Effect of SSI and Fixed-base Concept on the Dynamic Responses of Masonry Bridge Structures, Dalal Bridge as a Case Study


  • Halmat Ahmed Awlla Department of Information Technology, Choman Technical Institute, Erbil Polytechnic University, KRG, Iraq http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0545-0962
  • Nichirvan Ramadhan Taher Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1295-080X
  • Hüseyin Suha AKSOY, Associate Prof. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0564-457X
  • Anwar Jabar Qadir Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Soran University, Erbil, Iraq http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4694-6921




Historical masonry structures are very important as they carry cultural heritage, so it is important to protect these structures from natural disasters such as earthquakes and transferred to the next generations. It is known that masonry structures are weak against earthquakes, therefore, a suitable analysis method for assessment and retrofitting purposes is a must. Generally, the fixed-base concept is used for analysis and design purposes, however, in reality, the structures are not fixed-base but they are resting on soils. The aim of this study is to make a comparison study between dynamic responses of fixed-base and soil-structure interaction (SSI) models for bridge masonry structures, the historical Dalal bridge was selected as the case study. First, the bridge was modeled as a fixed base model, and then three different soil profiles (hard, medium and soft soils) were added to the underneath of the structure. The numerical models were analyzed under Elcentro earthquake record. Results indicating a good agreement between the fixed base and the case of hard soil base. However, considerable differences were observed for medium and soft soil profiles.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Halmat Ahmed Awlla, Department of Information Technology, Choman Technical Institute, Erbil Polytechnic University, KRG, Iraq

Halmat Ahmed currently works at Erbil Polytechnic University. Halmat does research in Civil Engineering, Structural engineering, Earthquake Engineering and Soil structure interaction.

Nichirvan Ramadhan Taher, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey

Nichirvan Ramadhan Taher is a PhD student in Firat University, Faculty of engineering, Department of civil engineering. 

Hüseyin Suha AKSOY, Associate Prof., Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey

Associate Prof. Suha H Aksoy currently works at Firat University, Faculty of engineering, Department of civil engineering, he does research on Civil and Geotechnical engineering.

Anwar Jabar Qadir, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Soran University, Erbil, Iraq

Anwar Jabar currently works in Soran University, Faculty of engineering, Department of civil engineering.


1. Royles, R. and A. Hendry, MODEL TESTS ON MASONRY ARCHES.(INCLUDES APPENDICES). Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1991. 91(2): p. 299-321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1991.14997.
2. Begimgil, M. Behaviour of restrained 1.25 m span model masonry arch bridge. in ARCH BRIDGES. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARCH BRIDGES HELD AT BOLTON, UK 3-6 SEPTEMBER 1995. 1995. Available from: https://trid.trb.org/view/458579.
3. Boothby, T.E., D.E. Domalik, and V.A. Dalal, Service load response of masonry arch bridges. Journal of structural engineering, 1998. 124(1): p. 17-23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:1(17).
4. Fanning, P.J. and T.E. Boothby, Three-dimensional modelling and full-scale testing of stone arch bridges. Computers & Structures, 2001. 79(29-30): p. 2645-2662 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(01)00109-2.
5. Milani, G. and P.B. Lourenço, 3D non-linear behavior of masonry arch bridges. Computers & Structures, 2012. 110: p. 133-150 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.07.008.
6. Sayın, E., Y. Calayır, and M. Karaton. Nonlinear seismic analyses of historical Uzunok Bridge. in Seventh National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2011. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267510691_Nonlinear_Seismic_Analysis_of_Historical_Uzunok_Bridge.
7. Pelà, L., A. Aprile, and A. Benedetti, Comparison of seismic assessment procedures for masonry arch bridges. Construction and Building Materials, 2013. 38: p. 381-394 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.08.046.
8. Rafiee, A. and M. Vinches, Mechanical behaviour of a stone masonry bridge assessed using an implicit discrete element method. Engineering Structures, 2013. 48: p. 739-749 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.11.035.
9. Altunışık, A.C., B. Kanbur, and A.F. Genc, The effect of arch geometry on the structural behavior of masonry bridges. Smart Struct. Syst, 2015. 16(6): p. 1069-1089 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/sss.2015.16.6.1069
10. Sayin, E., Nonlinear seismic response of a masonry arch bridge. Earthquakes and Structures, 2016. 10(2): p. 483-494 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.2.483.
11. Kramer, S.L., Geotechnical earthquake engineering. 1996: Upper Saddle River, N.J Prentice Hall 1996.
12. Wolf, J.P. and C. Song, Some cornerstones of dynamic soil–structure interaction. Engineering Structures, 2002. 24(1): p. 13-28 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00082-7.
13. Asteris, P.G., et al., Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry structural systems. Engineering Structures, 2014. 62: p. 118-134 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.031.
14. Giamundo, V., et al., Evaluation of different computational modelling strategies for the analysis of low strength masonry structures. Engineering Structures, 2014. 73: p. 160-169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.007.
15. Chouw, N. and H. Hao, Significance of SSI and nonuniform near-fault ground motions in bridge response I: Effect on response with conventional expansion joint. Engineering Structures, 2008. 30(1): p. 141-153 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.03.002.
16. Ates, S. and M.C. Constantinou, Example of application of response spectrum analysis for seismically isolated curved bridges including soil-foundation effects. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2011. 31(4): p. 648-661 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.12.002.
17. Güllü, H. and H.S. Jaf, Full 3D nonlinear time history analysis of dynamic soil–structure interaction for a historical masonry arch bridge. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2016. 75(21): p. 1421 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6230-0.
18. Hacıefendioğlu, K., et al., Multi-point response spectrum analysis of a historical bridge to blast ground motion. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2015. 53(5) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.53.5.897.
19. Pelà, L., A. Aprile, and A. Benedetti, Seismic assessment of masonry arch bridges. Engineering Structures, 2009. 31(8): p. 1777-1788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.012.
20. Magenes, G. Masonry building design in seismic areas: recent experiences and prospects from a European standpoint. in 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. 2006. 1-22 Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242207613_Masonry_building_design_in_seismic_areas_Recent_experiences_and_prospects_from_a_European_standpoint.
21. Magenes, G., et al. In-plane cyclic shear tests of undressed double leaf stone masonry panels. in 8th International Masonry Conference 2010 in Dresden 2010. Dresden Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guido_Magenes/publication/257333315_In-plane_cyclic_shear_tests_of_undressed_double-leaf_stone_masonry_panels/links/0deec53600cb22062f000000/In-plane-cyclic-shear-tests-of-undressed-double-leaf-stone-masonry-panels.pdf.
22. Karaton, M. and H.A. Awla, Numerical investigation of the effect on ultimate loading capacity of different longitudinal reinforcement ratios of a RC portal frame. Journal of Structural Engineering & Applied Mechanics, 2018. 1(3): p. 147-154 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31462/jseam.2018.03147154.
23. Taucer, F.F., E. Spacone, and F.C. Filippou 1991. A fiber beam-column element for seismic response analysis of reinforced concrete structures, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. http://www.ingenieriasismica.utpl.edu.ec/sites/default/files/publicaciones/UCG-ES-00061.pdf.
24. Erberik, M.A., Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in‐plane failure modes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2008. 37(3): p. 387-405 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.760.
25. Tomaževič, M., Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. 1999: World Scientific DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/9781848160835_0001.
26. Karaton, M., et al., Nonlinear seismic performance of a 12th century historical masonry bridge under different earthquake levels. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2017. 79: p. 408-421 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.05.017.
27. Karaton, M. and K. Çanakçı, Micro model analysis of JD6 and JD7 Eindhoven walls with fixed smeared crack model. Journal of Structural Engineering & Applied Mechanics, 2020. 3(1): p. 18-24 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31462/jseam.2020.01018024
28. Giambanco, G., S. Rizzo, and R. Spallino, Numerical analysis of masonry structures via interface models. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 2001. 190(49-50): p. 6493-6511 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(01)00225-0.
29. Casolo, S. and F. Peña, Rigid element model for in‐plane dynamics of masonry walls considering hysteretic behaviour and damage. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 2007. 36(8): p. 1029-1048 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.670.
30. Chen, S.-Y., F.L. Moon, and T. Yi, A macroelement for the nonlinear analysis of in-plane unreinforced masonry piers. Engineering Structures, 2008. 30(8): p. 2242-2252 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.001.
31. Xu, C., C. Xiangli, and L. Bin, Modeling of influence of heterogeneity on mechanical performance of unreinforced masonry shear walls. Construction and Building Materials, 2012. 26(1): p. 90-95 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.05.007.
32. SAP2000, C., CSI analysis reference manual for SAP2000. 2009, Computers and Structures, Inc.
33. K.Pavelka. DETAILED DOCUMENTATION AND 3D MODEL CREATION OF DALAL BRIDGE USING TERRESTRIAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY IN ZAKHU, NORTHERN IRAQI KURDISTAN. in 22nd CIPA Symposium. 2009. Kyoto, Japan Available from: https://www.cipaheritagedocumentation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Pavelka-Detailed-Documentation-and-3D-Model-Creation-of-Dalal-Bridge-Using-Terrestrial-Photogrammetry-in-Zakhu-Northern-Iraqi-Kurdistan.pdf.
34. Hökelekli, E. and A. Al‐Helwani, Effect of soil properties on the seismic damage assessment of historical masonry minaret–soil interaction systems. Struct Design Tall Spec Build, 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1694.
35. Galal, K. and M. Naimi, Effect of soil conditions on the response of reinforced concrete tall structures to near‐fault earthquakes. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 2008. 17(3): p. 541-562 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.365.
36. Maheshwari, B.K. and R. Sarkar, Seismic Behavior of Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction in Liquefiable Soils: Parametric Study. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2011. 11(4): p. 335-347 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000087.
37. Tabatabaiefar, S.H.R., B. Fatahi, and B. Samali, Seismic behavior of building frames considering dynamic soil-structure interaction. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2013. 13(4): p. 409-420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000231.



How to Cite

Awlla, H. A., Taher, N. R., AKSOY, H. S., & Qadir, A. J. (2022). Effect of SSI and Fixed-base Concept on the Dynamic Responses of Masonry Bridge Structures, Dalal Bridge as a Case Study. Academic Journal of Nawroz University, 11(3), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.25007/ajnu.v11n3a857