PSI - Issue 84

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Procedia Structural Integrity 84 (2026) 425–432

III Fabre Conference: Existing Bridges, Viaducts, and Tunnels: Research, Innovation, and Applications Decision making in bridge management: comparing the prioritization techniques of two Italian operators Matteo Vozzi a , Giancarlo Costa b , Alberto Contardi a *, Francesca Brighenti c , Daniele Zonta d , Maria Pina Limongelli b

a SINA s.p.a., Milano, Italy b Politecnico di Milano, Italy c Nplus s.r.l., Rovereto, Italy d Università degli studi di Trento, Italy

© 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: Bridge management, prioritization, risk analysis, aged bridges, comparative analysis, methodology. Abstract The management of civil infrastructures presents significant challenges due to limited budgets and inherent uncertainties in both structural performance and external conditions. Prioritizing structural assessments and maintenance interventions is essential to allocate resources efficiently, ensure safety and extend the service life of infrastructure assets. Among the available approaches, risk-based and reliability-based prioritization techniques have gained prominence in both academic research and engineering practice. This paper presents a comparative analysis of prioritization strategies proposed by two Italian bridge operators: the SINA company, whose method is currently under experimental development, and the Autonomous Province of Trento. The study applies both methodologies to the same bridge network in Northern Italy, allowing for a direct comparison of how each operator prioritizes assessments and interventions. The comparison highlights key differences in methodology, data requirements, and decision-making criteria. Finally, the paper offers insights into the strengths and limitations of each approach, including their suitability for different operational contexts.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-3355648828. E-mail address: alberto.contardi@sina.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.2026.06.055