PSI - Issue 44

6

D. Bernardini et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 649–656 D. Bernardini et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

654

Fig. 3. Scenario A, comparison of the obtained results for all corrosion intensities: (a) Strong Direction positive (A+), (b) Strong Direction negative (A-).

As it can be seen, even if the sectional pattern is the same, significant differences between the two directions are observed. This is due to the fact that analyses A+ and A- (Figure 3a and 3b) are characterized by the presence of deterioration in the zone subject to tensile and compressive stresses, respectively. When corrosion occurs in the compression zone a degradation of the ultimate displacement with essentially constant strength is observed. On the contrary, when deterioration occurs in the tension zone degradation of both strength and ductility is observed with more pronounced influence for more severe deterioration intensities. 7.1.2. Patterns C and E The same comparison above described for the A+ and A- sectional patterns are here now presented for the patterns C and E which involve corrosion on both shorter sides and corrosion over the whole pier. Differently from the A scenario, these are symmetric scenarios, i.e., the pushover profiles for each corrosion intensity are plotted only for the SD+ (Figure 4 (a, b)).

Fig 4. Patterns C (a) and E (b): comparison of the obtained results for all corrosion intensities in terms of pushover profiles.

As it can be seen, patterns C and E exhibit trends similar to those observed for pattern A+ with a combined degradation of both strength and ultimate displacement, increasing with corrosion intensity. Clearly, pattern E is characterized by a larger extension of the deteriorated zone hence the degradation entity is systematically more pronounced with respect to pattern C.