Login
Register
Reset Password
Publish & Distribute
Publishing Solutions
Distribution Solutions
Subjects
Architecture and Design
Arts
Business and Economics
Chemistry
Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Computer Sciences
Cultural Studies
Engineering
General Interest
Geosciences
History
Industrial Chemistry
Jewish Studies
Law
Library and Information Science, Book Studies
Life Sciences
Linguistics and Semiotics
Literary Studies
Materials Sciences
Mathematics
Medicine
Music
Pharmacy
Philosophy
Physics
Social Sciences
Sports and Recreation
Theology and Religion
Publications
Journals
Books
Proceedings
Publishers
Blog
Contact
Search
EUR
USD
GBP
English
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Cart
Home
Journals
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 44 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)
Open Access
Nonlinear buckling analysis of network arch bridges
Adrian Błonka
Adrian Błonka
and
Łukasz Skrętkowicz
Łukasz Skrętkowicz
| Apr 26, 2022
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 44 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Abstract
Article
Figures & Tables
References
Authors
Articles in this Issue
Preview
PDF
Cite
Share
Article Category:
Original Study
Published Online:
Apr 26, 2022
Page range:
123 - 137
Received:
Oct 02, 2021
Accepted:
Jan 11, 2022
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0007
Keywords
Network arch bridge
,
post-critical analysis
,
nonlinear buckling
,
unique global and local imperfected form
,
cable structures
© 2022 Adrian Błonka et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
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).
Preview