SAHC21 VGizemMentese Presentation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368680591
3D FE Modeling of Multi-Span Stone Masonry Arch Bridges for the

Assessment of Load Carrying Capacity: The Case of Justinian’s Bridge
Presentation · September 2021
CITATIONS READS
0 12
2 authors:
Vildan G. Mentese Oguz C. Celik

Istanbul Technical University
7 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS
177 PUBLICATIONS 761 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Vildan G. Mentese on 21 February 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SAHC 2021
3D FE Modeling of Multi-
Span Stone Masonry Arch
Bridges for the Assessment
of Load Carrying Capacity:
The Case of Justinian’s
Bridge
Vildan G. Mentese *
Oguz C. Celik **
* Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality
**Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Turkey
* v.gizem.mentese@gmail.com
SAHC 2021
Acknowledgments :
This work was supported by

Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey
(TUBITAK) under the
assigned Project Number of
114M305.
SAHC 2021
3D FE Modeling of Multi-Span Stone Masonry Arch Bridges for The
12
th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL
ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS Vildan G. Mentese 3
Outline
• Motivation
• Methodology
• Case Study: Justinian’s Bridge
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusions and future work

SAHC 2021
12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Motivation
Historic masonry arch bridges Substantial part of the cultural heritage
Restoration projects Somewhat limited
Most of the existing bridges Await for intervention or restoration
Structural behavior Needs to be accurately understood
Intervention strategies Needs to be developed
About analysis procedures The lack of knowledge
✓ To develop an appropriate assessment approach

✓ To understand the realistic structural behavior An important task
Objective: For different load cases under vertical incremental static

loads, to search nonlinear structural behavior and to investigate the
influence of the tensile fracture energy of masonry on the collapse
mechanisms and load carrying capacity of a selected multi-span stone
masonry arch bridge.
SAHC 2021
12th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Methodology
Numerical investigation on the Justinian’s Bridge Case
Failure mechanism under vertical incremental loads; for 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 spans
The most critical loading point?
SAHC 2021

Methodology
The paper work is a part of a comprehensive master thesis research!
1- Simplified micro and macro modeling approaches of a single-span arch bridge
2- Comparison of three constitutive material models
The master thesis work results;
4 - hinge mechanism at failure

SAHC 2021

Methodology from the master thesis work results

The paper work is a part of a comprehensive master thesis research!
1- Simplified micro and macro modeling approaches of a single-span arch bridge
2- Comparison of three constitutive material models
The master thesis work results;
4 - hinge mechanism at failure

SAHC 2021

Methodology from the master thesis work results

SAHC 2021

Case Study: Justinian’s Bridge

Historical Background
1838 1859
Texier’s engraving Painting by Jules Laurens
• A significant example of bridge heritage from the Byzantine Era

• Built between 553-562 A.D (6th Century)
• By order of East-Roman Emperor Justinian (M.S. 523-567)
• Takes place over the Sakarya River
• Bridge is on a dry valley
SAHC 2021

Historical Significance
Western end
- Other names in Turkey;
South façade • Sangarius Bridge
North façade • Historical Beşköprü
- UNESCO World Heritage

Tentative List since 2018
Eastern end
Current Situation
Triumphal Arch Vaults Parapet Apse Structure

SAHC 2021

Bridge Geometry
Spans in FEM
South Facade
North Facade
Texier’s drawing
SAHC 2021

Bridge Geometry
• Total bridge width: 18 m (Each pier width: 4 m)

• Clear bridge width: 10 m
• Thickness of each spandrel wall: About 2.0 m
• Average slab thickness: 0.40 m
• Clear height of the bridge together with its visible piers: 9 m
SAHC 2021

Material Properties
*Tensile fracture energy, upper value: 0.10 N/mm; lower value: 0.01 N/mm
3D FILL MATERIAL Mohr-Coulomb model for isotropic fill behavior
TSFCM Based on total strain where the stress is described as a function of the strain
SAHC 2021

3D FE Modeling
(a)Detailed micro modeling

(b)Simplified micro modeling
(c)Macro modeling
Element Property Number of Elements

Solid Mesh Elements 39 863
Surface Mesh Elements 54 733
Nodes 48 773
➢ Boundary conditions in directions of X, Y, Z;
All of freedoms under the bridge piers : Fixed
Around the sunk parts of the piers and the side walls :
Axial motion was restrained, rotational motion was released.
SAHC 2021

3D FE Modeling
• Eight-noded brick elements are used for each bridge component

• Six-noded wedge elements are used throughout the arch ring
• Main load bearing arches (A4 ~ A10): Double-vault

SAHC 2021

Load Cases
Loading Procedure : A8 Vertical loading at the arch

Self-weight : Automatically by the software numbered as 8 because maximum
Incremental live loads (Z): in increments of 200 kN displacements and stresses were
as uniformly distributed loads (Page, 1987). obtained in the structural linear
The load applied to the road surface throughout the static and response spectrum
full width of the bridge between the parapets. analyses (Mentese et al., 2016)
SAHC 2021

Results NSA Results; for GfI = 0.01 N/mm

Influence of tensile fracture energy, GfI
Load Case 1 - Quarter Span
GfI=0.1 N/mm GfI=0.01N/mm Limit Analysis
16000
14000
Vertical Load (kN)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
• 1, max ft = 0.2 MPa at failure

• No hinge formation
• At 2600 kN weakly non-linear behavior
• Brittle failure of material
SAHC 2021


Load Case 2 - One Third Span
16000
14000
Vertical Load (kN)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)

• No hinge formation
SAHC 2021


Load Case 3 - Middle Span
16000
14000
Vertical Load (kN)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)

• One hinge formation around the keystone
SAHC 2021

Results
Gfc=0.10 N/mm - LC1 Gfc=0.10 N/mm - LC2
16000
1/2 L
14000
Vertical Load (kN)
12000 1/3 L
1/4 L
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
*LC: Load Case
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
Failure Load (kN)

Load Position Difference (%) Limit Analysis (kN)
Gf I=0.01 N/mm Gf I=0.10 N/mm
Quarter-span 2800 8000 65 11865
One third-span 3800 8400 55 11978
Middle-span 1400 8400 83 15368
SAHC 2021

Results Quarter-span
Comparison of NSA results for GfI =0.10 N/mm
FEM Results
- 1, max ft = 0.2 Mpa
- Three hinge mechanism
Scale: -0.50/+0.55 N/mm2 and red areas ≥ ft = 0.20 N/mm2 - At 2600 kN: 1/3 of ultimate load
- A strongly non-linear behavior
- Failure at 8000 kN
Limit Analysis Results
Collapse Load
11978 kN
SAHC 2021

Results One Third-span

FEM Results
- 1, max ft = 0.2 Mpa
- At 2800 kN: 1/3 of ultimate load

Scale: -0.60/+0.60 N/mm2 and red areas ≥ ft = 0.20 N/mm2
Collapse Load
11865 kN
SAHC 2021

Results Middle-span
FEM Results
- 1, max ft = 0.2 Mpa

Scale: -0.80/+0.70 N/mm2 and red areas ≥ ft = 0.20 N/mm2 - At 2800 kN: 1/3 of ultimate load
Collapse Load
15368 kN
SAHC 2021

Discussion
Failure mechanisms
1/4 Span
1/3 Span
1/2 Span
SAHC 2021

Discussion
Failure mechanisms
1/4 Span The most critical loading position
1/3 Span
1/2 Span
SAHC 2021

Conclusions
❑ The value of tensile fracture energy considered for masonry material
significantly affects the load carrying capacity and collapse
mechanism of Justinian’s Bridge.
❑ In an upper value of 0.10 N/mm, the bridge behaves strongly

nonlinear and failed by generating the hinge mechanism occurring in
the loaded arch for all load cases. No visible damage occurred in
both arches adjacent to the collapsed arch.
❑ The most critical loading position for the bridge under incremental
static loads was obtained at the quarter-span of the loaded arch. In
rigid block limit analysis of the bridge, quite similar results to the
numerical results. Limit analysis calculations show that the most
critical loading position again occurred at the quarter span of the
bridge.
SAHC 2021

Conclusions
❑ As a result of the nonlinear finite element analyses, under elastic
conditions, the allowable vertical load for the bridge was obtained to
be 2400 kN (30% of the ultimate load) for the upper value of tensile
fracture energy.
❑ Ultimate load capacity of the bridge was found to be 8000 kN in

which the bridge collapsed by the formation of three plastic hinges.
It seems that the plastic hinges occurred at the quarter-span, the
east and west springings where the maximum principal stresses
have exceeded the existing tensile strength of masonry.
❑ It is concluded that increasing the value of the fracture energy

causes an increase in load carrying capacity of such masonry
bridges.
SAHC 2021

Future work
On the investigation of load carrying capacity and failure mechanism of

masonry arch bridges;
➢ The influence of greater values of tensile fracture energy,
➢ The relation between the tensile strength and tensile fracture energy,
could be researched by performing sensitivity analyses.

SAHC 2021
12
th
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL
ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS
THANK YOU
Vildan G. Mentese
v.gizem.mentese@gmail.com
View publication stats

SAHC21 VGizemMentese Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAHC21 VGizemMentese Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

3D FE Modeling of Multi-Span Stone Masonry Arch Bridges for the

Presentation · September 2021

Vildan G. Mentese Oguz C. Celik

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This work was supported by

• Case Study: Justinian’s Bridge

• Conclusions and future work

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

✓ To develop an appropriate assessment approach

Objective: For different load cases under vertical incremental static

12th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Numerical investigation on the Justinian’s Bridge Case

12th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

4 - hinge mechanism at failure

12th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Methodology from the master thesis work results

4 - hinge mechanism at failure

12th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Methodology from the master thesis work results

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Case Study: Justinian’s Bridge

Texier’s engraving Painting by Jules Laurens

• A significant example of bridge heritage from the Byzantine Era

12th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

- UNESCO World Heritage

Triumphal Arch Vaults Parapet Apse Structure

12th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

• Total bridge width: 18 m (Each pier width: 4 m)

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

12th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

(a)Detailed micro modeling

Element Property Number of Elements

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

• Eight-noded brick elements are used for each bridge component

• Main load bearing arches (A4 ~ A10): Double-vault

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Loading Procedure : A8 Vertical loading at the arch

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Results NSA Results; for GfI = 0.01 N/mm

• 1, max ft = 0.2 MPa at failure

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Results NSA Results; for GfI = 0.01 N/mm

• 1, max ft = 0.2 MPa at failure

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Results NSA Results; for GfI = 0.01 N/mm

• 1, max ft = 0.2 MPa at failure

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Failure Load (kN)

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

- Three hinge mechanism

- A strongly non-linear behavior

Limit Analysis Results

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

Results One Third-span

- Three hinge mechanism

- At 2800 kN: 1/3 of ultimate load

- A strongly non-linear behavior

Limit Analysis Results

12 th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL

- Three hinge mechanism