PSI - Issue 84

Galileo Tamasi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 84 (2026) 709–716

712

Namir Shammas

No

No No No

Yes Yes

Free Free Free

Not suitable Not suitable

Alvaro Gerardo Suárez Christopher Neufeld

Yes

No Not suitable Conversely, other versions like those by Namir Shammas or Alvaro Gerardo Suárez, while useful for basic calculations, lack the necessary peripheral support for complex structural workflows. For the HP 97, the desktop counterpart essential for traceable output, the selection is equally varied. Emulators like Nonpareil and Olivier De Smet provide high fidelity by using the original ROM, ensuring that the results are identical to those produced by the 1970s hardware. No

Table 2. Comparative analysis of HP 97 emulators and simulators.

Emulator Hp 97

Card Reader

Card Library Manual

Software

Suitability for Retrocalculation

Nonpareil

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Free Free Free Paid Free

Excellent Excellent

Olivier De Smet

Limpid Fox CuVeeSoft

No

Perfect

Yes

Moderate

Teenix

Variable

Variable

Variable

Low

However, for practical research and professional application on Windows 10/11 platforms, the simulator developed by Limpid Fox emerges as the most effective solution. Despite not using the original ROM, it is characterized by exceptional numerical reliability and a high degree of "Suitability for Retrocalculation" (Perfect), making it the optimal choice for executing the complex structural algorithms required for bridge deck analysis in a modern office environment 4. Case study: a RC bridge over a river The bridge analyzed in this study is a reinforced concrete (RC) continuous beam structure with three spans, connecting existing roads along riverbanks. This specific configuration serves as a representative example of Italian infrastructural heritage from the 1970s. 4.1. Structural geometry and layout The bridge has a total length of 39.00 m and a width of 8.26 m, featuring a 6.00 m wide carriageway flanked by two cantilevered sidewalks, each 1.13 m wide. The structural scheme consists of three continuous spans, with a span ratio between the central and lateral spans of 1.25.

Fig. 2. Structural geometry and layout. Section.