PSI - Issue 62

Fabrizio Paolacci et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 732–737 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

734

3

WP5 is devised to validate procedures from WP3 and WP4 through application to case studies, integrating data from earlier stages. Advanced surveying and monitoring techniques are employed for higher detail, and refined Finite Element Models (FEM) ensure precise assessments against vertical and seismic loads. Finally, WP6 concentrates on designing mitigation systems for critical infrastructures and implementing health monitoring systems. A range of technologies, including traditional sensors and advanced tools like satellite monitoring, are considered for this purpose. The comprehensive project framework and its diverse activities are succinctly outlined in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. MLAZIO project framework

The next sections are dedicated to presenting a methodology for assessing Level 3 bridges from a seismic point of view. There is no indication of this in the Guidelines. With this in mind, Section 3 describes the proposed methodology.

λ ( )= λ ( In this context, "P(D>LS │ IM)" denotes the probability of exceeding a specific limit state given a seismic event of intensity IM, commonly referred to as a fragility curve (de Felice et al., 2010). Concurrently, " λ (IM)" represents the mean annual frequency of a seismic event with intensity IM, as derived from the hazard curve. The integral presented earlier can be succinctly expressed in a closed form by employing key parameters to represent both the hazard and fragility curves, following the methodology demonstrated by Cornel et al. in 2003. Consequently, the evaluation of λ[LS] becomes more accessible using Eq. (2): ͳ ሺ ሻ ʹ ǡͷͲΨሻ ∙ ʹ (2) 3. Proposal of a simplified PBEE methodology for a preliminary quantitative seismic risk assessment of bridges Presented here is a novel and streamlined methodology, grounded in the Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) approach, aimed at rapidly quantifying seismic risk for bridges. This proposed methodology serves as a robust tool for swiftly identifying the most critical bridges in the region and establishing a ranking of attention. The seismic risk index is defined as the mean annual frequency to exceed a specific limit state (λ[LS]). As commonly acknowledged in the literature (Cornel et al., 1996), this index can be evaluated using Eq. (1): λ ( )= ∫ P ሺ ൐ │IM ሻ ȁ d λ ( IM ) ȁ (1)