PSI - Issue 62

Diana Salciarini et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 514–521

519

6

Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

Fig. 9. Structural elements control points.

Fig. 10 presents the predicted horizontal displacements at the base of the two analysed piers, comparing the results of dynamic analyses with (solid line) and without (dashed line) the viaduct foundations. It is evident that in the presence of the landslide (evaluated at pier 1), the expected residual horizontal displacements range from approximately 5 to 10 cm (depending on the stabilizing effect of the foundation systems), while in the absence of the landslide (Pier 4), the system behavior is pseudo-elastic and residual displacements are negligible.

Fig. 10. Comparison between horizontal displacements at the base of Pile 1 and 4 before and after the construction of the structures.

Fig. 11 shows horizontal displacements (in the direction of the viaduct axis) at the top and base of pier 1 and pier 4. Pier 1, as previously shown, is located within the landslide body, while pier 4 is outside. For pier 4, the horizontal displacements at the top of the pier are higher than the horizontal displacements at the base. For pier n.1, the observed behaviour is completely the opposite. This is attributed to the horizontal force generated by the landslide exerting pressure on the foundation structures in the downstream direction. When subjected to compression, the viaduct behaves rigidly, maintaining the head of pier n.1 and the head of pier n.4 with the same horizontal displacements in time. Fig. 12 provides a clear identification of the system's kinematics on an amplified scale. The results are likely affected by the type of adopted schematization for the deck beams, thus further studies will explore other possible schemes to understand their relevance in the predicted response.

Fig. 11. Comparison between horizontal displacements at the base and at the top of Pier 1 and 4 with the structure.