2014
DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2014.938661
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contribution ofin situand laboratory investigations for assessing seismic vulnerability of existing bridges

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Probing is required when a quantitative characterization of main material properties is required, and it commonly consists in the extraction of samples, to be subsequently characterized via laboratory tests (e.g., when dealing with the characterization of steel or concrete stress-strain curves) or with in-situ tests (e.g., single-double flat jack systems, see Pellegrino et al, 2014). Depending on the material of each structural element, different types of probing should be carried out.…”
Section: Probingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Probing is required when a quantitative characterization of main material properties is required, and it commonly consists in the extraction of samples, to be subsequently characterized via laboratory tests (e.g., when dealing with the characterization of steel or concrete stress-strain curves) or with in-situ tests (e.g., single-double flat jack systems, see Pellegrino et al, 2014). Depending on the material of each structural element, different types of probing should be carried out.…”
Section: Probingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior to evaluating the safety level of an existing masonry arch bridge, its structural health condition should be assessed (Pellegrino et al, 2014). To this purpose, the following activities can be undertaken:…”
Section: Incidence Of Materials Deterioration and Damage Conditionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The combined effect of these factors progressively induces material deterioration (decrease of mechanical properties), damage development (opening of joints and ring separation in arch barrels, cracks in piers, wing walls and parapets, loss of bricks) and deformations (distortion of the arch profile, out-of-plane rotation of spandrel walls). Inspection and long-term monitoring have also revealed the possibility of occurrence of multiple damage and failure modes in the same bridge (Page et al 1991;Helmerich et al, 2012;Pellegrino et al, 2014;Modena et al, 2015;Rota et al 2005;Stablon 2011; Kaminski and Bien, 2013;Harvey et al, 2013;. Therefore, on the one hand, there is still today the need for a deeper understanding of the structural behaviour of masonry arch bridges and for a more aware choice of the analysis method to assess their load-carrying capacity, safety level and life expectancy, in order to inform maintenance, repair and strengthening strategies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…De Santis and De Felice [12] proposed a fiber beambased methodology to assess the seismic capacity of masonry arches and arch bridges using pushover analyses under different load distributions and nonlinear incremental dynamic analyses under earthquake ground motions. Pellegrino et al [13] presented that use of in situ and laboratory tests for seismic vulnerability assessment of bridges may be a useful instrument to improve seismic assessment. Marefat et al [14] carried out pushover analyses for seismic assessment of plain concrete arch railway bridges using two-dimensional finite element models calibrated by using results of in-situ field dynamic load tests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%