PSI - Issue 44

Francesca Fattorini et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 689–696 Fattorini et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

692

4

3. Benchmark with other bridge management systems An examination was carried out on bridge management systems of road operators in order to carry out a comparison with what has already been implemented by the Municipality of Rome as part of the its specific context. Although road operators taken as a reference for the aforementioned analysis are well-structured companies, to date the implementation of the Bridge Guidelines is in the completion phase for all. The comparative analysis of BMS implemented by the various road operators and the Municipality of Rome allows us to deduce, as shown in the Table 1, that the prevailing reference is the circular of Italian Ministry of Public Works no. 6736 / 61A1 (MLP, 1967) with related quarterly and annual inspections, that’s the same the Municipality of Rome is applying to date. On the other hand, the implementation process of the Bridges Guidelines is still being tested in Operator 1 and Operator 2, while almost completely completed for Operator 3.

Table 1. Benchmark between road operators bridge management system

Italian Bridge Guidelines Municipality of Rome

Operator A

Operator B

Operator C

Level 0 - Census

In progress Data of most bridges uploaded on AINOP and Rome BMS Inspections carried out quarterly and annually, plus geodetic monitoring

In progress Data of bridges (L>30m) uploaded on AINOP

In progress Data of bridges (L>10m) uploaded on AINOP and BMS Inspections carried out quarterly and annually Partial Analysis carried out with the exception of the hydraulic risk and landslide risk. Partial Carried out on the basis of the results of the defect cards. Partial Carried out on the basis of the results of the defect cards.

Completed Data of bridges (L>10m) uploaded on AINOP and BMS Carried out semiannual and biennial according to Bridge Guidelines Partial Analysis carried out with the exception of the hydraulic risk and landslide risk. Partial Carried out on the basis of the results of the defect cards. Partial Carried out on the basis of the results of the multi-criteria analysis.

Level 1 - Inspections

Inspections carried out quarterly and annually

Level 2 - Multicriteria Analysis

None

None

None

None

Level 3 - Preliminary assessment

Partial Carried out on demand on specific bridges

Partial Carried out on demand on specific bridges

Level 4 - Evaluation with the Italian Technical Standards for Construction (NTC)

None

None

None

None

Level 5 - Network Resilience

It follows that the Municipality of Rome could reach the level of application of the Bridge Guidelines comparable to that of Operator 3 which is more similar if the roadworks are compared in terms of quantity (510 bridges against 403 bridges of the Municipality of Rome) and the resources dedicated to the related activity (21 technicians of Operator 3 against 31 technicians of the Municipality of Rome). 4. Gap Analysis and transition to the Italian Bridge Guidelines The gap analysis consists of a formal study of what the organization is currently doing, investigating where it wants to go and managing to plan how it is possible to bridge this gap. The need for a gap analysis arises to highlight this gap or lack of the organization in order to plan operationally the future action steps. In order to ensure proper supervision and management of the works by the Municipality of Rome, it was assumed to increase the staff from 2 to 5 engineers and 2 qualified technicians. As regards the resources of the Service Provider that could be deployed in the future scenario and transition between the starting and the expected phase, the overall resources for the surveillance and monitoring activities envisaged by the Service Provider’s technical offer for the