Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rating and reliability assessment of a historical masonry arch bridge

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

Abstract

Historical masonry bridges constitute an essential part of the existing road and railway bridges. These bridges have been used for many years and have been preserved as a cultural resource. However, natural disasters have damaged or destroyed many of these historic bridges. In addition, it is crucial to ensure that historic bridges, which are still in use on some critical routes, provide safe service under increasing vehicle loads. Linear analysis approaches have been used to determine the behavior of existing historical bridges under vertical loads. However, these approaches do not give sufficient information and results to evaluate the actual capacities of bridges and result in an underestimation of the capacity of the bridges which is not appropriate from an economic point of view. Thus, further research focuses on the more advanced analysis to identify the real capacity of masonry arch bridges. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate load-carrying capacity and perform reliability analysis of an existing historical arch bridge using the response surface-based finite element model calibration process to present crucial references for the capacity evaluations of other similar masonry arch bridges. The experimental study was conducted to identify modal parameters of the masonry bridge by employing the operational modal analysis method under environmental effects. Using the modal parameters obtained from the experimental study, the approach that allows the initial finite element model of the bridge to be calibrated autonomously has been applied to create a more realistic finite element model of the bridge. Moreover, the vertical load-carrying capacity of masonry bridges with the help of nonlinear approaches was determined, and the nonlinear load-carrying capacity was used in the rating analysis of the bridge. Finally, rate ratios representing the actual performance of the bridge were obtained.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1935. Standard specifications for highway bridges. 2nd edn. Washington, DC: AASHTO

  2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1996. Standard specifications for highway bridges. 16th edn. Washington, DC: AASHTO

  3. ANSYS (2013) Swanson analysis system, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania

  4. ARTeMIS (2012) ARTeMIS Modal 1.5 software—structural vibration solutions, Denmark

  5. Aydin AC, Özkaya SG (2018) The finite element analysis of collapse loads of single-spanned historic masonry arch bridges (Ordu, Sarpdere Bridge). Eng Fail Anal 84:131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Al-Khateeb HT, Shenton HW, Chajes MJ (2018) Computing continuous load rating factors for bridges using structural health monitoring data. J Civ Struct Health Monit 8(5):721–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-018-0313-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baisthakur S, Chakraborty A (2021) Experimental verification for load rating of steel truss bridge using an improved Hamiltonian Monte Carlo-based Bayesian model updating. J Civ Struct Health Monit 11(4):1093–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-021-00495-8

  8. Barbieri DM (2019) Two methodological approaches to assess the seismic vulnerability of masonry bridges. J Traffic Transport Eng 6:49–64

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bayraktar A, Türker T, Altunişik AC (2015) Experimental frequencies and damping ratios for historical masonry arch bridges. Constr Build Mater 75:234–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bendat JS, Piersol AG (2010) Random data: analysis and measurement procedures. Wiley, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Betti M, Vignoli A (2008) Modelling and analysis of a Romanesque church under earthquake loading: assessment of seismic resistance. Eng Struct 30(2):352–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Betti M, Galano L (2012) Seismic analysis of historic masonry buildings: the vicarious palace in Pescia (Italy). Buildings 2(2):63–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Box GEP, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brincker R, Zhang L (2009) Frequency domain decomposition revisited. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international operational modal analysis conference. Curran Associates, Portonovo, pp 615–626

  16. Borlenghi P, Saisi A, Gentile C (2022) ND testing and establishing models of a multi-span masonry arch bridge. J Civ Struct Health Monit. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-022-00666-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Caddemi S, Caliò I, Cannizzaro F, D’Urso D, Occhipinti G, Pantò B, Pisanelli G, Rapicavoli D, Spirolazzi G, Zurlo R (2018) A ‘parsimonious’ 3d discrete macro-element method for masonry arch bridges. In: 10th international masonry conference

  18. Cheng J, Zhang J, Cai CS, Xiao RC (2007) A new approach for solving inverse reliability problems with implicit response functions. Eng Struct 29:71–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Conde B, Matos JC, Oliveira DV, Riveiro B (2021) Probabilistic-based structural assessment of a historic stone arch bridge. Struct Infrastruct Eng 17(3):379–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1752261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Costa C, Arêde A, Costa A, Caetano E, Cunha Á, Magalhães F (2015) Updating numerical models of masonry arch bridges by operational modal analysis. Int J Architect Herit 9(7):760–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 Health Monit 9:513–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. De Angelis A, Pecce MR (2023) Model assessment of a bridge by load and dynamic tests. Eng Struct 275:115282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Drucker DC, Prager W (1952) Soil mechanics and plastic analysis for limit design. Q Appl Math 10(2):157–165

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Fang SE, Perera R (2009) A response surface methodology-based damage identification technique. Smart Mater Struct 18(6):065009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fanning PJ, Boothby TE (2001) Three-dimensional modelling and full-scale testing of stone arch bridges. Comput Struct 79:2645–2662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Frunzio G, Monaco M, Gesualdo A (2001) 3D FEM analysis of a roman arch bridge, Historical Constructions, pp 591–598

  27. Giordano PF, Prendergast LJ, Limongelli MP (2020) A framework for assessing the value of information for health monitoring of scoured bridges. J Civ Struct Health Monit 10(3):485–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00398-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gönen S, Soyöz 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Griffiths D (1990) Failure criteria interpretation based on Mohr-Coulomb friction. J Geotech Eng 116(6):986–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Guo QT, Zhang LM (2004) Finite element model updating based on response surface methodology. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international modal analysis conference (IMAC), Dearborn

