PSI - Issue 78

Carmine Lupo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 185–192

192

In summary, although various IMs show similar overall trends in seismic performance, their corresponding fragility curves may vary significantly due to differences in their definitions and scaling. The limited availability of data at high IM levels introduces further uncertainty. To improve the robustness of fragility assessments, future work should incorporate a broader range of structural typologies and a more extensive set of ground motion records, ensuring a uniform distribution across the full range of IM. References Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (2018), Law Decree 109/2018 “Urgent Provisi ons for the City of Genoa, the Security of the National Infrastructure and Transport Network, the Seismic Events of 2016 and 2017, Work and Other Emergencies. (18G00137)”, Italy. Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (2020), Superior Council for Public Works, Guidelines for Risk Classification and Management, Safety Assessment and Monitoring of Existing Bridges, Italy Petti L, Lupo C and De Gaetano C M (2023), A Methodological Framework for Bridge Surveillance. Applied Sciences, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), Basel, Switzerland, vol. 13. Naeim Fand Kelly J M (1999), Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: From Theory to Practice . Wiley. Skinner R I, Robinson W H and McVerry, G. H. (1993). An Introduction to Seismic Isolation . Wiley. Palazzo B and Petti L (1997), Stochastic response comparison between base-isolated and fixed-base structures. Earthquake Spectra , 13(1), 77 – 99. DesRoches R et al (2010), Bridge retrofit practices in the United States. Journal of Bridge Engineering , 15(5), 573 – 583. Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (2019), Operational Plan for Infrastructure Development and Cohesion Fund 2014 – 2020 (Law n. 190 of 23 December 2014, c. 703 - Deliberate CIPE n. 25 of 10/08/2016), Italy. Pierluigi B (2019), Dossier UPI, Bridges: the results of the monitoring of the Provinces. ISPRA-Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (2021), Report on hydrogeological instability in Italy: Hazard levels and risk indicators . CNR/IRPI-National Research Council/Institute for Geo-Hydrological Protection (2022), Landslide and flood risk in Italy: Assessment and mapping tools . INGV-National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (2020), Parametric Catalogue of Italian Earthquakes (CPTI15) . De Biagi et al. (2021), Recent seismic hazard and risk assessment in Italy: Methodologies and applications. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering , 19(12), 4995 – 5020. D’Auria L et al (2023), Ground deformation and seismicity at Campi Flegrei caldera (Southern Italy): New insights from recent unrest episodes. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research , 431, 107745. Zonta D and Casas J R (2021), Bridge risk classification after the Genoa Morandi bridge collapse: The Italian LG20 guidelines. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering , 17(7), 936 – 949. Brühwiler E et al (2022), Bridge maintenance in Europe: Lessons from recent failures and advances after LG20, Engineering Structures , 260, 114168. Caprili S and Salvatore W (2021), A decision support framework for risk-based bridge management: Application of the LG20 guidelines. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring , 11(2), 395 – 412. Inaudi D and Zonta D (2023), Digital twin and SHM integration for LG20-compliant bridge assessment. Sensors , 23(1), 245. Aiello M A and Caddemi S (2022), Infrastructure management in small municipalities: Barriers and criticalities in LG20 implementation. Procedia Structural Integrity , 37, 345 – 352. Petti L et al (2024) An innovative Bridge Surveillance Methodological Framework: The case of the A3 Highway (Southern Italy). Procedia Struct. Integrity . 62, 16 – 23. Lupo C et al (2024), The A3 highway Monitoring Model for Bridges Surveillance-Results and Considerations. Procedia Struct. Integr ., 64, 645 – 652. Buttarazzi F et al (2023), Assessment of existing bridges: difficulties and challenges following the Italian experience, ce/papers, vol. 6, p.p. 198 204. Fox M J et al (2023), Application of the new Italian assessment guidelines to a 1960s prestressed concrete road bridge, Structural Concrete, vol. 24, p.p. 583-598. Santarsiero G et al (2021), The Italian Guidelines on Risk Classification and Management of Bridges: Applications and Remarks on Large Scale Risk Assessments, Infrastructures, 6, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), Basel. Pelà L, Roca P and Cervera M (2019), Continuum damage model for historic masonry bridges. Engineering Structures, 190, 78 – 90. Pinto A. et al (2020), Seismic assessment and retrofit of simply supported bridges in Italy. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 25(6), 04020035. Buckle I G et al. (2006), Seismic isolation of highway bridges. MCEER Monograph Series. Borzi B et al (2015), Seismic risk assessment and retrofit of existing bridges. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(6), 1705 – 1726. Braga F et al (2021), Italian guidelines for the seismic risk classification of bridges. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19(11), 4559 – 4591. Sabetta F and Pugliese A (1987), Attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from italian strong-motion records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 77 (5): 1491 – 1513. Petti L and Mammone A (2019), Effectiveness analysis of deck isolation retrofit for simply supported span bridge by means of combined fragility functions. Atti del XVIII Convegno ANIDIS L'ingegneria Sismica in Italia: Ascoli Piceno, 15-19 settembre 2019, 39-45. Melchers RE (1999), Structural Reliability, Analysis and Prediction, 2nd ed. John Wiley& Sons.