PSI - Issue 84

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

4

framework’s internal consistency programme (e.g., risk–based AC in Italy; PT–prescriptive diagnostics in France; reliability/β targets in the Netherlands; national standardisation and rating in the U.S.). This comparative view sets the stage for the subsequent discussion on transferable best practices and for mapping the case–study findings onto each framework’s decision pathway. To make these contrasts explicit, the next table summarises each framework along comparable aspects, providing a quick reference for the analysis that follows.

Table 1. Comparative overview of regulatory frameworks for existing bridges (PTPC focus)

Aspect

Italy MIT 2020 USA–NBIS/BIRM + AASHTO MBE

USA Caltrans 2017 Element–level for BMS

France CEREMA F32

Netherlands RBK RTD 1006

Philosophy

Risk–based, multi–level (AC)

Prescriptive PT practice (surveillance→repair)

Reliability– consistent reassessment (AI/AII/AIII)

National programme +evaluation/rating + QC/QA

Scope

Existing bridges; classification → assessment → monitoring Bridge file + visual Level–1 defect sheets; photos; flag access–critical areas Levels 0– 2→ (if needed) Level 4; special inspections for PT Yes (GPR, IE/UT, electrochem., endoscopy, tendon checks) AC= hazard x vulnerability x exposure Escalation to Level 4 (detail checks)

All public–road bridges; NBI/SNBI data

State implementation of condition data Quantify elements and CS1–CS4 (NBE/BME); photos/quantities Field rules on how to measure elements

PT concrete bridges

RWS bridges; also for alterations

1° step

Inventory + Routine; condition ratings; photos; plan in– depth/special/underwater

Routine/Evaluation → IDP; update dossier

Verification files per AI/AII/AIII; independent check

Inspection ladder

Types & intervals incl. Service/Scour; NSTM

Routine/evaluation/periodic + targeted + reinforced

Risk–informed inspection in plan of approach

PT specificity

Generic (not prescriptive for PT)

Agnostic (element catalogue)

High (grout/duct/anchor toolkits)

Via general verification; no PT defect catalogue

Risk/ Priority

Programme–level risk/intervals; strong QC/QA LRFR/LFR/ASR load rating & posting

Prioritisation via condition data

Formal risk analysis drives scope/frequency

Target β & residual life drive acceptance/measures AI/AII/AIII; β≈3.3 (use level); ≥30 –yr residual life

Structural verification

– (uses state/federal rating)

Re–evaluation + acceptance tests

Decision outputs Update AC; monitoring /interventions

Posting/closure; programme actions

Feasible actions for BMS planning

Repairs (incl. external PT) + acceptance monitoring

Execution vs management measures (risk– justified)

3. Study sample and comparative assessment workflow (MIT–2020 baseline → cross–framework remapping) 3.1. Case–study set and cross–framework methodology We analysed 20 PTPC grid–deck bridges on the Catania–Palermo motorway, with an average age of 50 years. The case studies were assessed by experienced inspectors under a harmonised field protocol (visual survey, defect sheets, photographic records) and an MIT–2020 baseline for Structural and Seismic Attention Classes (AC). All bridges share the same static scheme of simply supported spans with PT beams. For each bridge, we compiled a bridge table to