PSI - Issue 84

Rosario Montuori et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 84 (2026) 967–974

968

1. Introduction The aim of this work is to describe a methodology developed more than six years ago, and therefore prior to the publication of the 2020 Guidelines, following a mandate from the Province of Salerno to define an inspection and vulnerability assessment methodology for the bridges under its responsibility. The request from the Road Authority concerned the inspection and classification of intervention priorities for approximately 750 bridge structures belonging to the provincial road network. Being aware of the lack of an adequate methodology for the inspection and classification of bridge structures within its network, the Road Authority entrusted the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Salerno with the development of a method capable of inspecting and classifying existing structures in the simplest and most effective manner. Within a framework of limited resources, the achievement of these objectives can be pursued through a rational management of information derived from inspection activities. The methodology developed in this study is based on the compilation of a set of Inspection Forms for each individual bridge structure. The methodological framework originates from that developed by CIAS (AA.VV., 2018), which was subsequently integrated and modified according to the specific needs of the Road Authority and updated based on results and experiences reported by several authors and managing bodies.( AA. VV. (2007), Mark H., Steven D.S., (2001), Ryall, M.J. (2010), Montepara, A., et al. (2019), Valenzuela, S., Solminihac, H. De., Echaveguren, T., (2010), Braga et al. (2019)). The processing of information collected during inspection activities, combined with current technical and scientific knowledge, allows both risk mitigation and optimization of available economic and human resources. Limited financial availability, however, requires an overall solution capable of globally optimizing decision-making and enabling rational maintenance planning. For this reason, a Visual Inspection approach is proposed, based on repeatable operations generally involving very modest costs, allowing bridge structures to be classified according to both the maximum damage detected in individual elements and the global damage affecting the entire structure. Nomenclaure EDI j Element Damage Index of j-th structural element GDI Global Damage Index ERI j Element Reliability Index of j-th structural element GRI Global Reliability Index MDI Maximum Damage Index K e Structural age coefficient K ss Structural scheme coefficient K d Sensitivity to deterioration coefficient K i Importance Coefficient K t Traffic intensity coefficient K pa Alternative route coefficient K ind Indirect damage coefficient IPI Intervention Priority Index 2. Inspection Forms Inspections are carried out using Inspection Forms, subdivided by structural elements and construction material. Each Inspection Form contains a structured list of defects that may occur in the element. Each defect is associated with a Defect Form describing its characteristics, causes, and possible repair actions, and, most importantly, defining its relevance through an assigned weight. Defects may occur with different levels of damage severity depending on the specific case. It is therefore the responsibility of the inspector to provide an assessment that is as objective as possible, based on numerical scales defined in each Defect Form. The severity assessment plays a fundamental role in the inspection outcome. In addition to severity scales, the systematic collection of photographs during inspections is particularly useful in order to improve the objectivity and comparability of the evaluations. With reference to the Defect Forms, and in comparison with those provided in the 2020 Guidelines, the proposed forms have been significantly simplified by eliminating the coefficients related to damage intensity and damage extension (K 1 and K 2 ). These parameters are replaced by a single parameter that globally defines damage severity. The rationale for this choice lies in the fact that, for many structural elements, one of the two parameters is redundant and is often set equal to unity in the 2020 Guidelines.