PSI - Issue 84

Michele D’Amato et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 84 (2026) 1175–1182

1181

Table 2. Results of Shapiro–Wilk ( W ) and D’Agostino-Pearson ( K 2 ) tests. α = 0.01. Material Data Source Structural Element Class

No. of Data

W K 2

p -Value Distribution

Piers

FeB44 FeB44 FeB44

4 9 5 3

0.942 0.959 0.765 0.777

/ / / /

0.6668 0.7911 0.0406 0.0603

Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal

Acceptance certificates In situ tests In situ tests

Reinforcing steel

Deck box girders

Beams

Concrete

Piers

R300

Log-normal

Bars 1050

107 155

0.946 5.088 0.0785 0.976 0.231 0.8909

Braids 1860 Braids 1900 Strands 1820 Strands 1860 Strands 1960 Wires 1570 Wires 1620 Wires 1670

53 10

0.940 0.856

/ /

0.0102 0.0687

Prestressing steel

Acceptance certificates

550

0.992 3.246 0.1973

NA

6

0.849 0.989 0.973 0.734

/ / / /

0.1553 0.2943 0.1422 0.0139

143

68

6

5. Conclusions This study presents the SAFOTEB database that collects the mechanical properties of reinforcing steel, concrete, and prestressing steel used in approximately 170 existing Italian prestressed concrete bridges constructed between 1960 and 2000. The data are retrieved from different data sources, including design nominal values, acceptance certificates, and in situ test results extracted from the original bridge documentation. The analysis of the database highlights significant variability in data completeness across the sample. For many bridges, material strength information is not available for all structural elements, materials, or data sources. Post tensioned concrete box girder bridges (post-TCBs) represent the predominant typology within the database (78%) and typically employ strands as prestressing elements. Most reinforcing steel (90%) and concrete (92%) strength values derive from design documentation, whereas prestressing steel data are mainly obtained from acceptance certificates (96.7%). Goodness-of-fit tests were conducted on variables characterized by sufficiently large sample sizes. The statistical results indicate that the hypothesis of the normal distribution is not rejected for reinforcing steel and prestressing steel strengths, while concrete strength is better represented by a log-normal distribution. Despite the heterogeneity and occasional inconsistencies in historical documentation, this database represents one of the first systematic efforts in Italy to catalog and statistically analyze material strength data for existing prestressed concrete bridges. Currently the SAFOTEB database is publicly available at https://www.consorziofabre.it/progetti-di ricerca/safoteb/ (accessed on 16 February 2026) and is intended to support researchers and practitioners in structural assessment, simulated design scenarios, and verification procedures under limited knowledge conditions. Future developments will focus on comparing original strength values with current in situ measurements to investigate correlations between mechanical property degradation and observed deterioration mechanisms, such as reinforcement corrosion and concrete damage. Further expansions of the dataset, including contributions from other research groups, are expected to enhance data consistency, statistical robustness, and collaborative progress in the assessment of existing bridge infrastructure. Acknowledgements This study was supported by FABRE – “Research consortium for the evaluation and monitoring of bridges, viaducts and other structures” (www.consorziofabre.it/en). Any opinion expressed in the paper does not necessarily reflect the view of the funder.