KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 1

Nonlinear Seismic Assessment of Historical Masonry Karaz Bridge Under Different Ground Motion Records

Ömer Faruk Nemutlu(BİNGÖL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7841-3911
İhsan Güzel(BİNGÖL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0746-070X
Bilal Balun(BİNGÖL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0906-4484
Mitat Öztürk(OSMANİYE KORKUT ATA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4685-7088
Ali Sarı(İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6888-1276
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2023-03-22
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In the analysis results, the dynamic behavior of the bridge was evaluated over the distribution of displacements and stresses and the earthquake behavior was investigated.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The most significant artifacts that transfer the cultural heritage of past civilizations to the present are historical structures.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Some of these structures have been destroyed by natural disasters or have suffered significant structural damage.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In the analysis results, the dynamic behavior of the bridge was evaluated over the distribution of displacements and stresses and the earthquake behavior was investigated.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Finite element method · Masonry bridges · Nonlinear dynamic analysis

Abstract

The most significant artifacts that transfer the cultural heritage of past civilizations to the present are historical structures. Historical bridges are of great importance in terms of transportation, trade and architecture from past to present. Some of these structures have been destroyed by natural disasters or have suffered significant structural damage. Especially earthquakes cause damage to these structures. In this study, the earthquake behavior of the Historical Karaz Bridge was investigated. The structural elements of the bridge and the materials connecting the bearing elements were evaluated together with the macro modeling approach. For this purpose, a 3D finite element model of the bridge was generated and its seismic behavior under different ground motion records was investigated by nonlinear analysis. Analyzes were carried out using the ground motion records of Bingöl, Elazığ, Erzincan, Van and Gölcük, and the results were evaluated mutually. In the analysis results, the dynamic behavior of the bridge was evaluated over the distribution of displacements and stresses and the earthquake behavior was investigated.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Nemutlu, Ö. F., Güzel, İ., Balun, B., Öztürk, M., Sarı, A. (2023). Nonlinear Seismic Assessment of Historical Masonry Karaz Bridge Under Different Ground Motion Records. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 12 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.1232008

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (37)

