PSI - Issue 84

Diego Esposito et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 84 (2026) 1198–1205

1202

a

b

Figure 4. FE Model, (a) element’s view, (b) extruded view.

1A

1B

2A

2B

3A

3B

4A

4B

Figure 5. Schematics of the Load Testing Procedure

The test (Figure 5) was repeated on three spans of the viaduct: span 10 (C.10) and span 1 (C.1) in the Terni direction and span 2 (C.2) in the Viterbo direction. These spans were selected based on the cracking pattern classified through a qualitative severity index: low (C.10), medium (C.2), and high (C.1). 5. Analysis of Experimental Results Figure 6 shows the diagrams corresponding to different measurement points located at midspan of the deck: M1 on the curb opposite the load position, M3 on the curb closest to the load, and M2 along the deck axis. Each graph displays both the experimental values recorded during the load test and the corresponding theoretical values obtained from analytical models with different percentages of elastic modulus degradation. The x-axis represents the theoretical total bending moment associated with each load configuration, while the y-axis shows the deflection. It should be noted that at measurement points M1 and M2, only complete configurations (1B, 2B, 3B, and 4B) were recorded, whereas at point M3 all eight configurations were measured. Attention is drawn to a common feature observed in all tests: a clear change in slope occurs between load configurations 2B and 3A (introduction of the second row of trucks).