Skip to main content

Ayvalıkemer (Sillyon) historical masonry arch bridge: a multidisciplinary approach for structural assessment using point cloud data obtained by terrestrial laser scanning (TLS)

Abstract

Historical structures are cultural heritage constituents that convey the traces and characteristic features of civilizations to the present days. One of these structures, which are among the monumental artefacts, are historical bridges. To protect historical buildings, 3D photogrammetric documentation of these structures, detailed determination of geometric and material properties and performing computer-aided structural analysis using appropriate modelling techniques are very important. The aim of this study is to present an effective, reliable, and fast multidisciplinary approach for the analysis of historical masonry bridges. The aforementioned approach is presented as an example for the behavior of the recently restored historical Ayvalıkemer (Sillyon) masonry arch bridge under possible loadings. Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) was used to determine the bridge geometry with high accuracy. The point cloud data obtained from TLS was simplified and a three-dimensional CAD based solid model of the structure was created. This solid body has been formed the basis of the macro model for structural analysis. CDP material model was used to describe the inelastic behavior of homogenized structure. Thus, an analysis was carried out which presents the structural behavior of a historical bridge with high accuracy and reliability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig.4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Data availability

The datasets used during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

The macro model analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.

    Leonov AV, Anikushkin MN, Ivanov AV, Ovcharov SV, Bobkov AE, Baturin YM (2015) Laser scanning and 3D modelling of the Shukhov hyperboloid tower in Moscow. J Cult Herit 16(4):551–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2014.09.014 

  2. 2.

    Costa-Jover A, Ginovart JL, Coll-Pla S, Piquer ML (2019) Using the terrestrial laser scanner and simple methodologies for geometrically assessing complex masonry vaults. J Cult Herit 36:247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.10.003

  3. 3.

    Pachón P, Castro R, García-Macías E, Compan V, Puertas E (2018) E. Torroja’s bridge: tailored experimental setup for SHM of a historical bridge with a reduced number of sensors. Eng Struct 162:11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.035

  4. 4.

    Altunisik AC, Kalkan E, Okur FY, Ozgan K, Karahasan OS, Bostanci A (2019) Non-destructive modal parameter identification of historical timber bridges using ambient vibration tests after restoration. Measurement 146:411–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.06.051

  5. 5.

    Kushwaha SKP, Raghavendra S, Pande H, Agrawal S (2020) Analysis and integration of surface and subsurface information of different bridges. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 48(2):315–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-019-01087-2 

  6. 6.

    Hacıefendioğlu K, Başağa HB, Banerjee S (2017) Probabilistic analysis of historic masonry bridges to random ground motion by Monte Carlo Simulation using Response Surface Method. Constr Build Mater 134:199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.101

  7. 7.

    Simos N, Manos GC, Kozikopoulos E (2018) Near-and far-field earthquake damage study of the Konitsa stone arch bridge. Eng Struct 177:256–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.072

  8. 8.

    Ferrari R, Cocchetti G, Rizzi E (2016) Limit Analysis of a historical iron arch bridge. Formulation and computational implementation. Comput Struct 175:184–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2016.05.007

  9. 9.

    Toker S, Ünay Aİ (2004) Mathematical modelling and finite element analysis of masonry arch bridges. Gazi Univ J Sci 17(2):129–139

  10. 10.

    Sánchez-Aparicio LJ, Bautista-De Castro Á, Conde B, Carrasco P, Ramos LF (2019) Non-destructive means and methods for structural diagnosis of masonry arch bridges. Autom Constr 104:360–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.04.021

  11. 11.

    Riveiro B, De Jong MJ, Conde B (2016) Automated processing of large point clouds for structural health monitoring of masonry arch bridges. Autom Constr 72:258–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.02.009

  12. 12.

    Conde B, Drosopoulos GA, Stavroulakis GE, Riveiro B, Stavroulaki ME (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

  13. 13.

    Stavroulaki ME, Riveiro B, Drosopoulos GA, Solla M, Koutsianitis P, Stavroulakis GE (2016) Modelling and strength evaluation of masonry bridges using terrestrial photogrammetry and finite elements. Adv Eng Softw 101:136–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.12.007

  14. 14.

