Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

3D seismic assessment of historical stone arch bridges considering effects of normal-shear directions of stiffness parameters between discrete stone elements

  • Cavuslu, Murat (Department of Civil Engineering, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University)
  • Received : 2022.01.11
  • Accepted : 2022.05.02
  • Published : 2022.07.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In general, the interaction conditions between the discrete stones are not taken into account by structural engineers during the modeling and analyzing of historical stone bridges. However, many structural damages in the stone bridges occur due to ignoring the interaction conditions between discrete stones. In this study, it is aimed to examine the seismic behavior of a historical stone bridge by considering the interaction stiffness parameters between stone elements. For this purpose, Tokatli historical stone arch bridge was built in 1179 in Karabük-Turkey, is chosen for three-dimensional (3D) seismic analyses. Firstly, the 3D finite-difference model of the Tokatli stone bridge is created using the FLAC3D software. During the modeling processes, the Burger-Creep material model which was not used to examine the seismic behavior of historical stone bridges in the past is utilized. Furthermore, the free-field and quiet non-reflecting boundary conditions are defined to the lateral and bottom boundaries of the bridge. Thanks to these boundary conditions, earthquake waves do not reflect in the 3D model. After each stone element is modeled separately, stiffness elements are defined between the stone elements. Three situations of the stiffness elements are considered in the seismic analyses; a) for only normal direction b) for only shear direction c) for both normal and shear directions. The earthquake analyses of the bridge are performed for these three different situations of the bridge. The far-fault and near-fault conditions of 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake are taken into account during the earthquake analyses. According to the seismic analysis results, the directions of the stiffness parameters seriously changed the earthquake behavior of the Tokatli bridge. Moreover, the most critical stiffness parameter is determined for seismic analyses of historical stone arch bridges.

Keywords

References

  1. Aydin, A.C. and Ozkaya, S.G. (2018), "The finite element analysis of collapse loads of single-spanned historic masonry arch bridges (Ordu, Sarpdere Bridge)", Eng. Fail. Anal., 84, 131-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.11.002.
  2. Bozyigit, B. and Acikgoz, S. (2022), "Determination of free vibration properties of masonry arch bridges using the dynamic stiffness method", Eng. Struct., 250, 113417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113417.
  3. Cakir, F. and Seker, B.S. (2015), "Structural performance of renovated masonry low bridge in Amasya, Turkey", Earthq. Struct., 8(6), 1387-1406. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.6.1387.
  4. Conde, B., Drosopoulos, G.A., Stavroulakis, G.E., Riveiro, B. and Stavroulaki, M.E. (2016), "Inverse analysis of masonry arch bridges for damaged condition investigation: Application on Kakodiki bridge", Eng. Struct., 127, 388-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.060.
  5. Conde, B., Eguia, P., Stavroulakis, G.E. and Granada, E. (2018), "Parameter identification for damaged condition investigation on masonry arch bridges using a Bayesian approach", Eng. Struct., 172, 275-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.040.
  6. Costa, C., Arede, A., Morais, M. and Anibal, A. (2015), "Detailed FE and DE modelling of stone masonry arch bridges for the assessment of load-carrying capacity", Procedia Eng., 114, 854-861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.039.
  7. D'Altri, A.M., Sarhosis, V., Milani, G., Rots, J., Cattari, S., Lagomarsino, S., Sacco, E., Tralli, A., Castellazzi, G. and Miranda, S.d. (2020), "modeling strategies for the computational analysis of unreinforced masonry structures: Review and classification", Arch. Comput. Meth. Eng., 27, 1153-1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09351-x.
  8. Demircioglu, M.B., Sesetyan, K., Duman, T.Y., Can, T., Tekin, S. and Ergintav, S. (2018), "A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Turkish territory: Part II-fault source and background seismicity model", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 16, 3399-3438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0130-x.
  9. Dogan, M. (2013), "Failure of structural (RC, masonry, bridge) to Van earthquake", Eng. Fail. Anal., 35, 489-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.05.010.
  10. Forgacs, T., Sarhosis, V. and Adany S. (2021), "Shakedown and dynamic behaviour of masonry arch railway bridges", Eng. Struct., 228, 111474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111474.
  11. Gonen, S. and Soyoz, S. (2021), "Seismic analysis of a masonry arch bridge using multiple methodologies", Eng. Struct., 226, 111354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111354.
  12. Google Earth (2022), Retrieved January 10, 2022, https://earth.google.com/web/.
  13. Gullu, H. and Karabekmez, M. (2017), "Effect of near-fault and far-fault earthquakes on a historical masonry mosque through 3D dynamic soil-structure interaction", Eng. Struct., 152, 465-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.09.031.
  14. Hoseini, S.S., Ghanbari, A., Davoodi, M. and Kamal, M. (2019), "The effect of foundation soil behavior on seismic response of long bridges", Geomech. Eng., 17(6), 583-595. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2019.17.6.583.
  15. Itasca (2002), Inc. FLAC Version 5 User Manual, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, USA.
  16. Karalar, M. and Yesil, M. (2021), "Investigation on seismic behavior of historical tokatli bridge under near-fault earthquakes", Adv. Civil Eng., 2021, Article ID 5596760. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5596760.
  17. Kartal, M.E., Cavusli, M. and Genis, M. (2019), "3D nonlinear analysis of ataturk clay core rockfill dam considering settlement monitoring", Int. J. Geomech., 19(5), 04019034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001412.
  18. Milani, G. and Lourenco, P.B. (2012), "3D non-linear behavior of masonry arch bridges", Comput. Struct., 110-111, 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.07.008.
  19. Papa, T., Grillanda, N. and Milani, G. (2021), "Three-dimensional adaptive limit analysis of masonry arch bridges interacting with the backfill", Eng. Struct., 248, 113189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113189.
  20. Rafiee, A. and Vinches, M. (2013), "Mechanical behaviour of a stone masonry bridge assessed using an implicit discrete element method", Eng. Struct., 48, 739-749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.11.035.
  21. Sarfarazi, V., Asgari, K. and Nasrollahi, M. (2021), "Interaction between rock bolt and rock bridge under tensile loading", Geomech. Eng., 25(6), 455-471. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2021.25.6.455.
  22. Sarhosis, V., Forgacs, T. and Lemos, J.V. (2019), "A discrete approach for modelling backfill material in masonry arch bridges", Computers & Structures, 224, 106108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2019.106108.
  23. Sarhosis, V., Santis, S.D. and Felice, G.d. (2016), "A review of experimental investigations and assessment methods for masonry arch bridges", Struct. Infrastr. Eng., 12(11), 1439-1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1136655.
  24. Saygili, O. and Lemos, J.V. (2021), "Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry arch bridges", Struct., 33, 3311-3323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.057.
  25. Spyrakos, C.C., Kemp, E.L. and Venkatareddy, R. (1999), "Seismic study of an historic covered bridge", Eng. Struct., 21(9), 877-882. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00041-8.
  26. Tran, V.H., Vincens, E., Morel, J.C., Dedecker, F. and Le, H.H. (2014), "2D-DEM modelling of the formwork removal of a rubble stone masonry bridge", Eng. Struct., 75, 448-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.048.
  27. Tubaldi, E., Minga, E., Macorini, L. and Izzuddin, B.A. (2018), "Three-dimensional mesoscale modelling of multi-span masonry arch bridges subjected to scour", Eng. Struct., 165, 486-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.031.
  28. Tubaldi, E., Minga, E., Macorini, L. and Izzuddin, B.A. (2020), "Mesoscale analysis of multi-span masonry arch bridges", Eng. Struct., 225, 111137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111137.
  29. Ural, A., Oruc, S., Dogangun, A. and Tuluk, O.I. (2008), "Turkish historical arch bridges and their deteriorations and failures", Eng. Fail. Anal., 15(1-2), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.01.006.
  30. Yesil, M. (2019), "Investigation of behavior change of conjic and tokatli historical masonry stone bridges with different openings and belt height under near and far fault using the finite element method ansys and Sap2000", Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, June.
  31. Zampieri, P., Tetougueni, C.D. and Pellegrino, C. (2021), "Nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry bridges under multiple geometric and material considerations: Application to an existing seven-span arch bridge", Struct., 34, 78-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.07.009.
  32. Zani, G., Martinelli, P., Galli, A. and Prisco, M. (2020), "Three-dimensional modelling of a multi-span masonry arch bridge: Influence of soil compressibility on the structural response under vertical static loads", Eng. Struct., 221, 110998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110998.