A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT

MODEL FOR ANALYSIS OF MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES

M. A. Shayanfar*, A. Sadeghian**
*Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran,
Iran; e-mail: shayanfar@iust.ac.ir
**Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran,
Iran; e-mail: arminsadeghian@yahoo.com

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

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 1/10
develop an analysis procedure that predicts the behaviour of these structures. One of
these methods is finite element approximation.

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].

Summaries of load tests up to collapse reported by ″Page″ include the description of

eleven different bridge failures. During testing of these specimens, nine had pre-existing
longitudinal cracks, while only two of these bridges failed by development of hinging
mechanism [1]. In 1991 ″Robert″ used three dimensional finite element modeling and
compared the analytical results with some full tests, and improved the accuracy of finite
elements method to predict the behaviour of masonry arch bridges [4]. In 2001
″Boothby″ and ″Fanning″ used the experimental results and made a three- dimensional
finite element model that had good agreement with experimental findings.

2. Homogenized Modeling of Masonry Structures

Masonry is an anisotropic composite material. The constituent materials of masonry are

the blocks and the mortar. Then if we wish to model this material using a finite element
model, several elements should be used for every block and several for every mortar
joint as shown in Figure l.

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

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 2/10
different way of tackling the problem can be considered macro-modeling. Macro–
modeling obviously needs some simplified hypothesis and can not be as accurate as
micro models, but their main advantage is the enormous reduction of computational
cost, that makes possible the analysis of complex structures such as bridges and even
buildings, cathedrals, castles… .

(i) (ii)

(iii)
Figure 1: Modeling of masonry structures

The conditions needed to apply the homogenization are a regular distribution of no

homogeneities and the size of the no homogeneities to be small in comparison with the
whole structure. These two conditions ensure that the behaviour of the material is
globally homogeneous. In this paper the third method, macro modeling or
homogenization, is used, because it is accurate enough for assessment of masonry arch
bridge and useful for usual analysis. It is clear that the accuracy of this method is less
than the others, but the computational effort is less.

3. Three Dimensional Behaviours of Masonry Arch Bridges

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.

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 3/10
The difference between stiffness of arch ring and spandrel walls is the reason of the
major defect in masonry arch bridges, results in separation between arch ring and
spandrel walls. The spandrel walls are caused the mode of failures recede from the
formation of mechanism hinges. Formation of hinges is the main assumption of plastic
method, which is a well known method of masonry arch’s assessment. Modeling of
spandrel walls makes possible to account another important behaviour of these bridges,
that is the interaction between walls and fill material.

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.

Figure 2: Sections of a masonry arch bridge [2].

4. Three Dimensional Finite Element Modeling

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

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 4/10
model. To model the nonlinear response of brittle materials based on a constitutive
model for the tri-axial behaviour of concrete after Williams and Warnke. The element
behaves in a linear elastic manner until either of the specified tensile or compressive
strengths is exceeded. Cracking or crushing of an element is initiated once one of the
element principal stresses, at an element integration point, exceeds the tensile or
compressive strength of the continuum. For instant finite element model of arch ring and
spandrel walls SOLID65 element is shown in Figure 3. Due to the symmetry of
geometry and loading, only half of the bridge was modeled.

Figure 3: Finite element modeling of arch ring and spandrel walls.

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.

Figure 4: Finite element modeling of masonry and fill materials.

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

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 5/10
stresses, in the interface of arch ring and fill materials a contact surface was developed.
As described above accounting cracks, crushes, plastic behaviour for fill material require
the use of nonlinear analysis solver.

5. Properties of Constructed Models

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.

Table 1: Geometric property of bridge samples

Rise at
Thickness of Width of
mid Thickness of
sample Span(m) spandrel bridge
span arch (mm)
walls (mm) sample (m)
(m)
1 1 0.158 38 38 0.466
2 Like first sample without spandrel walls.

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.

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 6/10
 Figure 5: Deflection in FEM model of first sample.

Figure 6: Deflection in FEM model of second sample.

Figure 7: Distribution of cracks in first model.

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 7/10
 Figure 8: Distribution of cracks in second model.

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.

Analysis results Failure Load

4.5
4
3.5
3
Force(KN)

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)

Figure 9: Force-Deflection diagram for of first model.

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 8/10
 Analysis results Failure load
3

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)

Figure 10: Force-Deflection diagram for of second model.

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.

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 9/10
7. ANSYS, ANSYS Manual set, ANSYS Inc., Ver 8.0, Southpoint 275
Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA, 2001.

M. Shayanfar, “A THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FINITE

ELEMENT”, 10/10