Progressive cracking of masonry arch bridges

Abstract

Numerous methods are available for the assessment of masonry arch bridges at the ultimate limit state, however there is a lack of suitable methods for assessing behaviour at service levels of loading. To address this, nonlinear three dimensional finite element models which consider constitutive material models enabling progressive cracking and failure of the complete structural system were used to investigate the development of damage for three masonry arch bridges at both service levels and at the ultimate capacity. All of the elements contributing to the strength of structure were represented in the models including the arch barrel, spandrel, abutments, fill and surrounding soil. This allowed for consideration of the longitudinal and transverse capacities, the stiffening effects of the spandrel walls, the restraint and load distribution provided by the fill, the frictional behaviour between the masonry and fill, movement at the abutments and multiple causes of failure. While complex nonlinear finite element models are able to identify the ultimate load capacity there are alternate simpler approaches available for this, and it is the investigation of damage and crack propagation at service level loads where their use is of greatest benefit. Notation: c cohesion f1 ultimate compressive strength for a state of biaxial compression superimposed on the ambient hydrostatic stress state f2 ultimate compressive strength for a state of uniaxial compression superimposed on the ambient hydrostatic stress state fc ultimate uniaxial compressive strength fcb ultimate biaxial compressive strength ft ultimate uniaxial tensile strength E Young's modulus βt shear transfer coefficient for an open crack βc shear transfer coefficient for a closed crack µ coefficient of friction ν Poisson's ratio ρ density σh hydrostatic stress state σh a ambient hydrostatic stress state σxp, σyp, σzp principal stresses in principal directions ϕ angle of internal friction ϕf angle of dilatancy

Three-dimensional mesoscale modelling of multi-span masonry arch bridges subjected to scour

“…In the proposed modelling strategy, the backfill domain is discretised using 15-noded elasto-plastic tetrahedral elements. Similar to other studies on masonry arch bridges [8], [9], [27] these elements are characterised by an elasto-plastic material behaviour. The isotropic elastic response is described adopting specific values for the Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio, whereas the plastic behaviour is modelled by employing a modified Drucker-Prager (D-P) yield criterion, with a tension and compressive caps as described in [30].…”

“…In this respect, a detailed mechanical model for the masonry arch and piers should take into account not only the mechanical characteristics of units and mortar but also the actual 3D masonry texture. Unlike continuous approaches which assume masonry a homogeneous material [9][27], a discrete modelling strategy is employed to represent the actual masonry bond and model the development of cracks in real brick/stone-masonry arches and piers. This numerical strategy allows for an accurate description of the 3D domain of any masonry arch/pier, as the actual 3D masonry bond is represented using two or more elastic solid elements for each brick and 2D nonlinear interface elements for mortar joints.…”

Nonlinear soil deformability effects on the seismic damage mechanisms of brick and stone masonry arch bridges

“…(2015) investigated collapse behaviors of masonry arches subjected to displacements at the supports with a kinematic approach under gravity loads. Gullu and Jaf (2016) compared 3 D seismic responses of a historical masonry stone arch bridge model with and without soil–structure interaction. It was stressed that detailed modeling of the soil–bridge interaction effects is essential for accurate estimations of the masonry arch bridge responses under the earthquake excitation.…”

“…Rovithis and Pitilakis (2016) conducted a seismic assessment and proposed retrofitting measures for a historic stone masonry bridge considering soil-structure interaction effects by Winkler spring supports. Gibbons and Fanning (2016) investigated damages of masonry arch bridges by using nonlinear finite element models including the arch barrel, spandrel, abutments, fill and surrounding soil. Boscato and Cin (2017) conducted an experimental and numerical dynamic evaluation of the Rialto Bridge considering different support configurations, such as fully fixed and restrained by springs with different translational stiffness.…”

Editorial

“…The second paper by Gibbons and Fanning (2016) considers progressive cracking of masonry arch bridges. The paper presents non-linear 3D finite element models that consider progressive damage in masonry arch bridges.…”