Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
The existing test results of a full scale masonry arch bridge are used to calibrate three
dimensional nonlinear finite element models. The models are generated by ANSYS
finite element package. The element used for modeling masonry is a solid element which
can model cracks and crushes by modifying its stiffness. For modeling the fill materials,
a Drucker-Prager material is used. In addition the contact surface between masonry and
fill is characterized as a frictional contact surface. The models results are checked using
the results of experimental testing of the structures
1. Introduction
Prediction of the behaviours of masonry arch bridges is a very difficult and complex
work. In comparison with concrete and steel bridges, masonry arch bridges are very
older and they are used for more than 2000 years. Although scientific analysis of these
structures began from over 300 years ago, but assessment of them is very approximate
and accompany many assumptions. There are two main reasons for this deficiency: the
lack of knowledge about the conditions of given masonry arch bridge, and lack of an
accepted procedure for the analysis of masonry arch bridges [1].
The first of these obstacles can never fully overcome, but it can be shown that most of
the uncertain issues concerning individual structure have less effect than the observable
issues: material quality, quality of construction, and general geometric configuration.
Although a general analysis procedure for masonry arch was not proposed, some
methods were developed to analyze these structures. Researchers made many efforts to
The first application of finite element method for analysis of masonry arch bridges was
developed by ″Towler″ and ″Sawko″ in 1982. They modeled the bridge by a three
dimensional finite element method [2]. In 1991 “ Loo” and “ Yang “ used two
dimensional finite element to represent both arch ring and fill material to examine the
cracking behaviour, failure load and associated collapse mechanism of single span
masonry arch bridges under concentrated load subjected to support movement. Also
″Royles″ and ″Hendry″ used a series of model tests to demonstrate the substantial
contribution of fill material, the spandrel walls and wing-wall to ultimate strength of
masonry arch bridges [3].
Several attempts have been made to categorize computational modeling framework for
structural masonry, where it’s inherent discontinuous nature (unit, joint, interface).
Perhaps the most appropriate categorization comes from ″Delft school″ (Rats or
Loarenco) where three principal modeling strategies are identified [5]:
I. Detailed micro modeling: units and mortar in the joints represented as continuum,
whereas the unit /mortar interfaces are modeled by discontinuous elements
II. Simplified micro modeling: ″geometrically expanded″ continuum units, with
discontinuum elements covering the behaviour of both mortar joints and interfaces.
III. Macro modeling: where all three principal features of structural masonry are
represented by an equivalent continuum.
This classification is shown in Figure 1. The two first methods have better accuracy
compared to the third method, but they need very large amount of computations. That
makes them uneconomical. However, masonry is globally homogeneous and so a
(i) (ii)
(iii)
Figure 1: Modeling of masonry structures
Three dimensional behaviour in masonry arch bridges has a major effect on its ultimate
strength In Figure 2 the construction of a typical masonry arch bridge is shown. It is
clear that the effect of spandrel walls on the behaviour of arch ring is very important.
The walls have great stiffness, and increase the ultimate strength of the bridge. Also, the
weight of fill materials and live loads carried by the bridge, cause the formation of the
moments perpendicular to the line of bridge.
Another defect that is widely observed in the masonry arch bridges is longitudinal
cracks, which is very important on failure behaviour of these structures. In two
dimensional modeling, it may not be possible to model these cracks or formation of
them. In general it can be said that accounting for three dimensional effects in modeling
of masonry arch bridge is very important in prediction of these structures behaviour.
In this research, ANSYS 8.0 was used for finite element modeling. As it explained later,
the masonry material modeled as a homogeneous martial. Also, to account the formation
of cracks and crushes in the finite element model, a solid element with these properties
was employed, SOLID65. This element has ability of modeling cracks and crushes by
modifying its stiffness matrix. The crack model used in this element is smeared cracking
To model the fill material, an eight node element was used. The fill material has a
significant effect on the ultimate strength of the masonry arch bridge. The fill material
locks compressive stresses into the arch ring under dead load, distributed concentrated
loads over greater lengths and widths of the arch barrel, and provides longitudinal
restraint to the arch by its interaction with surrounding soil medium. The fill material is
generally a soil material or unbounded masonry or rubble and is often very variable in its
structural characteristics. The fill material in this research was considered as Drucker-
Prager material because of its soil nature.
The finite element modeling of structure, including fill materials is shown in Figure 4.
For compatibility with real behaviour and preventing from formation unrealistic tensile
Two models were used in this paper, which is constructed in laboratory and loaded until
failure. These tests are performed by “Royles” and “Hendry’ 1991[3]. The models
approximately have the same geometry, with only difference on having spandrel walls.
The mechanical properties of material used in models for analysis follow the general
guidelines which are in turn based on recommendations of Boothby [1]. These properties
are listed in table 1.
The boundary conditions applied to the finite element mesh were the same for each of
the two models. Symmetric boundary conditions were applied along the centerline of the
bridge. The fill was restrained in the span direction at opposite ends of bridge. The under
side of the fill material at the abutments was restrained vertically. The base of the ring
was restrained vertically and in the span direction. The base of the spandrel wall was
restrained in the vertical and transverse directions. This set of boundary conditions
allows small horizontal displacement of the abutments. Because it is proved that the
position of the smallest failure load is near the quarter span, loading was preformed at
this position.
6. Analysis results
The displacement and crack distribution of analyzed models near collapse is shown in
Figures 5,6,7,8.
As it is seen, because of the effect of spandrel walls the vertical displacement of the first
model is more irregular than the second one. Also the tendency to formation of plastic
mechanism is observed in both models, but in the first model, it’s less than the other. As
it is shown in the Figure 7, the cracks observes in the interface of arch ring and spandrel
walls, which are the main reason of separation between arches ring and spandrel walls. If
the connection between arch ring and spandrel walls be strong as enough, these cracks
could not be able to separate the arch ring and spandrel walls completely, and the
stiffness of spandrel walls could help the strength of structure until the ultimate failure
load.
In Figures 9 and 10 the load–displacement diagrams for a node under load line are
shown. As it is seen, the analysis and experimental results have good agreements with
each others.
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Displacement(mm)
2.5
2
Force(KN)
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
-0.5
Displacement(mm)
7. Conclusion
Masonry arch bridges under gravity loads exhibit complex three dimensional responses.
Commercially available three dimensional finite element routines can be implemented to
predict the behaviour of these structures. However, it is necessary to incorporate
nonlinear response of the fill material, cracking and crushing of the masonry, and contact
and possible sliding at the fill-masonry interface to arrive at a model that reproduces the
response of a bridge with reasonable fidelity. Analysis results had good agreements with
experimental findings and show that the spandrel walls cause the increasing of the
ultimate strength of the model with spandrel walls up to 1.5 time of the model with no
spandrel walls.
8. References
1. Fanning B., Boothby T., E., 2001, “Three dimensional modeling and full-scale
testing of stone arch bridges”, Computer and Structures, Vol. 792645-2662.
2. J. Page, 1993, Masonry Arch Bridges, Transport Research Laboratory, UK.
3. Royles & Hendry AW. Model tests of masonry arches. Proc Inst Civil Engineers,
Part 2, 1991 91(6):299-321
4. Heyman J. The Masonry Arch, Chi Chester, New York: Halsted Press: 1982.
5. N. Bicanic, C. Stirling, C.J. Pearce, “Discontinuous Modeling of Structural
Masonry” Fifth World Congress on Computational Mechanics, July 7-12, 2002,
Vienna, Austria
6. Boothby T., Domalic D. Dalal D. Service Load Response of Masonry Arch Bridges.
J Struct Engng 1998; 124(1)17-3.