Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Progressive numerical model validation of a bowstring-arch railway bridge based on a structural health monitoring system

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a progressive numerical model validation of a bowstring-arch railway bridge based on the analysis of experimental data from different structural response measurements, namely, static deformations under environmental actions, modal vibrations, and transient dynamic responses under traffic loads. This work also addresses an integrated approach that uses structural health monitoring (SHM) measurements in combination with FE modelling to understand the structural behaviour of a long-span complex bridge. A progressively phased in situ SHM system has provided a diverse set of data streams ranging from static and dynamic responses to the measurement of environmental and operational traffic loads. The first phase consists of defining a detailed baseline finite-element (FE) model of the bridge, envisaging the initial condition of the structure immediately after construction, and its validation using modal parameters (natural frequencies and mode shapes) derived from an ambient vibration test. Since overall in-service deflections in general do not exercise the non-linear regime of the bridge response, the second phase focuses on the analysis of static response data and temperature measurements to validate the non-linear behaviour of the structural system, particularly at the bearing devices, under slow actions. The third and final phase addresses the dynamic analysis under traffic actions, which provides greater sensitivity in the detection of non-linear behaviour due to the effects of high-amplitude actions induced by regular train loading profiles. To guarantee the accuracy of the baseline numerical model, particularly under temperature and traffic actions, it was necessary to use contact restrictions in some specific bearing devices. This improvement is in line with the structural changes detected in some bearing devices through visual inspections. As a result, an updated numerical model capable of reproducing the modal, static, and dynamic structural responses was achieved, showing a very good agreement between experimental and numerical data. In future applications, this updated numerical model will be useful for assessing the condition of the bridge under traffic loads, namely to identify damages and support the adoption of life cycle maintenance strategies based on the integration of SHM systems with (stochastic) load and failure models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

adapted from REFER [34]

Fig. 2

(adapted from GRID et al. [35])

Fig. 3

(adapted from GRID et al. [35])

Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18.
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35
Fig. 36
Fig. 37
Fig. 38
Fig. 39

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cantero D, González A (2015) Bridge damage detection using weigh-in-motion technology. J Bridge Eng 20(5):04014078-1-04014078–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cury A, Crémona C (2012) Assignment of structural behaviours in long-term monitoring: Application to a strengthened railway bridge. Struct Health Monit 11(4):422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921711434858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Meixedo A, Goncalves A, Calcada R, Gabriel J, Fonseca H, Martins R (2016) On-line monitoring system for tracks. In: 2015 3rd experiment international conference (exp.at’15): online experimentation, article no 7463240, pp 133–134. https://doi.org/10.1109/EXPAT.2015.7463240

  4. Gonzalez I, Karoumi R (2015) BWIM aided damage detection in bridges using machine learning. J Civil Struct Health Monit 5(5):715–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-015-0137-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nishio M, Marin J, Fujino Y (2012) Uncertainty quantification of the finite element model of existing bridges for dynamic analysis. J Civil Struct Health Monit 2:163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-012-0026-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kodikara KATL, Chan THT, Nguyen T, Thambiratnam DP (2016) Model updating of real structures with ambient vibration data. J Civil Struct Health Monit 6:329–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rebelo C, Simões L, Rigueiro C, Pircher M (2008) Dynamic behaviour of twin single-span ballasted railway viaducts—Field measurements and modal identification. Eng Struct 30:2460–2469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.01.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu KÃ, Reynders E, De RG, Lombaert G (2009) Experimental and numerical analysis of a composite bridge for high-speed trains. J Sound Vib 320:201–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2008.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Choi JY, Chung JS, Kim SH (2019) Experimental study on track-bridge interactions for direct fixation track on long-span railway bridge. Shock Vib 2019

