# Comparison of Condition Rating Systems for Bridges in Three European Countries
## 2 Italy
### Risk Classification and Bridge Class of Attention  
The first three levels (from Level 0 to 2) are those which guide the bridge classification and the definition of the _CoA_. Specifically, Level 0 is devoted to gather the available data of the investigated bridge, namely general information about the structural typology, construction materials, year of construction, geometric dimensions for both the whole bridge and the structural components, etc. This information can be obtained by consulting the original documents and design drawings, as well as all the available technical documents; during this phase, details about the traffic data (type and number of vehicles) must be collected as well. Level 1 foresees specific site inspections for verifying the current state of degradation and the possible presence of structural and non-structural components affected by \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline Level 0 & Census/Geolocalization & Territory Scale \\ Level 1 & Visual Inspections & (All Bridges) \\ Level 2 & Attention Classes & \\ Level 3 & Preliminary Evaluations & \\ Level 4 & Accurate Evaluations & In-Depth Evaluations \\ Level 5 & Network Resilience & (Limited Number of Bridges) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Multilevel approach of the new Italian guidelines. significant defects. The on-site survey must include a photo collection of the bridge and of the damaged elements, a geometrical verification (and sometimes collection) of the main geometric features of the bridge and of its structural members, and a visual inspection for the damage individuation. The latter is a very important phase for the whole classification process and requires the whole bridge in its all parts to be controlled. To support and standardize these operations, specific inspection sheets must be filled. The latter are different for each structural typology and must be compiled for each structural member. For bridges with a particular structural typology, in which the failure of structural components may result in a catastrophic scenario including the bridge collapse (e.g., post-tensioned RC decks, RC bridges with half-joint connections, etc. ), the guidelines also recommend performing special inspections, namely instrumental destructive and non-destructive tests. Common destructive tests that can be performed are endoscopic tests and core samples, whilst non-destructive tests include using a covemeter, pull-out, georadar, tomography, ultrasonic, X-ray, and dynamic tests. At Level 2, exploiting the information collected through Levels 0 and 1, each bridge is subjected to a procedure for the \(CoA\) determination and taking into account the four possible risks: (i) foundational-structural, (ii) seismic, (iii) landslides and (iv) hydraulic (flooding, scouring) risks. Hence, at the beginning, four partial \(CoA\) are determined considering each risk one at a time; then, a comprehensive class (overall \(CoA\)) is determined, combining the four partial ones. For each of the \(CoA\) determination procedures, a qualitative risk evaluation is carried out accounting for three parameters: hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. Focusing the attention on the structural and foundational risk, hazards depend on traffic loads in terms of a number of vehicles passing over the bridge and load limitations. Vulnerability depends on the damage level, its rapidity of evolution, the design code age, and a combination of the structural typology, construction materials, and span length.