1. Department of Built Environment, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo 0166, Norway 2. Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Qatar University, Doha 2713, Qatar
Seismic analysis of historical masonry bridges is important for authorities in all countries hosting such cultural heritage assets. The masonry arch bridge investigated in this study was built during the Roman period and is on the island of Rhodes, in Greece. Fifteen seismic records were considered and categorized as far-field, pulse-like near-field, and non-pulse-like near-field. The earthquake excitations were scaled to a target spectrum, and nonlinear time-history analyses were performed in the transverse direction. The performance levels were introduced based on the pushover curve, and the post-earthquake damage state of the bridge was examined. According to the results, pulse-like near-field events are more damaging than non-pulse-like near-field ground motions. Additionally the bridge is more vulnerable to far-field excitations than near-field events. Furthermore, the structure will suffer extensive post-earthquake damage and must be retrofitted.
fracture energy in compression (for the fc lower than 12 MPa) (N·mm−1)
4.004
fracture energy in tension (N·mm−1)
0.011
density (kg·m−3)
–
2200
Poisson’s ratio
–
0.29
Tab.1
parameter
description
value
modulus of elasticity (GPa)
0.3
density (kg·m−3)
2000
Poisson’s ratio
0.3
cbs
cohesion (kPa)
10
friction angle of the backfill soil (° )
37
tensile strength (kPa)
10
Tab.2
Fig.6
mode
frequency values (Hz)
direction dependent participation factors
modal mass (%)
x direction
y direction
z direction
1
9.38
−0.055
938.110
−0.009
15.39
2
11.34
969.080
0.073
−9.381
21.33
3
11.47
−0.237
22.829
−0.014
12.04
4
15.18
0.065
358.830
−0.109
10.53
5
15.44
−23.327
−0.009
105.340
8.28
Tab.3
Fig.7
record type
RSN
event
station
year
magnitude
SSD
PGA
PGV
FF
313
Corinth, Greece
Corinth
1981
6.6
10.27
0.236
22.955
3750
Cape Mendocino
Loleta Fire Station
1992
7.01
24.685
0.265
35.525
1083
Northridge-01
Sunland–Mt Gleason Ave
1994
6.69
12.865
0.132
15.73
1613
Duzce, Turkey
Lamont 1060
1999
7.14
25.83
0.053
5.755
1633
Manjil, Iran
Abbar
1990
7.37
12.55
0.514
42.457
PL-NF
828
Cape Mendocino
Petrolia
1992
7.01
4.09
0.590
49.327
1086
Northridge-01
Sylmar–Olive View Med FF
1994
6.69
3.52
0.604
77.549
802
Loma Prieta
Saratoga–Aloha Ave
1989
6.93
8.04
0.514
41.579
879
Landers
Lucerne
1992
7.28
2.19
0.725
133.40
1013
Northridge-01
LA Dam
1994
6.69
2.96
0.426
74.841
NPL-NF
495
Nahanni, Canada
Site 1
1985
6.76
6.04
1.107
43.926
825
Cape Mendocino
Cape Mendocino
1992
7.01
3.48
1.493
122.32
126
Gazli, USSR
Karakyr
1976
6.8
4.69
0.701
66.218
1004
Northridge-01
LA–Sepulveda VA Hospital
1994
6.69
4.22
0.752
77.673
741
Loma Prieta
BRAN
1989
6.93
7.285
0.456
51.390
Tab.4
Fig.8
Fig.9
Fig.10
performance level
functional (F)
life safety (LS)
near collapse (NC)
quantitative description
displacement corresponds to 75% of the maximum base shear (or acceleration)
displacement corresponds to the point on the pushover curve with 7% of the initial (elastic) stiffness
displacement corresponds to 90% of the maximum displacement attained on the pushover curve
qualitative description
structure is mostly elastic with little or no damage; traffic is not interrupted, and damage can be repaired in a couple of days
plasticity starts increasing before and after this performance level; bridge is expected to suffer medium to significant damage; it should still be feasible to repair but cannot be used for a short duration
damage is heavy and distributed to the extent that the bridge is near to collapse state; bridge may even be out-of-service or replaced completely
Tab.5
Fig.11
Fig.12
Fig.13
Fig.14
Fig.15
Fig.16
Fig.17
1
S Khosrowjerdi, H Sarkardeh, M Kioumarsi. Effect of wind load on different heritage dome buildings. European Physical Journal Plus, 2021, 136(11): 1180 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02133-0
V Sarhosis, S de Santis, G de Felice. A review of experimental investigations and assessment methods for masonry arch bridges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2016, 12: 1439–1464 https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1136655
A Shabani, M Kioumarsi, M Zucconi. State of the art of simplified analytical methods for seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. Engineering Structures, 2021, 239: 112280 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112280
6
M Yekrangnia, A A Mobarake. Restoration of historical Al-Askari shrine. II: Vulnerability assessment by numerical simulation. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2016, 30(3): 04015031 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000751
G de Felice. Assessment of the load-carrying capacity of multi-span masonry arch bridges using fibre beam elements. Engineering Structures, 2009, 31(8): 1634–1647 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.022
9
S de Santis, G de Felice. A fibre beam-based approach for the evaluation of the seismic capacity of masonry arches. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2014, 43(11): 1661–1681 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2416
10
A Audenaert, P Fanning, L Sobczak, H Peremans. 2-D analysis of arch bridges using an elasto-plastic material model. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30(3): 845–855 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.05.018
11
P Zampieri, M A Zanini, F Faleschini, L Hofer, C Pellegrino. Failure analysis of masonry arch bridges subject to local pier scour. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2017, 79: 371–384 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.05.028
12
P Fanning, L Sobczak, T E Boothby, V Salomoni. Load testing and model simulations for a stone arch bridge. Bridge Structures, Assessment, Design and Construction, 2005, 1: 367–378
E Hokelekli, B N Yilmaz. Effect of cohesive contact of backfill with arch and spandrel walls of a historical masonry arch bridge on seismic response. Periodica Polytechnica. Civil Engineering, 2019, 63: 926–937 https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.14198
15
A Bayraktar, E Hökelekli. Seismic performances of different spandrel wall strengthening techniques in masonry arch bridges. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2021, 15(11): 1722–1740
16
P Banerji, S Chikermane. Condition assessment of a heritage arch bridge using a novel model updation technique. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 2012, 2(1): 1–16 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-011-0013-9
17
P Zampieri, C D Tetougueni, C Pellegrino. Nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry bridges under multiple geometric and material considerations: Application to an existing seven-span arch bridge. Structures, 2021, 34: 78–94
18
H van Langen, P Vermeer. Interface elements for singular plasticity points. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 1991, 15(5): 301–315 https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610150502
19
L R Herrmann. Finite element analysis of contact problems. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1978, 104(5): 1043–1057 https://doi.org/10.1061/JMCEA3.0002403
20
S Zhang, G Wang. Effects of near-fault and far-fault ground motions on nonlinear dynamic response and seismic damage of concrete gravity dams. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 53: 217–229 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.07.014
21
Y T Pang, L Cai, J Zhong. Seismic performance evaluation of fiber-reinforced concrete bridges under near-fault and far-field ground motions. Structures, 2020, 28: 1366–1383 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.09.049
22
M Yekrangnia, A Bakhshi, M A Ghannad, M Panahi. Risk assessment of confined unreinforced masonry buildings based on FEMA P-58 methodology: A case study—School buildings in Tehran. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 1079–1120 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00990-1
23
B Sevim, S Atamturktur, A C Altunişik, A Bayraktar. Ambient vibration testing and seismic behavior of historical arch bridges under near and far fault ground motions. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 14(1): 241–259 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9810-6
24
N Simos, G C Manos, E Kozikopoulos. Near- and far-field earthquake damage study of the Konitsa stone arch bridge. Engineering Structures, 2018, 177: 256–267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.072
25
H Güllü, F Özel. Microtremor measurements and 3D dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis for a historical masonry arch bridge under the effects of near- and far-fault earthquakes. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2020, 79(13): 338 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-020-09086-0
26
A Özmen, E Sayın. Seismic response of a historical masonry bridge under near and far-fault ground motions. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 2021, 65: 946–958 https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.17832
27
P Labbé, A Altinyollar. Conclusions of an IAEA–JRC research project on the safety significance of near-field seismic motions. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2011, 241(5): 1842–1856 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.02.006
28
J W Baker. Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2007, 97(5): 1486–1501 https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060255
29
S K Shahi, J W Baker. An efficient algorithm to identify strong-velocity pulses in multicomponent ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2014, 104(5): 2456–2466 https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130191
