Advertisement

Reliability analysis of Pole Kheshti historical arch bridge under service loads using SFEM

  • Majid PouraminianEmail author
  • Somayyeh Pourbakhshian
  • Mehdi Moahammad Hosseini
Research Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is the probabilistic safety analysis of the historical masonry arch bridges (HMAB) and to calculate its reliability index (RI) using the “probabilistic design system” of the ANSYS software. In evaluating the reliability of bridge, the load-resistance model has been used to express the bridge failure functions. Calculating the RI requires the definition of loads effects on the structure and structure resistance. The load and resistance implicit functions are evaluated by stochastic finite element method and the Monte Carlo method has been used for laboratory simulation. The sampling method is the Latin hypercube sampling. The innovations in this paper is to use the functions dependent on parameters, modulus of elasticity, Poisson ratio, density of materials, and traffic load of bridge deck. The number of random parameters is 19. These random parameters are defined by the Log-normal distribution function. In this paper, the reliability status of bridge is investigated in the ultimate limit state under gravitational loading. The constitutive law of the bridge material is considered to be linear elastic. Three types of compressive, tensile, and allowable deflection are considered as limit states of the present research. The case study of the Pole Kheshti Langroud HMAB showed that the required safety is not provided for the ultimate limit state and the bridge is at risk of failure. The RI of bridge in the tensile limit state is lower than the target RI. The sensitivity analysis of random variables of the load and resistance implicit functions to the deflection and tensile responses is investigated, and random parameters with more impact are specified. In the stress limit state and deflection limit state, the modulus of elasticity and weight per unit volume of the sidewalls have the greatest impact on safety, respectively.

Keywords

Stochastic finite element (SFE) Deterministic finite element (DFE) Monte Carlo Sensitivity analysis (SA) Epistemic uncertainty Random variable (RV) 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Altunışık AC, Kanbur B, Genç AF (2015) The effect of arch geometry on the structural behavior of masonry bridges. Smart Struct Syst 16(6):1069–1089.  https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2015.16.6.1069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    da Silva Brandão F, Diógenes A, Fernandes J, Mesquita E, Betti M (2018) Seismic behavior assessment of a Brazilian heritage construction. Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale 12(45):14–32.  https://doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.45.02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fathi A, Sadeghi A, Emami Azadi MR, Hoveidaie N (2019) Assessing seismic behavior of a masonry historic building considering soil–foundation–structure interaction (case study of Arge-Tabriz). Int J Archit Herit.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1568615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Güllü H, Jaf HS (2016) Full 3D nonlinear time history analysis of dynamic soil–structure interaction for a historical masonry arch bridge. Environ Earth Sci 75(21):1421.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6230-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hradil P, Žák J, Novák D, Lavický M (2001) Stochastic analysis of historical masonry structures. In: Lourenço PB, Roca P (eds) Historical constructions. Guimarães, pp 647–654. http://www.hms.civil.uminho.pt/sahc/2001/page%20647-654%20_94_.pdf
  6. 6.
    Prakash KA (2017) Seismic risk assessment of masonry arch bridges in the United States. All theses, 2790. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2790
  7. 7.
    Lourenço PB (2002) Computations on historic masonry structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 4(3):301–319.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pouraminian M, Hosseini M (2014) Seismic safety evaluation of tabriz historical citadel using finite element and simplified kinematic limit analyses. Indian J Sci Technol 7(4):409Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pouraminian M, Pourbakhshiyan S (2013) Seismic vulnerability evaluation of historical buildings by performance curves, case study for Ramsar Museum. Int Res J Appl Basic Sci 5(11):1446–1453Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pouraminian M, Sadeghi A, Pourbakhshiyan S (2014) Seismic behavior of Persian brick arches. Indian J Sci Technol 7(4):497Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pouraminian M, Pourbakhshian S, Khodayari R (2014) Seismic behavior assessment of the historical tomb of Sheikh Shahabedin Ahary. J Civ Eng Urban 4(4):382–389Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rovithis EN, Pitilakis KD (2016) Seismic assessment and retrofitting measures of a historic stone masonry bridge. Earthq Struct 10(3):645–667.  https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.3.645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bucher C, Hintze D, Roos D (2000) Advanced analysis of structural reliability using commercial FE-codes. In: European congress on computational methods in applied sciences and engineering, Barcelona, CD-ROM, 11–14 September 2000. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.34.147&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  14. 14.
    Cheng J (2014) Random field-based reliability analysis of prestressed concrete bridges. KSCE J Civ Eng 18(5):1436–1445.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-0253-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Micic T, Asenov M (2015) Probabilistic model for ageing masonry walls. In: 12th International conferences on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, ICASP12, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Onat O, Yön B (2018) Adopted material properties of historical masonry structures for finite element models: mosques and bridges. Fırat Univ Turk J Sci Technol 13(1):69–75Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhai X, Stewart MG (2010) Structural reliability analysis of reinforced grouted concrete block masonry walls in compression. Eng Struct 32(1):106–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hariri-Ardebili MA (2018) Risk, reliability, resilience (R3) and beyond in dam engineering: a state-of-the-art review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 31:806–831.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.07.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hariri-Ardebili MA, Xu J (2019) Efficient seismic reliability analysis of large-scale coupled systems including epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 116:761–773.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hacıefendioğlu K, Başağa HB, Banerjee S (2017) Probabilistic analysis of historic masonry bridges to random ground motion by Monte Carlo simulation using response surface method. Constr Build Mater 134:199–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mesquita EFT (2017) Structural characterization and monitoring of heritage constructions. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade do PortoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mesquita E, Arêde A, Silva R, Rocha P, Gomes A, Pinto N et al (2017) Structural health monitoring of the retrofitting process, characterization and reliability analysis of a masonry heritage construction. J Civ Struct Health Monit 7(3):405–428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-017-0232-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Casas JR (2011) Reliability-based assessment of masonry arch bridges. Constr Build Mater 25(4):1621–1631.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Domański T, Matysek P (2018) The reliability of masonry structures–evaluation methods for historical buildings. Czasopismo Techniczne 9:91108.  https://doi.org/10.4467/2353737XCT.18.134.8973 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schueremans L (2006) Assessing the safety of existing structures using a reliability based framework: possibilities and limitations. Restor Build Monum 12(1):65–80Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beconcini ML, Croce P, Marsili F, Muzzi M, Rosso E (2016) Probabilistic reliability assessment of a heritage structure under horizontal loads. Probab Eng Mech 45:198–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2016.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hocine A, Maizia A, Ghouaoula A, Dehmous H (2018) Reliability prediction of composite tubular structure under mechanical loading by finite element method. J Fail Anal Prev 18(6):1439–1446.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-018-0536-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Başbolat EE, Bayraktar A, Başağa HB (2017) Seismic reliability analysis of high concrete arch dams under near-fault effect. In: 4th International conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Eskisehir, 11–13 October 2017Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sadeghi A, Pouraminian M (2010) An investigation of the vulnerability of Arge Tabriz (Tabriz Citadel). In: 8th International masonry conference, Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2016.06.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reh S, Beley JD, Mukherjee S, Khor EH (2006) Probabilistic finite element analysis using ANSYS. Struct Saf 28(1–2):17–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2005.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Ramsar BranchIslamic Azad UniversityRamsarIran

Personalised recommendations