PSI - Issue 62

Nicola Perilli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 538–545 Nicola Perilli, Stefano Stacul, Massimiliano Lombardi, Nicola Nenci, Nunziante Squeglia / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000 5

542

aimed to select the following two options: (i) absence or (ii) presence of documented landslide. The second option implies that the compilation of the Field Sheet Form surely continues up to Task 2 or up to Task 3. Moreover, a screening of the range of velocity and size of the landslides in these areas is carried out. Task 2 : this task consists in collecting, during the field survey, the information about the geomorphology, geology, and land use of the Relevant Area. Based on the investigation of the Geomorphological Significative Area, this task is also aimed to verify the presence of a landslide (Recognized or Potential) that could threaten the bridge. If it is present, all the data concerning its localization, type of movement and distribution of the activity are collected. The observations carried out in this task, including those in the Geomorphological Significative Area, are very useful to verify if outside to the Relevant Area, there are predisposing causes of landslides that could threaten the bridge. Task 3 : The collection of the data necessary to estimate both primary and secondary parameters is the goal of this task. The estimation of the primary parameters (activity (P A ) or criticality (P C ), velocity (P V ), and magnitude (P M )) of the landslide (Recognized or Potential) under examination should be also based on the range of velocity and magnitude of similar landslides present within the Diagnostic Area, regarding similar lithotechnical units in similar geomorphological and geological contexts. For the assessment of the other three secondary parameters extent of the interference , mitigation measures , and overall reliability of the assessment see Perilli et al. (2024, in this volume).

Table 2. Key areas, cluster of data to collect for each area, workflow and tasks.

D OCUMENTED L ANDSLIDE AND F IELD S URVEY

E STIMATION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PARAMETERS Primary parameters Range of P M and P V of previously documented landslides

L ANDSLIDE CHARACTERIZATION

C ONTEXT CHARACTERIZATION Geomorphology Physiographic unit Morphology of the site Geology Lithologies Lithotechnical units Geomorphology Physiographic unit Morphology of the site Geology Lithology Lithotechnical units Land Use Main features of Land Use and Land Cover Geomorphology Features of the slope Features of the stream Geology Lithology Lithotechnical units Features of the bedrock Features of the soil Land Use Features of vegetation cover (Land Cover) Types of Land Use (Land Use)

K EY A REAS

Presence of documented Landslide YES/NOT

D IAGNOSTIC A REA

G EOMORPHOLOGICAL S IGNIFICATIVE A REA

Primary parameters P A or P C , P M and P V Secondary parameters Extent of interference Mitigation Measures Overall Reliability of the Assessment

Presence of Recognized

Localization Type of landslide Distribution of the activity

Landslide YES/NOT Presence of Potential

Landslide YES/NOT

R ELEVANT A REA

TASK 1 TASK 3 The introduction of these key areas, workflow and tasks therefore also requires updating and improving the Field Sheet Form. In Tab. 3 is shown the current the version of the Inspection Sheet according to LLG, while in Tab. 4 the Field Sheet Form suggested by the Authors in this work. With respect to the current version of the Field Sheet Form: (a) the Authors have grouped all the data clusters useful for the characterization of the geomorphological and geological context and the land use and land cover of the TASK 2