PSI - Issue 84

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Procedia Structural Integrity 84 (2026) 167–174

© 2026 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 the scientific committee of the Conference Keywords: Bridges; Post-tension; Prioritization; Risk management. Abstract The assessment and management of existing post-tensioned concrete bridges remain a critical challenge in infrastructure maintenance. To address this issue, the British Standard CS465 introduces two systematic approaches to prioritize interventions based on the outcomes of risk review and assessment, namely the risk rating and mean hazard risk level score. Both methods aim to establish an objective hierarchy of urgency for remedial actions, yet they differ in formulation and sensitivity to input parameters. This study aims to assess the robustness of the two methods by means of a practical application. A multi-span bridge comprising more than fifty spans and several hundred critical points is considered as a case study. By varying key input parameters such as the structural form, presence of vulnerable details, and structural condition, this article is meant to evaluate how either method responds to changes in risk profile. The risk rating method aggregates multiple weighted factors to yield a normalized score, while the mean hazard risk level score derives the evaluation from the average severity of identified hazards based on likelihood and consequence. The comparative analysis reveals that the risk rating approach offers a broader overview influenced by construction and contextual parameters, whereas the hazard score approach is more responsive to localized deterioration and inspection outcomes. The findings underscore the importance of method selection in resource allocation and maintenance planning. III Fabre Conference: Existing Bridges, Viaducts, and Tunnels: Research, Innovation, and Applications Comparative Evaluation of Prioritization Methods for Post Tensioned Concrete Bridges According to CS 465 L. Zoccolini a *, C. Pettorruso a , D. Rossi a , E. Bruschi a , and V. Quaglini a a Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, Milano 20133, Italy

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +02.2399.4248. E-mail address: luca.zoccolini@polimi.it

2452-3216 © 2026 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 the scientific committee of the Conference 10.1016/j.prostr.2026.06.023