PSI - Issue 62

Elena Elettore et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 113–120 Elettore et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

119

7

5. Application of the methodologies to case-study viaducts Three representative viaducts from the case-study portfolio are selected for the application of the two methodologies for the defect level calculation to highlight similarities and differences. Considering the “ Viadotto Flumeri ” , whose main characteristics are listed in Table 1, the MIT defects sheets provide a “ Low ” defect level. Similarly, according to the defects identified by ASPI, it is observed that the only defect is related to traces of drainage present on the bridge abutments. Therefore, is equal to 1, consistent with the classification provided by MIT. Class I LOG,nc N°of defects B Ii I Log Defect level A1 8 0 0.00E+00 1 Low A2 7 0 0.00E+00 B1 6 0 0.00E+00 B2 5 0 0.00E+00 B3 4 0 0.00E+00 B4 3 0 0.00E+00 C1 2 0 0.00E+00 C2 1 2 Considering the “ Viadotto Granci” , whose main characteristics are listed in Table 1, the MIT defects sheets provide a “ Medium-High ” defect level because “ defects of medium-high or high severity (G=4 or G=5) and high intensity are identified on elements whose crisis can compromise the static of the whole structure ”. According to the defects identified by ASPI, is equal to 6 and it is consistent with the classification provided by MIT. Class I LOG,nc N°of defects B Ii I Log Defect level A1 8 0 0.00E+00 6 Medium-High A2 7 0 0.00E+00 B1 6 4 4.00E+48 B2 5 16 1.60E+41 B3 4 27 2.70E+33 B4 3 68 6.80E+25 C1 2 63 6.30E+17 C2 1 11 Considering the “ Viadotto Leone” , whose main characteristics are listed in Table 1, the MIT defects sheets provide a “ High ” defect level because “ defects of medium-high or high severity (G=4 or G=5) and high intensity are identified on critical elements (e.g., Gerber saddles, supports, prestressing cables, foundations) ”. According to the defects identified by ASPI, is equal to 6 and it is not consistent with the classification provided by MIT. Class I LOG,nc N°of defects B Ii I Log Defect level A1 8 0 0.00E+00 6 Medium-High A2 7 0 0.00E+00 B1 6 2 2.00E+48 B2 5 0 0.00E+00 B3 4 8 8.00E+32 B4 3 30 3.00E+25 C1 2 76 7.60E+17 C2 1 21 Class I LOG,nc (n=1-nc=1) Defect level (LG20) A1 8 A2 7 B1 6 Medium-high B2 5 Medium B3 4 B4 3 C1 2 C2 1 High Medium-low low Class I LOG,nc (n=1-nc=1) Defect level (LG20) A1 8 A2 7 B1 6 Medium-high B2 5 Medium B3 4 B4 3 C1 2 C2 1 High Medium-low low Class I LOG,nc (n=1-nc=1) Defect level (LG20) A1 8 A2 7 B1 6 Medium-high B2 5 Medium B3 4 B4 3 C1 2 High Medium-low 2.00E+08 2.00E+08 Figure 9. Case-study 1: Correspondence between overall average defect rating and level of defectiveness (LG20) proposed by ASPI . 1.10E+09 4.00E+48 Figure 10. Case-study 2: Correspondence between overall average defect rating and level of defectiveness (LG20) proposed by ASPI .

2.10E+09 2.00E+48

low

C2

1

Figure 11. Case-study 3: Correspondence between overall average defect rating and level of defectiveness (LG20) proposed by ASPI.