Comparison of Condition Rating Systems for Bridges in Three European Countries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Italy
2.1. The New Italian Guidelines for Existing Bridge Assessment
- Adequate bridge: the bridge performance is compliant with the actual Italian technical code prescriptions. The use of the infrastructure can continue without interruptions and traffic limitations;
- Operative bridge: the safety verifications are fulfilled following the code prescriptions but adopting reduced safety factors on loads and material strengths (considering lower return periods—Tref = 30 years). The bridge can be used during the period considered for the assessment (30 years), then the analyses must be repeated;
- Transitable bridge: the safety verifications are satisfied following the code prescriptions but in a very short time period (5 years). The bridge can be used adopting loads/traffic limitations and for only 5 years, then it must be restored/upgraded/rebuilt.
2.2. Risk Classification and Bridge Class of Attention
- High: dangerous damage to critical components, such as half-joints, supports, post-tensioned cables, and foundation scour;
- Medium-high: damage to structural components whose crisis may compromise the integrity of the entire structure;
- Medium: damage to structural components whose crisis may not compromise the integrity of the entire structure;
- Medium-low: medium-high levels of dangerous damage or medium to medium-low but in a large number of elements;
- Low: medium and low dangerous damage and in a limited number of elements.
2.3. The Current State of Italian Road Bridges
3. Slovakia
- Ordinary: once a year, usually in spring;
- Main: usually every four years;
- Exceptional: after passing of heavy traffic, suspicion of the failures, change in bridge geometry, dangerous effects of vehicle passing, etc.
- Control: part of the supervision or for internal needs.
3.1. Slovak Condition Rating System for Road Brides
- The structural state which reflects the difference between the real technical parameters of the structure and designed parameters;
- An operational capability which represents the difference in operational parameters of the bridge (such as load-carrying capacity, traffic intensity, passing speed, passing profile, etc.) compared to the parameters required for the road on the bridge and load-carrying class of the bridge;
- Impact on the environment.
- Condition rating systems based on index values, which are determined using mathematical-statistical operations with ratings of structural elements and classification of their failures;
- Condition rating systems based on probabilistic calculations of structural reliability with regard to their load-carrying capacity and service life.
3.2. The Load-Carrying Capacity of Road Bridges (LCC)
- V—load-carrying capacity determined by detailed structural analysis;
- K—load-carrying capacity determined by a combined procedure, i.e., by a detailed structural analysis based on the standard rules provided by the original standards (codes from the date of design).
- Normal LCC—Vn;
- Exclusive LCC—Vr;
- Exceptional LCC—Ve.
3.3. Current State of Slovak Road Bridges
4. Portugal
4.1. Inspection and Decision-Making Process in Portugal
4.1.1. Inventory and Preparation of the Inspection
4.1.2. Inspection
4.1.3. Database and Inspection Report
4.2. Current State of Portuguese Bridges
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
- In Italy, the Italian government recently developed new guidelines for the risk classification, management, safety assessment and monitoring of existing bridges. These guidelines have been issued with the twofold aim of standardizing the assessment criteria in all country and prioritizing maintenance works. The contents of these guidelines can be divided into two main parts: the first one (to be applied to all bridges) deals with the determination of a bridge class of attention, while the second one is inherent to the safety assessment following the code verifications. The novelty of these guidelines is that for the determination of the class of attention, many risks are simultaneously considered: the structural and foundational risk, the seismic, the landslide risk, and the hydraulic risk. Hence, visual inspection for damage detection over the structure must be integrated with technical document reviews and the collection of information regarding the hydrogeology of the site, as well as its seismicity.
- In general, the Slovak rating system is based on two main approaches—a rating based on the classification of the state of the structural elements determined during visual inspection; this approach can insufficiently describe the real state of the bridge. The second, more detailed approach is based on the load-carrying capacity which is determined with consideration of current standard loads and deterioration of material properties. This methodology is more accurate, but also more time-consuming and cost-intensive.
- In Portugal, a condition rating for bridges is primarily based on onsite inspections, allowing for a class related to the presence and severity of a given damage to be defined. Based on that condition rating, intervention actions and periodicity of inspections are defined within a decision-making process for management of these assets. This framework is therefore suitable within the perspective of an asset owner/manager, but would benefit from the analysis of evolution of the performance of the asset as to predict future maintenance and intervention actions with a more optimized use of resources.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Innocenzi, R.D.; Nicoletti, V.; Arezzo, D.; Carbonari, S.; Gara, F.; Dezi, L. A Good Practice for the Proof Testing of Cable-Stayed Bridges. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicoletti, V.; Martini, R.; Carbonari, S.; Gara, F. Operational Modal Analysis as a Support for the Development of Digital Twin Models of Bridges. Infrastructures 2023, 8, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chodhury, J.; Hasnat, A. Bridge collapses around the world: Causes and mechanisms. In Proceedings of the IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advance in Bridge Engineering, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 21–22 August 2015; p. 651. [Google Scholar]
- ASCE. ASCE Report Card from America’s Infrastructure 2021—A Comprehensive Assessment of America’s Infrastructure Executive Summary; ASCE: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- EN 1998-3:2005; Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
- Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports. Decree 17/01/2018, n. 42, Adjournment of «Technical Code for Constructions»; Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports: Rome, Italy, 2018. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Superior Council of Public Works. Circular 21/01/2019, n. 7, Instructions for the Application of «Adjournment of “Technical Code for Constructions”», (D.M. 17/01/2018); G.U.—n. 5, 11/02/2019; Superior Council of Public Works: Milan, Italy, 2019. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports. Decree 17/12/2020, n. 578, Enforcement of the Guidelines on Risk Classification and Management, Safety Assessment and Monitoring of Existing Bridges; Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports: Rome, Italy, 2020. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports. Decree 1/07/2022, n. 204, Guidelines on Risk Classification and Management, Safety Assessment and Monitoring of Existing Bridges; Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports: Rome, Italy, 2022. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- ANAS (National Autonomous Highway Company). Available online: https://www.stradeanas.it/it/lazienda/chi-siamo (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- AISCAT (Italian Association of Highway and Tunnel Concession Companies). Available online: https://www.aiscat.it/rappresentativita/ (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- ANSFISA (National Agency for Safety of Railways and Motorway and Highway Infrastructures). Available online: https://www.ansfisa.gov.it/it/opere-d-arte (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- Santarsiero, G.; Masi, A.; Picciano, V.; Digrisolo, A. The Italian guidelines on risk classification and management of bridges: Applications and remarks on large scale risk assessments. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AINOP (National Digital Archive of Public Infrastructures). Available online: https://ainop-coll.mit.gov.it/portale/#/ (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- FABRE. FABRE Consortium for the Research, Assessment, and Monitoring of Bridge and Viaducts. Available online: https://www.consorziofabre.it/ (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- Ministry of Transport and Construction of The Slovak Republic. Technical Conditions, TP 14/2013. Bridge Management System. 2013. Available online: https://www.ssc.sk/files/documents/technicke-predpisy/tp/tp_077.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2023). (In Slovak).
- Vičan, J.; Odrobiňák, J.; Gocál, J. Determination of Road Bridge Load-Carrying Capacity. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2021, 17, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Transport and Construction of The Slovak Republic. Technical Conditions, TP 02/2016. Load Carrying Capacity of the Road Bridges and Footbridges. 2016. Available online: https://www.ssc.sk/files/documents/technicke-predpisy/tp/tp_104.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2023). (In Slovak).
- STN EN 1991-2; Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures. Part 2: Traffic Loads on Bridges. Slovak Technical Standard. Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2006.
- Association of Towns and Communities of Slovakia. SAO: The Condition of Bridges in Slovakia Has Been Deteriorating for a Long Time. Available online: https://www.zmos.sk/nku-stav-mostov-na-slovensku-sa-dlhodobo-zhorsuje--oznam/mid/405616/.html (accessed on 1 November 2023). (In Slovak).
- Slovak Road Administration. Statistics about the State of Road Bridges. Available online: https://www.ssc.sk/sk/cinnosti/rozvoj-cestnej-siete/hospodarenie-s-mostami/statisticke-prehlady-o-stave-cestnych-mostov.ssc (accessed on 1 November 2023). (In Slovak).
- Vičan, J.; Farbák, M. Analysis of High–Strength Steel Pin Connection. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2020, 16, 276–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraľovanec, J. Possibilities of Prestressing Analysis of Existing Concrete Structures. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Žilina, Žilina, Slovakia, 2022. (In Slovak). [Google Scholar]
- IP. Infraestruturas de Portugal. 2023. Available online: https://www.infraestruturasdeportugal.pt/ (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- IP. Tolerâncias doc Parâmetros Geométricos da Via. GR.IT.VIA.018. Instrução Técnica de Via n.°18; IP—Infraestruturas de Portugal: Lisboa, Portugal, 2017; pp. 1–32. [Google Scholar]
Level 0 | Census/Geolocalization | Territory Scale (All Bridges) |
Level 1 | Visual Inspections | |
Level 2 | Attention Classes | |
Level 3 | Preliminary Evaluations | In-Depth Evaluations (Limited Number of Bridges) |
Level 4 | Accurate Evaluations | |
Level 5 | Network Resilience |
High Hazard Class | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exposure Class | ||||||
High | Medium-High | Medium | Medium-Low | Low | ||
Vulnerability Class | High | High | ||||
Medium-High | High | Medium-High | ||||
Medium | High | Medium-High | Medium | |||
Medium-Low | Medium-High | Medium | ||||
Low | Medium-High | Medium | Medium-Low |
High Structural and Foundational Class | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Landslides and Hydraulic Class | ||||||
High | Medium-High | Medium | Medium-Low | Low | ||
Seismic Class | High | High | ||||
Medium-High | ||||||
Medium | ||||||
Medium-Low | ||||||
Low |
Class | State | Description | LCC Factor |
---|---|---|---|
I. | Flawless | Without any hidden or obvious defects. | 1.00 |
II. | Very good | The occurrence of only appearance defects that do not affect the load-carrying capacity of the bridge. | 1.00 |
III. | Good | The occurrence of larger faults that do not affect the load-carrying capacity of the bridge. | 1.00 |
IV. | Satisfactory | The occurrence of faults that do not have an immediate effect on the load-carrying capacity of the bridge, but may affect it in the future. | 0.80 |
V. | Bad | The occurrence of faults that have an adverse effect on the load-carrying capacity of the bridge, but can be removed without replacing the faulty parts. | 0.60 |
VI. | Very bad | The occurrence of faults that affect the load-carrying capacity and cannot be removed without replacing faulty parts or adding missing parts. | 0.40 |
VII. | Emergency | The occurrence of faults that affect the load-carrying capacity of the bridge to such an extent that require immediate remedial action to avert impending disaster. | 0.20 |
Type of Object | Number | Length of Pavement [m] | Type of Object [m2] |
---|---|---|---|
Bridges | 8266 | 305,191 | 3090,582 |
Underpasses | 1209 | 236,65 | 228,557 |
Sluice | 28,836 | 332,638 | - |
Railway crossings | 591 | 6803 | 42,082 |
Parameters | Values | |
---|---|---|
0 | 1 | |
Functionality | Fulfils the component function | Do not fulfil the component function |
Severity | Low severity | Severe |
Extension | <50% of the maximum admissible value | ≥50% of the maximum admissible value |
Prediction | Small, being expected a small or no evolution | Big or with a fast evolution expected |
Consequences | No consequences for the other components | With consequences for the other components |
EC Level | EC Classification | Definition |
---|---|---|
NI | Not inspected | Not inspected due to difficult access/hidden. |
0 | Excellent | Excellent condition state. Negligible anomalies allowed. |
1 | Good | Normal condition state. The behavior is not yet affected but the durability can be compromised. |
2 | Regular | Satisfactory condition state. A not significant impact on the behavior occurs and/or a relevant influence in the durability and/or functionality may occur. |
3 | Irregular | Deficient condition state. The behavior is conditioned and/or a significantly reduction of the durability may occur. The safety, in the future, could be affected by the rapid evolution of the damages. |
4 | Deficient | Critical condition state. The behavior, resistant capacity and structural safety are predatory affected, and the integrity is influenced. The minimum requirements to perform the function are not met. |
5 | Bad | Imminent ruin state. The integrity and the structural safety are put into question. The resistant capacity is severely affected. |
IC | Conditioned | An IC epithet is added to the 6-level scale when the component cannot be observed on its whole. |
Alert Situation | Intervention Periodicity | |
---|---|---|
Structural safety | Urgent intervention | |
Traffic safety | Urgent intervention | |
Anti-corrosion protection | Necessary intervention | (2 to 3 years) |
Protection of the foundations | Necessary intervention | (1 to 2 years) |
Condition State | Intervention Time | Inspection Frequency |
---|---|---|
EC ≤ 2 | 2 to 5 years | Normal surveillance (every 6 years) |
EC = 3 | 3 to 5 years | Enhanced surveillance (every 6 years + every 3 years for the components with EC = 3) |
EC ≥ 4 | 1 to 2 years | High surveillance (every 6 years + every year for the components with EC ≥ 4) |
Italy | Slovakia | Portugal | |
---|---|---|---|
Multilevel approach | |||
Unified rating system for road and railway bridges | |||
Prioritization of bridges in the bridge management system | Based on the CoA | Based on the structural state | Based on the structural state |
Number of levels/Classes describing structural state | 5 (From Low to High) | 7 (From I./Flawless to VII./Emergency) | 6 * (From EC0/Good to EC5/Bad) |
Frequency of inspections | Based on the CoA (at least every 2 years) | Ordinary: every year Main: every 4 years | Regular: every 6 years for EC ≤ 2 |
Most important component in the rating system | Vulnerability class | Quantification of LCC factor | Inspections |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Matos, J.C.; Nicoletti, V.; Kralovanec, J.; Sousa, H.S.; Gara, F.; Moravcik, M.; Morais, M.J. Comparison of Condition Rating Systems for Bridges in Three European Countries. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12343. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132212343
Matos JC, Nicoletti V, Kralovanec J, Sousa HS, Gara F, Moravcik M, Morais MJ. Comparison of Condition Rating Systems for Bridges in Three European Countries. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(22):12343. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132212343
Chicago/Turabian StyleMatos, José C., Vanni Nicoletti, Jakub Kralovanec, Hélder S. Sousa, Fabrizio Gara, Martin Moravcik, and Maria J. Morais. 2023. "Comparison of Condition Rating Systems for Bridges in Three European Countries" Applied Sciences 13, no. 22: 12343. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132212343
APA StyleMatos, J. C., Nicoletti, V., Kralovanec, J., Sousa, H. S., Gara, F., Moravcik, M., & Morais, M. J. (2023). Comparison of Condition Rating Systems for Bridges in Three European Countries. Applied Sciences, 13(22), 12343. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132212343