    Yavuz UC (2012) Tarihi Yapılarda Statik Güçlendirme Teknikleri. Expertise Thesis. Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums. Ankara, Turkey, pp 71 (in Turkish)

  15. 15.

    Jaafar HA, Meng X, Sowter A, Bryan P (2017) New approach for monitoring historic and heritage buildings: using terrestrial laser scanning and generalised procrustes analysis. Struct Control Health Monit 24(11):e1987. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1987

  16. 16.

    Sánchez-Rodríguez A, Riveiro B, Conde B, Soilán M (2018) Detection of structural faults in piers of masonry arch bridges through automated processing of laser scanning data. Struct Control Health Monit 25(3):e2126. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2126

  17. 17.

    Law DW, Silcock D, Holden L (2018) Terrestrial laser scanner assessment of deteriorating concrete structures. Struct Control Health Monit 25(5):e2156. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2156

  18. 18.

    Yorulmaz M (1984) Building construction under seismic conditions in the Balkan region, 3rd edn. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Executing agency for the United Nations Development Programme, pp 151

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Fanning PJ, Boothby TE (2001) Three-dimensional modelling and full-scale testing of stone arch bridges. Comput Struct 79(29–30):2645–2662. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(01)00109-2

  20. 20.

    Brencich A, Sabia D (2008) Experimental identification of a multi-span masonry bridge: the Tanaro Bridge. Constr Build Mater 22(10):2087–2099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.07.031

  21. 21.

    Sevim B, Bayraktar A, Altunişik AC, Atamtürktür S, Birinci F (2011) Finite element model calibration effects on the earthquake response of masonry arch bridges. Finite Elem Anal Des 47(7):621–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2010.12.011

  22. 22.

    Milani G, Lourenço PB (2012) 3D non-linear behavior of masonry arch bridges. Comput Struct 110:133–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.07.008

  23. 23.

    Castellazzi G, Miranda SD, Mazzotti C (2012) Finite element modelling tuned on experimental testing for the structural health assessment of an ancient masonry arch bridge. Math Problems Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/495019

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Guarnieri A, Milan N, Vettore A (2013) Monitoring of complex structure for structural control using terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and photogrammetry. Int J Arch Heritage 7(1):54–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2011.606595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Pelà L, Aprile A, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Korkmaz KA, Zabin P, Çarhoğlu AI, Nuhoğlu A (2013) Taş Kemer Köprülerin Deprem Davranışlarının Değerlendirilmesi: Timisvat Köprüsü Örneği. J Adv Technol Sci 2(1):66–75 (in Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Rafiee A, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Altunışık AC, Kanbur B, Genc AF (2015) The effect of arch geometry on the structural behavior of masonry bridges. Smart Struct Syst 16(6):1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2015.16.6.1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Karaton M, Aksoy HS, Sayın E, Calayır 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Cakir F (2018) Structural performance assessment of historical Dilovası Sultan Süleyman (Diliskelesi) bridge in Turkey. Int J Electron Mech Mechatron Eng 8(3):1579–1588

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Drygala I, Dulinska J, Bednarz Ł, Jasienko J (2018) Numerical evaluation of seismic-induced damages in masonry elements of historical arch viaduct. MS&E 364(1):012006

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    ABAQUS Tutorials (2019) Online Documentation Dassault Systemes Simulia User Assistance. Dassault Systemes, United States

  33. 33.

    Jahangiri V, Yazdani M, Marefat MS (2018) Intensity measures for the seismic response assessment of plain concrete arch bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 16(9):4225–4248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0334-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Bautista-De Castro A, Sánchez-Aparicio LJ, Ramos LF, Sena-Cruz J, González-Aguilera D (2018) Integrating geomatic approaches, Operational Modal Analysis, advanced numerical and updating methods to evaluate the current safety conditions of the historical Bôco Bridge. Constr Build Mater 158:961–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.10.084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Caddemi S, Caliò I, Cannizzaro F, D'Urso D, Pantò B, Rapicavoli D (March 27–29, 2019) 3D Discrete macro-modelling approach for masonry arch bridges. The International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) Symposium 2019. Guimarães, Portugal

  36. 36.

    Di Sarno L, da Porto F, Guerrini G, Calvi PM, Camata G, Prota A (2019) Seismic performance of bridges during the 2016 Central Italy earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 17(10):5729–5761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0419-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Dall’Asta A, Leoni G, Meschini A, Petrucci E, Zona A (2019) Integrated approach for seismic vulnerability analysis of historic massive defensive structures. J Cult Herit 35:86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Hokelekli E, Yilmaz BN (2019) Effect of cohesive contact of backfill with arch and spandrel walls of a historical masonry arch bridge on seismic response. Periodica Polytech Civ Eng 63(3):926–937. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.14198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Zhao C, Xiong Y, Zhong X, Shi Z, Yang S (2020) A two-phase modeling strategy for analyzing the failure process of masonry arches. Eng Struct 212:110525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Kujawa M, Lubowiecka I, Szymczak C (2020) Finite element modelling of a historic church structure in the context of a masonry damage analysis. Eng Failure Anal 107:104233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Banerji P, Chikermane S (2012) Condition assessment of a heritage arch bridge using a novel model updation technique. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 2:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-011-0013-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Boscato G, Cin AD (2017) Experimental and numerical evaluation of structural dynamic behavior of Rialto Bridge in Venice. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 7:557–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-017-0242-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Crotti G, Cigada A (2019) Scour at river bridge piers: real-time vulnerability assessment through the continuous monitoring of a bridge over the river Po, Italy. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 9:513–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-019-00348-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Lorenzoni F, De Conto N, da Porto F, Modena C (2019) Ambient and free-vibration tests to improve the quantification and estimation of modal parameters in existing bridges. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 9:617–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-019-00357-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Alexakis H, Lau FDH, De Jong MJ (2021) Fibre optic sensing of ageing railway infrastructure enhanced with statistical shape analysis. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 11:49–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00437-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Karimpour A, Rahmatalla S, Markfort C (2020) Identification of damage parameters during flood events applicable to multi-span bridges. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 10:973–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00429-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Potenza F, Rinaldi C, Ottaviano E, Gattulli V (2020) A robotics and computer-aided procedure for defect evaluation in bridge inspection. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 10:471–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00395-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Pieraccini M et al (2014) Dynamic identification of historic masonry towers through an expeditious and no-contact approach: Application to the “Torre del Mangia” in Siena (Italy). J Cult Herit 15(3):275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2013.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Castellazzi G et al (2015) From laser scanning to finite element analysis of complex buildings by using a semi-automatic procedure. Sensors 15:18360–18380. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150818360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Korumaz M et al (2017) An integrated terrestrial laser scanner (TLS), deviation analysis (DA) and finite element (FE) approach for health assessment of historical structures, a minaret case study. Eng Struct 153:224–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.10.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    GDH (2016) Antalya province, Serik district, Ayvalıkemer (Sillyon) bridge technical report. General Directorate of Highways, 13th Region, Antalya, Turkey, pp 19 (in Turkish)

  52. 52.

    Guidoboni E, Comastri A, Traina G (1994) Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century. Roma Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica, Italy, pp 504

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Bayburtluoğlu C (2003) Yüksek Kayalığın Yanındaki Yer-Arykanda. İstanbul, Homer Kitabevi, p 204 (in Turkish

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Duggan TMP (2004) A short account of recorded Calamities (earthquakes and plagues) in Antalya province and adjacent and related areas over the past 2300 years an incomplete list, comments and observations. Adalya 7:123–170

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Softa M, Turan M, Sözbilir H (2018) Jeolojik, Arkeolojik ve Arkeosismolojik Veriler Işığında Myra Antik Kenti’nde Tarihsel Depremlere Ait Deformasyon Verileri, GB Anadolu. Geol Bull Turkey 61(1):51–73 (in Turkish). https://doi.org/10.25288/tjb.358177 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Armesto J, Roca-Pardiñas J, Lorenzo H, Arias P (2010) Modelling masonry arches shape using terrestrial laser scanning data and nonparametric methods. Eng Struct 32(2):607–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Lubowiecka I, Armesto J, Arias P, Lorenzo H (2009) Historic bridge modelling using laser scanning, ground penetrating radar and finite element methods in the context of structural dynamics. Eng Struct 31(11):2667–2676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.06.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Lubowiecka I, Arias P, Riveiro B, Solla M (2011) Multidisciplinary approach to the assessment of historic structures based on the case of a masonry bridge in Galicia (Spain). Comput Struct 89(17–18):1615–1627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.04.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Morer P, Arteaga ID, Armesto J, Arias P (2011) Comparative structural analyses of masonry bridges: an application to the Cernadela Bridge. J Cult Herit 12(3):300–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2011.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Riveiro B, Morer P, Arias P, Arteaga ID (2011) Terrestrial laser scanning and limit analysis of masonry arch bridges. Constr Build Mater 25(4):1726–1735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Faro (2017) https://www.faro.com/news/faro-launches-new-x-series-laser-scanner-the-focus3d-x-130/ (Accessed 03 May 2020)

