Abstract
A large portion of the existing masonry arch bridges in Italy are still in service in the infrastructure system and are located in a high seismic risk geographical area. They were mainly built more than 100 years ago taking into account only gravitational loads during the design phase without any seismic analysis. For this reason, a seismic vulnerability assessment is mandatory from the Italian government in order to define the priority of seismic retrofit interventions. In this study, a multi-span slender masonry bridge considered as the most vulnerable typology of masonry bridges to seismic action will be assessed. Then, the results obtained from three different seismic assessment approaches will be discussed and compared. In particular, two approaches based on different FE modelling and the last one built on rigid block analysis are considered. Finally, a detailed 3D finite element analysis allowed representing all the collapse mechanism (global and local) of the bridges are presented. Simplified approaches, even though cannot describe all the collapse mechanisms of the bridges due to seismic action can lead to reliable results.
Highlights
Masonry arch bridges represent a significant percentage of cultural heritage in Italy and Europe (Melbourne et al, 2007)
Multi-span bridges with slender piers and almost semi-circular arches are still vulnerable to seismic action
By comparing the Performance Indicator (PI) values obtained from the analyses, it is possible to notice how the fiber-beam element model gives lower PI values than those of the 3D finite element model. These results show that the fiber-beam element model, while satisfactorily approximating the behavior of the structure is more favorable to safety by lowering PI values in respect to the 3D finite element model
Summary
Masonry arch bridges represent a significant percentage of cultural heritage in Italy and Europe (Melbourne et al, 2007). Non-linear dynamic analysis can be a quick tool for analyses of simple structural models, which is the case of macro-elements (Pantò et al, 2016; Cannizzaro et al, 2018) or fiber-beam element approaches (De Santis and de Felice, 2014). An adequate number of experimental tests referred in Brencich and Gambarotta (2005) and De Felice and De Santis (2010) confirm that the plane section hypothesis of the beam element is valid when it experiences a non-linear deformation For these reasons, the solution considered to discretize the arch by means of straight beams (composed of fibers) is a valid trade-off between the model itself and the accuracy of the solution obtained. The weights of the remaining elements, which are not considered as resisting elements from time to time, are applied as forces to the arches
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
