Geomechanics and Engineering

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluating effects of various water levels on long-term creep and earthquake performance of masonry arch bridges using finite difference method

  • Cavuslu, Murat (Department of Civil Engineering, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University)
  • Received : 2022.01.13
  • Accepted : 2022.09.14
  • Published : 2022.10.10
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Investigating and evaluating the long-term creep behavior of historical buildings built on seismic zones is of great importance in terms of transferring these structures to future generations. Furthermore, assessing the earthquake behavior of historical structures such as masonry stone bridges is very important for the future and seismic safety of these structures. For this reason, in this study, earthquake analyses of a masonry stone bridge are carried out considering strong ground motions and various water levels. Tokatli masonry stone arch bridge that was built in the 10th century in Turkey-Karabük is selected for three-dimensional (3D) finite difference analyses and this bridge is modeled using FLAC3D software based on the three-dimensional finite difference method. Firstly, each stone element of the bridge is modeled separately and special stiffness parameters are defined between each stone element. Thanks to these parameters, the interaction conditions between each stone element are provided. Then, the Burger-Creep and Drucker-Prager material models are defined to arch material, rockfill material for evaluating the creep and seismic failure behaviors of the bridge. Besides, the boundaries of the 3D model of the bridge are modeled by considering the free-field and quiet boundary conditions, which were not considered in the past for the seismic behavior of masonry bridges. The bridge is analyzed for 6 different water levels and these water levels are 0 m, 30 m, 60 m, 70 m, 80 m, and 90 m, respectively. A total of 10 different seismic analyzes are performed and according to the seismic analysis results, it is concluded that historical stone bridges exhibit different seismic behaviors under different water levels. Moreover, it is openly seen that the water level is of great importance in terms of earthquake safety of historical stone bridges built in earthquake zones. For this reason, it is strongly recommended to consider the water levels while strengthening and analyzing the historical stone 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. 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.
  3. Cavuslu, M. (2022), "3D seismic assessment of historical stone arch bridges considering effects of normal-shear directions of stiffness parameters between discrete stone elements", Struct. Eng. Mech., 83(2), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2022.83.2.207.
  4. Conde, B., Diaz-Vilarino, L., Laguela, S. and Arias, P. (2016), "Structural analysis of Monforte de Lemos masonry arch bridge considering the influence of the geometry of the arches and fill material on the collapse load estimation", Constr. Build. Mater., 120, 630-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.107.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Domede, N., Sellier, A. and Stablon, T. (2013), "Structural analysis of a multi-span railway masonry bridge combining in situ observations, laboratory tests and damage modelling", Eng. Struct., 56, 837-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.05.052.
  8. Fanack (2022), Retrieved January 10, 2022, from https://fanack.com/turkey/geography-of-turkey/.
  9. 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.
  10. Gonen, H., Dogan, M., Karacasu, M., Ozbasaran, H. and Gokdemir, H. (2013), "Structural failures in refrofit historical murat masonry arch bridge", Eng. Fail. Anal., 35, 334-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.02.024.
  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, from https://earth.google.com/web/.
  13. Haciefendioglu, K. and Koc, V. (2016), "Dynamic assessment of partially damaged historic masonry bridges under blast-induced ground motion using multi-point shock spectrum method", Appl. Math. Model., 40(23-24), 10088-10104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2016.06.049.
  14. Itasca (2002), Inc. FLAC Version 5 User Manual, Minneapolis, USA.
  15. Jiang, K. and Esaki, T. (2002), "Quantitative evaluation of stability changes in historical stone bridges in Kagoshima, Japan, by weathering", Eng. Geol., 63(1-2), 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00071-0.
  16. Karalar, M. and Cavuslu, M. (2022), "Determination of 3D near fault seismic behaviour of Oroville earth fill dam using burger material model and free field-quiet boundary conditions", Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst., 28(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13873954.2022.2033274.
  17. Karaton, M., Aksoy, H.S., Sayin, E. and Calayir, Y. (2017), "Nonlinear seismic performance of a 12th century historical masonry bridge under different earthquake levels", Eng. Fail. Anal., 79, 408-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.05.017.
  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. Onat, O. (2019), "Fundamental vibration frequency prediction of historical masonry bridges", Struct. Eng. Mech., 69(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2019.69.2.155.
  20. Panian, R. and Yazdani, M. (2020), "Estimation of the service load capacity of plain concrete arch bridges using a novel approach: Stress intensity factor", Struct., 27, 1521-1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.07.055.
  21. Pela, L., Aprile, A. and Benedetti, A. (2009), "Seismic assessment of masonry arch bridges", Eng. Struct., 31(8), 1777-1788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.012.
  22. Pela, L., Aprile, A. and Benedetti, A. (2013), "Comparison of seismic assessment procedures for masonry arch bridges", Constr. Build. Mater., 38, 381-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.08.046.
  23. Sarhosis, V., Forgacs, T. and Lemos, J.V. (2018), "A discrete approach for modelling backfill material in masonry arch bridges", Comput. Struct., 224, 106108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2019.106108.
  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. Sayin, E. (2015), "Nonlinear seismic response of a masonry arch bridge", Earthq. Struct., 10(2), 483-494. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.2.483.
  26. 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.
  27. Tubaldi, 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. Turker, T. (2014), "Structural evaluation of Aspendos (Belkis) Masonry Bridge", Struct. Eng. Mech., 50(4), 419-439. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2014.50.4.419.
  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. Wang, L., Wang, S., Li, G. and Wang, L. (2020), "Construction of 3D creep model of landslide slip-surface soil and secondary development based on FLAC3D", Adv. Civil Eng., 2020, Article ID 2694651. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2694651.
  31. Yazdani, M. (2021), "Three-dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis for load-carrying capacity prediction of a railway arch bridge", Int. J. Civil Eng., 19, 823-836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00608-w.
  32. Yazdani, M. and Habibi, H. (2021), "Residual capacity evaluation of masonry arch bridges by extended finite element method", Struct. Eng. Int., 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2021.1944454.
  33. Yazdani, M. and Jahangiri, V. (2020), "Intensity measure-based probabilistic seismic evaluation and vulnerability assessment of ageing bridges", Earthq. Struct., 19(5), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.19.5.379.
  34. Yazdani, M., Jahangiri, V. and Marefat, M.S. (2019), "Seismic performance assessment of plain concrete arch bridges under near-field earthquakes using incremental dynamic analysis", Eng. Fail. Anal., 106, 104170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104170.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.