Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Nonlinear buckling analysis of network arch bridges Cover

Nonlinear buckling analysis of network arch bridges

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 44 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)
By: Adrian Błonka and  Łukasz Skrętkowicz  
Open Access
|Apr 2022
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Comparison of sample equilibrium paths for different types of analyses (B – bifurcation point, L – limit point).

Figure 2

Comparison of sample equilibrium paths with the snap-through instability (B – bifurcation point, L – limit point).

Figure 3

The model of von Mises truss.

Figure 4

Equilibrium paths for von Mises truss from different types of analysis. The vertical axe represents applied force and the horizontal axe represents the displacement of the point where the load is applied. FEA TH3 with displacement results (continuous) match exactly the analytical results with force load (dotted).

Figure 5

Instability forms: (a) structure without deformation, (b) form after snap-through, (c) first buckling form.

Figure 6

Sample geometry of columns with the lowest (a) and highest (b) elevation with initial loads.

Figure 7

Midpoint equilibrium paths for TH2 (a) and TH3 (b) analyses and corresponding displacements (c) of 40-m-long column with a 1/300 elevation (equivalent imperfection e0 = 0.133 m).

Figure 8

The geometry of the beam with initial uniform loads.

Figure 9

Scaled deformation forms from buckling and TH3 analysis.

Figure 10

Photos of network arch bridge over Vistula River in Cracow (own source).

Figure 11

Side view of the numerical model.

Figure 12

Detail view of the skewback.

Figure 13

Load Model 71 and characteristic value for vertical load from Eurocode [19].

Figure 14

The LM 71 positions along the span.

Figure 15

Resultant ranges of the critical load factors for the LBA and ULTI analysis.

Figure 16

Resultant ranges of critical load factor ratios. NT – no tension, LT – low tension (1 kN), MT – middle tension (500 kN), HT – high tension (1000 kN), NP – no prestress, AP – all prestress cases (10, 15, 20 MN).

Figure 17

Deformations form: LBA (a), last ULTI step (b), and PUSH after 50 steps (c).

Figure 18

Scaled deformation forms of the arch between skewbacks from LBA and TH3 analysis.

Figure 19

Ranges of ULTI-to-LBA critical load factor ratios for various elevations and predicted trends.

Figure 20

The numeration scheme of hangers’ arrangement.

Figure 21

The range of ULTI-to-LBA critical load factor ratios for breaking one hanger at once.

Figure 22

Examples of rupturing two nearest hangers.

Figure 23

The range of ULTI-to-LBA critical load factor ratios for breaking two nearest hangers at once. The first number in brackets on the horizontal axis corresponds to the right-skewed hanger and the second number to the left-skewed hanger.

Figure 24

Scaled, exampled deformations of instability forms of the arch between skewbacks from LBA and TH3 analysis: rupturing the leftmost hanger (a), rupturing the hanger in one-fourth of the span (b), and rupturing the hanger in the midspan (c).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0007 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 123 - 137
Submitted on: Oct 2, 2021
Accepted on: Jan 11, 2022
Published on: Apr 26, 2022
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
Network arch bridge,
post-critical analysis,
nonlinear buckling,
unique global and local imperfected form,
cable structures
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Composites,
Porous materials,
Physics,
Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2022 Adrian Błonka, Łukasz Skrętkowicz, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 44 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)
Previous article
Next article