameter choice and input data, often related to a lack of reliable information, cannot fully remove it. Acknowledgements This study was supported by Fabre (Research consortium for the evaluation and monitoring of bridges, viaducts and other structures, www.consorziofabre.it/en) within the activities of the Fabre-ANAS 2021-2024 research program. Any opinion expressed in the paper does not necessarily reflect the view of the funder. References ANSFISA 2022. Istruzioni Operative per l'applicazione delle LINEE GUIDA PER LA CLASSIFICAZIONE E GESTIONE DEL RISCHIO, LA VALUTAZIONE DELLA SICUREZZA ED IL MONITORAGGIO DEI PONTI ESISTENTI. Bongiovanni, G., Celilli, A., Clemente, P., Giovinazzi, S. & Ormando, C., 2021. Seismic response of a r.c. viaduct during different earthquakes. In: Cunha, A. & Caetano, E. (Eds.), 10th Int. Conf. on Structural Health Monitoring of Intelligent Infrastructure, Porto. Buffarini, G., Clemente, P., Giovinazzi, S., Ormando, C., Pollino, M. & Rosato, V., 2022. Preventing and Managing Risks Induced by Natural Hazards to Critical Infrastructures. Infrastructures, 7. Chase, S. B., Adu-Gyamfi, Y., Aktan, A. E. & Minaie, E. 2016. Synthesis of National and International Methodologies Used for Bridge Health Indices. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration. Clemente, P., 2020. Monitoring and evaluation of bridges: lessons from the Polcevera Viaduct collapse in Italy. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 10, 177-182. Clemente, P., Bongiovanni, G., Buffarini, G. & Saitta, F., 2019. Structural health status assessment of a cable-stayed bridge by means of experimental vibration analysis. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 9, 655-669. Highways England 2020. CS 451 Structural review and assessment of highway structures. Highway Structures & Bridges. Highways England. Highways England 2021. CS 450 Inspection of highway structures. Highway Structures & Bridges. Highways England. Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti 2022. Linee guida per la classificazione e gestione del rischio, la valutazione della sicurezza ed il monitoraggio dei ponti esistenti. National Highways 2022. CS 454 Assessment of highway bridges and structures. Highway Structures & Bridges. Highways England. Pregnolato, M., Giordano, P. F., Panici, D., Prendergast, L. J. & Limongelli, M. P., 2022. A comparison of the UK and Italian national risk-based guidelines for assessing hydraulic actions on bridges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. Sandberg, J., Pires, C., McKay, N., Laco, J. & Mitchell, R., 2022. Inspection and assessment, in: ICE Manual of Bridge Engineering, Parke, G. & Hewson, N. (Eds.), Third ed. ICE Publishing, London. Santarsiero, G., Masi, A., Picciano, V. & Digrisolo, A., 2021. The Italian Guidelines on Risk Classification and Management of Bridges: Applications and Remaks on Large Scale Risk Assessments. Infrastructures, 6.