PSI - Issue 78

Marco Nale et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1095–1102

1096

1. Introduction Hydraulic infrastructure performs an important role in the safety of the territory. Consequently, any damage triggered by a seismic event can lead to significant consequences. In an earthquake scenario, a functionality reduction of the hydraulic structures may occur, often due to the damage or malfunction of non-structural components (Wieland, 2006). This can hinder normal hydraulic operations and reduce the effectiveness of the systems in managing adverse hydraulic events, such as floods or water cloudbursts. The Ferrara territory is exposed to both flood and seismic hazards. With regard to flooding, the area is susceptible to channel overflows, as demonstrated by the 1952 Reno River flood. Instead, seismically, the area was strongly hit by the 2012 Emilia earthquake, which caused direct and indirect economic losses across a wide range of structure typologies. Indeed, damages are reported to historical buildings (Cattari et al., 2012; Nale et al., 2023), industrial facilities (Minghini et al, 2016; Buratti et al., 2017), and residential buildings (Manfredi et al., 2014; Penna et al., 2014). In addition, damages are reported to hydraulic infrastructure such as dewatering facilities (Artioli et al., 2013; 2017). This contribution presents a proposed control protocol based on an incremental control strategy, structured into levels that are activated according to the PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) detected at the site where the hydraulic infrastructure is located (Nale et al. 2025). The procedure has been applied to the hydraulic infrastructure in the Ferrara territory, Italy, characterized by different structural typologies (Fig. 1) such as spillway dams, weirs, navigation locks, and pumping stations. The proposed protocol shares some similarities with the Italian Guidelines (IMIT,2012;2017), particularly in the introduction of control levels activated according to detected PGA at the site. In international codes, similar approaches are adopted, such as those implemented in Switzerland (BFE,2015) and Japan (Tani,1996;2000), where the definition of control levels is based on predefined percentages for the design action or macro-seismic approaches. However, the protocol introduces an important innovation compared to existing guidelines: the explicit consideration of structural vulnerability in the definition of control levels. This is achieved through the use of fragility curves, which provide a probabilistic representation of the structural response as a function of seismic intensity. Fragility curves allow for a more refined and realistic assessment of potential damage by quantifying the probability of exceeding specific performance at given PGA levels. For each control level defined in the protocol, a detailed list is provided of the structural and functional components of the hydraulic structure that must be inspected following a seismic event. These components are to be checked for the specific damage mechanisms that may have been triggered. This targeted approach enables the planning of focused and effective inspections, optimizing resource allocation, and ensuring a timely and appropriate response.

(c)

(d)

(a)

(b)

(e)

(g)

(f)

Fig. 1. Hydraulic infrastructure under study in the Ferrara territory, Italy: (a) Valle Lepri, (b) Tieni, (c) Fiscaglia, (d) Opera Po, (e) Valpagliaro, (f) Pontelagoscuro, and (g) Opera Reno.