Structural Engineering International

ISSN: 1016-8664 (Print) 1683-0350 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tsei20

Retrofitting Alternatives for an Existing Maillart-

Arch-Type Bridge: A Case Study

Laura Giovanna Guidi PhD & Antonello De Luca Prof.

To cite this article: Laura Giovanna Guidi PhD & Antonello De Luca Prof. (2025) Retrofitting
Alternatives for an Existing Maillart-Arch-Type Bridge: A Case Study, Structural Engineering
International, 35:2, 171-190, DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2024.2306684

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2024.2306684

Published online: 25 Mar 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 171

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsei20
Retrofitting Alternatives for an Existing Maillart-Arch-Type
Bridge: A Case Study
Laura Giovanna Guidi, PhD; Antonello De Luca, Prof., Dipartimento di Strutture per l’Ingegneria e l’Architettura, Università degli
Studi di Napoli “Federico II”, Naples, Italy. Contact: [email protected]
DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2024.2306684

Abstract the current live loads demand, in

relation to the higher traffic volume,
This article examines different retrofit approaches for a still-in-use deck- the increase of vehicle speed, the
stiffened arch bridge, the Viadotto Olivieri in Salerno (A3 Highway—South resulting dynamic effects,13,22–25 and
Italy). In its current state, the viaduct is characterized by a central Maillart- the over-loads due to exceptional
arch system, separated by 6 cm-deep joints from two lateral girder portions: trucks. The use of special heavy
the whole system works as an isostatic scheme on a global scale. Dating back vehicles, sometimes over the permiss-
to the 1960s, it derives from an early design approach, not including the effects ible limit in size and in weight, is
of seismic actions. Considering the demands of current codes, also in light of quite common nowadays: the overload
recent bridge collapses and the resulting plan for assessing the structural vehicle crossing of a bridge, passing
safety and vulnerability of existing bridges, studies on seismic capacity become even once, may affect not only the
necessary to highlight the potentials and deficits of such complex structures. short term behaviour of the bridge
Analysing a still-in-use example of a Maillart-arch-type bridge, the article but also the long term performance
examines two different retrofit approaches. The first retrofit alternative and life cycle cost of the structure.
includes the strengthening and partial modification of the original deck bridge: The cumulative damage to the bridge
it exploits the beneficial effects of making the slender vault collaborate with a may reduce its serviceability or
more rigid single deck, resulting from joint closure. Moving in the opposite induce unexpected failure, as occurred
direction, the second alternative considers the application of seismic isolation recently in Italy near Lecco (Annone
to the original scheme. An intermediate Isolation System (IS) has been di Brianza), where a pre-stressed con-
postulated, inserting rubber devices—High Damping Rubber Bearings crete bridge collapsed for passing an
(HDRBs)—below the deck, at the top of the cross-walls. The advantages of an unauthorized overload truck. The
IS are clear, observing a great reduction of base reactions; moreover, the other aspect to consider to keep
introduction of the IS completely modifies the original static scheme and working the infrastructural network is
exacerbates bridge deformability, at the expense of slender cross-walls, related to bridges vulnerability in the
suffering for buckling. A comparison between these retrofit alternatives is event of a major earthquakes, in light
argued in the article, evaluating the impact of different types of solution on of the destructive potential of the
the valuable original structural scheme. recent events.26–28 Dating back to the
Keywords: structural safety; retrofit approach; seismic isolation; deck second half of twentieth century
strengthening; existing concrete arch bridge; Mallairt-arch-type bridge; seismic mainly, a lot of still in use bridges
vulnerability. derive from a design procedure prior
to the introduction of seismic codes:
in this case, their capacity in counter-
Introduction and Motivation Regarding their significant impact,18 acting strong motion might be related
of the Study the definition of a risk and resilience to their original structural conception
assessment for bridge networks is of and their careful design procedure,
Bridges can be considered the most paramount importance for developing being undersized to face seismic
vulnerable components of road net- effective mitigation strategies.19 The actions effectively.29–34 Exploring the
works. Damage due to natural need for action is clear on global current codes worldwide, a certain
hazards (e.g. earthquakes or floods), scale, as confirmed by recent bridge delay in addressing bridge seismic vul-
ageing or maintenance deficits1 may failures, culminated in the emblematic nerability can be recognized: a new
reduce system performance and collapse of Polcevera Bridge in Genoa. interest in rehabilitation/retrofitting
provide important socio-economic Many existing and still-in-use road of such strategic structures35 has
losses for a notable time period. In brides appear inadequate to guarantee occurred only in the last decades.
the case of sudden and strong events structural safety in comparison to the Recently, this issue has become
involving a wide area, such as demand of current codes,20 (Euro- peculiar worldwide: in Italy, a plan of
extreme earthquakes, their loss of codes DMRBa,b,c,d). The infrastruc- actions has been put into practice,
functionality may also have an impor- tural network needs to be constantly including a detailed programme of
tant effect on emergency response, as monitored and maintained: works on inspection for existing bridges. Also,
occurred after the impressive failure large scale are necessary to ensure novel dedicated standards have been
of Fukae Bridge owing to the Kobe safe transit of vehicles21 and to pre- introduced: the new “Guidelines for
earthquake2 or during other cata- serve their functioning in extreme risk classification, safety assessment
strophic events.3–12 Besides the costs working conditions, as occurred and structural health monitoring of
due to the bridge’s restoration, also during strong earthquakes. Consider- existing bridges”36 present an appro-
socio-economic injuries occur as a con- ing the first aspect, many still in use priate methodology to manage the
sequence of network disruptions.13–17 bridges appear under-designed to face old and dated national bridge

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 171

© 2024 International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE)
network,37 opting for a multi-hazard response, also considering any pro- the surrounding naturalistic context, a
approach. Basic tools to preserve and blems of numerical analysis for earth- “Z-shape” deck solution was used: it
improve the dated bridge network quake induced actions,46–51 accurate is characterized by two staggered car-
may include: the definition of a com- FEM models have been adopted. riageways connected by a 4 m-high
prehensive database of the still-in-use Once discussed bridge deficits at the wall-beam (Fig. 2). This guarantees
bridge stock; the evaluation of poten- current state, the article explores the the minimum deck width and avoids
tials and deficits of these complex effects of modifying the original discomfort due to car lights; in
structures in counteracting actions static scheme, working on deck con- addition, considering deck static be-
not provided for in the original figuration or evaluating the possibility haviour, the solution is able to carry
design, via surveys in situ and accurate of introducing anti-seismic devices. stress due to bending moment reversal.
Finite-Element Model (FEM) ana- This results in two different retrofit
The Maillart-arch-scheme was pro-
lyses.38–39 In view of these absolute pri- approaches: from one side, a conser-
posed for seven bridges along the
orities, the article refers to a peculiar vative solution opts for the strength-
A3. In consideration of the admired
bridge type, commonly used through- ening of the existing structure,
local scenery, long span concrete
out Europe during the 1960s, analysing obtaining a single deck solution by
arch bridges were preferred, using a
a still-in-use concrete Maillart-arch closing the existing joints. From the
succession of modern and light Mail-
bridge. other side, an alternative intervention
lart-scheme bridges—these works of
hypothesizes the use of an intermedi-
art were put in a rhythmic
ate Isolation System (IS) made of
Methodology sequence 41—to guarantee a pleasant
rubber devices, put below the deck
aesthetic whole. These concrete-
at the top of the cross-walls, to
To preserve functionality of existing deck-arch bridges have similar geo-
“decouple” the stiffer deck from the
bridges in the event of earthquake, metric characteristics, giving the possi-
slender vault. A comparison
preliminary evaluations are necessary bility of reducing construction time
between these solutions is argued
to plan actions for minimizing strong and costs by using a series of similar
below.
motion impact on these strategic temporary supporting structures. The
structures. This leads to consider concrete casting of these slender
strengthening or retrofitting strategies vaults was made by an Italian con-
as cost-effective alternatives to repla-
Viadotto Olivieri: Main struction company (from Padova):
cement of existing bridges. The article Features light centrings were adopted, using
refers to a still in use application of the Italian patent “Tubo Innocenti,”
Overview on Bridge Context and as described by Giannetti.52 Viaducts
the deck-stiffened arch-type, orig-
inally proposed by Maillart and Time are characterized by direct foun-
widely used during the 2nd World Included in a set of public works dations (plinths) on rocky soil. From
War reconstruction in all Europe, as financed by Cassa del Mezzogiorno in Pompei to Salerno, the eight bridges
described by Grassini40–42 and Santar- 1950s to relaunch the economy of in succession are: (1) the Rotolo
ella.43,44 The case study of Viadotto South Italy, Viadotto Olivieri is Valley Bridge (Ltot = 300 m), charac-
Olivieri has been considered. one of eight bridges along the terized by two concrete deck arch
Seismic capacity of this structure has A3-Highway, Pompei–Salerno, the bridges (Maillart scheme), spanning
been partially discussed by authors new highway section connecting 60 m in each case, with an arch rise
in a previous article.45 Despite this the further South provinces of Campa- of 19 m (rise-to-span ratio r/L = 1/
typology is quite common, this nia. It is located in an extreme and sug- 3.2); (2) the Surdolo Valley Bridge
subject is not widely treated by litera- gestive naturalistic context, full of (Ltot = 130.30 m), a Maillart-arch-type
ture. The first reconnaissance step of slopes crossed by rivers, overlooking bridge of 60.80 m span, with an arch
the structure in its current state has the sea (Fig. 1). Originally known as rise of 16 m (rise-to-span ratio r/L =
relied on evidences from visual the “touristic road”, this line was 1/3.8); (3) the San Liberatore Bridge
checks and surveys in situ. On this designed in parallel to the existing (Ltot = 111.12 m), a Maillart-arch-type
base, to investigate bridge seismic railway. Also to reduce the impact on bridge with an arch span length of

Fig. 1: Maillart-arch-type Bridges along the A3: (a) the context; (b) Caiafa and Madonna degli Angeli Bridges. © photo by authors

172 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025

Fig. 2: Maillart-arch-type bridges along the A3-Highway, Pompei–Salerno: (a) detail of staggered carriageways; (b) road section connecting
Caiafa Bridge to Madonna degli Angeli Bridge. © AITEC—pictures from “P. Grassini, L’Autostrada Pompei–Salerno ed il suo inseri-
mento nel paesaggio, L’industria Italiana del Cemento—n. 8, 1961, pp. 397–412”

Fig. 3: Maillart-arch-type bridges along the A3-Highway, Pompei–Salerno: (a) Madonna degli Angeli Bridge in Vietri sul Mare; (b) road
section connecting between Vietri and Salerno. © AITEC—pictures from “P. Grassini, L’Autostrada Pompei–Salerno ed il suo inserimento
nel paesaggio, L’industria Italiana del Cemento—n. 8, 1961, pp. 397–412”

60.80 m and a rise of 15.80 m (rise-to- 3.7)—having a clearance above the 60 m and a rise of 20.80 m (rise-to-
span ratio, r/L = 1/3.8); (4) the Vietri valley of 67 m, it required the use of span ratio r/L = 2.88). Very
Viaduct (Ltot = 161 m), a girder 81 km-long tubular scaffoldings definite similarities in geometrical
bridge with slender supporting cross- during the construction; (7) the Oli- characterization and proportions
walls, 10 m-spaced from each other; vieri Bridge (Ltot = 136.80 m), a Mail- guaranteed a structural and compo-
(5) the Madonna degli Angeli Bridge lart-arch-type bridge with an arch sitional uniformity along the new
(Ltot = 111.36 m) (Fig. 3), the fourth span length of 76 m and a rise of highway track.
Maillart-arch-type bridge of 60.80 m 19.30 m (rise-to-span ratio r/L = 1/
span, with an arch rise of 18 m (rise- 3.9); (8) the Madonna del Monte
to-span ratio r/L = 1/3.4); (6) the Viaduct (Ltot = 101.04 m), the second Arch Shape and Static Scheme of
Caiafa Bridge (Ltot = 204.60 m) girder bridge with slender supporting the Maillart-arch Bridges Along
(Fig. 4), the longest R.C. arch bridge cross-walls, 10 m spaced from each the A3
along this highway section, with an other; (9) the Canalone Valley Bridge The arch bridges along the A3 were
arch span length of 120 m and a rise (Ltot = 110.83 m), a Maillart-arch designed by Professors Benini and
of 32.50 (rise-to-span ratio r/L = 1/ bridge with an arch span length of Schimidt41 from Basilea. They are

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 173

Fig. 4: Maillart-arch-type bridges along the A3-Highway, Pompei–Salerno: (a) Caiafa Bridge; (b) Olivieri Bridge. © AITEC—pictures
from “P. Grassini, L’Autostrada Pompei–Salerno ed il suo inserimento nel paesaggio, L’industria Italiana del Cemento—n. 8, 1961,
pp. 397–412”

characterized by a central Maillart- congenial solution to mitigate the releases were also introduced at the
arch portion, separated by low deep possible effects of temperature vari- intersection of the cross-walls with
joints from the adjoining access ations, concrete shrinkage or foun- the lower arch and the upper deck
ramps: this results in a static easy-to- dation subsidence.53 Taking a (the cross-walls work as pendulums).
calculate scheme. The introduction of cautious approach, the static scheme This preliminary simplified approach
non-seismic joints, dividing the deck assumed for dimensioning arch and was justified by evaluating a low
into three portions, makes the whole girder sections, as in Figs. 5a and 5b, bending stiffness for the slender vault
structure isostatic on a global scale: in was characterized by hinged restraints in comparison to the upper rigid
this way, designers obtained the most at the base of each arch; hinged deck.37

Fig. 5: Maillart-arch-type bridges along the A3-Highway, Pompei–Salerno: (a) drawing of San Liberatore Bridge; (b) typological static
scheme. © AITEC—“P. Grassini, Grandi ponti in cemento armato sull’Autostrada Pompei Salerno, L’industria Italiana del Cemento—n.
1, 1957, pp. 207–213”; (c) Olivieri Bridge—longitudinal layout. © drawing by authors

174 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025

Fig. 6: Olivieri Bridge:(a) detail of ribbed vault; (b) view from below. © photo by authors

The arch shape corresponds to the funi- NA-side, (b) a 45.60 m-long six-span surface, 0.75 t/m²), (b) the deck
cular polygon due to dead loads, in reinforced concrete girder bridge as aliquot contributes 44% (dead load
accordance with Maillart’s model54–59: access ramp on the SA-side, and (c) a per unit surface, 1.01 t/m²), (c) the con-
in this way, bending moments due to central deck arch bridge, spanning tribution of the cross-walls corresponds
dead loads in the arch are the lowest 76.40 m. The Maillart-arch portion is to 23% (dead load per unit surface,
possible, while small eccentricities, due recognizable by a thin ribbed vault 0.51 t/m²). To estimate the superim-
to live loads, are allowed. The and a rigid upper deck. The vault has posed-dead load, a road deck with a
cooperation between the arch and the a 20 cm-thick concrete shell, stiffened flexible paving has been considered, in
upper deck leads the girder to counteract by five ribs (Fig. 6), with variable cross accordance with the original design: it
additional bending effects due to moving section. The polygonal arch consists of consists of a mixture of asphaltic or
loads, while the arch supports mainly 10 straight portions, with increasing bituminous material and aggregates,
compression strengths.60–62 Using a section size passing from the arch arrange by layers (11 cm asphalt
“Z-shaped” cross section for the bridge crown to the springs. The bridge deck surface plus 14 cm binder). This
deck, a more effective cooperation in consists of two staggered carriageways, paving results in a load per unit
the arch-to-girder transfer system is guar- each having two traffic lanes. A con- surface of 0.28 t/m², calculated consid-
anteed by the central wall-beam, con- tinuous wall-beam (Δz = 400 cm, thick- ering an overall bridge deck width of
necting two staged carriageways. Each ness 25 cm) connects both portions. 17.20 m. The sum of all these perma-
portion carries bending effects in pro- The road deck is characterized by a nent loads is about 5117 t, correspond-
portion to its flexural stiffness. As thin slab (having a variable thickness ing to a load per unit surface of
argued also by Billington, “a stiff deck of 24–37 cm), supported by longitudinal 2.17 t/m² (88% dead weight plus 12%
could remove large forces from the arch, beams of different size (123 cm × 45 cm superimposed dead weight). Live
if the arch was designed to be much less and 123 cm × 25 cm), as may be seen in loads have been evaluated in accord-
stiff than the deck”.54 Thanks to this Fig. 7. The connection between the arch ance with current Italian building
typology, many advantages could be and the deck is guaranteed by slender code20 assuming two 7 m-wide carriage-
obtained, such as: (a) economic use of cross-walls, each of which is made of a ways, each one having two lanes. A
materials—strict interaction between 12 cm-thick concrete shell stiffened by total live load per unit surface of
arch and girder allows better use of the five columns whose cross sections 0.39 t/m² has been evaluated. The
strength coming from different structural increase from the middle to the edges. bridge load estimation points out a
elements, (b) negligible effects due to The geometric characteristics of the live-to-permanent load ratio equal to
concrete shrinkage and settings, due to structural components have been nearly 1 : 6.5. In particular, the dead
a low-thickness vault, (c) small cost for obtained from a 3D scanner survey, load aliquot corresponds to 75% of
centerings, having to support the weight courtesy of the managing society. the overall applied loads, the superim-
of a slender vault, and (d) aesthetic From the effective geometry of the posed dead loads reach 10%, while
value of a non-redundant structure. bridge, dead loads have been estimated the live loads percentage is about
as indicated in Table 1. The total bridge 15%. A low live-to-permanent loads
weight, about 4520 t, is distributed ratio justifies the use of an arch shape
Main Structural Aspects of the Case among different portions as follows: funicular of permanent loads: a small
Study (a) about 8% is contributed by the live load variation cannot affect arch
Viadotto Olivieri, in Fig. 5c, has a deck- access ramp on the NA side, (b) 66% trust line. This configuration ensures a
stiffened arch system in the central is the dead load due to the central Mail- good safety level for live loads effects,
portion. The bridge deck has a total lart-arch-type bridge, (c) 26% is the considering their variability in time.
length of 136.80 m: it is divided in contribution of the access ramp on the
three parts by 6 cm-deep joints (corre- SA side. The deck’s stiffened arch has Possible Retrofit Strategies:
sponding to pier numbers 2 and 12). a total dead load of about 2973 t, Main Concepts
The viaduct consists of: (a) a 15.20 m- divided among components as follows:
long two-span reinforced concrete (a) the ribbed vault contributes 33% Dating back to the 1960s, the original
girder bridge as access ramp on the of this weight (dead load per unit bridge design did not account for the

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 175

Fig. 7: Olivieri Bridge: deck cross section with traffic steering. © drawing by authors

effects of earthquake induced forces, with the lateral abutments. The second of a continuous concrete slab, in corre-
appearing inadequate for seismic approach looks for a change in the spondence of the deck joints, and
demand by current code.20 Further- bridge’s original layout: it tries to regu- might provide for the insertion of any
more, the bridge resulted from an accu- larize the bridge’s dynamic response tie-bars necessary to face possible
rate design procedure that could ensure and to improve seismic capacity by tensile stress. To produce a continuous
unexpected “reserves” against load introducing an intermediate Isolation girder behaviour, a specific bearing
types not foreseen in the earliest System (IS); the use of anti-seismic configuration is required: the restraints
design steps. In line with the evaluations devices creates a “cut” between the have to fix the deck to one of the abut-
of bridge vulnerability discussed by the deck intrados and the top of the cross- ments, allowing longitudinal sliding at
present authors in a previous article,45 walls, decoupling the response of the the other side. The choice of bearing
this work proposes two different retrofit upper deck from that of the lower type is influenced by the Z-shape
approaches for the case study. The first slender arch. cross section, made of five main beam
alternative evaluates the effects of elements: as many bearings are necess-
changing deck configuration, through ary to support the deck at abutments
joint closure, and exploits the benefits Hypothesis No.1: Deck Stiffening and in correspondence of pier
of making the slender vault collaborate The first retrofit hypothesis is given by numbers 2–12. To make the whole
with an upper stiffer deck: the main Fig. 8a: the solution wants to connect deck work in a flexural regime, three
scope is to unload the central slender the three deck portions by closing the fixed bearings should be used to
vault, concentrating the shear and 6 cm-deep joints. This could be support the central beams correspond-
moment distribution to correspond obtained through the reconstruction ing to the NA abutment; on the

176 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025

Load Type Portion L (m) P (t) P (%) FL−1 (t/m) FL−2 (t/m2)*
Dead loads Ramp on NA-side 15.20 356.9 6 23.48 1.37
Dead loads Central arch 76.00 2974 49 39.13 2.28
Dead loads Ramp on SA-side 45.60 1190 20 26.10 1.52
Sub-total dead loads Over all bridge 136.80 4520.9 75 33.05 1.92
Superimposed-dead loads Ramp on NA-side 15.20 74.52 6 4.90 0.29
Superimposed-dead loads Central arch 76.00 297.92 5 3.92 0.23
Superimposed-dead loads Ramp on SA-side 45.60 223.46 4 4.90 0.28
Sub-total super-dead loads Over all bridge 136.80 595.9 10 4.36 0.25
Live loads Ramp on NA-side 15.20 87.8 1 5.78 0.34
Live loads Central arch 76.00 558.9 9 7.35 0.43
Live loads Ramp on SA-side 45.60 263.4 4 5.78 0.34
Sub-total live loads Over all bridge 136.80 910.1 15 6.65 0.39
Over all bridge loads Total 136.80 6026.9 100 44.06 2.56
*FL−2, the super dead weight per unit of surface, is calculated considering an overall bridge deck width of 17.20 m (compared to dead loads).

