SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating response surface methodology and finite element analysis for model updating and damage assessment of multi-arch gallery masonry bridges

  • Published:
Sādhanā Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents a sophisticated approach to updating the finite element model of two historical arch masonry bridges located in the challenging terrain of Kalka Shimla mountain railway, using vibration testing results. To estimate the dynamic characteristics of the bridges, ambient vibration testing was carried out. Next, initial finite element models of the bridges were developed based on geometrical survey data. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine which parameters needed to be modified for the bridges. The response surface method and global optimization techniques were employed to identify the optimal values of structural parameters that would result in a satisfactory agreement between the numerical and measured natural frequencies of the heritage bridges. Ultimately, the methodology provided a surrogate mathematical model to represent the relationship between structural parameters and dynamic response, and could predict the damage status of the historical bridges.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pan Y, Wang X, Guo R and Yuan S 2018 Seismic damage assessment of Nepalese cultural heritage building and seismic retrofit strategies: 25 April 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake. Eng. Fail. Anal. 87: 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bayraktar A, Altunişik A C, Birinci F, Sevim B and Türker T 2010 Finite-element analysis and vibration testing of a two-span masonry arch bridge. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 24: 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Conde B, Ramos L F, Oliveira D V, Riveiro B and Solla M 2017 Structural assessment of masonry arch bridges by combination of non-destructive testing techniques and three-dimensional numerical modelling: application to Vilanova bridge. Eng. Struct. 148: 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Milani G and Lourenço P B 2012 3D non-linear behavior of masonry arch bridges. Comput. Struct. 110–111: 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fanning P J and Boothby T E 2001 Three-dimensional modelling and full-scale testing of stone arch bridges. Comput. Struct. 79: 2645–2662. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(01)00109-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cavicchi A and Gambarotta L 2006 Two-dimensional finite element upper bound limit analysis of masonry bridges. Comput. Struct. 84: 2316–2328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.08.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vijayalekshmi T P and Thomas J 2018 Transient analysis of stone masonry arch railway bridge. i-Manag. J. Struct. Eng. 6: 8–15

    Google Scholar 

  8. Roca P, Cervera M, Gariup G and Pela L 2010 Structural analysis of masonry historical constructions. Classical and advanced approaches. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 17: 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-010-9046-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Onur Onat B Y 2018 Adopted material properties of historical masonry structures for finite element models: mosques and bridges. Turk. J. Sci. Technol. 13: 69–75

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gani E, Erdoğan Y S and Koçak A 2020 Evaluation of existing damage patterns and seismic assessment of historical Davutpasa barracks via operational-modal analysis. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 34: 04020067. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zani G, Martinelli P, Galli A, Gentile C and Di Prisco M 2019 Seismic assessment of a 14th-century stone arch bridge: role of soil–structure interaction. J. Bridge Eng. 24: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ataei S, Miri A, Jahangiri M, Ataei S, Miri A, Jahangiri M, Miri A and Jahangiri M 2017 Assessing safety of a railway stone arch bridge by experimental and numerical analyses. J. Croat. Assoc. Civ. Eng. 69: 1017–1029. https://doi.org/10.14256/jce.1612.2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cakir F and Seker B S 2015 Structural performance of renovated masonry low bridge in Amasya, Turkey. Earthq. Struct. 8: 1387–1406. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.6.1387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sevim B, Atamturktur S, Altunişik A C and 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9810-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bayraktar A, Birinci F, Altunışık A C, Türker T and Sevim B 2009 Finite element model updating of senyuva historical arch bridge using ambient vibration tests. Balt. J. Road Bridg. Eng. 4: 177–185. https://doi.org/10.3846/1822-427X.2009.4.177-185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Costa C, Ribeiro D, Jorge P, Silva R, Arêde A and Calçada R 2016 Calibration of the numerical model of a stone masonry railway bridge based on experimentally identified modal parameters. Eng. Struct. 123: 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.05.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Castellazzi G, De Miranda S and Mazzotti C 2012 Finite element modelling tuned on experimental testing for the structural health assessment of an ancient masonry arch bridge. Math. Probl. Eng.. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/495019

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang D, Tan Z, Li Y and Liu Y 2014 Review of the application of finite element model updating to civil structures. Key Eng. Mater. 574: 107–115. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.574.107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Votsis R A, Kyriakides N, Chrysostomou C Z, Tantele E and Demetriou T 2012 Ambient vibration testing of two masonry monuments in Cyprus. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 43: 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Altunişik A C, Genç A F, Günaydin M, Okur F Y and Karahasan O Ş 2018 Dynamic response of a historical armory building using the finite element model validated by the ambient vibration test. JVC J. Vib. Control 24: 5472–5484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546318755559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ataei S, Miri A and Jahangiri M 2017 Assessment of load carrying capacity enhancement of an open spandrel masonry arch bridge by dynamic load testing. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 11: 1086–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2017.1317882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Aytulun E, Soyoz S and Karcioglu E 2019 System identification and seismic performance assessment of a stone arch bridge. J. Earthq. Eng. 00: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1692740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Altunişik A C, Kanbur B and Genç A F 2015 The effect of arch geometry on thestructural behavior of masonry bridges. Smart Struct. Syst. 16: 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2015.16.6.1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bayraktar A, Altunişik A C, Sevim B and Türker T 2011 Seismic response of a historical masonry minaret using a finite element model updated with operational modal testing. JVC J. Vib. Control 17: 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546309353288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Costa C 2016 Comparison of various modelling techniques applied in analysis of masonry arch bridges. In: 8th International Conference on Arch Bridges. (ARCH’16), Wroclaw, Poland, 2016, pp. 835–842