  62. 62.

    Adam JM, Brencich A, Hughes TG, Jefferson T (2010) Micromodelling of eccentrically loaded brickwork: study of masonry wallettes. Eng Struct 32(5):1244–1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Milani G, Lourenco PB, Tralli A (2006) Homogenization approach for the limit analysis of out-of-plane loaded masonry walls. J Struct Eng ASCE 132(10):1650–1663. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:10(1650)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Lourenço PB (1996) Computational strategies for masonry structures. PhD thesis. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, pp 220

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Proske D, Gelder P (2009) Safety of historical arch bridges. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg Dordrecht, London, p 366

    Book  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Roca P, González JL, Oñate E, Lourenço PB (1998) Experimental and numerical issues in the modelling of the mechanical behavior of masonry. Structural analysis of historical constructions. II. CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 57–91

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Proske D, Van Gelder P (2009) Safety of historical stone arch bridges. Springer Science and Business Media, pp 215

    Book  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Lourenço PB, Vasconcelos G, Ramos L (2001) Assessment of the stability conditions of a Cistercian cloister. 2nd International Congress on Studies in Ancient Structures. İstanbul

  69. 69.

    Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oñate E (1989) A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J Solids Struct 25(3):299–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(89)90050-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Lee JH, Fenves GL (1998) Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J Eng Mech (ASCE) 124:892–900. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Bertolesi E, Milani G, Lopane FD, Acito M (2017) Augustus Bridge in Narni (Italy): seismic vulnerability assessment of the still standing part, possible causes of collapse, and importance of the roman concrete infill in the seismic-resistant behavior. Int J Arch Heritage Conserv Anal Restoration 11(5):717–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2017.1300712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Popovics S (1973) A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of concrete. Cem Concr Res 3(5):583–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(73)90096-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Wang T, Hsu TTC (2001) Nonlinear finite element analysis of concrete structures using new constitutive models. Comput Struct 79(32):2781–2791. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(01)00157-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    EN 1996-1-1:2005, EUROCODE 6 (2005) Design of masonry structures, Part 1–1: General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. British Standards Institution. pp 123

  75. 75.

    ReCap (2020) 3D scanning software. Autodesk Inc, California

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    AutoCAD (2020) 3D computer-aided design software. Autodesk Inc, California

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Çelik SB, Çobanoğlu İ (2019) Denizli travertenlerinde P ve S dalga hızları ile bazı fiziksel ve tek eksenli sıkışma dayanımı özellikleri arasındaki ilişkilerin araştırılması. Politeknik Dergisi 22(2):341–349 (in Turkish). https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.444370 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Chopra AK (2019) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 5th edn. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, p 992

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    TBEC (Turkish Building Earthquake Code) (2018) Specifications for buildings to be built in seismic areas. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the following collaborators with Akdeniz University: Architect İbrahim CEYLAN and General Directorate of Highways in Turkey for the support in the laser scanner survey of the Ayvalıkemer (Sillyon) Bridge.

Funding

No funding information available.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

OSB, ET, and EE designed the research, performed the study, and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Engin Emsen.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Batar, O.S., Tercan, E. & Emsen, E. Ayvalıkemer (Sillyon) historical masonry arch bridge: a multidisciplinary approach for structural assessment using point cloud data obtained by terrestrial laser scanning (TLS). J Civil Struct Health Monit 11, 1239–1252 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-021-00507-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS)
  • Structural analysis
  • Macro modelling
  • Sillyon (Ayvalıkemer)
  • Historical structures
  • Masonry arch bridges