Microtremor measurements and 3D dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis for a historical masonry arch bridge under the effects of near- and far-fault earthquakes

Abstract

For rational solutions against seismic excitations of masonry bridges, the capability of 3D soil–structure interaction (SSI) modeling with experimental evidence has been insufficiently researched up to now. This is also valid for the effects of near- and far-fault earthquakes. Hence, the spectral responses measured by microtremors have been compared with the ones of 3D SSI analysis under the effects of near- and far-fault earthquakes for a historical masonry arch bridge in this article. The 3D SSI modeling of bridge and substructure soil was built with elastic finite element model using solid element and viscous boundary. The SSI analysis has been performed by direct approach using time-history analysis. The earthquake motions (near fault, far fault) were selected in accordance with the tectonic setting of the bridge’s region. From the study, it is possible to confirm that microtremors are able to detect spectral responses of the bridge by the presence of SSI influences. By the evidence of amplifications and soil–structure resonance, the microtremor measurements experimentally promise that: (i) the bridge can be adequately identified by SSI analysis compared to fixed base, (ii) the elastic model can satisfactorily provide information about the bridge’s responses (amplitudes, spectral response, stress distribution) under earthquake effect, and (iii) the far-fault motion especially due to SSI modeling is significant for the seismic responses. The study indicates that regarding the SSI influences into seismic computation has become quite efficient for determination of a possibility of various adverse effects (high displacements, critical stresses, resonance). Moreover, diagnosing the historical bridge well as a result of microtremors together with SSI modeling strongly proposes protection of the bridge with an appropriate retrofitting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

References

  1. Adanur S, Altunişik AC, Bayraktar A, Akkose M (2012) Comparison of near-fault and far-fault ground motion effects on geometrically nonlinear earthquake behavior of suspension bridges. Nat Hazards 64:593–614

    Google Scholar 

  2. AFAD (T.R. Ministry of Interior, President of Disaster and Emergency Management) (2018) Earthquake Hazard Map of Turkey. https://www.afad.gov.tr/tr/24212/Turkiye-Deprem-Tehlike-Haritasi. Accessed 24 Mar 2019

  3. AFAD (T.R. Ministry of Interior-President of Disaster and Emergency Management) (2019) https://kyhdata.deprem.gov.tr/2K/kyhdata_v4.php?dst=TU9EVUxFX05BTUU9c3RhdGlvbnMmTU9EVUxFX1RBU0s9c2hvdyZNT0RVTEVfU1VCVEFTSz1ieVN0YUlEJk1PRFVMRV9UQVJHRVQ9NDYxNiZUQVJHRVRfTEFUTE9OPTM3LjM3NTQ3LDM2LjgzODM2. Accessed 12 Apr 2019

  4. Akkar S, Yazgan U, Gulkan P (2005) Drift estimates in frame buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions. J Struct Eng ASCE 131:1014–1024

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anbazhagan P, Sheikh MN, Parihar A (2013) Influence of rock depth on seismic site classification for shallow bedrock regions. Nat Hazards Rev 14(2):108–121

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson JG, Lee Y, Zeng Y, Day SM (1996) Control of strong motion by upper 30 meters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:1749–1759

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aoki T, Sabia D, Rivella D, Komiyama T (2007) Structural characterization of a stone arch bridge by experimental tests and numerical model updating. Int J Archit Heritage 1:227–250

    Google Scholar 

  8. Asteris PG, Chronopoulos MP, Chrysostomou CZ, Varum H, Plevris V, Kyriakides N, Silva V (2014) Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry structural systems. Eng Struct 62–63:118–134

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ates S, Constantinou MC (2011) Example of application of response spectrum analysis for seismically isolated curved bridges including soil-foundation effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:648–661

    Google Scholar 

  10. Baykasoğlu A, Güllü H, Çanakcı H, Özbakır L (2008) Prediction of compressive and tensile strength of limestone via genetic programming. Expert Syst Appl 35:111–128

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bayraktar A, Altunişik AC, Sevim B, Kartal ME, Türker T, Bilici Y (2009) Comparison of near- and far-fault ground motion effect on the nonlinear response of dam-reservoir-foundation systems. Nonlinear Dyn 58:655–673

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bhaumik L, Raychowdhury P (2013) Seismic response analysis of a nuclear reactor structure considering nonlinear soil-structure interaction. Nucl Eng Des 265:1078–1090

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS, Coleman JL (2018) Linear and nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis of buildings and safety-related nuclear structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 107:218–233

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brencich A, Sabia D (2008) Experimental identification of a multi-span masonry bridge: the Tanaro Bridge. Constr Build Mater 22(10):2087–2099

    Google Scholar 

  15. Burman A, Nayak P, Agraval P, Maity D (2012) Coupled gravity dam–foundation analysis using a simplified direct method of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 34:62–68

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cakir T (2013) Evaluation of the effect of earthquake frequency content on seismic behavior of cantilever retaining wall including soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 45:96–111

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cao VV, Ronagh HR (2014) Correlation between seismic parameters of far-fault motions and damage indices of low-rise reinforced concrete frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:102–112

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chatelain JL, Guillier B, Cara F, Duval AM, Atakan K, Bard PY (2008) Evaluation of the influence of experimental conditions on H/V results from ambient noise recordings. Bull Earthq Eng 6(1):33–74

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cinitha A, Umesha PK, Nagesh RI (2014) Soil structure interaction analysis for seismıc response of an asymmetrıc RC building. In: 5th international congress on computational mechanics and simulation, 10–13 December, India, pp 1–4

  20. Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C (2001) Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:1769–1789

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chouw N, Hao H (2008) Significance of SSI and nonuniform near fault ground motions in bridge response I: effect on response with conventional expansion joint. Eng Struct 30(1):141–153

    Google Scholar 

  22. DIN 1053–100 (2004) Mauerwerk: Berechnung auf der Grundlage des semiprobabilistischen Sicherheitskonzeptes. NABau im DIN/Beuth Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  23. Domede N, Pons G, Sellier A, Fritih Y (2008) Mechanical behaviour of ancient masonry. Mater Struct 42:123–133

    Google Scholar 

  24. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Olgun Ş, Elmacı H, Özalp S (2012) Active fault map of Turkey. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration. Ankara, Turkey, https://www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0/sayfalar/hizmetler/doc/yenilenmis_diri_fay_haritalari/gaziantep.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2018

  25. EN 1996–1–1 (2015) Eurocode 6-design of masonry structures-Part 1–1: general rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels. https://www.phd.eng.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/en.1996.1.1.2005.pdf. Accessed 07 Mar 2019

  26. Fanning PJ, Boothby TE (2001) Three-dimensional modelling and full-scale testing of stone arch bridges. Comput Struct 79(29):2645–2662

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fanning P, Sobczak L, Boothby TE, Salomoni VA (2005) Load testing and model simulations for a stone arch bridge. J Bridge Eng 1:367–378

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fatahi B, Far H, Samali B (2014) Soil-structure interaction vs site effect for seismic design of tall buildings on soft soil. Geomech Eng 6:293–320

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Castro RR, Monachesi G, Contri P (2004) Structure, soil-structure response and effects of damage based on observations of horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios of microtremors. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:487–495

    Google Scholar 

  30. GDH (General Directorate of Highways) (Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü) (2013) Tarihi Yakacık Köyü Köprüsü Restorasyon Analizi. 5th Regional Directorate of Highways, Mersin

  31. Geopsy (2019) Geopsy software (Geophysical Signal Database for Noise Array Processing). https://www.geopsy.org/download.php. Accessed 23 Mar 2019

  32. Giamundo V, Sarhosis V, Lignola GP, Sheng Y, Manfredi G (2014) Evaluation of different computational modelling strategies for the analysis of low strength masonry structures. Eng Struct 73:160–169

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ghandil M, Behnamfar F (2017) Ductility demands of MRF structures on soft soils considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:203–214

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gosar A, Roser J, Sket-Motnikar B, Zupancic P (2010) Microtremor study of site effects and soil-structure resonance in the city of Ljubljana (central Slovenia). Bull Earthq Eng 8:571–592

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gosar A (2012) Determination of masonry building fundamental frequencies in five Slovenian towns by microtremor excitation and implications for seismic risk assessment. Nat Hazards 62(3):1059–1079

    Google Scholar 

  36. 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 75:1421

    Google Scholar 

  37. Güllü H, Karabekmez M (2017) Effect of near fault and far fault earthquakes on a historical masonry mosque through 3D dynamic soil-structure interaction. Eng Struct 152:465–492

    Google Scholar 

  38. Güllü H, Canakci H, Alhashemy A (2019) A ranking distance analysis for performance assessment of UCS Versus SPT-N correlations. Arab J Sci Eng 44:4325–4337

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hadianfard MA, Rabiee R, Sarshad A (2017) Assessment of vulnerability and dynamic characteristics of a historical building using microtremor measurements. Int J Civ Eng 15:175–183

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE, Teodorakopoulos DD, Sfakianakis M (1999) Static and dynamic analysis of the Arta bridge by finite elements. Archit Civ Eng 2(1):41–51

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hees RPJ, Binda L, Papayianni I, Toumbakari E (2004) Characterization and damage analysis of old mortars. Mater Struct 37:644–648

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kabir MR, Billah AM, Alam MS (2019) Seismic fragility assessment of a multi-span RC bridge in Bangladesh considering near-fault, far-field and long duration ground motions. Structures 19:333–348

    Google Scholar 

  43. Karaton M, Aksoy HS (2018) Seismic damage assessment of an 891 years old historic masonry mosque. Period Polytechn Civ Eng 62(1):126–135

    Google Scholar 

  44. Konno K, Ohmachi T (1998) Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(1):228–241

    Google Scholar 

  45. Koseoglu GC, Canbay E (2015) Assessment and rehabilitation of the damaged historic Cenabı Ahmet Pasha Mosque. Eng Fail Anal 57:389–398

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kumar M, Stafford PJ, Elghazouli AY (2013) Seismic shear demands in multi-storey steel frames designed to Eurocode 8. Eng Struct 52:69–87

    Google Scholar 

  48. Li M, Lu X, Lu X, Ye L (2014) Influence of soil-structure interaction on seismic collapse resistance of super-tall buildings. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6:477–485

    Google Scholar 

  49. Livaoglu R, Dogangun A (2007) Effect of foundation embedment on seismic behavior of elevated tanks considering fluid-structure-soil interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:855–863

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mann W (1983) Compressive strength of masonry statistical evaluation of experiments with power functions. Mauerwerk-Kalender, pp 687–699

  51. Manos GC, Soulis VJ, Diagouma A (2008) Numerical investigation of the behaviour of the church of Agia Triada, Drakotrypa, Greece. Adv Eng Softw 39:284–300

    Google Scholar 

  52. Marzban S, Banazadeh M, Azarbakht A (2014) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete shear wall frames considering soil-foundation-structure interaction. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 23(4):302–318

    Google Scholar 

  53. Milani G, Lourenço PB (2012) 3D non-linear behavior of masonry arch bridges. Comput Struct 110:133–150

    Google Scholar 

  54. MCT (Ministry of Culture and Tourism) (2014) Gaziantep Kültür Varlıklarını Koruma Bölge Kurulu Kararı (In Turkish). Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Gaziantep. https://www.korumakurullari.gov.tr/Eklenti/44297,gaziantep-ili-oguzeli-ilcesi-yakacik-koyu-koprusunun-te-.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2019

  55. Molnar S, Cassidy JF, Castellaro S, Cornou C, Crow H, Hunter JA, Yong A (2018) Application of microtremor horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (MHVSR) analysis for site characterization: state of the art. Surv Geophys 39(4):613–631

    Google Scholar 

  56. MTA (Turkish General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration) (2002) Geological Map of Turkey (Hatay). https://www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0/sayfalar/hizmetler/doc/HATAY.pdf. Accessed 08 Mar 2019

  57. Mucciarelli M, Bianca M, Ditomaso R, Gallipoli MR, Masi A, Milkereit C, Parolai S, Picozzi M, Vona M (2011) Far field damage on RC buildings: the case study of Navelli during the L’Aquila (Italy) seismic sequence, 2009. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):263–283

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 4(3):277–301

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nakamura Y (1989) A method for dynamic characteristics estimations of subsurface using microtremors on the ground subsurface. Q Rep Railway Tech Res Inst Jpn 30(1):25–33

    Google Scholar 

  60. Özsavcı L (2017) Kevser Mühendislik Sondaj&Zemin Araştırma San. Tic. Ltd., Şti. Gaziantep

    Google Scholar 

  61. Papayianni I, Stefanidou M (2003) Mortars for intervention in monuments and historical buildings. In: Brebbia CA (ed) Structural studies, repairs and maintenance of heritage architecture VIII. WIT-Press, Southampton, pp 57–64

    Google Scholar 

  62. Parolai S, Fäcke A, Richwalski SM, Stempniewski L (2005) Assessing the vibrational frequencies of the Holweide Hospital in the city of Cologne (Germany) by means of ambient seismic noise analysis and fe-modelling. Nat Hazards 34:217–230

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pela L, Aprile A, Benedetti A (2009) Seismic assessment of masonry arch bridges. Eng Struct 31:1777–1788

    Google Scholar 

  64. Pela L, Aprile A, Benedetti A (2013) Comparison of seismic assessment procedures for masonry arch bridges. Constr Build Mater 38:381–394

    Google Scholar 

  65. Power MS, Chang CY, Idriss IM (1986) Variation of earthquake ground motion with depth. In: Proceedings of the third US national conference on earthquake engineering, Charleston, South Carolina, August.

  66. Preisig M, Jeremic B (2005) Nonlinear finite element analysis of dynamic soil-foundation-structure interaction. SFSI report, NSF-CMS-0337811, Department of Civil and Environmental engineering. University of California, Davis.

  67. Proske D, Gelder P (2009) Safety of historical stone arch bridges. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  68. Quanani M, Tiliouine B (2015) Effects of foundation soil stiffness on the 3-D modal characteristics and seismic response of a highway bridge. KSCE J Civ Eng 19(4):1009–1023

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ril 805 (2010) DB-Netz AG: Richtlinie 805-Tragsicherheit bestehender Eisenbahnbrücken. Frankfurt

  70. SAP2000 (v.20) (2019) Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic analysis reference manual. Computer and Structures Inc., California, Berkeley. https://www.csiamerica.com/products/sap2000. Accessed 15 Jan 2019

  71. Sarhosis V, Sheng Y (2014) Identification of material parameters for low bond strength masonry. Eng Struct 60:100–110

    Google Scholar 

  72. SESAME (2004) Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrations: measurements, processing and interpretation. SESAME European Research Project, WP12-Deliverable D23.1, European Commission-Research General Directorate Project No. EVG1-CT-2000–00026 SESAME. ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub/seismo/SOFTWARE/SESAME/USER-GUIDELINES/SESAME-HV-User-Guidelines.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2019

  73. Sevim B, Bayraktar A, Altunişik AC, Atamturktur S, Birinci F (2011) Assessment of nonlinear seismic performance of a restored historical arch bridge using ambient vibrations. Nonlinear Dyn 63(4):755–770

    Google Scholar 

  74. Sevim B, Atamturktur S, Altunişik AC, Bayraktar A (2016) Ambient vibration testing and seismic behavior of historical arch bridges under near and far fault ground motions. Bull Earthq Eng 14:241–259

    Google Scholar 

  75. Tabatabaiefar HR, Massumi A (2010) A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1259–1267

    Google Scholar 

  76. Torabi H, Rayhani MT (2014) Three dimensional finite element modeling of seismic soil-structure interaction in soft soil. Comput Geotech 60:9–19

    Google Scholar 

  77. TSC (Turkish Seismic Code) (2007) Specification for structures to be built in disaster areas. In Turkish: Deprem Bölgelerinde Yapılacak Binalar Hakkında Yönetmelik; https://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/eski/DBYBHY-2007-KOERI.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2017

  78. Turer A, Boz B (2008) Computer modeling and seismic performance assessment of historic Aspendos theatre in Antalya, Turkey. Eng Struct 30(8):2127–2139

    Google Scholar 

  79. Ünay Aİ (1997) A method for the evaluation of the ultimate safety of historical masonry structures. Ph.D. Dissertation, METU, Ankara

  80. Wirgin A, Bard PY (1996) Effects of buildings on the duration and amplitude of ground motion in Mexico City. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(3):914–920

    Google Scholar 

  81. Wolf JP, Song C (2002) Some cornerstones of dynamic soil–structure interaction. Eng Struct 24:13–28

    Google Scholar 

  82. Xiang N, Alam MS (2019) Displacement-based seismic design of bridge bents retrofitted with various bracing devices and their seismic fragility assessment under near-fault and far-field ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 119:75–90

    Google Scholar 

  83. Xiong W, Jiang LZ, Li YZ (2016) Influence of soil-structure interaction (structure to soil relative stiffness and mass ratio) on the fundamental period of buildings: experimental observation and analytical verification. Bull Earthq Eng 14(1):139–160

    Google Scholar 

  84. Zampieri P, Simoncello N, Pellegrino C (2019) Seismic capacity of masonry arches with irregular abutments and arch thickness. Constr Build Mater 201:786–806

    Google Scholar 

  85. Zangeneh A, Svedholm C, Andersson A, Pacoste C, Karoumi R (2018) Identification of soil-structure interaction effect in a portal frame railway bridge through full-scale dynamic testing. Eng Struct 159:299–309

    Google Scholar 

  86. Zhang S, Wang G (2013) Effects of near-fault and far-fault ground motions on nonlinear dynamic response and seismic damage of concrete gravity dams. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 53:217–229

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this article has been funded by the Scientific Research Project (BAP) Coordination Unit of Gaziantep University by the project proposal number MF.YLT.18.20. This article has been derived from the M.Sc. thesis of the second author under the supervision of the corresponding author. The authors acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions for improvement of their manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamza Güllü.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Güllü, H., Özel, F. Microtremor measurements and 3D dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis for a historical masonry arch bridge under the effects of near- and far-fault earthquakes. Environ Earth Sci 79, 338 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-020-09086-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Microtremor
  • Soil–structure interaction
  • Historical masonry arch bridge
  • Near fault
  • Far fault