  26. Kishen J M C, Ramaswamy A and Manohar C S 2013 Safety assessment of a masonry arch bridge: field testing and simulations. J. Bridge Eng. 18: 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pachón P, Castro R, García-Macías E, Compan V and Puertas E 2018 E. Torroja’s bridge: tailored experimental setup for SHM of a historical bridge with a reduced number of sensors. Eng. Struct. 162: 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Altunişik A C, Okur F Y, Genç A F, Günaydin M and Adanur S 2018 Automated model updating of historical masonry structures based on ambient vibration measurements. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 32: 04017126. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Boscato G, Russo S, Ceravolo R and Fragonara L Z 2015 Global sensitivity-based model updating for heritage structures. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 30: 620–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tran-Ngoc H, Khatir S, Le-Xuan T, De Roeck G, Bui-Tien T and Abdel Wahab M 2021 Finite element model updating of a multispan bridge with a hybrid metaheuristic search algorithm using experimental data from wireless triaxial sensors. Eng. Comput.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01307-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tubaldi E, Macorini L and Izzuddin B A 2018 Three-dimensional mesoscale modelling of multi-span masonry arch bridges subjected to scour. Eng. Struct. 165: 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bassoli E, Vincenzi L, D’Altri A M, de Miranda S, Forghieri M and Castellazzi G 2018 Ambient vibration-based finite element model updating of an earthquake-damaged masonry tower. Struct. Control Heal. Monit. 25: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Simulia D S 2014 Abaqus 6.14. Abaqus 6.14 Anal. User’s guids

  34. Zani G, Martinelli P, Galli A and di Prisco M 2020 Three-dimensional modelling of a multi-span masonry arch bridge: influence of soil compressibility on the structural response under vertical static loads. Eng. Struct. 221: 110998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brencich A and Sabia D 2008 Experimental identification of a multi-span masonry bridge: the Tanaro bridge. Constr. Build. Mater. 22: 2087–2099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.07.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. OROS 2016 NVGate Technical Specification. OROS, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  37. OROS 2018 Modal Structural Solution Manual. OROS, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang L, Wang T and Tamura Y 2005 A frequency-spatial domain decomposition (FSDD) technique for operational modal analysis. In: Proc. 1st International Operational Modal Analysis Conference IOMAC

  39. Zhang L, Wang T and Tamura Y 2010 A frequency-spatial domain decomposition (FSDD) method for operational modal analysis. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 24: 1227–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2009.10.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Allemang R J 2003 The modal assurance criterion—twenty years of use and abuse. Sound Vib. 37: 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2006.02.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Shahidi S G and Pakzad S N 2014 Generalized response surface model updating using time domain data. J. Struct. Eng. 140: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Alpaslan E, Hacıefendioğlu K, Demir G and Birinci F 2020 Response surface-based finite-element model updating of a historic masonry minaret for operational modal analysis. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 29: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mukhopadhyay T, Dey T K, Chowdhury R and Chakrabarti A 2015 Structural damage identification using response surface-based multi-objective optimization: a comparative study. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 40: 1027–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1591-3

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Shan D, Li Q, Khan I and Zhou X 2015 A novel finite element model updating method based on substructure and response surface model. Eng. Struct. 103: 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Fang S E and Perera R 2009 A response surface methodology based damage identification technique. Smart Mater. Struct.. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/18/6/065009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Boscato G, Dal Cin A, Russo S and Sciarretta F 2014 SHM of historic damaged churches. Adv. Mater. Res. 838–841: 2071–2078. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.838-841.2071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Marwala T 2010 Finite-Element-Model Updating Using Computional Intelligence Techniques. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Leardi R, Boggia R and Terrile M 1992 Genetic algorithms as a strategy for feature selection. J. Chemom. 6: 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.1180060506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Fang S E and Perera R 2011 Damage identification by response surface based model updating using D-optimal design. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25: 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hamby D M 1994 A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity. Environ. Monit. Assess. 32: 135–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Melanie M 1999 Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. 1st edn. The MIT Press, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02823145

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This paper is an outcome of the author’s PhD research enrolled at National Institute of Technology Puducherry. Authors are thankful to the National Institute of Technology Puducherry for providing computational facilities. Further, authors acknowledge Northern Railways, Government of India for permitting to conduct the field study. Lastly, the authors are grateful to Shimla Division, Northern Railways, Government of India for providing accommodations and manpower throughout the field study.

Funding

This research study is sponsored by Seismology Division, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India (Ref. No.: MoES/P.O.(Seismo)/1(296)/2016) sanctioned to Co-authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Puducherry, Karaikal, Puducherry (UT), 609609, India

    Vinay Shimpi & Madappa V R Sivasubramanian

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Sciences Pilani, Pilani, Rajasthan, 333031, India

    S B Singh

Authors
  1. Vinay Shimpi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madappa V R Sivasubramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S B Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinay Shimpi.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shimpi, V., Sivasubramanian, M.V.R. & Singh, S.B. Integrating response surface methodology and finite element analysis for model updating and damage assessment of multi-arch gallery masonry bridges. Sādhanā 49, 33 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02363-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02363-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation