PSI - Issue 62

Matteo Nicolini et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 62 (2024) 601–608 Matteo Nicolini/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

608

8

Fig. 9.Differential maps of velocity field and morphodynamic evolution between different configurations: (a) SDP-SDF, velocity; (b) SDP-SDA, velocity; (c) SDP-SDF, bed evolution; (d) SDP-SDA, bed evolution. Results refer to the event characterized by a return period of 100 years.

Fig. 10. Pictures taken during the restoration phase (a, b) and when the 25-26 October 2023 flood event occurred (c).

References

Arneson, L.A., Zevenbergen, L.W., Lagasse, P.F., Clopper, P.E., 2012. Evaluating Scour at Bridges, 5th ed.; Bridge Superstructures; U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA. De Falco F, Mele R., 2002. The monitoring of bridges for scour by sonar and sedimetri. NDT&E International 2002;35(2):117-123. Lagasse, P.F., Clopper, P.E., Zevenbergen, L.W., Girard, L.G., 2007. NCHRP Report 593: Countermeasures to Protect Bridge Piers from Scour; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA. Smith, D.W., 1977. Why do bridges fail? Civ. Eng., 47, 58 – 62. Wardhana K, Hadipriono FC., 2003. Analysis of recent bridge failures in the U.S. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,17(3),144-150.