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 posterior parietal cortex: a bridge between vision and action

The present work takes into account three posterior parietal areas, V6, V6A, and PEc, all operating on different subsets of signals (visual, somatic, motor). The work focuses on the study of their functional properties, to better understand their respective contribution in the neuronal circuits that make possible the interactions between subject and external environment. In the caudalmost pole of parietal lobe there is area V6. Functional data suggest that this area is related to the encoding of both objects motion and ego-motion. However, the sensitivity of V6 neurons to optic flow stimulations has been tested only in human fMRI experiments. Here we addressed this issue by applying on monkey the same experimental protocol used in human studies. The visual stimulation obtained with the Flow Fields stimulus was the most effective and powerful to activate area V6 in monkey, further strengthening this homology between the two primates. The neighboring areas, V6A and PEc, show different cytoarchitecture and connectivity profiles, but are both involved in the control of reaches. We studied the sensory responses present in these areas, and directly compared these.. We also studied the motor related discharges of PEc neurons during reaching movements in 3D space comparing also the direction and depth tuning of PEc cells with those of V6A. The results show that area PEc and V6A share several functional properties. Area PEc, unlike V6A, contains a richer and more complex somatosensory input, and a poorer, although complex visual one. Differences emerged also comparing the motor-related properties for reaches in depth: the incidence of depth modulations in PEc and the temporal pattern of modulation for depth and direction allow to delineate a trend among the two parietal visuomotor areas.

Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty as Bridge-to-Decision in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis

Background. A sizable group of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) can undergo neither surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) nor transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) because of clinical contraindications. The aim of this study was to assess the potential role of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) as a “bridge-to-decision” in selected patients with severe AS and potentially reversible contraindications to definitive treatment. Methods. We retrospectively enrolled 645 patients who underwent first BAV at our Institution between July 2007 and December 2012. Of these, the 202 patients (31.2%) who underwent BAV as bridge-to-decision (BTD) requiring clinical re-evaluation represented our study population. BTD patients were further subdivided in 5 groups: low left ventricular ejection fraction; mitral regurgitation grade ≥3; frailty; hemodynamic instability; comorbidity. The main objective of the study was to evaluate how BAV influenced the final treatment strategy in the whole BTD group and in its single specific subgroups. Results. Mean logistic EuroSCORE was 23.5±15.3%, mean age was 81±7 years. Mean transaortic gradient decreased from 47±17 mmHg to 33±14 mmHg. Of the 193 patients with BTD-BAV who received a second heart team evaluation, 72.5% were finally deemed eligible for definitive treatment (25.4%for AVR; 47.2% for TAVI): respectively, 96.7% of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction recovery; 70.5% of patients with mitral regurgitation reduction; 75.7% of patients who underwent BAV in clinical hemodynamic instability; 69.2% of frail patients and 68% of patients who presented relevant comorbidities. 27.5% of the study population was deemed ineligible for definitive treatment and treated with standard therapy/repeated BAV. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%, cerebrovascular accident occurred in 1% and overall vascular complications were 4% (0.5% major; 3.5% minor). Conclusions. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty should be considered as bridge-to-decision in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who cannot be immediate candidates for definitive percutaneous or surgical treatment.