  10. Santos JP, Crémona C, Orcesi AD, Silveira P (2013) Multivariate statistical analysis for early damage detection. Eng Struct 56:273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.05.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ribeiro D, Calçada R, Delgado R, Brehm M, Zabel V (2012) Finite element model updating of a bowstring-arch railway bridge based on experimental modal parameters. Eng Struct 40:413–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Glaser SD, Tolman A (2008) Sense of sensing: from data to informed decisions for the built environment. J Infrastruct Syst 14(1):4–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2008)14:1(4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Marian R, Santos JP, Kwapisz M, Dallinger S, Catarino J (2014) Damage detection based on structural response to Temperature changes and model updating. EWSHM—European Workshop of Structural Health Monitoring, Nantes, France

  14. Feng D, Asce SM, Feng MQ, Asce F (2012) Model updating of railway bridge using in situ dynamic displacement measurement under trainloads. J Bridge Eng 2015(20):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moravej H, Chan THT, Nguyen KD, Jesus A (2019) Vibration-based Bayesian model updating of civil engineering structures applying Gaussian process metamodel. Adv Struct Eng 2019:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433219858723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Weng S, Zhu HP, Xia Y, Mao L (2013) Damage detection using the eigenparameter decomposition of substructural flexibility matrix. Mech Syst Signal Process 34(1–2):19–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2012.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang FL, Chan THT, Thambiratnam DP, Tan ACC, Cowled CJL (2012) Correlation-based damage detection for complicated truss bridges using multi-layer genetic algorithm. Adv Struct Eng 15(5):693–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tomé ES, Pimentel M, Figueiras J (2018) Structural response of a concrete cable-stayed bridge under thermal loads. Eng Struct J 176:652–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guo WW, Xia H, De RG, Liu K (2012) Integral model for train-track-bridge interaction on the Sesia viaduct: dynamic simulation and critical assessment. Comput Struct 112–113:205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhai W, Wang S, Zhang N, Gao M, Xia H, Cai C et al (2013) International Journal of Rail High-speed train—track—bridge dynamic interactions—Part II : experimental validation and engineering application. Int J Rail Transport 1(1–2):25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/23248378.2013.791497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Melo LRT, Ribeiro D, Calçada R, Bittencourt TN (2020) Validation of a vertical train—track—bridge dynamic interaction model based on limited experimental data. Struct Infrastruct Eng 16(1):181–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1605394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Matsuoka K, Collina A, Somaschini C, Sogabe M (2018) Influence of local deck vibrations on the evaluation of the maximum acceleration of a steel-concrete composite bridge for a high-speed railway. Eng Struct 2019(200):109736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Somaschini C, Matsuoka K, Collina A (2017) ScienceDirect Experimental analysis of a composite bridge under high-speed train passages. Proc Eng 199:3071–3076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cao WJ, Koh CG, Smith IFC (2019) Enhancing static-load-test identification of bridges using dynamic data. Eng Struct 186:410–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Laura M, Francesco C, Antonio F (2020) Static and dynamic testing of highway bridges: a best practice example. J Civil Struct Health Monit 10(1):43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang H, Li AQ, Li J (2010) Progressive finite element model calibration of a long-span suspension bridge based on ambient vibration and static measurements. Eng Struct 32(9):2546–2556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rigueiro C, Rebelo C, da Silva LS (2010) Influence of ballast models in the dynamic response of railway viaducts. J Sound Vib 329:3030–3040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2010.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Battini JM, Ülker-kaustell M (2011) A simple finite element to consider the non-linear influence of the ballast on vibrations of railway bridges. Eng Struct 33(9):2597–2602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bornet L, Andersson A, Zwolski J, Battini JM (2015) Influence of the ballasted track on the dynamic properties of a truss railway bridge. Struct Infrastruct Eng 11(6):6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.912242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. ERRI D214/RP2. Rail bridges for speeds > 200 km/h. Recommendations for calculation of bridge deck stiffness. Utrecht, Netherlands: European Rail Research Institute (ERRI): 1999.

  31. Ülker-kaustell M, Karoumi R (2012) Influence of non-linear stiffness and damping on the train-bridge resonance of a simply supported railway bridge. Eng Struct 41:350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Malveiro J, Ribeiro D, Calçada R, Delgado R (2014) Updating and validation of the dynamic model of a railway viaduct with precast deck. Struct Infrastruct Eng, p 2479. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.833950.

  33. Malveiro J, Ribeiro D, Sousa C, Calçada R (2017) Model updating of a dynamic model of a composite steel-concrete railway viaduct based on experimental tests. Eng Struct 2018(164):40–52

    Google Scholar 

  34. REFER (2010) Variante de Alcácer 2010.

  35. GRID, GREISH, BEG, FERBRITAS (2006) Variante de Alcácer: Projecto de Execução do travessamento do Rio Sado 2006.

  36. SVS (2005) ARTeMIS Extractor Handy. Denmark: Structural Vibration Solution 2005 (Release 3.5).

  37. Min X, Santos L (2011) Ensaios dinâmicos da ponte ferroviária sobre o rio sado na variante de alcácer. Lisboa: 2011.

  38. ANSYS (2016) Academic Research. Release 17.1 2016.

  39. Albuquerque C, Silva ALL, De JAMP, Calçada R (2015) An efficient methodology for fatigue damage assessment of bridge details using modal superposition of stress intensity factors. Int J Fatigue 81:61–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mijar AR, Arora JS (2000) Review of formulations for elastostatic frictional contact problems. Struct Multidiscip Optim 20(3):167–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. EN 13674-1:2003. Railway applications—Track—Rail. vol. 3. 2007.

  42. UIC 861-3 (E). Standard 60 Kg/m Rail Profiles-Types UIC 60 and 60E. 3rd ed. 1969.

  43. UIC 774-3-R. Track/bridge interaction-Recommendations for calculation. 2nd ed. Paris: 2001.

  44. ERRI D 202/RP 11. Improved knowledge of forces in CWR track (including switches): Parametric study and sensivity analysis of CWERRI. Utrecht: European Rail Research Institute; 1999.

  45. Wu YS, Yang YB (2003) Steady-state response and riding comfort of trains moving over a series of simply supported bridges. Eng Struct 25(2):251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00147-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhai W, Wang K, Cai C (2009) Fundamentals of vehicle-track coupled dynamics. Vehicle Syst Dyn 47(11):1349–1376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423110802621561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Paixão A, Fortunato E, Calçada R (2014) Transition zones to railway bridges: Track measurements and numerical modelling. Eng Struct 80:435–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ribeiro D, Calçada R, Delgado R, Brehm M, Zabel V (2013) Finite-element model calibration of a railway vehicle based on experimental modal parameters. Vehicle Syst Dyn Taylor Francis 51(6):821–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2013.778416

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the PhD scholarship SFRH/BD/93201/2013. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Portuguese Road and Railway Infrastructure Manager (Infraestruturas de Portugal, I.P), the Portuguese National Laboratory for Civil Engineering (LNEC), the SAFESUSPENSE project—POCI-01-0145-FEDER-031054 (funded by COMPETE2020, POR Lisboa and FCT), and the Base Funding—UIDB/04708/2020 of the CONSTRUCT—Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções—funded by national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Andreia Meixedo & Rui Calçada

  2. CONSTRUCT-LESE, School of Engineering, Polytechnic of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Diogo Ribeiro

  3. LNEC, Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal

    João Santos

  4. Department of Structural Engineering, University California, San Diego, USA

    Michael Todd

Authors
  1. Andreia Meixedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diogo Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. João Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rui Calçada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Todd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreia Meixedo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meixedo, A., Ribeiro, D., Santos, J. et al. Progressive numerical model validation of a bowstring-arch railway bridge based on a structural health monitoring system. J Civil Struct Health Monit 11, 421–449 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00461-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00461-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation