PSI - Issue 62

Ettore De La Grennelais et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 48–56 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

55

8

8. Structural analyses at Level 4 Level 4 verifications, in accordance with NTC2018 regulations, play a crucial role in ensuring the long-term safety of bridges, relying on the results from preceding levels and on finite element analysis models meticulously calibrated by BOLINA Engineering. The significance of this approach lies in the need to consolidate and comprehensively interpret the evidence gathered during the experimental campaign on structures and materials. The initial phase, represented by Levels 1, 2, and 3, provided the starting framework regarding structural and material conditions. Qualitative and quantitative analysis, coupled with diagnostic investigations and on-site testing, contributed to establishing a comprehensive information base and facilitated the implementation and use of analytical models calibrated experimentally. Level 4 verifications, fueled by accurate and calibrated models, allowed for a thorough assessment of structural behavior under real loads, anticipating potential future criticalities. This, in turn, enabled the definition of reliable risk mitigation and prevention scenarios, outlining interventions to achieve the desired safety levels and ensuring an optimized management of safety and durability for the analyzed road network's artistic structures. As shown in Fig.7, it is a detailed finite element analysis model of one of the analyzed bridges and a summary of the verification results for the same bridge.

Summary of verifications - Arches

Summary of verifications - Piers ǀĞƌŝĨŝĐĂ ƐƚĂƚŝĐĂ Z/ ^^hEdK s Z/&/ , W/> ŵŽŵĞŶƚŽ ƚĂŐůŝŽ ǀĞƌŝĨŝĐĂ ƐŝƐŵŝĐĂ

ƐĞnjŝŽŶŝ ůŽŶŐŝƚƵĚŝŶĂůŝ

ƐĞnjŝŽŶĞ Ͳх ƚŝƉŽ Ěŝ ǀĞƌŝĨŝĐĂ Ͳх

ƐĞnjŝŽŶŝ ƚƌĂƐǀĞƌƐĂůŝ

ŝŵƉŽƐƚĂ

ƌĞŶŝ

ĐŚŝĂǀĞ

^EΎ ƚĂŐůŝŽ W&ΎΎ ƚĂŐůŝŽ W&ΎΎ ƚĂŐůŝŽ W&ΎΎ ƚĂŐůŝŽ

^>h 'h d  ^>h KW Z d/s/d Ζ ^>h dZ E^͘ ϰϰƚ ^>h dZ E^͘ Ϯϲƚ ^>h dZ E^͘ ϳ͘ ϱƚ ^>h dZ E^͘ ϯ͘ ϱƚ ^>h dZ E^͘ ŵĞnjnjŝ ͘

ϭ͘Ϯϰ Ͳ ϭ͘ϭϮ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϵϮ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϴϯ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϳϭ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϲϲ Ͳ Ϭ͘ϴϵ Ͳ

Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ

^>h 'h d  ^>h KW Z d/s/d Ζ ^>h dZ E^͘ ϰϰƚ ^>h dZ E^͘ Ϯϲƚ ^>h dZ E^͘ ϳ͘ ϱƚ ^>h dZ E^͘ ϯ͘ ϱƚ ^>h dZ E^͘ ŵĞnjnjŝ ͘

Ϭ͘ Ϯϱϱ ϭ͘ ϯϮϴ ϭ͘ Ϯϳϭ Ϭ͘ ϰϵϳ ϭ͘ ϳϱϬ Ϭ͘ ϱϮϮ Ϭ͘ ϭϲϰ ϭ͘ Ϯϰϯ ϭ͘ ϮϬϵ Ϭ͘ ϰϰϵ ϭ͘ ϲϮϬ Ϭ͘ ϰϳϲ Ϭ͘ ϭϮϵ Ϭ͘ ϲϵϰ Ϭ͘ ϲϴϴ Ϭ͘ Ϯϭϴ Ϭ͘ ϵϵϴ Ϭ͘ Ϯϯϲ Ϭ͘ ϭϭϱ Ϭ͘ ϲϭϵ Ϭ͘ ϱϱϵ Ϭ͘ Ϯϯϭ Ϭ͘ ϳϵϱ Ϭ͘ ϭϵϲ Ϭ͘ Ϭϵϴ Ϭ͘ ϰϮϰ Ϭ͘ ϯϴϱ Ϭ͘ ϭϲϱ Ϭ͘ ϱϰϵ Ϭ͘ ϭϭϬ Ϭ͘ ϬϵϮ Ϭ͘ ϯϱϴ Ϭ͘ ϯϱϯ Ϭ͘ ϭϯϯ Ϭ͘ ϰϰϰ Ϭ͘ Ϭϲϴ Ϭ͘ ϭϭϱ Ϭ͘ ϰϳϲ Ϭ͘ ϱϳϭ Ϭ͘ ϭϰϴ Ϭ͘ ϵϲϭ Ϭ͘ ϭϭϵ

Ϯ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϵϳ Ϭ͘ϴϯ Ϭ͘ϴϭ Ϭ͘ϱϰ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϭ͘ϰϳ

ϭ͘ϯϱ ϭ͘ϮϬ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϮϬ Ϭ͘Ϭϰ Ϭ͘ϯϵ

^>s sŶ с ϱϬ ĂŶŶŝ ^>s sŶ с ϯϬ ĂŶŶŝ ^>s sŶ с ϱ ĂŶŶŝ

Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ

ϵϵϵ͘ ϵϵ ϵϵϵ͘ ϵϵ ϵϵϵ͘ ϵϵ ϵϵϵ͘ ϵϵ ϵϵϵ͘ ϵϵ ϵϵϵ͘ ϵϵ

^>s sŶ с ϱϬ ĂŶŶŝ ^>s sŶ с ϯϬ ĂŶŶŝ ^>s sŶ с ϱ ĂŶŶŝ

ϭ͘ ϲϳϯ Ϭ͘ ϱϳϬ Ϯ͘ ϱϳϳ Ϭ͘ ϰϮϵ ϭ͘ ϳϳϵ Ϭ͘ ϲϳϬ ϱ͘ ϭϰϯ Ϭ͘ ϭϳϴ Ϭ͘ ϵϲϲ Ϭ͘ ϰϱϴ ϭ͘ ϳϴϬ Ϭ͘ ϯϰϯ ϭ͘ ϯϮϭ Ϭ͘ ϱϯϯ ϭ͘ Ϯϰϳ Ϭ͘ ϭϱϴ Ϭ͘ ϲϬϬ Ϭ͘ ϰϯϵ ϭ͘ ϰϳϬ Ϭ͘ ϯϬϰ ϭ͘ ϭϭϱ Ϭ͘ ϰϲϴ ϭ͘ Ϭϱϰ Ϭ͘ ϭϰϴ

Ύ ǀĞƌŝĨŝĐĂ Ă ƐĨŽƌnjŽ ŶŽƌŵĂůĞ ΎΎ ǀĞƌŝĨŝĐĂ Ă ƉƌĞƐƐŽ ĨůĞƐƐŝŽŶĞ

Fig. 7. Example of detailed finite element analysis and verification results.

9. Conclusion This paper presents a meticulous and extensive campaign involving the Level 4 verification and transitability assessment of 53 bridges under the jurisdiction of ANAS S.p.A. in the Veneto and Friuli Venezia Giulia Regions of Italy. The research incorporates historical context, original design details, intervention information, and structural characteristics, utilizing advanced techniques such as drone surveys, point cloud generation, and FEM modelling. The comprehensive approach allows for the identification of potential weaknesses in the road network, paving the way for