Table 1: Olivieri Bridge—loads estimation

contrary, mono-directional transversal concrete sections have to be intro- associated to the first mode of the
bearings should be applied for the duced at the edge of deck slab cantile- structure in its current state (T1 =
lateral beams, giving the deck the ver portions in order to balance the 0.67 s). Thanks to IS, the main
possibility to accommodate transversal high deformability of the “Z-shape” period of the structure moves
deformations. Corresponding to joint deck section. This leads to a duplicate towards the final segments of the
closures (pier numbers 2 and 12) and deck dead load at the expense of the acceleration design spectrum: as
at the SA abutment, mono-directional slender vault, whose shape is funicular may be seen in Fig. 9, the design
longitudinal bearings should be put with respect to dead loads derived period corresponds to a maximum
under the three central beams, while from the original design. displacement of 200 mm. To size the
bi-directional bearings should be used IS system, the effective seismic
for the lateral ones. At the expense of weight, W, has been estimated
Hypothesis No. 2: Isolation System
the original isostatic scheme, the according to the Italian building
single deck solution increases the (IS) by Using Rubber Devices code,16 comprising the total perma-
static redundancy of the structure on The alternative approach tries to nent loads and an aliquot of live
a global scale, which is not favourable mitigate earthquake effects on the ones. To define the seismic weight
for problems induced by temperature Maillart scheme by adopting an (Wtot = 3150 t) for a busy urban
variation. The structural response of appropriate IS.63,64 The theoretical bridge, permanent loads have to be
the resulting system can be simulated proposal provides for the introduc- increased with 20% of overall live
through FEM analysis by using a tion of High Damping Rubber Bear- loads. Assuming an “intermediate”
single deformable deck model, fixed ings (HDRBs), which are widely position for the IS, the seismic
at the base (SD-F). A means of com- used worldwide.26,27,45,65 These anti- weight includes only live and perma-
parison in the evaluation of effects seismic devices should be put below nent loads of the upper deck. The
due to changes in deck configuration the deck, at the top of the cross- theoretical solution wants to cut the
can derived from a theoretical single walls, corresponding to the column 17 cross-walls at their tops to insert
un-deformed deck solution (SUD-F), caps, as may be seen in Fig. 8b. HDRBs on each column. The total
which can be obtained by modelling This completely modifies the original number of rubber devices is n = 5 ×
the whole deck as a continuous rigid configuration of the central Maillart- 17 = 85: each bearing will carry a ver-
body with diaphragm constraints for arch bridge, but could ensure some tical load of 37 t. Assuming TIS =
each staggered level. In this last case, advantages, such as: (a) a great 2.50 s, the comprehensive stiffness
the entire deck has a very high in- reduction of base reactions, (b) no to be ensured by the IS can be
plane stiffness, rigid against mem- damages to the upper structure, defined in accordance with Eq. (1):
brane-type deformations. A series of which remains in the elastic range,
comparisons between SUD-F and and (c) the capacity to filter and W · 4p2
SD-F solutions underline many trou- reduce the seismic input transferred KISO-tot = 2
TISO
bles in the actual realization of a from the ground to the deck struc-
single undeformable deck, being influ- ture. The isolation system has been = 22, 870 kN/m (1)
enced by the shape and the deform- dimensioned with a target isolation
ability of the deck cross section. To period (TIS) of 2.50 s, which is 3.7- In this case, the choice of device
obtain a SUD-F, huge centrifuged times greater than the period diameter is greatly influenced by

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 177

Fig. 8: Retrofit of Olivieri Bridge: (a) hypothesis no. 1: jointing three deck portions; (b) hypothesis no. 2: introduction of an Isolation System
(IS). Unit is meter

cross-wall geometry: their columns primary (S1) and secondary (S2) system should be introduced, as
have a concrete cross section shape factors, are indicated in beam connecting column caps for
varying from a maximum (45 cm × Table 2. As derived from the displa- each cross-wall. This lies outside the
30 cm) to a minimum of (30 cm × cement design response spectrum scope of this article.
30 cm): this means that the device valued for the bridge site, the
diameter cannot exceed 300 mm. maximum expected horizontal displa-
This IS-simulation provides for the cement is dH = 200 mm = 67%Φ, to Checking the Effectiveness of
use of HDRB300, made of a soft which corresponds an effective Retrofit Proposals Through
compound with a dynamic shear (reduced) area equal to 40% of the FEM Analyses
modulus G = 0.40 MPa and an equiv- bearing area in an undeformed con-
alent viscous damping coefficient figuration.66,67 From a technological To evaluate the benefits of the retrofit
equal to 10%. The main character- point of view, to make this solution proposals, detailed FEM models have
istics of devices, including the effective, an appropriate transferring been employed, comparing the

178 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025

 carried out during bridge maintenance
F G tr ti Vcrit,0 dH, Vcrit σcrit work. The strengths of materials were
(mm) (MPa) S1 S2 (mm) (mm) (t) max/F (t) (MPa) obtained from sub-vertical core
300 0.40 10 3 100 7.50 93 67% 37 13 samples corresponding to abutments
and from specific checks to remove
Table 2: Retrofit by IS solution: main characteristics of rubber bearing devices
deteriorated concrete cover, corre-
sponding to the abutments and pier
structure in its current state with both FEM Model Characterization numbers 2–12, or along longitudinal
alternatives, to outline the most suit- beams. Considering the complexity of
able one. To understand the response Detailed FEM models have been used the structure and the level of knowl-
on a global scale of each solution and to assess seismic vulnerability in the edge reached during preliminary
to define the way different bridge current state and to check the effi- investigations, these mechanical par-
macro-elements are involved in coun- ciency of retrofit proposals. Geometric ameters have been reduced by using
teracting seismic input, a smart and characterization of a bridge in its a “confidence factor” (FC): precau-
effective approach has been used, as current state are derived from 3D tionary, the lowest level (LC1) has
partially argued by the authors of scanner metric surveys on site: the been considered (FC = 1.35). Through
Ref. [45]. A bridge’s seismic response resulting cloud of points has been ela- the reduction of material strengths,
can usually be obtained from different borated and converted into DWG file the models can include possible
types of analysis, such as nonlinear (by AutoCAD® software) to define delayed effects that could have
time history,68–70 elastic spectral analy- elements’ dimensions exactly, later occurred since the bridge was built,
sis71 or nonlinear static analysis.72 But, implemented in FEM software influencing its response. The viaduct
considering the complexity of the (Sap2000). This preliminary investi- has been discretized accurately: the
structure, a simplified linear analysis gation leads to identify a bridge’s main structure, made of arches and
has been preferred in the earliest major structural aspects, as expected beams, has been modelled using
recognizable step of bridge seismic by “level 0” of the multi-hazard frame elements, while cross-walls and
capacity. Providing for the application approach expected by current Italian slabs have been defined as shells.
of a total horizontal force equal to Guidelines for existing bridges.36 Joint modelling is faithful to reality:
10% of the overall bridge permanent FEM models faithfully reproduce the at the top of pier numbers 2 and 12,
loads in both plane directions, linear strength and stiffness characteristics the corresponding cross-walls split in
analysis easily returns the stress distri- of the structure in its current state. two parts, one supporting the arch-
bution among different macro- The bridge has been modelled as dedicated-deck portion, the other
elements (in terms of moment, shear closely as possible to the real structure, bearing the adjacent access ramp. In
and axial force at the base of piers using the effective material properties this way, the original scheme remains
and abutments) and immediately (mean value of concrete compressive isostatic on a global scale. Another
synthetizes the advantages/disadvan- strength 35 MPa; mean value of steel interesting aspect that has been con-
tages of each retrofitting solution. yielding strength 509 MPa). These par- sidered in modelling this bridge is the
This leads to the evaluation of the ameters, as with all the other bridge foundation system. As confirmed by
structural components that suffer data, are courtesy of SAM and are surveys, in its current state, the mem-
most from earthquake induced forces. derived from preliminary surveys brane concrete elements of the cross-

Fig. 9: Design of IS solution: (a) acceleration; (b) displacement design response spectra evaluated for bridge site

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 179

Fig. 10: Acceleration design response spectrum in accordance with NTC2018 for current structure (3D-model)—Site: Olivieri Bridge in
Vietri sul Mare: (a) horizontal component; (b) vertical component, indicating ag/g associated with the main modes in both directions

walls stop at the ground level, while Moreover, final verifications and component cannot be neglected when
only the pillars are attached to foun- models’ comparisons also take into the site is characterized by PGA >
dation plinths. For this reason, a account the effects of the highest 0.150 g. In this case (location: Vietri
fixed-base (F) solution has been equivalent static forces, derived from sul Mare—Salerno—South Italy), the
adopted, introducing a single clamped the acceleration design response spec- site PGA does not exceed 0.158 g at
restraint at the bottom of each pillar. trum defined for the bridge site the SLC (the collapse limit state). To
(Vietri sul Mare—Salerno), defined in evaluate the stress distribution among
To simulate the bridge in its current
accordance with sthe Italian Building bridge macro-elements, results from
state, a three-deformable-decks
Code.20 Knowing the effective geo- linear static analysis have been elabo-
model with fixed joints (3D-F) is
graphic coordinates, the acceleration rated. As anticipated, the outputs
assumed. A single-deck solution
design spectrum (“behaviour factor” refer to the application of a horizontal
with fixed joints (SD-F), obtained
q = 1) considers: soil category B (soft force equal to 10%W (overall perma-
by modelling the bridge deck as a
rock and coarse-grained soil deposits), nent load of the bridge) in both plane
continuous deformable body after
usage class III (strategic structure), directions; the results are given in
joint closure, can be considered to
damping factor ζ = 5%, nominal life terms of: shear distribution (Fy), axial
simulate the behaviour of the first
100 years, and a referring period of force variation (ΔN ) at the base of
retrofit hypothesis (deck stiffening).
150 years. The following seismic par- cross-walls, moment distribution as
To emphasize the effects of changing
ameters have been used: at SLO, i.e. Mtot (total moment), including Mxx
the deck configuration, the single-
a functioning limit state (“Operati- (bending moment), MTy (moment
deck solution is carried to the
vità”), with a return period of 90 due to Fy) and MΔN (moment due to
extreme with an un-deformable
years, PGA is 0.060 g; at SLD, i.e. ΔN). For the final verifications, the
deck model (SUD-F): this theoreti-
damage limit state (“Danno”), with a maximum horizontal forces have
cal solution considers the whole
return period of 151 years, PGA is been derived from acceleration
bridge deck as a continuous rigid
0.073 g; at SLV, i.e. life safety limit design response spectrum (horizontal
body, with diaphragm constraints
state (“Salvaguardia Vita”), with a component) at SLV, i.e. the life safety
for each staggered level. Finally, a
return period of 1424 years, PGA is limit state.
bridge model with an intermediate
0.139 g; at SLC, i.e. a collapse prevent-
Isolation System (IS) is considered
ing limit state (“Collasso”), with a
to evaluate the effectiveness of the Stress and Strain Distribution
return period of 2475 years, PGA is
second retrofit hypothesis. among Macro-elements:
0.158 g. Figure 10 shows the accelera-
Discussion of the Results from
To analyse the stress distribution tion design response spectra evaluated
among different macro elements for the site, comparing the horizontal Linear Static Analysis
(abutments—arch—cross-walls), a and vertical components: it is clear The effects due to longitudinal and
horizontal force equal to 10% of the that the effects due to the vertical com- out-of-plane horizontal forces in
bridge’s permanent load has been ponent appears of little relevance.73 different models are synthetized in
applied in both plane directions. According to NTC 2018, the vertical Fig. 11, to outline changes in bridge

180 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025

Fig. 11: FEM models’ comparison, evaluating the effects due to longitudinal and out-of-plane horizontal forces: maximum longitudinal
displacement dimensionless to cross-wall height (H = 39 m) and maximum transverse displacement dimensionless to total bridge length
(Ltot = 136.80 m)

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 181

 (Fy), to the advantage of the abut-
Stress type Model Arch (%) NA-abut. (%) SA-abut. (%) Cross-walls (%) ments (7%). The central arch records
Fy 3D-F 57 12 28 3 the worst uplift, owing to the highest
variation of axial force at the base
SD-F 24 23 35 18 (ΔN ), and bears the major aliquot of
SUD-F 2 48 48 2 global moment (62%), whose highest
contribution is due to ΔN. The first ret-
IS 20 15 20 45 rofitting option results in a reduction
ΔN 3D-F 55 3 9 33 of overturning effects on the central
arch and in a redistribution of stress
SD-F 20 15 21 34 among different structural com-
SUD-F 10 34 35% 22 ponents. The SD-F alternative leads
the arch to bear almost half of the
IS 28 10 11 51 global shear force, while the axial
MTOT 3D-F 14 37 43 6 force variation decreases to 1/5 of the
total, reducing uplifts. Mtot effects
SD-F 3 45 48 4 mainly the cross-walls and the arch,
SUD-F 2 46 47 5
leaving the abutments unloaded. As
expected, the theoretical single unde-
IS 24 22 18 36 formable deck solution (SUD-F)
Table 3: FEM models’ comparison: stress distribution due to longitudinal horizontal force would be more effective in mitigating
(FoX = 10%W) the effects of out-of-plane horizontal
forces, even if it is practically imposs-
ible to realize: the introduction of dia-
deformability passing from the current The joints closure involves all bridge phragm constrains at each deck level
state to the retrofitted proposals. With macro-elements in deck sliding, redu- results in a more favourable stress dis-
this aim, the maximum longitudinal cing the global drift. As a consequence, tribution, with an immediate effect on
drift is dimensionless to cross-wall the theoretical hypothesis of a single the arch. This option considerably
height (H = 39 m), while the un-deformable deck (SUD-F) makes reduces the global shear force on the
maximum transversal displacement is the arch unloaded, while the lateral arch (13%), concentrating it on the
dimensionless to total bridge length abutments bear 96% of the total abutments (about 80%); also, the
(Ltot = 136.80 m), giving a measure of shear force. As may be seen from the uplift effect on the arch decreases,
bridge lateral deformability. deformed shape, in this last case, while the higher rate of ΔN is counter-
deck drift is practically nil (H/78.000). acted by the abutments (64%) and par-
The effects due to longitudinal hori-
The second retrofit solution (an inter- tially by the cross-walls (29%). In this
zontal force (FoX = 10%W ) are
mediate IS), increases noticeably case, Mtot is distributed among the
included in Table 3. In the current
bridge deformability and causes no abutments and cross-walls. In terms
state (3D-F), the most loaded portion
negligible drift (δx = H/1770) at the of horizontal displacement, arch over-
is the arch. The use of 6 cm-deep
expense of buckling for the slender turning is negligible, corresponding to
joints makes the response of the
intermediate piers; on the other hand, a transversal deck displacement equal
central part independent of the
it ensures a reduction of shear and to 1/10,000 of the total bridge length.
lateral access ramps: the Maillart-
moment distribution in favour of the On the contrary, the second retrofit
arch-type bridge records a significant
central thin vault, while the intermedi- alternative, introducing an IS,
sliding effect; this can lead to possible
ate piers suffer from shear distribution worsens the out-of-plane deformabil-
buckling phenomena for the slender
(about 45% of the total) and ity of the arch and cross-walls and
cross-walls. The base shear is carried
overturning. leads to a transversal drift greater
by external abutments (40%) and by
than 1/1000 of the total bridge length,
the central arch (57%) primarily, Considering the current bridge layout,
while the stress distribution remains
while the intermediate cross-walls are side effects are more likely to occur
similar to that in its current state.
practically unloaded (3%). Overturn- when horizontal force acts out of the
ing is negligible for these intermediate arch plane (FoY = 10%W ), as summar- Comparing outputs from different
elements, while the worst effects are ized in Table 4. Analysing the 3D-F models, it is clear that the choice of a
experienced by the abutments. The model, the central Maillart arch is the single deck guarantees that the Mail-
first retrofit option (deck stiffening) is most vulnerable portion: arch over- lart scheme will work better: the stif-
simulated through a single deformable turning is significant, recording an fening contribution of the entire
deck solution (SD-F). Abandoning the out-of-plane displacement of 85 mm, upper deck leads to a considerable
original isostatic scheme, the new deck which corresponds to 1/1600 of the reduction in the effects of horizontal
configuration leads to reduce arch total bridge length (considering a con- force on arch. On the other hand, this
stress at the expense of the abutments: tinuous girder scheme, spanning last solution alters the original isostatic
arch shear is halved compared to the 136.80 m). Thanks to the original iso- scheme of the bridge, losing the advan-
current state; about 58% of base static scheme, the effects on lateral tages due to the original configuration,
shear is beared by the abutments, access ramps are visibly reduced. In which are mainly valuable for long
while the remaining 18% is carried by terms of the stress distribution, the term effects. On the contrary, the iso-
the cross-walls (with an average value slender arch carries more than 60% lated solution increases bridge deform-
of 3% for each intermediate pier). of the global shear force at the base ability, exacerbating out-of-plane

182 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025

 retrofitting option, in the x–x-direc-
Stress type Model Arch (%) NA-abut. (%) SA-abut. (%) Cross-walls (%) tion base reactions reduce by about
Fy 3D-F 62 2 2 34 15%, while in the y–y-direction,
base reactions decrease by 18%. As
SD-F 57 5 7 35 expected, the theoretical choice of
SUD-F 13 37 40 10 jointing three portions into an unde-
formable deck (SUD-F), is not feas-
IS 20 15 20 45 ible in practice, giving the
ΔN 3D-F 71 1 1 27 possibility of reducing the base reac-
tions by about 20% in the x–x-direc-
SD-F 28 3 5 64 tion, and by about 25% in the y–y-
SUD-F 4 14 11 71 direction. However, the continuous
deck solution increases the static
IS 9 7 6 78 redundancy of the original scheme,
MTOT 3D-F 62 1 1 36 making the whole structure more
rigid, as justified by the low periods
SD-F 43 3 3 31 associated with the main modes, as
SUD-F 4 25 40 31
shown below. The alternative
approach tries to improve the
IS 11 15 22 52 seismic response by using an IS sol-
ution. In this case, the reduction of
M(ΔN) 3D-F 71 3 3 31
base reactions is more evident,
SD-F 55 5 4 36 amounting in the x–x-direction to a
discount of a quarter, while in the
SUD-F 9 26 31 27
y–y-direction, base reactions reduce
IS 23 14 18 45 by more than a third when compared
to the current structure. In addition,
Table 4: FEM models’ comparison: stress distribution due to out-of-plane horizontal force
(FoY = 10%W)
the bridge results in a more
“regular” dynamic response, as dis-
cussed later. Meanwhile, increasing
effects at the expense of the slender Firstly, the less invasive solution has bridge deformability, the IS solution
cross-walls. been considered to mitigate the makes the thin cross-walls more vul-
To exploit the potentialities of these effects of earthquake induced forces nerable. At the same time, the intro-
different retrofit approaches, a com- on the Maillart scheme. Considering duction of rubber devices below the
parison in terms of base reaction the case of a single deformable deck, at the top of the cross-walls,
follows, evaluating stress reduction deck (SD-F), which simulates the be- denaturalizes the original deck-stif-
in relation to the current state. haviour of the deck-stiffening fened-arch scheme.

Fig. 12: Current structure compared to different retrofit solutions, in terms of: (a) acceleration associated with the main modes; (b) shear
distribution due to out-of-plane horizontal force

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 183

 response becomes more complex for
Mode* T (s) UX (%) UY(%) UZ (%) RX (%) RY (%) RZ (%) the theoretical case of a single unde-
1 0.674,3 31.376 0.157 0.013 1.307 9.009 0.565 formable deck, to which Table 7
refers: increasing static redundancy, 90
7 0.472,5 0.242 49.726 0.238 8.339 0.056 5.499 modes are not sufficient to involve all
42 0.215,30 11.704 0.094 7.1E-05 0.57 4.28 0.045 participating mass; in this case, the
first mode having a participating mass
53 0.175,77 0.095 7.733 0.171 3.734 0.003,94 9.045 ratio greater than 5% is not included
55 0.172,52 0.248 0.693 5.648 1.214 0.57 1.279 within the top thirty. On the contrary,
the second retrofit proposal, by using
56 0.172,13 0.026 1.143 41.374 0.381 4.767 0.439 an IS, greatly improves the bridge’s
58 0.162,11 0.036 5.845 3.97 9.076 0.488 0.16 dynamic response. Modal analysis
outputs for the isolated solution,
77 0.099,81 12.709 0.012 0.072 0.000,3 0.17 0.273 which may be seen in Table 8, reveal
86 0.063,7 0.277 3.072 0.003,86 9.561 0.725 0.16 an increase of the vibration periods
associated with the main modes and a
87 0.057,94 0.375 0.584 8.607 0.143 2.216 3.719 more regular dynamic behaviour in
90 0.046,09 1.317 2.632 0.726 1.758 0.641 0.26
comparison to the current structure.

The first three modes include about
− 92.67 87.38 83.75 58.33 45.68 69.00 70% of participating mass; they are
*Table includes modes with participating mass ratio greater than 5%. characterized by torsional effects in
the deck plane (Rz) and decoupled
Table 5: Modal analysis output for three deformable decks with fixed joints (3D-F model)— sliding motions in the longitudinal
structure in the current state (Ux) and transverse (Uy) directions.
For the IS solution, the new type of
Dynamic Characterization the stress redistribution, favourable interaction between the upper rigid
for the arch, occurs at the cost of a deck and the lower slender arch leads
Adopting different retrofit solutions, a
change in bridge response is also con-
high static redundancy: this corre- to a final fundamental period of 1.50 s,
sponds to a more complex dynamic i.e. 2.25-times greater than the period
firmed by outputs from modal response
response. Modes with relatively high associated with the fist mode of the
spectrum analysis. To compare the
effects represent translational local bridge in its current state. In terms of
current structure to the proposed retro-
modes, in the transverse and vertical spectral acceleration evaluated at the
fit alternatives, periods associated with
directions. In this case, periods associ- SLC (the collapse limit state, in accord-
their main modes, and the correspond-
ated with the main modes fall within ance with the National building code), a
ing spectral accelerations, have been
the first section of the spectrum; under reduction of seismic action of about
plotted in an acceleration design the assumption of continuous deform- 60% is visible, passing from an ag/g =
response spectrum for each solution, able deck, 90 modes are sufficient to 0.50 corresponding to the main
as may be seen in Fig. 12. Table 5 involve all mass. The structural period of the current state structure,
refers to the bridge in its current state
(3D-F), whose periods associated with
the main modes are always lower than
1.0 s. Falling in the first two sections of Mode* T (s) UX (%) UY(%) UZ (%) RX (%) RY (%) RZ (%)
the spectrum, they are characterized 10 0.408 8.483 1.46 0.029 2.121 4.904 0.0025
by translational local modes in the
longitudinal and transverse directions, 13 0.394 5.508 9.525 0.11 4.741 4.093 0.883
neglecting the vertical component. In 33 0.252 0.168 0.643 0.018 0.11 0.018 22.668
the current state, a period T1 = 0.67 s
corresponds to the 1st mode, having 53 0.172 0.1 0.376 45.781 2.142 4.347 0.271
prevailing translational effects in the 55 0.162 0.614 1.09 2.127 9.263 0.761 1.185
longitudinal direction (Ux = 31%): at
the SLO, this is associated with ag/g = 64 0.142 10.65 0.464 0.14 0.3 0.325 0.013
0.10, increasing to ag/g = 0.31 at the 67 0.133 16.47 0.565 0.115 0.58 0.801 0.0076
SLV. The 7th mode is the first one
having prevalent translational effects 68 0.128 15.23 0.343 0.026 0.454 1.241 0.0003
in the transverse direction (Uy = 81 0.080 1.01 0.704 0.231 2.8420 1E-06 6.63
49%): at the SLO, this is associated
with ag/g = 0.14, increasing to ag/g = 83 0.069 0.01 3.731 0.461 5.9470 0.027 0.0086
0.45 at the SLV. The first mode having 89 0.050 5.019 0.042 0.497 0.072 1.26 55.467
main translational effects in the vertical
direction is the 56th one (Uz = 41%), 90 0.045 0.338 1.180 9.075 4.906 0.492 55.538
with a period T = 0.17 s: at the SLV,

− 93.52 86.22 84.19 55.538 46.781 68.089
this is associated with ag/g = 0.05 at the
*Table includes modes with participating mass ratio greater than 5%.
SLV. The dynamic effects produced by
the first retrofit alternative (SD-F) are Table 6: Modal analysis output for retrofitting solution by a single deformable deck (SD-F
summarized in Table 6. In this case, model)

184 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025

 Taking into account the abovemen-
Mode* T (s) UX (%) UY(%) UZ (%) RX (%) RY (%) RZ (%) tioned FEM models, six load combi-
31 0.22 6.029,0 0.044,0 0.054,0 2.426 17.840 0.014 nations have been analysed, in
accordance with NTC2018: the vertical
63 0.11 0.001,4 0.647,0 0.009,9 23.091 0.000 0.185 load condition (EQU) at the limit state
80 0.06 0.054,0 5.033,0 1.908,0 6.062 3.663 0.148 for a rigid body; the seismic load con-
dition with a vertical earthquake com-
81 0.06 8.781,0 0.035,0 0.036,0 0.013 1.048 0.009 ponent (FV = 15%W ); the seismic load
82 0.06 0.094,0 0.563,0 4.164,0 1.840 0.641 0.203 condition with a longitudinal horizon-
tal component (FX = 10%W ); the
84 0.05 0.000,2 7.921,0 1.238,0 0.036 0.996 0.168 seismic load condition with a trans-
85 0.05 2.115,0 0.016,0 4.611,0 1.435 0.529 0.634 verse horizontal component (FY =
10%W ); the seismic load condition
88 0.04 0.223,0 28.288,0 0.598,0 0.051 0.425 0.075 with the maximum longitudinal hori-
89 0.04 0.402,0 0.820,0 8.046,0 0.113 3.294 1.353 zontal component (FX = 31%W ); and
the seismic load condition with the
90 0.03 2.295,0 0.220,0 0.212,0 0.149 0.026 29.147 maximum transverse horizontal com-

ponent (FY = 45%W ). This kind of ver-
– 34.792,0 46.792,0 90.947,0 52.732 52.153 43.666
ification does not refer to the
*Table includes modes with participating mass ratio greater than 5%.
retrofitting hypothesis for an IS: com-
Table 7: Modal analysis output for the theoretical single undeformable deck solution (SUD- paring this last case with the bridge in
F model) its current state, a valuable reduction
of base reactions has been estimated.

T1 = 0.67 s, to ag/g = 0.18 corresponding condition. The viaduct is characterized The first check on foundation system
to the main period of the IS solution, by direct foundation plinths, standing refers to possible uplifts; it wants to
TIS = 1.50 s. However, this retrofit on rocky soil. Surveys in situ show verity that the overturning moment
alternative increases bridge deform- that the intermediate cross-walls are (MOverturning) at the base edge does
ability, making the thin cross-walls vul- characterized by five isolated plinths, not exceed the restoring moment
nerable to buckling while any possible one corresponding to each column, as (MRestoring) due to the foundation
arch uplift is reduced in comparison to may be seen in Fig. 13. There are no weight plus the stabilizing effect due
the current state. connecting beams: this means that to permanent loads from the super-
each plinth has to be verified indepen- structure, ensuring at least Eq. (2):
dently from the others, without exclud-
The Effects of Earthquake MRestoring /MOverturning ≥ 1.5 (2)
ing any possible effects due to
Induced Forces on the differential ground subsidence. Corre-
Foundations sponding to the abutments and at the The second check leads to evaluating
To check different retrofitting alterna- base of the arch, a monolithic raft the eccentricity (e) at the base of the
tives, the final aspect to assess is the foundation can be hypothesized, in foundation, resulting from the ratio
effects of earthquake-induced forces the absence of more detailed infor- between the total vertical load (Ntot)
on the foundations. In this case, the mation from surveys onsite. For both and the resulting moment (Mtot). To
combination of both horizontal and solutions, overturning has been ensure that the whole foundation mat
vertical components has been con- checked, considering the foundation works in compression, it is necessary
sidered, to analyse the worst working as a rigid body on a rocky soil. that the eccentricity does not exceed
one-sixth of the base length (e = Mtot/
Ntot ≤ b/6). In the opposite case (e >
Mode* T (s) UX (%) UY(%) UZ (%) RX (%) RY (%) RZ (%) b/6), the resultant vertical action is
external to the central core of inertia
1 1.507,527 0.1 0.234 1.4E-07 0.073 0.005,7 69.347
of the foundation plan and the resist-
2 1.432,480 61.72 0.161 2.5E-08 0.044 0.919 0.159 ing section is partialized. In this last
circumstance, it is necessary to intro-
3 1.428,163 0.177 61.595 2.5E-06 16.724 0.002,88 1.469
duce pad foundations to avoid over-
63 0.056,572 0.005,15 0.004,062 10.398 5.096 0.000,36 0.000,77 turning. For intermediate piers,
summarized in Table 9, these checks
66 0.052,559 0.178 0.000,31 14.282 0.1 1.364 0.01 consider plinths individually. This
67 0.052,017 0.24 0.007,875 16.243 0.000,5 0.091 0.002,64 ensures a low value for the overturn-
ing moment, evaluating the rotation
75 0.041,162 0.101 5.193 0.23 6.331 0.031 0.33 equilibrium at each plinth edge. In
77 0.039,953 0.078 4.429 0.489 6.932 0.116 4.843 many cases, the resultant of vertical
action is external to the central core
90 0.020,866 5.932 0.037 0.023 0.23 0.973 0.128 of inertia: as expected, a wide portion

of the foundation does not work in
− 90.964 84.527 83.349 67.888 38.528 87.918
*Table includes modes with participating mass ratio greater than 5%.
compression. The overturning
moment exceeds the restoring one
Table 8: Modal analysis output for retrofitting solution by introducing IS rarely, resulting in occasional uplifting

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 185

Fig. 13: Rocking system of plinth as a rigid block

of the isolated plinths, as occurred in On the contrary, as may be seen from moment, with increasingly frequent
the cases of: the seismic load condition Table 10, for monolithic raft foun- cases of foundation overturning.
with the minimum earthquake com- dations this checking is more restric- Even if the change in deck configur-
ponent (FV = 15%W ); the seismic tive: in this case, evaluating the ation ensures a reduction of the stress
load condition with the minimum rotation equilibrium at one base distribution on the arch at the
transverse horizontal component edge, the additional component of M expense of the abutments, the foun-
(FY = 10%W ); and the seismic load due to the eccentricity of vertical dation type does not exclude possible
condition with the maximum trans- forces has also to be considered. This overturning under seismic load
verse horizontal force (FY = 45%W ). leads to having a higher overturning conditions.

186 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025

 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Vertical Seismic V (FV = Seismic H Seismic H Seismic H (FX = Seismic H (FY =
Section Model (EQU) 15%W ) (FX = 10%W ) (FY = 10%W ) 31%W ) 45%W )
3D-F 2.1 (e < b/6) 1.5 (e > b/6) 1.7 (e < b/6) 1.5 (e > b/6) 0.9 (e > b/6) 0.7 (e > b/6)
Pier 1 SD-F 1.1 (e < b/6) 1.6 (e > b/6) 1.7 (e < b/6) 1.1 (e > b/6) 1.3 (e < b/6) 0.5 (e > b/6)
SUD- 1.1 (e < b/6) 1.7 (e > b/6) 1.9 (e < b/6) 1.6 (e > b/6) 2.2 (e > b/6) 1.5 (e > b/6)
F
3D-F 2.1 (e < b/6) 0.8 (e < b/6) 2.2 (e > b/6) 1.4 (e > b/6) 2.6 (e > b/6) 0.7 (e > b/6)
Pier 13 SD-F 1.1 (e < b/6) 1.4 (e > b/6) 1.9 (e > b/6) 1.0 (e > b/6) 1.9 (e > b/6) 0.8 (e > b/6)
SUD- 1.0 (e < b/6) 1.5 (e > b/6) 2.0 (e > b/6) 1.5 (e > b/6) 2.2 (e > b/6) 1.4 (e > b/6)
F
3D-F 1.9 (e < b/6) 2.7 (e > b/6) 3.0 (e > b/6) 2.1 (e > b/6) 3.1 (e > b/6) 0.5 (e > b/6)
Pier 14 SD-F 1.7 (e > b/6) 2.5 (e > b/6) 2.4 (e > b/6) 1.5 (e > b/6) 2.8 (e > b/6) 0.6 (e > b/6)
SUD- 1.5 (e > b/6) 2.3 (e > b/6) 2.4 (e > b/6) 2.2 (e > b/6) 2.9 (e > b/6) 2.3 (e > b/6)
F
3D-F 2.2 (e < b/6) 4.8 (e > b/6) 3.1 (e > b/6) 2.0 (e > b/6) 2.9 (e > b/6) 0.8 (e > b/6)
Pier 15 SD-F 1.7 (e > b/6) 4.7 (e > b/6) 2.5 (e > b/6) 1.7 (e > b/6) 2.8 (e > b/6) 0.7 (e > b/6)
SUD- 1.5 (e > b/6) 2.9 (e > b/6) 2.8 (e > b/6) 2.3 (e > b/6) 3.0 (e > b/6) 2.3 (e > b/6)
F
3D-F 2.2 (e < b/6) 2.8 (e > b/6) 3.3 (e > b/6) 2.2 (e > b/6) 2.9 (e > b/6) 1.1 (e > b/6)
Pier 16 SD-F 1.7 (e > b/6) 2.5 (e > b/6) 2.8 (e > b/6) 1.9 (e > b/6) 2.6 (e > b/6) 0.9 (e > b/6)
SUD- 1.5 (e > b/6) 2.9 (e > b/6) 3.2 (e > b/6) 2.5 (e > b/6) 3.2 (e > b/6) 2.3 (e > b/6)
F
3D-F 2.5 (e < b/6) 2.7 (e > b/6) 3.2 (e > b/6) 2.5 (e > b/6) 2.8 (e > b/6) 1.5 (e > b/6)
Pier 17 SD-F 1.7 (e > b/6) 2.2 (e > b/6) 2.9 (e > b/6) 2.2 (e > b/6) 2.3 (e > b/6) 1.4 (e > b/6)
SUD- 1.6 (e > b/6) 2.7 (e > b/6) 3.3 (e > b/6) 2.5 (e > b/6) 3.6 (e > b/6) 2.2 (e > b/6)
F
Load combinations in accordance with Italian NTC2018: (1)Vertical load condition (EQU) in the limit state for a rigid body: 1.1 (Dead) + 1.5 (Super-
dead) + 1.5(Live); (2)Seismic load condition with vertical earthquake component: (Dead) + (Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FV = 15%W ); (3)Seismic load
condition with longitudinal horizontal component: (Dead) + (Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FX = 10%W ); (4)Seismic load condition with transversal
horizontal component: (Dead) + (Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FY = 10%W ); (5)Seismic load condition with maximum longitudinal horizontal
component: (Dead) + (Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FX = 31%W ); (6)Seismic load condition with maximum transversal horizontal component: (Dead) +
(Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FY = 45%W ).
*For each pier, the verification refers to five separate plinths: the table includes the lowest value of M restoring-to-M overturning ratio.

Table 9: Overturning on rigid soil for intermediate piers: MRestoring versus MOverturning*

Conclusions
Retrofit alternatives, proposed in this distribution, bearing more than 60%
The article compares different retrofit article, have been hypothesized on of the total. To mitigate earthquake
approaches for an existing Maillart- the basis of preliminary evaluations effects on this slender central arch,
arch-type bridge, the Viadotto Olivieri of bridge vulnerability, argued by two different retrofit approaches have
along the A3-Highway (Pompei– authors in a previous article.45 To been discussed. The first alternative
Salerno). Made of three jointed por- make a clear comparison between the evaluates the possibility of improving
tions, with a central deck-stiffened current structure and the retrofit pro- the seismic response by changing the
arch, the case study has an original iso- posals, the stress distribution (from deck configuration and exploiting the
static scheme that guaranteed a certain linear analysis) among different benefits of making the slender vault
simplicity in the earliest design calcu- macro-elements has provided an collaborate with an upper stiffer
lations; this configuration has made a immediate synthesis of advantages/dis- deck. This retrofitting solution can be
great contribution to reducing pro- advantages for each solution. As a obtained by the closure of the existing
blems due to temperature gradients result of FEM analyses, in its current joints and the successive reconstruc-
or concrete shrinkage over the years. state the most vulnerable portion is tion of a continuous concrete slab to
The bridge’s historical value and struc- the slender central arch, which suffers replace them. The aim of this alterna-
tural peculiarity make it a precious overturning due to out-of-plane hori- tive is to unload the central slender
Italian example of a Maillart-arch- zontal forces. The central portion vault, concentrating the shear and
type bridge, to be preserved. records the worst shear and moment moment distribution due to horizontal

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 187

 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Vertical Seismic V Seismic H Seismic H Seismic H Seismic H
Section Model (EQU) (FV = 15%W ) (FX = 10%W ) (FY = 10%W ) (FX = 31%W ) (FY = 45%W )
3D-F 1.78 (e < b/6) 1.29 (e < b/6) 2.82 (e < b/6) 2.92 (e < b/6) 1.71 (e < b/6) 3.32 (e <b/6)
NA- SD-F 1.87 (e < b/6) 1.67 (e < b/6) 2.85 (e < b/6) 2.15 (e > b/6) 2.25 (e > b/6) 0.97 (e > b/6)
abut.
SUD-F 1.91 (e < b/6) 1.57 (e < b/6) 0.88 (e > b/6) 0.90 (e > b/6) 0.78 (e > b/6) 0.87 (e >b/6)
3D-F 1.10 (e < b/6) 0.79 (e > b/6) 0.71(e > b/6) 1.43 (e < b/6) 0.94 (e > b/6) 0.86 (e > b/6)
Pier SD-F 0.71 (e > b/6) 0.95 (e > b/6) 0.87 (e > b/6) 0.93 (e > b/6) 0.84 (e > b/6) 0.87 (e > b/6)
2–arch
SUD-F 0.90 (e < b/6) 1.05 (e < b/6) 1.03 (e < b/6) 1.01 (e < b/6) 0.92 (e < b/6) 0.95 (e < b/6)
3D-F 1.15 (e < b/6) 0.79 (e > b/6) 0.70 (e > b/6) 1.50 (e < b/6) 0.90 (e > b/6) 0.83 (e > b/6)
Pier SD-F 0.71 (e > b/6) 0.95 (e > b/6) 0.73 (e > b/6) 0.91 (e > b/6) 0.77 (e > b/6) 0.89 (e > b/6)
12–arch
SUD-F 0.90 (e < b/6) 1.05 (e < b/6) 1.03 (e < b/6) 1.01 (e < b/6) 0.92 (e < b/6) 0.95 (e < b/6)
3D-F 1.78 (e < b/6) 1.34 (e < b/6) 1.64 (e < b/6) 2.82 (e < b/6) 1.71 (e < b/6) 1.73 (e <b/6)
SA-abut. SD-F 1.87 (e < b/6) 1.67 (e < b/6) 1.64 (e < b/6) 2.15 (e < b/6) 2.25 (e > b/6) 0.72 (e > b/6)
SUD-F 1.91 (e < b/6) 1.57 (e < b/6) 0.87 (e > b/6) 0.90 (e > b/6) 0.78 (e > b/6) 0.88 (e > b/6)
(1)
Load combinations in accordance with Italian NTC2018: Vertical load condition (EQU) in the limit state for a rigid body: 1.1 (Dead) + 1.5 (Super-
dead) + 1.5(Live); (2)Seismic load condition with vertical earthquake component: (Dead) + (Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FV = 15%W ); (3)Seismic load
condition with longitudinal horizontal component: (Dead) + (Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FX = 10%W ); (4)Seismic load condition with transversal
horizontal component: (Dead) + (Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FY = 10%W ); (5)Seismic load condition with maximum longitudinal horizontal
component: (Dead) + (Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FX = 31%W ); (6)Seismic load condition with maximum transversal horizontal component: (Dead) +
(Super-dead) + 0.30(Live) + E(FY = 45%W ).
*For each pier, the verification refers to five separate plinths: the table includes the lowest value of M restoring-to-M overturning ratio.

Table 10: Overturning on rigid soil for abutments and arch: MRestoring versus MOverturning*

forces to the lateral abutments, as con- collaborate with a stiffer deck, as still-in-use Maillart arch-type example
firmed by FEM outputs for SD-F. obtainable from non-invasive interven- in Italy, the pros and cons of each retro-
While onservating the original Maillart tions, although losing the benefits of fitting approach point to the fact that
system, this approach leads to a the original isostatic scheme against any kind of intervention necessary to
reduced stress distribution on the long term effects; (b) the IS regularizes ensure bridge serviceability (also in
arch, reducing the advantages guaran- bridge dynamic response, and filters and the case of an earthquake) should be
teed by the original isostatic scheme. reduces the seismic input transferred respectful of the authenticity, beauty
The second approach looks for a from the ground to the deck structure; and singularity of the original structural
change in bridge layout by using an however, a greater displacement solution, following a philological
Isolation System (IS): the introduction capacity occurs at the expense of exces- approach to preserve the authenticity
of rubber bearings creates a “cut” sive deformations of the slender cross- of the original bridge.
between the deck intrados and the walls, while the “cut” to insert the iso-
top of the cross-walls, decoupling the lation system completely alters the
response of the upper deck from that effective arch-to-deck-cooperation of
of the lower slender arch. This solution the Maillart scheme. This type of com-
Acknowledgements
reduces base reactions considerably, if parison relates the benefits of retrofit- The support provided by the consortium
compared to the current structure; fur- ting proposals to their impact on the ReLuis is acknowledged. Bridge data are
thermore, it completely changes the original structural scheme; this courtesy of the Società Autostrade Meri-
way the arch and deck cooperate and approach is effective when the evalu- dionali (SAM), represented by Dr Giulio
worsens bridge deformability, at the ations of seismic vulnerability outline Barrel, Managing Director. For the histori-
cal documents, thanks are due to the Asso-
expense of slender cross-walls, suffer- the need to improve the seismic ciazione Italiana Tecnico Economica del
ing buckling. capacity of the bridge with its current Cemento (AITEC), and Professor
structure. In these terms, the article I. Giannetti from the University of Roma
Matching both alternatives, it turns out recognizes a procedure to follow for Torvergata.
that: (a) the deck-stiffening option pro- structures of this type: all possible
duces a redistribution of stress among alternatives have to be explored,
bridge macro-elements, benefitting the opting for the least invasive approach
slender arch at the expense of the capable of preserving the value of the
Disclosure Statement
lateral abutments, which suffer overtur- original scheme. Considering the price- No potential conflict of interest was
ing; it makes the slender vault less value of this structure, as a rare reported by the authors.

188 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025

Funding Auckland, New Zealand, Sunday 30 January– [19] Lupoi A, Franchin P, Schotanus M. Seismic
Friday 4 February 2000. No. 2828, 1–21. risk evaluation of RC bridge structures. Earth
This work was supported by ReLuis_W- Eng Struct Dynam. 2003 July; 32(8): 1157–1311.
[10] Schiff AJ, Tang AK. Chi-Chi, Taiwan,
P15_ISOLAMENTO_DeLuca, CUP doi:10.1002/eqe.273.
earthquake of September 21, 1999: lifeline per-
E66C1900019000. formance. Tech Council Lifeline Earthqu Eng [20] Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei
Mon. 1999; 18(Reston, Va.): 1–217. Trasporti (ITA). Aggiornamento delle Norme
Tecniche per le Costruzioni. (NTC2018)
Data Availability Statement [11] Sung Y, Chang K, Chang D, et al. Damage
Decreto 17 Gennaio 2018. G.U. no. 42 del 20
investigation and seismic retrofit of bridges in
Some or all data, models, or code that Febbraio 2018.
Taiwan after 921 Chi-Chi earthquake. apan
support the findings of this study are avail- Association for Earthquake Engineering, [21] Bae H, Oliva MG. Bridge analysis and
able from the corresponding author upon Proceedings of the International Symposium evaluation of effects under overload vehicles:
reasonable request. on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 phase 2. University of Wisconsin—Madison
Great East Japan Earthquake; 2012 Mar 1–4, and United States. Dept. of Transportation.
Tokyo, Japan. 2012–03. Research and Innovative Technology
Declarations Administration. Report Number: CFIRE 02-
[12] Palermo A, Kivell A, Wotherspoon L, et al.
03. Published Date: 2012-09-01; 2012.
This work has not been published pre- Overview of bridge performance during the 2011
Available from: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/
viously, it is not under consideration Christchurch earthquake. In Bridge
dot/26165.
for publication elsewhere, and its pub- Maintenance, Safety, Management, Resilience
and Sustainability. Proceedings of the Sixth [22] Klaiber FW, Dunker KF, Wipf TJ, et al.
lication is approved by both authors. If International IABMAS Conference, Stresa, Method of strengthening existing highway
accepted, it will not be published else- Lake Maggiore, Italy; 2012 Jul 8–12. doi:10. bridges. National Cooperative Highway
where in the same form, in English or 1201/b12352-371. Research Program, Report 293. Transportation
in any other language. Research Board. National Research Council—
[13] Wardhana K, Hadipriono FC. Analysis of
Washington D.C; 1987.
recent bridge failures in the United States. J
References Perform Constr Facil, ASCE. 2003; 17(3): 144– [23] Carturan F, Pellegrino C, Rossi R, et al. An
150. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2003)17:3 integrated procedure for management of bridge
[1] Fox MJ, Furinghetti M, Pavese A. (144) networks in seismic areas. Bull Earthquake Eng.
Application of the new Italian assessment guide- 2013;11:543–559. doi:10.10007/s10518-012-9391-6.
[14] DMRB (a)-Design Manual for Road and
lines to a 1960s prestressed concrete road bridge.
Bridges. CS 462. “Repair and management of [24] Modena C, Pellegrino C, Tecchio G, et al.
Struct Concr. 2022;2023(24):583–598. 2022
deteriorated concrete highway structures”. Assessment and reftrofitting of existing bridges.
International Federation for Structural
Highway Structures & Bridges Inspection & In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management,
Concrete. doi:10.1002/suco.202200884.
Assessment. The Stationery Office, Highway Resilience and Sustainability. Chapter 17—
[2] Sakellariadis L, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas Agency, London, UK; 2020. Available from: Maintenance and Safety of Aging Infrastructure.
G. Fukae bridge collapse (Kobe 1995) revisited: https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/prod/ 2014:469–533. doi:10.1201/b17073-18.
new insights. Soils Found. 2020;60(6):1450–1467. attachments/cbd1b3e5-af18-44a2-abfc-
doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2020.09.005. 91c457e01b7e?inline=true [25] Chajes M, Rollins T, Dai H, et al. Report on
techniques for bridge strengthening. Report No
[3] Buckle IG, Douglas B, Mayes R, et al. The [15] DMRB (b) -Design Manual for Road and FHWA-HIF-18-041. U.S. Department of
Northridge, California earthquake of January Bridges. CS 466. “Risk management and struc- Transportation. Federal Highway
17, 1994: performance of highway bridges. tural assessment of concrete half-joint deck Administration; 2019.
NCEER-94-0008|03/24/1994, 132; 1994. structures”. Highway Structures & Bridges
Inspection & Assessment. The Stationery [26] De Luca A, Guidi LG. State of art on the
[4] Wesemann L, Hamilton T, Tabaie S, et al.
Office, Highway Agency, London, UK; worldwide evolution of base isolation design.
Cost-of-delay studies for freeway closures caused
Available from: https://www. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2019;125(2019):105722.
by Northridge earthquake. Transp Res Rec: J
standardsforhighways.co.uk/prod/attachments/ doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105722.
Transp Res Board. SAGE Journal. 1996;1559
fb88f0a1-6723-47f7-967f-5abc4cd38ec6?inline= [27] De Luca A, Guidi LG. Base isolation issues
(1):67–75. doi:10.1177/0361198196155900109.
true
in Italy: integrated architectural and strucutral
[5] Lew HS, et al. Performance of structures
[16] DMRB (c) -Design Manual for Road desing. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2020;130
during the Loma Prieta earthquake of October
and Bridges. CS 467. “Risk management (2020):105912. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105912.
17, 1989. NIST special publication 778.
and structural assessment of concrete hinged
National Institute of Standards and [28] Sorrentino P, Guidi LG, Brandonisio G,
structures”. Highway Structures &
Technology; 1990. Available from: https:// et al. Design spectra to be used in Base
Bridges Inspection & Assessment. The
nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/ Isolation Design in light of recent strong
Stationery Office, Highway Agency, London,
nistspecialpublication778.pdf. motion records. Procedia Structural Integrity,
UK; 2020. Available from: https://www.
44, 2023, 1300–1307. Part of Special Issue XIX
[6] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic standardsforhighways.co.uk/prod/attachments/
ANIDIS Conference, Seismic Engineering in
Design and Retrofit of Bridges. Wiley- a5411e11-d9af-4c13-8566-9f96d6716e69?inline=
Italy. doi: 10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.167.
Interscience; 1996. true
[17] DMRB (d) -Design Manual for Road and [29] Ben Q, Zhu X. Comparison of highway
[7] Buckle IG. Overview of seismic design
Bridges. CS 470, “Management of substandard bridge seismic design in Europe and China
methods for bridges in different countries and
highway structures”. Highway Structures & through a case study. Shock Vib. 2022;2022:
future directions, Paper No. 2113, 11 WCEE,
Article ID 8509752. doi:10.1155/2022/8509752.
Acapulco, Mexico; 1996. Bridges Inspection & Assessment. The
Stationery Office, Highway Agency, London, [30] CEN. EN 1991-2:2005. Eurocode 1. Actions
[8] Yashinsky M, et al. The Loma Prieta, UK; 2020. Available from: https://www. on structures. Traffic Loads on Bridges (EN
California, earthquake of October 17, 1986— standardsforhighways.co.uk/prod/attachments/ 1991-2); 2005.
Highway systems. U.S. Geological Survey 8d9db6a3-55e2-4947-855a-98ae3db77fc5?
Professional Paper 1552-B. Library of Congress [31] CEN. EN 1998-2; Design of structures for
inline=true
catalog-card No. 92-32287; 1998. Available earthquake resistance—Part 2: Bridges.
from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1552b/report.pdf. [18] De Luca A, Guidi LG, Matildi G. “La European Committee for Standardization; 2005.
Martella” split bowstring arch bridge across
[9] Kawashima K. Seisimic design and retrofit of Gravina creek: from design to construction. [32] Fardis M, Pinto PE. Guidelines for displa-
bridges. Proceedings the 12tWCEE: 12th World Struct Eng Int (IABSE)- ISSN 1016-8664. 2021; cement-based design of buildings and bridges.
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 33: 1–12. doi:10.1080/10168664.2021.1972777. LESSLOSS Report – 2007/05. IUSS Press; 2007.

Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025 Scientific Paper 189

[33] Kappos A-J. Performance-Based Seismic Geotech J. 2008; 45(12): 1743–1764. doi:10.1139/ Published by: Scientific American, a division of
Design and Assessment of Bridges. In: Ansal, A. T08-087. Nature America, Inc. Available from: https://
(eds) Perspectives on European Earthquake www.jstor.org/stable/10.230726058793.
[47] Abate G, Massimino MR. Numerical mod-
Engineering and Seismology. Geotechnical,
elling of the seismic response of a tunnel–soil– [62] Billington DP. The art of structural design: a
Geological and Earthquake Engineering, vol 39.
aboveground building system in Catania Swiss legacy. New Haven: Yale University Press;
2015. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
(Italy). Bull Earthquake Eng. 2017; 15: 469– 2003. p. 264.
3-319-16964-4_7
491. doi:10.1007/s10518-016-9973-9.
[34] Kawashima K. The 1996 Japanese seismic [63] Kelly JM, Konstantinidis DA. Mechanics of
design specifications of highway nridges and [48] Fu J, Liang J, Todorovska MI, et al. Soil-struc- rubber bearings for seismic and vibration iso-
the performance based design. In: Fajfar, P. and ture system frequency and damping: estimation lation. John Wiley & Sons; U.S., 2011.
Krawinkler, H. editors, Proc. Int. Workshop on from eigenvalues and results for a 2D model in [64] Naeim F, Kelly JM. Design of seismic iso-
Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next layered half-space. Earthquake Engng Struct lated structures: from theory to practice.
Generation of Codes, Balkema, A. A., Dyn. 2018; 47: 2055–2075. doi:10.1002/eqe.3055. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc; 1999.
Rotterdam; 1997. [49] Maleska T, Beben D, Nowacka J. Seismic [65] De Luca A, Guidi LG, Brandonisio G.
[35] Wright T, DesRoches R, Padgett JE. Bridge vulnerability of a soil-steel composite tunnel— Stability issues for elastomeric bearings: analyti-
seismic retrofitting in the Central and Norway Tolpinrud railway tunnel case study. cal formulations compared to experimental
Southeastern United States. J Bridge Eng Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2021; 110: 103808, results. Proceedings of 19th ANIDIS
ASCE. 2011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592. ISSN 0886-7798. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2020.103808. Conference, Seismic Engineering in Italy Turin
0000128. 11 September 2022 through 15 September
[50] Todorovska MI, Girmay EA, Wang F, et al.
[36] Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Wave propagation in a doubly tapered shear 2022. Procedia Structural Integrity, 44, 1284–
Trasporti–ITA. Approved by Consiglio super- beam: model and application to a pyramid- 1291, 2022. Available from: https://www.
iore dei Lavori Pubblici. “Linee Guida per la shaped skyscraper. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
Classificazione e Gestione del Rischio, la 2021; 51(4). doi:10.1002/eqe.3590. S2452321623001725.
Valutazione della Sicurezza ed il Monitoraggio [66] De Luca A, Guidi LG, Brandonisio G, et al.
[51] Maleska T, Beben D. Behaviour of soil-
dei Ponti Esistenti”, (CSLLPP2020); 2020. steel composite bridge with various cover Horizontal capacity of base isolation rubber
[37] Cosenza E, Losanno D. Assessment of depths under seismic excitation. Steel Compos devices under large vertical design stress,
existing reinforced-concrete bridges under Struct. 2022; 42(6): 747–764. doi:10.12989/scs. valued through full-scale tests. Soil Dyn Earthq
road-traffic loads according to the new Italian 2022.42.6.747. Eng. 2022 August;159:107264. doi:10.1016/j.
guidelines. 2021 International Federation for soildyn.2022.107264.
[52] Giannetti I. Il tubo Innocenti. Protagonista
Structural Concrete. Structural Concrete. [67] Guidi LG, Brandonisio G, De Luca A.
invisibile della Scuola italiana di ingegneria.
2021;22:2868–2881. doi:10.1002/suco.202100147. Stability issues for elastomeric bearings: analyti-
Gangemi Editore; 2017.
[38] Presidenza del Consiglio Superiore dei cal formulations compared to experimental
Lavori Pubblici—Servizio Tecnico Centrale. [53] Cestelli –Guidi C. Aspetti della progetta- results. Proceedings of XIX ANIDIS
Linee Guida per la Progettazione, Esecuzione zione dei ponti ad arco. L’Industria Italiana del Conference, Seismic Engineering in Italy.
e Collaudo di Strutture isolate dal Sisma; 1998. Cemento. 1957; 5(1957): 115–119. Procedia Structural Integrity. 2023;44:1284–
1291. doi:10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.165.
[39] Unjoh S, Tereyama T, Adachi Y, et al. [54] Billington DP. Deck-Stiffened arch bridges
Seismic retrofit of existing highway bridges in of Robert Maillart. J Struct Div, ASCE. 1973;99 [68] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, et al.
Japan. Cem Concr Compos. 2000 Feb 1;22 (7):1527–1539. Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng
(1):1–16. doi:10.1016/S0958-9465(99)00043-8. Mech-ASCE. 2000-a;126(12):1224–1231.
[55] Billington David P. Robert Maillart’s
[40] Grassini P. Grandi ponti in cemento armato Bridges: The Art of Engineering. Princeton [69] Choi ES, DesRoches R, Nielson B. Seismic
sull’autostrada Pompei–Salerno. L’Industria University Press, Princeton, U.S., 1979. https:// fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic
Italiana del Cemento, 1957;9(1957):207–212. doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv131bv4r zones. Eng Struct. 2003; 26(2): 187–199. doi:10.
1016/j.engstruct.2003.09.006.
[41] Grassini P. L’Autostrada Pompei–Salerno [56] Billington DP. Wilhelm Ritter: teacher of
ed il suo inserimento nel paesaggio. L’Industria Maillart and Ammann. J Struct Div ASCE. [70] Morbin R, Pellegrino C, Grendene M, et al.
Italiana del Cemento. 1961;1961:397–412. 1980;106(5):1103–1116. Strategies for seismic vulnerability evaluation of
common RC bridges typologies. In: 14th
[42] Grassini P, Zignoli V, Santoro F, et al. La [57] Billington DP. Robert Maillart and the art European Conference on Earthquake
Cassa per il Mezzogiorno. La Viabiltà. Dodici of reinforced concrete. Engineering, Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia:
anni 1950–1962. Editori Laterza; 1962. [58] Troyano LF. Bridge engineering. A global 30th August–3rd September 2010.
[43] Santarella L, Miozzi E. Ponti Italiani in perspective. Thomas Telford Publishing, [71] Hwang H, Jernigan JB, Lin YW. Evaluation
Cemento Armato. III Edizione, Editore Ulrico Institution of Civil Engineering, London, UK, of seismic damage to Memphis bridges and
Hoepli, Milano, Italy; 1948. 2003. highway systems. J Bridge Eng. 2000;5(4):322–
[44] Santarella L. Il Cemento Armato. Le [59] Bruun EPG. Robert Maillart: the evolution 330. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2000)5:4(322)
Applicazioni alle Costruzioni Civili ed of reinforced concrete bridges Forms. [72] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim HK, et al.
Industriali. 2: XIV Edizione. Editore Ulrico Proccedings 9th International Conference on Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve
Hoepli, Milano; 1962. Short and medium Span Bridges. Calgary, development. J Eng Mech-ASCE. 2000-b;126
Alberta, Canada; 2014 Jul 15–18. (12):1287–1295.
[45] Guidi LG, De Luca A. Evaluating the seismic
capacity of an existing Maillart-arch-type bridge: [60] Billington DP. Robert Maillart, builder, [73] Wibowo H, Sritharan S. Seismic response of
case study of Viadotto Olivieri. Struct Eng Int. designer, and artist. Architectural History bridge superstructures considering vertical ground
2022. doi:10.1080/10168664.2022.2032910. Foundation Book. MIT Press; 1997. accelerations.11 NCEE—Eleventh U.S. National
[46] Kontoe S, Zdravkovic L, Potts DM, et al. [61] Billington DP. The revolutionary bridges of Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2018
Case study on seismic tunnel response. Can Robert Maillart. 283(1) (Jul 2000), 84–91. Jun 25–29, Los Angeles, California.

190 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 2/2025