30
Z Chang, X Sun, C Zhai, J X Zhao, L Xie. An improved energy-based approach for selecting pulse-like ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2016, 45(14): 2405–2411 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2758
31
V Dimakopoulou, M Fragiadakis, I Taflampas. A wavelet-based approach for truncating pulse-like records. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 20(1): 1–24 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01224-8
32
A Daei, M Poursha, M Zarrin. Seismic performance evaluation of code-compliant RC moment-resisting frame buildings subjected to near-fault pulse-like and non-pulse-like ground motions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 26(10): 5058–5085 https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1859003
33
Z Zuo, M Gong, J Sun, H Zhang. Seismic performance of RC frames with different column-to-beam flexural strength ratios under the excitation of pulse-like and non-pulse-like ground motion. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 19(12): 5139–5159 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01159-0
34
H Wibowo, S Sritharan. Effects of vertical ground acceleration on the seismic moment demand of bridge superstructure connections. Engineering Structures, 2022, 253: 113820 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113820
35
M Kohrangi, D Vamvatsikos, P Bazzurro. Pulse-like versus non-pulse-like ground motion records: Spectral shape comparisons and record selection strategies. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2019, 48(1): 46–64 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3122
36
B Orfeo, L Todisco, J León. Construction process of vaults in masonry bridges: The importance of centrings. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2022, 16(7): 1032–1046 https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2020.1861389
37
F U Gençer, M H Turan. The masonry techniques of a historical bridge in Hypokremnos (İçmeler). Metu Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2017, 34(1): 187–207 https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2017.1.6
38
M Pagani, J Garcia-Pelaez, R Gee, K Johnson, V Poggi, V Silva, M Simionato, R Styron, D Viganò, L Danciu, D Monelli, G Weatherill. The 2018 version of the global earthquake model: Hazard component. Earthquake Spectra, 2020, 36(1_suppl): 226–251 https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020931866
39
S Stiros, S Papageorgiou, V Kontogianni, P Psimoulis. Church repair swarms and earthquakes in Rhodes Island, Greece. Journal of Seismology, 2006, 10(4): 527–537 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-006-9035-x
40
A Howell, J Jackson, P England, T Higham, C Synolakis. Late Holocene uplift of Rhodes, Greece: Evidence for a large tsunamigenic earthquake and the implications for the tectonics of the eastern Hellenic Trench System. Geophysical Journal International, 2015, 203(1): 459–474 https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv307
41
A Shabani, A Alinejad, M Teymouri, A N Costa, M Shabani, M Kioumarsi. Seismic vulnerability assessment and strengthening of heritage timber buildings: A review. Buildings, 2021, 11(12): 661 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120661
42
S Tapinaki, M Skamantzari, A Anastasiou, S Koutros, E Syrokou, A Georgopoulos. 3D holistic documentation of heritage monuments in Rhodes. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 2021, XLVI-M-1-2021: 739–744 https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVI-M-1-2021-739-2021
43
P Kolokoussis, M Skamantzari, S Tapinaki, V Karathanassi, A Georgopoulos. 3D and hyperspectral data integration for assessing material degradation in medieval masonry heritage buildings. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 2021, XLIII-B2-2021: 583–590 https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B2-2021-583-2021
44
A Shabani, M Skamantzari, S Tapinaki, A Georgopoulos, V Plevris, M Kioumarsi. 3D simulation models for developing digital twins of heritage structures: Challenges and strategies. Procedia Structural Integrity, 2022, 37: 314–320 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2022.01.090
45
DIANA. Version 10.4. Delft: DIANA FEA BV. 2020
46
V Plevris, P G Asteris. Modeling of masonry failure surface under biaxial compressive stress using Neural Networks. Construction & Building Materials, 2014, 55: 447–461 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.041
47
A M D’Altri, V Sarhosis, G Milani, J Rots, S Cattari, S Lagomarsino, E Sacco, A Tralli, G Castellazzi, Miranda S de. Modeling strategies for the computational analysis of unreinforced masonry structures: Review and classification. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2020, 27(4): 1153–1185 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09351-x
48
P G AsterisM P ChronopoulosC Z ChrysostomouH VarumV Plevris N KyriakidesV Silva. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry structural systems. Engineering Structures, 2014, 62–63: 118–134
49
P G AsterisV SarhosisA MohebkhahV PlevrisL PapaloizouP KomodromosJ V Lemos. Numerical modeling of historic masonry structures. In: Asteris P G, Plevris V, eds. Handbook of Research on Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2015, 213–256
50
M KioumarsiV PlevrisA Shabani. Vulnerability assessment of cultural heritage structures. In: The 8th European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS 2022). Oslo: Scipedia, 2022, C52
51
P J Fanning, T E Boothby. Three-dimensional modelling and full-scale testing of stone arch bridges. Computers & Structures, 2001, 79(29−30): 2645–2662 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(01)00109-2
52
E Aytulun, S Soyoz, E Karcioglu. System identification and seismic performance assessment of a stone arch bridge. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 26(2): 723–743 https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1692740
53
J Wang. Numerical modelling of masonry arch bridges: Investigation of spandrel wall failure. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Bath: University of Bath, 2014
54
R G Selby. Three-dimensional constitutive relations for reinforced concrete. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1993
55
J G Rots. Computational modeling of concrete fracture. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Delft: Delft University of Technology, 1988
56
I N PsycharisE AvgenakisI M TaflampasM KroustallakiE FarmakidouM Pikoula M MichailidouA Moropoulou. Seismic response of the Temple of Pythian Apollo in Rhodes Island and recommendations for its restoration. In: Osman A, Moropoulou A, eds. Nondestructive Evaluation and Monitoring Technologies, Documentation, Diagnosis and Preservation of Cultural Heritage. Berlin: Springer, 2019, 160–177
57
B GhiassiA T VermelfoortP B Lourenço. Chapter 7—Masonry mechanical properties. In: Ghiassi B, Milani G, eds. Numerical Modeling of Masonry and Historical Structures. Sawston: Woodhead Publishing, 2019, 239–261
58
T ForgácsS RendesS ÁdányV Sarhosis. Mechanical role of spandrel walls on the capacity of masonry arch bridges. In: Proceedings of ARCH 2019. Berlin: Springer, 2020, 221–229
59
A Bayraktar, T Türker, A C Altunişik. Experimental frequencies and damping ratios for historical masonry arch bridges. Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 75: 234–241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.10.044
60
O Onat. Impact of mechanical properties of historical masonry bridges on fundamental vibration frequency. Structures, 2020, 27: 1011–1028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.07.014
61
PEER. PEER Ground Motion Database. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2021
62
1998-1 EN. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization, 2004
63
A Karatzetzou, D Pitilakis, S Karafagka. System identification of mosques resting on soft soil. The case of the Suleiman Mosque in the Medieval City of Rhodes, Greece. Geosciences, 2021, 11(7): 275 https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11070275
64
P695 FEMA. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009
65
D Giardini, J Wössner, L Danciu. Mapping Europe’s seismic hazard. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 2014, 95(29): 261–262 https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EO290001
66
K PitilakisE RigaZ Roumelioti. The urgent need for an improvement of the Greek seismic code based on a new seismic hazard map for Europe and a new site classification system. In: Kavvadas M, ed. Jubilee Volume, Andreas Anagnostopoulos, 50 Years of Service at The National Technical University of Athens. Athens: Tsotras, 2016, 437–461
67
Earthquake software for response spectrum matching SeismoMatch:. Version 2021. Pavia: SeismoSoft–Earthquake Engineering Software Solutions. 2021
68
L Al Atik, N Abrahamson. An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching. Earthquake Spectra, 2010, 26(3): 601–617 https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3459159
69
E Bertolesi, G Milani, F D Lopane, M Acito. 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. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2017, 11(5): 717–746 https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2017.1300712
70
S Gönen, S Soyöz. Reliability-based seismic performance of masonry arch bridges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2022, 18(12): 1658–1673 https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2021.1918726
71
A K Chopra, R K Goel. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 561–582 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.144
