Computational & Technology Resources
an online resource for computational,
engineering & technology publications |
|
Civil-Comp Proceedings
ISSN 1759-3433 CCP: 88
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGY Edited by: B.H.V. Topping and M. Papadrakakis
Paper 239
Masonry Bridge Finite Element Modelling Based on Digital Photogrammetry and Ground Penetrating Radar Tests I. Lubowiecka1, J. Armesto2, F.I. Rial2 and P. Arias2
1Department of Structural Mechanics and Bridge Structures, Gdansk University of Technology, Poland
I. Lubowiecka, J. Armesto, F.I. Rial, P. Arias, "Masonry Bridge Finite Element Modelling Based on Digital Photogrammetry and Ground Penetrating Radar Tests", in B.H.V. Topping, M. Papadrakakis, (Editors), "Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Structures Technology", Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, UK, Paper 239, 2008. doi:10.4203/ccp.88.239
Keywords: close range photogrammetry, ground penetrating radar, finite element method, historic structures, dynamics.
Summary
This paper presents a general method for the process of evaluating a masonry
structure, considering the fact that the geometry of the structure is complex and that
its material properties are unknown and cannot be directly assessed [1].
A multidisciplinary approach is presented that integrates close range digital
photogrammetry, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and finite element (FE) analysis.
Close range digital photogrammetry and GPR techniques are used in the geometric survey and building material homogeneity analysis [2,4,5]. The interpretation of the GPR data is used as a starting point to build a hypothesis for the numeric model, while considering the material properties of the structure. The resulting information is used to properly define a finite element-based three-dimensional structural model, which is then applied to simulate the dynamic behaviour of the bridge and two hypotheses about its internal composition. There are two different three-dimensional FE models [3] prepared for the bridge dynamic analysis. The first model is homogeneous, and has the same material properties in all volumes; the second model is heterogeneous, and contains two components of material data from the GPR tests [6]. The results reveal discrepancies in the eigenmodes of the two models, indicating that the two numerical models are not equivalent. Even if the range of the eigenfrequency values of both models is not considerably wide, quite different shapes of their modes indicate the usefulness of the GPR data. However, the proper decision as to which model better represents the tested structure will depend on measurements of the natural vibrations of the bridge. References
purchase the full-text of this paper (price £20)
go to the previous paper |
|