PSI - Issue 84

Chiara Galatà et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 84 (2026) 1–8

3

for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) (3rd ed., 2018) (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2018). It starts with inventory and routine NBIS inspections led by an NBIS – qualified Team Leader: the owner maintains the bridge file and Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory (SNBI) records; periodic visual inspections ( ≤ 24 months, up to 48 by programme approval) document condition ratings (0–9), defects, photos and access–critical areas (bearings, joints, PT anchor/low–point zones). As warranted, the Team Leader schedules in– depth/special/underwater inspections and defines follow–ups (e.g., NDT, Load and Resistance Factor Rating). The first decision gate is whether findings constitute a Critical Finding (immediate action) or require a load–rating (LRFR); otherwise, the bridge returns to routine cycles with flagged items. Recent updates (2022–23) include the shift to Nonredundant Steel Tension Member (NSTM) inspections, Service/Scour Monitoring types, risk–based intervals and strengthened training/registry. The MBE organises practice (bridge files, Bridge Management System, inspection, material testing, LRFR/LFR/ASR, fatigue, load testing) and formalises QC/QA. In California Caltrans standard adopts an element–level field model: inspectors quantify National Bridge Elements (NBE) and BME and assign Condition States (CS1–CS4) with locations, quantities and photos using the multi–path distress language. The initial pass builds a consistent element inventory (deck/wearing surface, joints, bearings, PTPC superstructure, substructure) and captures extent/severity. This phase does not decide capacity; it standardises the condition dataset that later triggers Structural Review when CS4 is present (or substantial CS3) and feeds deterioration forecasting and budgeting in the BMS. PT–specific diagnostics remain owner–driven or per additional guidance. 2.3. France – CEREMA/ITSEOA, Fascicule 32 (PC Bridges) The ITSEOA Fascicule 32 (2022–23) complements the core ITSEOA and mandates a maintained dossier d’ouvrage. Initial inspection covers routine/evaluation visits and periodic detailed inspections (IDP), verifying PT system identification/layout, drainage/waterproofing, joints/bearings, and PT anchor/low–point areas, with defects mapped by severity/extent and photographs. A risk analysis (hazard × vulnerability × consequences) can tighten scope and frequencies. Where PT–suspect symptoms arise (e.g., grout–void indicators, persistent wetting at low points, anchor distress), the owner launches a targeted inspection plan (endoscopy, IE/UT tomography, electrochemical potentials, acoustic wire–break monitoring, vibratory stress estimates, anchor tests) before deciding on reinforced/high surveillance or repair. Diagnostic toolkits are prescriptively linked to interventions (material repairs, waterproofing/drainage restoration, external prestressing, jacking, bearing re–levelling) with acceptance testing/instrumentation. 2.4. Netherlands – Rijkswaterstaat RBK (RTD 1006) for assessment of existing bridges The RBK (v1.2.1) (Rijkswaterstaat (RWS), 2022) starts with a Plan of Approach (PoA): desk study, assumptions, and a risk–informed inspection plan. The initial inspection is visual (with NDT as needed) to confirm detailing, bearing conditions, continuity, cracking and PT – critical areas; outputs are a traceable evidence set, a proposed verification level (AI/AII), and – when data gaps dominate – plans for additional testing or proof–load testing (PLT). Verification proceeds at AII, escalating to AIII with proportionate measures if non-compliant. Target safety levels distinguish use/alteration/new – build/rejection; for RWS bridges, use level aligns with β≈ 3.3 and a ≥ 30 – year residual life. For concrete, RBK requires linear – elastic FE with realistic stiffness (cracked sections), bearing modelling and limited redistribution (~20%); nonlinear FE may be added by agreement. 2.5. Comparative Remarks In this section we synthesise the four regulatory frameworks (Italy, United States –federal and Caltrans, France, Netherlands) into a compact comparison to clarify where they converge and where they diverge in governing existing PTPC bridges. The table contrasts their core philosophy, scope, data model/unit of assessment, inspection ladder, PT – specific content, risk/prioritisation logic, structural verification, and decision outputs. We list Caltrans separately from the U.S. federal framework because its element–level implementation (NBE/BME/ADE, CS1– CS4) propose a different operational purpose from NBIS/BIRM/MBE (national requirements, rating and QC/QA). As summarised in Table 1, the rows set out how each aspect is addressed across the frameworks, whereas the columns outline each