  1. A. Özmen and E. Sayın, “Linear Dynamic Analysis of a Masonry Arch Bridge,” in International Conference on Innovative Engineering Applications, 2018, no. September.
  2. H. Güllü, “Investigation of Earthquake Effect of Historical Masonary Cendere Bridge,” Omer Halisdemir Univ. J. Eng. Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 245–259, 2018.
  3. A. Ural, Ş. Oruç, A. Doǧangün, and Ö. I. Tuluk, “Turkish Historical Arch Bridges and Their Deteriorations and Failures,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 15, pp. 43–53, 2008.
  4. Z. Celep and N. Kumbasar, Betonarme Yapılar. Istanbul: Beta, 2005.
  5. B. Balun, Ö. F. Nemutlu, A. Benli, and A. Sari, “Estimation of probabilistic hazard for Bingol province, Turkey,” Earthq. Struct., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 223–231, 2020.
  6. A. Özmen and E. Sayın, “Seismic Assessment of a Historical Masonry Arch Bridge,” J. Struct. Eng. Appl. Mech., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 95–104, 2018.
  7. H. Güllü and H. S. Jaf, “Full 3D Nonlinear Time History Analysis of Dynamic Soil–Structure Interaction for a Historical Masonry Arch Bridge,” Environ. Earth Sci., vol. 75, no. 21, 2016.
  8. M. Valente and G. Milani, “Damage Assessment and Collapse Investigation of Three Historical Masonry Palaces Under Seismic Actions,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 98, pp. 10–37, 2019.
  9. B. Sevim, A. Bayraktar, A. C. Altuniik, S. Atamtürktür, and F. Birinci, “Finite Element Model Calibration Effects on the Earthquake Response of Masonry Arch Bridges,” Finite Elem. Anal. Des., vol. 47, pp. 621– 634, 2011.
  10. A. Bayraktar, T. Türker, and A. C. Altunişik, “Experimental Frequencies and Damping Ratios for Historical Masonry Arch Bridges,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 75, pp. 234–241, 2015.
  11. A. Bayraktar, A. C. Altunişik, F. Birinci, B. Sevim, and T. Türker, “Finite-Element Analysis and Vibration Testing of a Two-Span Masonry Arch Bridge,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 46–52, 2010.
  12. M. Karaton, H. S. Aksoy, E. Sayın, and Y. Calayır, “Nonlinear Seismic Performance of a 12th Century Historical Masonry Bridge Under Different Earthquake Levels,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 79, pp. 408–421, 2017.
  13. E. Sayın, Y. Calayır, and M. Karaton, “Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Historical Uzunok Bridge,” in Seventh National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2021.
  14. D. Proske and P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges. 2009.
  15. G. Milani and P. B. Lourenço, “3D Non-linear Behavior of Masonry Arch Bridges,” Comput. Struct., vol. 110–111, pp. 133–150, 2012.
  16. P. Lourenço and D. Oliveira, “Conservation of Ancient Constructions and Application to a Masonry Arch Bridge,” in Proceedings of the International Seminar on Theory and Practice in Conservations, 2006. [17] L. Pelà, A. Aprile, and A. Benedetti, “Seismic assessment of masonry arch bridges,” Eng. Struct., vol. 31, pp. 1777–1788, 2009.
  17. V. Sarhosis, S. De Santis, and G. de Felice, “A review of experimental investigations and assessment methods for masonry arch bridges,” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1439–1464, 2016.
  18. E. Işık, F. Avcil, E. Harirchian, E. Arkan, H. Bilgin, and H. B. Özmen, “Architectural Characteristics and Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of a Historical Masonry Minaret under Different Seismic Risks and Probabilities of Exceedance,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 8, 2022.
  19. E. Işık, E. Harirchian, E. Arkan, F. Avcil, and M. Günay, “Structural Analysis of Five Historical Minarets in Bitlis (Turkey),” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 2, 2022.
  20. M. Scamardo, M. Zucca, P. Crespi, N. Longarini, and S. Cattaneo, “Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation of a Historical Masonry Tower: Comparison between Different Approaches,” Appl. Sci., vol. 12, no. 21, 2022.
  21. E. G. Çubuk, E. Sayın, A. Özmen, “Dynamic Analysis of Historical Masonry Arch Bridges under Different Earthquakes: The Case of Murat Bey Bridge,” Turkish J. Sci. Technol., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 461– 473, 2022.
  22. F. Avcil, E. Işık, H. Bilgin, H. B. Özmen, “Sahaya Özgü Tasarim Spektrumlarinin Anitsal Yiğma YapSı̇ smı̇ k DavranişinEtkı̇ sı̇,” Adıyaman Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilim. Derg., vol. 16, pp. 165–177, 2022.
  23. R. İzol, O. Türkmen, A. Gürel, and P. Turgut, “Mimar Sinan Camilerinde Sütunların Formları, Dikey ve Yanal Yük Kapasiteleri,” Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilim. Derg., pp. 649–659, 2022.
  24. F. Avcil and E. Arkan, “Assessment of architectural heritage characteristics and seismic behavior of Ziyaeddin Han Tomb,” Bitlis Eren Univ. J. Sci. Technol., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 79–85, 2022.
  25. E. Işık, B. Antep, and İ. B. Karaşin, “Structural Analysis of Ahlat Emir Bayındır Bridge,” Bitlis Eren Univ. J. Sci. Technol., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 2018.
  26. P. Zampieri, C. D. Tetougueni, and C. Pellegrino, “Nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry bridges under multiple geometric and material considerations: Application to an existing seven-span arch bridge,” Structures, vol. 34, no. January, pp. 78–94, 2021.
  27. H. Yalçin, L. Gülen, and M. Utkucu, “Active Fault Data Base and Assesment of Earthquake Hazard for Turkey and Surrounding Regions,” Earth Sci., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 133–160, 2013.
  28. “Ministry of Interior Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://en.afad.gov.tr/.
  29. TEC, Turkish Earthquake Code. Ankara, Turkey, 2018.
  30. “SeismoMatch Software.” 2020.
  31. American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 2017.
  32. O. C. Zienkiewicz and R. L. Taylor, The Finite Element Mothod. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006. [34] J. Campbell and M. Durán, “Numerical model for nonlinear analysis of masonry walls,” Rev. la Constr., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 189–201, 2017.
  33. J. Lee and G. L. Fenves, “Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic Loading of Concrete Structures,” J. Eng. Mech., vol. 124, no. 8, pp. 892–900, 1998.
  34. J. Lubliner, J. Oliver, S. Oller, and E. Onate, “A Plastic Damage Model for Concrete,” Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 299–326, 1989.
  35. N. Bayülke, Depremlerde Hasar Gören Yapıların Onarım ve Güçlendirilmesi. İzmir: İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası İzmir Şubesi, 2010.
  36. P. Lourenço and D. Oliveira, “Conservation of Ancient Constructions and Application to a Masonry Arch Bridge,” in Proceedings of the International Seminar on Theory and Practice in Conservations, 2006. [17] L. Pelà, A. Aprile, and A. Benedetti, “Seismic assessment of masonry arch bridges,” Eng. Struct., vol. 31, pp. 1777–1788, 2009.
  37. F. Avcil, E. Işık, H. Bilgin, H. B. Özmen, “Sahaya Özgü Tasarim Spektrumlarinin Anitsal Yiğma YapSı̇ smı̇ k DavranişinEtkı̇ sı̇,” Adıyaman Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilim. Derg., vol. 16, pp. 165–177, 2022.