Case Study on The Genoa Bridge Collapse in Italy

Study on Genoa Bridge Collapse in Italy

1. The Genoa Bridge Collapse: How and Why? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT Mr. Calvin Andor

2. Introduction: Ponte Morandi (English: Morandi Bridge), officially Viadotto Polcevera (English: Polcevera Viaduct), was a road viaduct in Genoa, Liguria, Italy, constructed between 1963 and 1967 along the A10 motorway over the Polcevera River, from which it derived its official name. The Polcevera Bridge formed a link in the main motorway between the South of France and Rome. The collapse had severe implications for the local economy. On 14 August 2018, it collapsed during a storm resulting in the death of 43 people.

3. Introduction: The collapse of the Genoa bridge in Italy in 2018, that killed 43 people and left many hundreds homeless , sparked a critique of the inspection regime of bridges and highways in Italy and specifically, how privatized maintenance and passive state regulation ultimately resulted in the tragedy. It also prompted the UK to evaluate its inspection regime which differs quite significantly due to stricter regulations and government body oversight.

4. Statement of the Problem: In a 2011 report by Autostrade , the company had expressed concerns over the state of the bridge, citing that it had decayed due to heavy traffic and that a collapse within 10 years was possible. Steel cables supported the road, however when exposed to atmospheric conditions, steel can rust. Italian engineering experts suggested that corrosion to the steel cables led to the collapse . Another potential cause was the use of concrete which also deteriorates quickly.

5. Statement of the Problem: A key factor deemed to have contributed to the collapse was Autostrade’s allegedly poor inspection regime. The bridge had been plagued with structural issues since its construction in the late-1960s. In essence, it seems that a key factor contributing to the tragic Polcevera bridge collapse was the privatization of the maintenance and inspection of bridges in Italy, coupled with minimal state oversight .

6. Areas for Consideration: The state/government should have been strict in implementing standards on the maintenance of the bridge. The contracted infrastructure firm/company should have used standard or above-standard grade materials and equipment in building the bridge. The viaduct was built between 1963 and 1967 by the Società Italiana per Condotte d'Acqua , costing 3.8 billion Italian lire and opened on 4 September 1967.

7. Alternative Course of Action: Proper maintenance of the bridge, and on-site inspection of the bridge could have avoided the incident. Long-term projection and study of the construction could have avoided such kind of incident, as it happened in over-time. Demolishment, and reconstruction of a new one could be one option as it could change the type of material/equipment used previously in 1960’s.

8. Recommendation: Proper maintenance of the bridge, and on-site inspection of the bridge could have avoided the incident. Long-term projection and study of the construction could have avoided such kind of incident, as it happened in over-time. Demolishment, and reconstruction of a new one could be one option as it could change the type of material/equipment used previously in 1960’s. Increased in number of inspection frequency could have checked the actual condition of the bridge’ material