PSI - Issue 62

128 Giuseppe Santarsiero et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 121–128 Giuseppe Santarsiero et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2024) 000 – 000 For 30 m long spans, is averagely near 0.80, while for 40 m spans is between 0.85 and 0.90. Therefore, the shear strength gap is slightly lower than that related to bending moment stresses. 6. Conclusions This paper presented a methodology for rapid level 3 assessment according to the Italian Guidelines for risk classification and management, safety assessment and monitoring of existing bridges. These assessment activities are necessary in case the class of attention result is medium or medium-high, and are performed by comparing the stress values used for design purposes at the time of construction and those obtained by applying the current code. The parametric analysis here presented is based on deck schemes obtained through a statistical analysis and sampling on a purposely built database of bridges located in four southern Italy regions. The outdated code used in this study is the one that was in force for about 20 years (from 1962 to 1980), which characterised the construction of the major bridge structures in Italy. Performance indices are calculated for 20 deck types and 4 span length values in terms of moment and shear. Shear performance indices are generally higher than bending moment ones. The former vary in the range of 0.63-0.97, being higher for high span length values, while the latter are in the range of 0.61-0.95 and averagely lower than those related to shear, highlighting a more significant gap. The results of this parametric analysis can be helpful for rapid preliminary assessment of highway bridges with geometric features of the same type here considered. Acknowledgments This research is funded by CSLLPP (High Council of Public Works as part of the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation) in the framework of the agreement with the ReLUIS consortium for the research project “Accordo attuativo del DM 578 del 20 20 a 204 del 2022” WP4, Task 4.2. References Buratti, G., Cosentino, A., Morelli, F., Salvatore, W., Bencivenga, P., Zizi, M., De Matteis, G., 2019. Alcune considerazioni sull’evoluzione normativa dei carichi da traffico nella progettazione dei ponti stradali in Italia. In Proceedings of the XVIII Convegno «L’i ngegneria Sismica in Italia», ANIDIS, Ascoli Piceno, Italy, 15 – 19 September 2019. Costantino, G., Messina, D., Recupero, A., Rossi, P. P., & Spinella, N., 2022. A web platform for management and analysis of existing bridges. Procedia Structural Integrity, 44, 1220-1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.157 Google Maps, 2023. Available online: https://www.google.com/maps (accessed on 06 December, 2023). Landolfo, R., 2023. Bridges with Steel and Steel- reinforced concrete structure. Conference “The experimental application of the Guidelines on existing bridges”. Rome 24 -25 October 2023. Masi, A., Santarsiero, G., 2013. Seismic tests on RC building exterior joints with wide beams. Proc. of the 2nd International Symposium on Materials Science and Engineering Technology (ISMSET 2013, June 27-28, 2013, Guangzhou, China). Advanced Material Reasearch. Vol 787: 771-777 Ministry of Public Works, 1962. Norme Relative al Calcolo dei Ponti Stradali: Roma, Italy, 1962. (In Italian) Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation, 2018. DM 17/01/2018: Aggiornamento delle Norme tecniche per le costruzioni, Suppl. or. n.30 alla G.U. n.29 del 4/2/2008, 2018. (In Italian, accessed on 08/02/2023). https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2018/02/20/42/so/8/sg/pdf Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation, 2020. D.M. 17/12/2020 n.578: Linee guida per la classificazione e gestione del rischio, la valutazione della sicurezza ed il monitoraggio dei ponti esistenti; Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti: Rome, Italy, 2020. (In Italian) Petrangeli, M.P., 1997. Progettazione e Costruzione di Ponti, IV ed.; Masson, Ed.; Milano 1997. Santarsiero, G., Albanese, P., Picciano, V., Ventura, G., & Masi, A., 2023a. Level 3 Assessment of Highway Girder Deck Bridges according to the Italian Guidelines: Influence of Transverse Load Distribution. Buildings, 13(7), 1836. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071836 Santarsiero, G., Masi, A., Picciano, V., Digrisolo, A., 2021. The Italian Guidelines on Risk Classification and Management of Bridges: Applications and Remarks on Large Scale Risk Assessments. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6080111. Santarsiero, G., Picciano, V., Masi, A., 2023b. Structural rehabilitation of half-joints in RC bridges: A state-of-the-art review. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2023a, 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2023.2200759. Sassu, M., Puppio, M. L., Doveri, F., Ferrini, M. & Mistretta, F., 2023. A time and cost-effective strengthening of RC half joint bridges exposed to brittle failure: application to a case study, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2023.2275689 Scalbi, A., Zani, G., Di Prisco, M., Mannella, P., 2022. The role of maintenance plans on serviceability and life extension of existing bridges. Struct. Concr. 2022, 24, 127 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202200379. 8