This paper compares the application of two recently published guidance documents for risk-based assessment of hydraulic actions on bridges, namely the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s Guidelines, to two case study bridges (Staverton Bridge, UK; Borgoforte Bridge, Italy). This work is one of the first to illustrate how to apply these guidelines. Both documents present risk-based methods for the assessment of hydraulic actions, while exhibiting fundamental differences. For example, the UK method prescribes calculations for local and constriction scour, water depth, and velocity at several cross-sections; by comparison, the Italian method does not prescribe calculations to assess the risk level. For the case studies in this paper, the hydraulic risk obtained for Staverton Bridge resulted as ‘High’ using both methods. The scour score for the Borgoforte Bridge resulted higher using the Italian method (Medium-High), as compared to the UK approach (Medium). This difference is due to how the guidelines assess the vulnerability associated with the minimum clearance. The comparison of these two risk-based approaches and the resulting discussion may serve as a useful resource for those wishing to develop new risk-based methods for assessing hydraulic actions on bridges.

A comparison of the UK and Italian national risk-based guidelines for assessing hydraulic actions on bridges

Giordano P. F.;Pina Limongelli M.
2024-01-01

Abstract

This paper compares the application of two recently published guidance documents for risk-based assessment of hydraulic actions on bridges, namely the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s Guidelines, to two case study bridges (Staverton Bridge, UK; Borgoforte Bridge, Italy). This work is one of the first to illustrate how to apply these guidelines. Both documents present risk-based methods for the assessment of hydraulic actions, while exhibiting fundamental differences. For example, the UK method prescribes calculations for local and constriction scour, water depth, and velocity at several cross-sections; by comparison, the Italian method does not prescribe calculations to assess the risk level. For the case studies in this paper, the hydraulic risk obtained for Staverton Bridge resulted as ‘High’ using both methods. The scour score for the Borgoforte Bridge resulted higher using the Italian method (Medium-High), as compared to the UK approach (Medium). This difference is due to how the guidelines assess the vulnerability associated with the minimum clearance. The comparison of these two risk-based approaches and the resulting discussion may serve as a useful resource for those wishing to develop new risk-based methods for assessing hydraulic actions on bridges.
2024
hydraulic actions
infrastructure
risk
scour
asset management
Bridge
flooding
guidance documents
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1224790
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact