Comparison between analytical and numerical methods for the assessment of masonry arch bridges: Case study of Clemente Bridge on Savio river

This research has focused on the study of the behavior and of the collapse of masonry arch bridges. The latest decades have seen an increasing interest in this structural type, that is still present and in use, despite the passage of time and the variation of the transport means. Several strategies have been developed during the time to simulate the response of this type of structures, although even today there is no generally accepted standard one for assessment of masonry arch bridges. The aim of this thesis is to compare the principal analytical and numerical methods existing in literature on case studies, trying to highlight values and weaknesses. The methods taken in exam are mainly three: i) the Thrust Line Analysis Method; ii) the Mechanism Method; iii) the Finite Element Methods. The Thrust Line Analysis Method and the Mechanism Method are analytical methods and derived from two of the fundamental theorems of the Plastic Analysis, while the Finite Element Method is a numerical method, that uses different strategies of discretization to analyze the structure. Every method is applied to the case study through computer-based representations, that allow a friendly-use application of the principles explained. A particular closed-form approach based on an elasto-plastic material model and developed by some Belgian researchers is also studied. To compare the three methods, two different case study have been analyzed: i) a generic masonry arch bridge with a single span; ii) a real masonry arch bridge, the Clemente Bridge, built on Savio River in Cesena. In the analyses performed, all the models are two-dimensional in order to have results comparable between the different methods taken in exam. The different methods have been compared with each other in terms of collapse load and of hinge positions.

The frozen elephant trunk technique for the treatment of complex aortic arch and descending thoracic aorta pathologies: long term outcomes and distal reintervention

Background: The frozen elephant trunk(FET) technique is one of the last evolution in the treatment of complex pathologies of the aortic arch and the descending thoracic aorta.Materials and methods: Between January 2007 and March 2021, a total of 396 patients underwent total aortic arch replacements with the FET technique in our centre.The main indications were thoracic aortic aneurysm(n=104,28.2%), chronic aortic dissection(n=224,53.4%) and acute aortic dissection(n=68, 18.4%). We divided the population in two groups according the position of the distal anastomosis (zone 2 vs zone 3) and the length of the stent graft (< 150 mm vs > 150 mm): conservative group (Zone 2 anastomosis + stent length < 150mm, n. 140 pts) and aggressive group (zone 3 anastomosis + stent length > 150mm, n. 141). Results: The overall 30-day mortality rate was 13%(48/369); the risk factor analysis showed that an aggressive approach was neither a risk factor for major complication (permanent dialysis, tracheostomy, bowel malperfusion and permanent paraplegia) neither for 30-day mortality. The survival rate at 1, 5,10 and 15 years was 87.7%,75%,61.3% and 58.4% respectively. During the follow up, an aortic reintervention was performed in 122 patients (38%), 5 patients received a non-aortic cardiac surgery. Freedom from aortic reintervention at 1-,5- and 10-year was 77%,54% and 44% respectively. The freedom from aortic reintervention was higher in the ‘aggressive’ group (62.5%vs40.0% at 5 years, log-rank=0.056). An aggressive approach was not protective for aortic reintervention at follow up and for death at follow up. Conclusions: The FET technique represents a feasible and efficient option in the treatment of complex thoracic aortic pathologies. An aortic reintervention after FET is very common and the decision-making approach should consider and balance the higher risk of an aggressive approach in terms of post-operative complication versus the higher risk of a second aortic reintervention at follow-up.