  31. Hacıefendioğlu K, Koç 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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Halifeoǧlu FM, Sert H, Yilmaz S (2016) Tarihi Kurt Köprüsü (Mihraplı Köprü, Vezirköprü) Restorasyonu Proje ve Uygulama Çalışmaları. METU J Fac Archit 30:81–104

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hejazi M, Pourabedin M (2021) Performance of Persian brick masonry discontinuous double-shell domes against earthquakes. Eng Fail Anal 119:104994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hulet KM, Smith CC, Gilbert M (2006) Load-carrying capacity of flooded masonry arch bridges. Proc Inst Civ Eng Bridge Eng 159(3):97–103. https://doi.org/10.1680/bren.2006.159.3.97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jonasdottir T, Snæbjörnsson J, Brincker R (2023) Modelling a damaged multi-span RC bridge based on structural monitoring data. European workshop on structural health monitoring. Springer, Cham, pp 134–143

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Landman D, Simpson J, Vicroy D, Parker P (2007) Response surface methods for efficient complex aircraft configuration aerodynamic characterization. J Aircr 44:1189–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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 Health Monit 9(5):617–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Luciano R, Sacco E (1997) Homogenization technique and damage model for old masonry material. Int J Solids Struct 34(24):3191–3208

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Modena C, Tecchio G, Pellegrino C, Da Porto F, Donà M, Zampieri P, Zanini MA (2015) Reinforced concrete and masonry arch bridges in seismic areas: typical deficiencies and retrofitting strategies. Struct Infrastruct Eng 11(4):415–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.951859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Moreira VN, Fernandes J, Matos JC, Oliveira DV (2016) Reliability-based assessment of existing masonry arch railway bridges. Constr Build Mater 115:544–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Moreira VN, Matos JC, Oliveira DV (2017) Probabilistic-based assessment of a masonry arch bridge considering inferential procedures. Eng Struct 134:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Myers RH (1999) Response surface methodology-current status and future directions. J Qual Technol 31(1):30–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Orbán Z, Gutermann M (2009) Assessment of masonry arch railway bridges using non-destructive in-situ testing methods. Eng Struct 31(10):2287–2298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Palchik V (2011) On the ratios between elastic modulus and uniaxial compressive strength of heterogeneous carbonate rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 44(1):121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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 

  46. Pepi C, Cavalagli N, Gusella V, Gioffrè M (2021) An integrated approach for the numerical modeling of severely damaged historic structures: Application to a masonry bridge. Adv Eng Softw 151:102935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2020.102935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pouraminian M, Pourbakhshian S, Moahammad HM (2019) Reliability analysis of Pole Kheshti historical arch bridge under service loads using SFEM. J Build Pathol Rehabilit 4(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-019-0060-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Reccia E, Milani G, Cecchi A, Tralli A (2014) Full 3D homogenization approach to investigate the behavior of masonry arch bridges: the Venice trans-lagoon railway bridge. Constr Build Mater 66:567–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ren WX, Chen HB (2010) Finite element model updating in structural dynamics by using the response surface method. Eng Struct 32(8):2455–2465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sabatakakis N, Koukis G, Tsiambaos G, Papanakli S (2008) Index properties and strength variation controlled by microstructure for sedimentary rocks. Eng Geol 97(1–2):80–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sevim B, Bayraktar A, Altuniik AC, Atamtürktür S, Birinci F (2011) Finite element model calibration effects on the earthquake response of masonry arch bridges. Finite Elem Anal Des 47:621–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Shabani A, Feyzabadi M, Kioumarsi M (2022) Model updating of a masonry tower based on operational modal analysis: The role of soil-structure interaction. Case Stud Constr Mater 16:e00957

    Google Scholar 

  53. Umar S, Bakhary N, Mohd Yassin AY (2015) Comparative study on design of experiment in frequency-based response surface methodology for damage detection. Appl Mech Mater 735:168–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wagner JR, Mount EM, Giles HF (2014) Shear rates, pressure drops, and other extruder calculations. In: Extrusion. Elsevier, pp 105–108

  55. Wang Y, Aladejare AE (2016) Bayesian characterization of correlation between uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s modulus of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 85:10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Willam KJ, Warnke ED (1975) Constitutive model for the triaxial behavior of concrete. In: Proceedings, international association for bridge and structural engineering, vol 19, ISMES. Bergamo

  57. Witzany J, Cejka T (2007) Reliability and failure resistance of the stone bridge structure of Charles bridge during floods. J Civ Eng Manag 13(3):227–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13923730.2007.9636441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zampieri P, Perboni S, Tetougueni CD, Pellegrino C (2020) Different approaches to assess the seismic capacity of masonry bridges by non-linear static analysis. Front Built Environ 6:47

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Ondokuz Mayıs University, 55139, Samsun, Turkey

    Emre Alpaslan & Mehmet Fatih Yilmaz

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Yıldız Technical University, 34349, Istanbul, Turkey

    Burcu Dinç Şengönül

Authors
  1. Emre Alpaslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Fatih Yilmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Burcu Dinç Şengönül
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Fatih Yilmaz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alpaslan, E., Yilmaz, M.F. & Şengönül, B.D. Rating and reliability assessment of a historical masonry arch bridge. J Civil Struct Health Monit 13, 1003–1021 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-023-00692-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-023-00692-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation