Article updated 3 August, 2026
On 14 August 2018, a section of Genoa’s Morandi Bridge collapsed, killing 43 people. The disaster remains a stark lesson in asset lifecycle safe design—how risks are identified and managed through design, operation, inspection, maintenance and eventual replacement.
The disaster was initially discussed as a question of design failure versus maintenance failure. But that distinction is too simple. Infrastructure safety depends on decisions made throughout an asset’s life—from its original design and construction to inspection, maintenance, repair and eventual replacement.
The more useful question is not, “Who was responsible?” but:
What responsibility did each party hold, and were critical risks identified, communicated and controlled?
What happened to the Morandi Bridge?
The Morandi Bridge opened in 1967. Its unusual design used steel stay cables encased in prestressed concrete, making their internal condition difficult to inspect.
Over time, the bridge was exposed to heavy traffic, pollution, salt-laden coastal air and increasing vehicle loads. Investigations conducted before and after the collapse identified deterioration affecting structural elements, including corrosion within the stay system.
The Italian Ministry of Infrastructure’s investigative commission reported a continuing decline in the condition of the bridge and documented extensive corrosion in inspected cable strands. These were not simply unexpected conditions that appeared immediately before the collapse. They developed over an extended period and required inspection, interpretation and action. Italian Ministry of Infrastructure
In July 2026, a Genoa court convicted 32 former motorway executives, engineers and public officials in the first-instance trial arising from the collapse. The court found that long-standing defects and warning signs had not been adequately addressed. The decision remains subject to appeal. Associated Press
The case demonstrates why infrastructure safety cannot depend on one design calculation, inspection or organisation.
Why asset lifecycle Safe Design matters
Asset lifecycle safe design considers how design decisions affect people throughout the construction, operation, maintenance, modification and eventual removal of a structure.
Under Australian model WHS laws, designers must eliminate or minimise risks, so far as is reasonably practicable, for people carrying out these reasonably foreseeable activities.
The Safe Work Australia Model Code of Practice: Safe Design of Structures also emphasises consultation between designers, clients and others who influence the design. Important safety information must be transferred to those constructing, using and maintaining the asset. Safe Work Australia
Engaging a safety consultant does not transfer these legal duties away from the designer, client or asset operator. Their role is to help the project team identify lifecycle risks, test assumptions and document the decisions needed to manage them.
Five asset lifecycle Safe Design lessons for Australian projects
1. Design for inspection and monitoring—not only construction
A component cannot be effectively monitored if it is concealed, inaccessible or difficult to assess.
During design, teams should consider:
- how safety-critical elements will be inspected;
- whether deterioration will be visible or measurable;
- what access inspectors will need;
- whether structural health monitoring should be incorporated;
- how frequently inspections may be required; and
- whether components can be safely repaired or replaced.
QUT research into structural health monitoring shows how sensors can continuously track factors such as traffic loads, vibration, wind and temperature, alerting asset owners when a structure is no longer performing as expected. This can reveal deterioration that visual inspections alone may miss and help determine when strengthening, rehabilitation or replacement is required.
Monitoring technology does not replace competent inspection or maintenance. It provides asset owners with better information to identify changes and act before deterioration becomes critical.
A safety consultant can help bring maintenance personnel, operators and specialist engineers into the design conversation before access, inspection and monitoring problems become embedded.
2. Consider how materials will perform over time
Material selection should account for the actual operating environment—not simply initial strength or compliance.
Design reviews should consider foreseeable exposure to moisture, salt, pollutants, vibration, temperature changes, fatigue and chemical attack. The review should also examine how materials interact and how protective systems will be inspected, maintained and renewed.
The same principle applies to innovative design. Research into material-efficient, long-span bridge forms produced promising concepts using significantly less material. However, the initial modelling considered gravity loads—not dynamic forces from traffic and wind or ongoing construction and maintenance requirements.
It is a useful reminder that optimising one aspect of a design is not enough. Innovation must also be tested against foreseeable construction, operation, inspection, maintenance and environmental conditions.
Durability is not only an engineering or commercial issue. Where deterioration can expose workers or the public to risk, it is also a Safe Design issue.
3. Communicate asset lifecycle residual risks clearly
Some risks cannot be eliminated through design. When that happens, the remaining risks and required controls must be clearly communicated to those who will manage the asset.
This may include:
- inspection requirements
- maintenance intervals
- load or operating limits
- known inaccessible areas
- deterioration indicators
- assumptions used in the design
- circumstances requiring specialist assessment
This information should be specific and usable. A generic statement such as “maintain in accordance with manufacturer requirements” is rarely enough for a safety-critical element.
A safety consultant can help establish a clear record of significant design risks, decisions and responsibilities rather than allowing essential information to disappear between project stages.
4. Reassess risk when conditions change
A structure’s operating conditions rarely remain exactly as anticipated at the time of design. Traffic volumes increase. Equipment is replaced. Buildings are extended. Climate and environmental exposure change. Maintenance is deferred.
Asset owners and operators need processes for identifying when changing conditions invalidate earlier assumptions.
Triggers for review may include:
- increased loads or usage
- visible deterioration
- repeated defects
- changes to the surrounding environment
- alterations to the structure
- missed inspections or maintenance
- new technical information
Regular reassessment is central to asset lifecycle safe design because operating conditions and earlier design assumptions can change over time. For existing assets, a structural engineer or other relevant technical specialist must assess structural condition. A safety consultant may support the broader risk-management process, but is not a substitute for competent structural inspection or engineering analysis.
5. Do not allow shared responsibility to become blurred responsibility
Safe Design requires collaboration, but collaboration does not mean that responsibility belongs vaguely to “the project team.”
Designers, clients, constructors, asset owners, operators and maintenance teams each control different decisions. Those responsibilities should be identified, allocated and recorded.
Projects should establish:
- who owns each significant risk
- who must provide information
- who approves proposed controls
- who monitors residual risks
- what happens when an action is not completed
Clear accountability is especially important where an asset changes hands or information passes between design, construction and operational systems.
Who is responsible for Safety in Design?
There is no single party responsible for every risk throughout the life of a structure.
Designers are responsible for addressing risks influenced by their design. Clients and other decision-makers must provide information, resources and time for risks to be considered. Constructors must manage construction risks and communicate new information. Owners and operators must inspect, maintain and manage the asset safely.
Safe Design consultants help connect these responsibilities by facilitating consultation, challenging gaps and ensuring significant lifecycle risks are visible to the people who must act on them.
The Morandi Bridge collapse is not useful because it allows us to assign every failure to one person or one technical cause. It is useful because it shows what can happen when deterioration, design limitations, inspection findings and maintenance decisions are not converted into timely action.
Asset lifecycle safe design does not end when construction is complete. It must inform how an asset is operated, inspected, maintained, modified and eventually removed.
For practical guidance on applying Safety in Design across the project lifecycle, contact Safe Design Australia.
