PSI - Issue 44

Iolanda Nuzzo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 1832–1839 Iolanda Nuzzo et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

1838

7

oriented to alarm transmission, configuration of local node parameters, and data storage for a comprehensive record of RRSW performance. Thus, during an earthquake, steps 2, 4 and 6 of the RRWS work in a complementary manner. In step 4 there is the detection of the seismic event, through the overcoming of the established thresholds. In addition, the estimation of the intensity measure is obtained, which in this case has acceleration recorded with some seconds before and after the triggering process. This step is executed in the SE, as well as the selection of the mitigation strategy from step 6. Then, the RRWS in its WE sends to the end user a predetermined message and mail, in correspondence with the selected mitigation strategy.

Fig. 4. Decision-making flowchart of the RRWS.

Conclusions

In this paper a preliminary study on a Railway Rapid Warning System was presented for a case study bridge. The RRWS methodology had a strong emphasis in the decisional stage of the warning system, which was based on the loss minimization involving structural aspects and a detailed economic evaluation. The RRWS considered even environmental and operational aspects. It is worthy to mention that the loss minimization approach of the RRWS is determinant in the new generation of information systems. Particularly, the methodology had six steps that were concentrated on infrastructure context analysis, risk mitigation strategies, structural analysis, monitoring system, loss analysis and loss minimization. The last step captured the effects of a multi-cost evaluation due to technical inspections, reconstruction, interruptions, and accidents. At the same time, it considered the structural damage states that were associated to the mentioned costs. From the point of view of structural vulnerability two approaches were considered, which were the dynamic and the kinematic approaches. The first one applied to the critical component of the viaduct (e.g., piers) and the second one oriented to the rest of components of the viaduct (e.g., beams, slabs, fix and sliding joints). Nevertheless, a further development of the subject is under study for the extension of the methodology to the whole infrastructure (Section A and Section B), where an upgraded approach of the loss analysis will be included. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the financial supported by the GRISIS project (Cup: B63D180002800079, Surf:18033BP000000001, DD MIUR prot. 368 24 October 2018), implemented by STRESS scarl (www.stress scarl.com, accessed on 14 June 2021) in the framework of FESR Campania 2014–2020.