Received: 3 October 2019 Revised: 11 February 2020 Accepted: 18 March 2020

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201900382

PREVIEW

Advanced FE modeling supported by monitoring toward

management of large civil infrastructures: The case study
of Lezíria Bridge

Helder Sousa1,2,3

1
Department of Research & Innovation,
HS Consulting, Matosinhos, Portugal
Abstract
2
Department Brisa Gest~ao de The knowledge on the effective long-term behavior of large civil infrastruc-
Infraestruturas, BRISA Group, S~ao tures, for example, bridges, is becoming highly desired by owners and conces-
Domingos de Rana, Portugal
sionaires. Based on the case of the Lezíria Bridge in Portugal, one of the most
3
Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, University of Surrey,
comprehensive case studies available in the literature, a set of good practices
Guildford, United Kingdom to achieve reliable assessments on the long-term behavior is outlined. Span-
ning the construction phase, the loading test (at the end of construction) and
Correspondence
Helder Sousa, PhD, Department of
the operation phase, the behavior of the bridge is well predicted for several
Research & Innovation, HS Consulting, physical parameters. Nevertheless, the extrapolation of creep and shrinkage
Matosinhos, Portugal. models, the influence of interior and exterior environments, and significant
Email: mail@hfmousousa.com
thickness variations along cross-sections are key issues that deserve special
attention. The role of advanced FE modeling supported by monitoring data is
showed to be one of the most robust approaches for supporting the manage-
ment of large civil infrastructures in this era of digitalization (Industry 4.0).

KEYWORDS
advanced FE modeling, concrete bridges, construction, creep, large civil infrastructures, load
test, management, monitoring, operation, relaxation, shrinkage

1 | INTRODUCTION (SGD 17). In such context, it becomes evident that the

According to Reference,1 current engineering practice for
conservation management is typically based on minimiz-
ing costs to achieve and maintain a minimum perfor-
mance/quality requirements. On the other hand, the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) defined in the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,2 signed, in
2015, by all countries in the United Nations toward a sus-
tainable planet, is promoting Industry, Innovation And
Infrastructure (SGD 9) and Partnerships For The Goals
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the
print publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along
with the authors’ closure, if any, approximately nine months after the
print publication.
role of advanced FE modeling devoted to large civil infra-
structures will play an important role in a near future,
which is already being catalyzed by the current era of dig-
italization (Industry 4.0).
Case studies available in the literature addressing,
comprehensively, the long-term performance of large
civil infrastructures subjected time-dependent effects still
scarce.3–8 Among these, Lezíria Bridge, crossing the
Tagus River nearby of Lisbon in Portugal, is perhaps one
of the most comprehensive case studies available in the
literature. The combination of several factors, including
(a) the bridge size, (b) the 13 years of monitoring, (c) the
comprehensive scanning of important characteristics of
the bridge, and (d) the FE modeling approach, makes this
case study holding some merits that, in the author's

Structural Concrete. 2020;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2020 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 SOUSA

opinion, are worthwhile to be summarized into a single 2.1 | Main bridge

piece of work by addressing both the scientific commu-
nity and stakeholders involved in the management of
large civil infrastructures.
In this context, a set of good practices for advanced
FE modeling devoted to the assessment of the long-term
performance of large civil infrastructures is outlined, by
taking as an example the aforementioned case study of
Lezíria Bridge. The set of good practices spans, compre-
hensively, from the construction phase to the operation
phase, including a loading test performed at the end of
construction.
2 | T H E ST R U C T U R E
The Lezíria Bridge, built-in 2005–2007, is part of the A10
highway nearby of the Portuguese capital, Lisbon. With a
total length of 39.9 km, A10 is an outer boundary to the
metropolitan area. The Lezíria Bridge appears here with
a total length of 11,670 m of prestressed concrete mate-
rial, being one of the longest bridges in the world, and
materialized by three substructures, mainly: (a) the main
bridge; (b) the north approach viaduct; (c) and the south
approach viaduct.
With a total length of 970 m, the main bridge is com-
posed by eight spans of 95 m + 127 m + 133 m
+ 4 × 130 m + 95 m length, which are supported on two
outer piers, TPN and TPS, and seven inner piers, P1 to
P7, founded on pilecaps over the riverbed. Each pilecap is
supported on eight circular piles of 2.2 m diameter,
except for piers P1 and P2 (which sets the navigation
channel) both supported on 10 piles each. The piles were
constructed using permanent metallic casing, to reach
the Miocene layer at approximately 40 m deep, whereas
the pilecaps were built with precast concrete caissons. A
set of four concrete walls of 1.20 m thickness forms each
pier. The width and height of these walls range from 3.90
to 7.50 m and from 13.48 to 16.66 m, respectively. The
bridge girder is a box girder of variable inertia, with a
height ranging from 4 to 8 m and width of 14.0 m, which
is monolithically connected to the piers except at piers
TPN, P6, P7, and TPS. The construction of the inner
spans was performed by using the segmental
construction-balanced cantilever method, whereas the
end-spans were partially built using a formwork placed
on the soil surface. In a second stage, the edge deck slabs
of the box girder were built with a specific formwork

F I G U R E 1 Lezíria Bridge and monitoring plan (based on Reference28). (a.1) Elevation of the main bridge. (a.2) Cross sections 11 m
apart from pier axis in (a.1). (a.3) Cross section at mid-spans in (a.1). (b.1) Elevation of the north approach viaduct V2N. (b.2) Cross
section CD-P2P3 in (b.1). (c.1) Elevation of the south approach viaduct V14S. (c.2) Cross section CD-TPS14P1 in (c.1)
SOUSA
suspended at each extremity to attain the 29.95 m width.
Figures 1a and 2a show the main bridge elevation and its
construction stage at the beginning.9
2.2 | North approach viaduct
The north approach viaduct consists of three elementary
viaducts, V1N, V2N, and V3N, with a length of approxi-
mately 500 m each and regular spans of 33 m. The deck
girder has a total width of 29.95 m and it is supported by
four alignments of circular piers-pile with 1.5 m of diam-
eter and lengths up to 40 m deep. The construction pro-
cess adopted was the self-supporting movable scaffolding
system supported on the piers. This movable structure
was recurrently mounted and dismounted span by span.
After positioning, works related to reinforcement
arrangement, metallic sheaths, and anchorage systems
installation were performed. Then, the span construction
proceeded with the concrete pouring. Finally, the pre-
stressing cables were tensioned and the movable scaffold-
ing was moved to the next span. For the scope of this
work, viaduct V2N is focused as presented in Figure 1b,
whereas Figure 2b details the construction stage.10
2.3 | South approach viaduct
The south approach viaduct, built with precast beams, is
composed by 22 elementary viaducts, V1S to V22S, with
total lengths ranging from 250 to 530 m and with a com-
mon span length of 36 m. Each of the 22 viaducts is com-
posed by a continuous deck monolithically connected to
F I G U R E 2 Construction of the Lezíria Bridge. (a) Main
bridge. (b) North approach viaduct. (c) South approach viaduct
3
the inner piers. The piers and foundation are similar to
the north approach viaduct, that is, pier–pile elements of
1.5 m of diameter. Between viaducts, one of them is con-
nected to the pier through fixed pot bearings, whereas
the other one is supported by means of sliding guided
bearings. The deck girder, of 29.95 m wide, is composed
of four 1.75 m high precast and U-shaped beams and a
0.25 m thick slab. The beams are prestressed using pre-
tension strands and were made in a factory specifically
built at the construction site. The slab is composed of pre-
cast planks and a cast-in-place layer. The monolithic con-
nection between spans is established through a cast-in-
place diaphragm and continuity reinforcement including
prestressing employing straight post-tensioning cables,
which are also monolithically connected to the piers. On
the top of the piers, there is an octagonal capital whose
maximum dimension reaches 1.7 m so that the girders
can be positioned properly. The piles cross alluviums
with a variable constitution, and the maximum deepness
reached by each pile varies between 35 and 60 m. Fig-
ures 1c and 2c show the elevation of the V14S viaduct
and a detail on the deck girder at the stage of positioning
the precast beams, respectively.11
3 | MODELING
The modus operandi in the construction of the FE
models has been based on a detailed and rigorous scan-
ning of all available and relevant information from the
Lezíria Bridge, mainly properties related to (a) concrete,
(b) prestressing cables, (c) soil, (d) loading, and
(e) geometry. Further to this data collection, the respec-
tive average values have been quantified and used at the
structural level.
3.1 | Concrete
3.1.1 | Compressive strength
The quantification of the mechanical properties of concrete
was based on compressive tests on 150 mm cubes per-
formed during the construction12 and creep and shrinkage
measurements taken from 150 mm × 150 mm × 550 mm
concrete prisms.7,13–15
The European Code EC216 was used with some of the
model parameters being updated based on the aforemen-
tioned measurements. Each structural component, that
is, pile, pier, span, and segment, was exhaustively
scrutinized.
The compressive strength at a given age, fcm(t), is
given by Equation (1), where t represents the concrete
4 SOUSA

age in days, s is a cement hardening coefficient, and fcm

is the mean value of the concrete compressive strength,
at the age of 28 days. Because concrete cubes were used,
it took 82% of the observed values to obtain the
corresponding cylinder compressive strengths, fcm, cyl, as
recommended by EC2. Regarding the parameter, s, in
Equation (1), this was determined by a curve fitting pro-
cedure that minimized the mean square error between
the test results at different ages and values given by
Equation (1). As an example, Figure 3 shows the fitting
results obtained for three main structural components for
the north approach viaduct V2N (i.e., piles, piers, and
deck girder), whereas Table 1 summarizes the average
values obtained for the substructures analyzed, that is,
the north approach viaduct V2N, the main bridge and
the south approach viaduct V14S.
h  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii
fcm ðt Þ = βcc ðt Þ  fcmð28Þ , βcc ðt Þ = exp s  1 − 28t − 1 ð1Þ

3.1.2 | Modulus of elasticity

The tangent modulus of elasticity, Ec, is calculated based

on the compressive strength, by means of Equation (2),
where fcm, cyl represents the mean value of the concrete
cylinder strength at the age of 28 days. The time-
dependent variability of the concrete elasticity modulus
correlates to the time variation of the compressive
strength (Equation (1)). Taking the value previously
obtained for s, the evolution of the modulus of elasticity
is straightforwardly obtained (Equation (3)).

 0:3
E c = 1:05  22000  f cm,cyl =10 ðMPaÞ ð2Þ

h  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii0:5
E c ðt Þ = βE ðt Þ  E c , βE ðt Þ = exp 0:5s  1 − 28t − 1 ð3Þ

3.1.3 | Shrinkage

The total shrinkage strain, ɛcs, is set in two parts

(Equation (4)): (a) the drying shrinkage strain, ɛcd, and
(b) the autogenous shrinkage strain, ɛca. Both mathemati-
cal models for these two parts, Equations (5) and (6),
respectively, are expressed by a multiplicative model with
F I G U R E 3 Compressive strength evolution (based on
a nominal coefficient, ɛc, ∞ and a time factor, βs(t), where Reference13). (a) Pile V2N-P2. (b) Pier V2N-P2. (c) Deck girder
t is a generic point in time and ts the time when drying V2N-P2P3
SOUSA 5

TABLE 1 Average values of the mechanical properties of concrete13,15,18

North approach viaduct V2N Main bridge South approach viaduct V14S

Piles Piers Deck Piles Piers Deck Piles Piers Deck

fcm, 28d (MPa) 48.9 43.7 49.3 50.4 56.6 55.5 60.5 46.7 68.0
s 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.35 0.25 0.18

begins (in days). Additionally, kcs, 0 and kcs, t parameters

are added to Equation (5) to scale and shape the drying
shrinkage model to measurements collected from the
aforementioned concrete prisms. Similar to the quantifi-
cation of parameter s that explains the evolution of the
compressive strength with time (Section 3.1.1), the addi-
tional parameters, that is, kcs, 0 and kcs, t, were deter-
mined by a curve-fitting procedure that minimizes the
mean square error between both measurements and
model values at different ages. The autogenous shrinkage
is not considered in the fitting problem taking into
account that it mainly occurs during the early days after
casting16 and the focus here is on the long-term behavior
(i.e., years). Hence, its effect is initially removed to the
measurements, by subtracting a quantity expressed by
Equation (6), and after the fitting problem is solved its
contribution is restored.
In the particular case of the main bridge, the concrete
prisms are positioned inside and outside of the box girder
due to the different environmental conditions observed.
Although an accurate quantification of their influence
stills a challenging task,17 their effects were considered,
for simplicity, proportional to the cross-section perimeter
exposed to each environment.13–15,18 The total shrinkage,
considered for the curve-fitting procedure, was calculated
based on 30% and 70% of the prisms placed inside and
outside the box girder, respectively, and considering aver-
age values for temperature and relative humidity.19

εcs ðt Þ = εcd ðt Þ + εca ðt Þ ð4Þ

εcd ðt Þ = k cs,0  εcd,∞  ½βds ðt, t s Þkcs,t ð5Þ F I G U R E 4 Scale-up from specimen level to structural level
(based on Reference7,15). (a) Shrinkage deformations—prisms.
εca ðt Þ = εca,∞  βas ðt Þ ð6Þ (b) Shrinkage deformations—structural components

The notional size of the structural elements of the
bridge goes up to 1,575 mm, which is significantly
higher than the respective one for the shrinkage prisms
(150 mm). Hence, the shrinkage for the concrete ele-
ments (structural level) was set based on their effective
notional size and the fitted model for the concrete
prisms (specimen level, Equation (4)). For the specific
case of the main bridge, the thickness differences
between the bottom slab, web and top slab of the box
girder was accordingly taken into account.3,4,20,21 For
illustration, Figure 4 shows the results for the main
bridge. More specifically, Figure 4a shows the results
obtained from the aforementioned curve-fitting proce-
dure for the measurements collected from the concrete
prism, whereas Figure 4b shows the extrapolation (from
the previous) to the structural components based on the
6 SOUSA

associated value for the notional size parameter. A simi- are conducted in flexible metal ducts, the relaxation class
lar approach has been taken for the north and south 2 is adopted, with a wobble coefficient, K, fixed to 0.05 and
approach viaducts. a coefficient of friction, μ, set to 0.19, according to the
Model Code 2010 recommendations.1 Regarding the pre-
stress loss due to relaxation, Δσ pr, the EC2 model has been
3.1.4 | Creep used and implemented numerically accordingly to
Reference,22 considering low relaxation and that the elon-
The creep deformations of concrete, ɛcc(t, t0), at a generic gation of the tendon varies gradually over time as per
time t for a constant applied compressive stress at age t0 is Equations (9) and (10).
given by Equation (7), where φ (t, t0) is the creep coeffi-
cient and ɛc(t0) is the instantaneous deformation due to the σ p,− i + 1 = σ p,i
+
+ E p  Δεi −Δσ pr,i ð9Þ
applied stress. The creep coefficient is given by Equa-
tion (8), where φ0 is the notional creep coefficient, and  
t e + Δt i 0:75ð1 − μ’Þ
βc(t, t0) is a time function to describe the development of Δσ pr,i = A  ρ1000  eBμ’ 
creep after loading. Similar to shrinkage, additional param- Xi − 1  1000 Xi − 1
eters, kcc, 0 and kcc, t, were added in Equation (8) so that  j=1
Δσ pr,j + σ p,i  10 − 5 −
+
j=1
Δσ pr,j ð10Þ
the model for the evolution of creep deformations could be
adjusted to measurements collected from concrete prisms
by a curve-fitting procedure that minimizes the mean 3.3 | Soil
square error between both at different ages.6 Also, the dif-
ferent environmental conditions, for the case of the main The interaction pile-soil is modeled with elastic springs
bridge, as well as the scale effect from specimen level to based on the Winkler model, as expressed by Equa-
structural level was accordingly taken into account. tion (11). The spring stiffness is taken proportional to the
subgrade reaction module, ks, and the influence area of
εcc ðt,t 0 Þ = φðt, t0 Þ  εc ðt 0 Þ ð7Þ the spring, Ainf. The former is quantified from geological
and geotechnics tests performed by the constructor,23
φðt, t 0 Þ = k cc,0  φ0  ½βc ðt, t 0 Þkcc,t ð8Þ whereas the latter is defined by the pile diameter, ϕ, mul-
tiplied by an influence length, L. Table 2 summarizes the
range of values with interest, which was used to compute
the stiffness of the springs.

3.2 | Prestressing cables k v = k s  Ainf , Ainf = ϕ  L ð11Þ

A comprehensive scanning was carried out to characterize

the modulus of elasticity of the prestressing steel, Ep, based
on the manufacturer specifications.12 Average values are
considered associated with the construction of a new span
(approach viaducts) and a new segment (main bridge).
Overall, an average value of 196.6 GPa and a coefficient of
variation of 2.3% is found, which is in agreement with the
EC2 limits.16 Taking the fact that the prestressing cables
3.4 | Loading
Concerning the loading conditions, the effective loads
have been quantified according to information available
from the constructor.12 Hence, the following were consid-
ered (Table 3): (a) self-weight of the reinforced concrete,

TABLE 2 Average values of the properties of soil23

Soil description Clay deposits Sludge Muddy fine to medium sand Medium sand Clay silt
Deep (m) 0–2 2–6 4–6 6–8 >6
3
ks (MN/m ) 4–8 1–2 7–30 8–20 90–120

TABLE 3 Average values of loading conditions12

Parameter Self-weight γ c Movable scaffolding, Fms Prestressing, fPE Imposed-loads, pDL Fully loaded truck, Ft
3
Value 25.0 KN/m 570–1,127 kN 0.71fpym 93.7 kN/m 315.9 KN
SOUSA
γc; (b) self-weight of the movable scaffolding systems
based on the equipment specifications, Fms12; (c) forces
applied to the prestressing cables based on the elongation
measurements, fPE12; (d) imposed loads concerning the
bituminous layer, border beams, walkways, and safety
barriers, pdl; and (e) fully loaded truck used in the load
test, Ft.
3.5 | Geometry
All concrete components are represented by their axis
with a structural discretization of approximately 1–2 m
long (depending on the structural component type, that
is, piles, piers, or girder). These were set directly from the
final project CAD drawings of the bridge,9,10,11 supported
by CAD tools specifically developed and used for the
scanning process.7 Beam elements of three nodes are
used to model the concrete elements, with a special case
for the main bridge where two overlapped alignments of
beam elements are considered, with the same displace-
ment field, to take into account the phased construction
of the bridge girder and the edge deck slabs. Three layers
of ordinary reinforcement are modeled along faces and
axis of the concrete components, whereas the embedded
prestressing cables of the bridge girder were precisely
modeled by importing coordinates directly from the final
project drawings,9 also supported by dedicated CAD
F I G U R E 5 FE models of the Lezíria Bridge (DIANA 10.3). (a) Main bridge (based on Reference15). (b) North approach viaduct V2N
(based on Reference 13)
7
tools.7 As far as the external prestressing cables are con-
cerned, truss elements are used and connected to the
girder beam elements through dummy elements with
high inertia to guarantee the same displacement field.
The movable scaffolding systems used during construc-
tion are also modeled with beam elements, which are
linked to the piers of the north approach viaduct, and the
box girder of the main bridge. Figure 5 shows the FE
models implemented for the viaducts, mainly for the north
approach viaduct V2N and the main bridge, by depicting
beam elements, truss elements, reinforcements, spring
elements and supports.
3.6 | Structural analysis
Further to the modeling of the input parameters
(i.e., concrete, steel, soil, loading, and geometry), the FE
structural analysis, performed by using the general pur-
pose FE code DIANA,24 was done based on the phased
concept to simulate the structural performance over time.
For each stage new elements were added/removed and
the support configuration updated accordingly. During
each stage, the mechanical system, material properties,
boundary and loading conditions remain unchanged and
only subjected to time-dependent effects.
Taking into account the restraining effects between
concrete and steel, the ordinary and prestressed
8 SOUSA

reinforcements are modeled in a way that their deforma-

tion is computed from the displacement field of the
mother element in which they are embedded (i.e., the
3-node beam elements). Consequently, the restrained
deformations are automatically taken into account to
guarantee both the compatibility of deformations and
static equilibrium.
Finally, and to guarantee that the numerical results
may be directly compared to the collected data, the real
construction chronology is accurately considered
according to information gathered from the construc-
tor.12 With this, the predictions obtained for vertical dis-
placements, bearing movements, rotations and strains
have been computed and directly assessed against moni-
toring data collected on the bridge on the time domain
(i.e., time-series graphs).

4 | R ESULTS A ND ASSESSMENT

4.1 | Loading test

The FE models were initially tuned through an elastic

analysis focusing on the loading test performed at the
end of the bridge construction. More precisely, the FE
models' stiffness was verified by adjusting the parameters
with higher scatter and with influence in the structural
behavior, mainly: (a) soil stiffness, (b) metallic casing of
piles, (c) axial deformability of piles, and (d) dimensions
of the pier–deck intersection zone. Overall, a good corre-
lation is observed between the FE results and measure-
ments either on pattern or amplitude for vertical
displacements, rotations, and strains. Figure 6 shows,
respectively, a representative sample of all database gath-
ered and, based on this, it can be stated that the FEs' dis-
cretization and simulation of boundary conditions are
adequate to simulate the effective structural behavior of
the bridge under static loads.

4.2 | Long-term performance

4.2.1 | Construction phase

Regarding the main bridge, typically, the segmental con-

struction took 7 days on average, with an identical phased
procedure as for the north approach viaduct. Figure 7a
shows the strains in the top deck-slab for section P7. Nine
segments of approximately 6 m long were built, with the F I G U R E 6 Loading test assessment—FE results versus
last eight identified by the pattern of the results. Later, the measurement (based on Reference15). (a) Mid-span displacements
prestressing applied at the mid-span P6P7, the pushing (Figure 1a). (b) Deck girder rotations (Figure 1a). (c) Mid-span
curvatures (Figure 1a)
forces applied in the last closing segment of the bridge,
SOUSA
FIGURE 7 Construction assessment—FE results versus
monitoring data. (a) Concrete deformations (section CD-P7,
Figure 1A, based on Reference15). (b) Concrete deformations
(section CD-P2P3, Figure 1b, based on Reference13). (c) Concrete
deformations (section CD-TPS14P1, Figure 1c, based on
Reference18)
9
and the external prestressing applied in all bridge length is
identified with a clear agreement between both FE predic-
tions and measurements on a final deformation of εcffi
−500 με in the top deck-slab.
The girder construction of the north approach viaduct
was based on the following phases: (a) positioning of the
movable scaffolding—phase 0, (b) reinforcement place-
ment and concrete pouring—phase 1, (c) prestressing—
phase 2, (d) moving forward the movable scaffolding—phase
3. Figure 7b shows the measurements obtained in
section P2P3 of V2N, where the mentioned phases can
be identified. The most relevant change is observed
when the prestressing cables of span P2P3 were ten-
sioned (phase 2), leading to a strain variation of εcffi
−300 με, in the bottom face of the girder (strain gauge
CD-1I, Figure 1.b2). Shortly after, the strain decreased
due to the release of the movable scaffolding (phase 3)
revealing that the span weight was partly supported by
the movable scaffolding even after the prestressing. It is
also visible minor offsets at August 11, 2006 and August
13, 2006, which reveals the influence of the construction
of the following span P3P4.
Finally, Figure 7c shows the strains for the mid-span
section V14S-PTS14P1 of the south approach viaduct
V14S. Similar to the main bridge and the north approach
viaduct, the results presented in this figure includes the
FE results in which the concrete properties were based
on monitored parameters. Again, the FE results closely
agrees with the measurements with the main events asso-
ciated with the construction clearly detected by both.
4.2.2 | Operational phase
Regarding the bridge behavior over time, that is, the
operational phase, Figure 8 shows both FE predictions
and monitoring data for four sections of the main bridge
and related to vertical displacements, rotations, concrete
deformations, and bearing displacements, respectively, in
some critical sections (Figure 1). The FE predictions (up to
the year 2033) are overlapped with the measurements
collected until present (i.e., 2020). Overall, both the mea-
surement magnitudes and trends seem to be well cap-
tured by using the proposed methodology presented in
Section 3. The vertical displacement for one of the spans
with highest displacements show god agreement with the
monitoring data, despite that for this further investigation
needs to be done due to some interruptions in the data
acquisition process (Figure 8a). Despite the good agree-
ment generally observed, the scale-up from specimen
level to structural level plays a crucial role in the FE pre-
dictions. In other words, the quantification of creep and
10 SOUSA

F I G U R E 8 Long-term assessment—FE results versus monitoring data. (a) Vertical displacement (section DV-P7TPS, Figure 1a).
(b) Rotation (section RO-P1, Figure 1a). (c) Concrete deformations (section CD-TPNP1, Figure 1a). (d) Bearing movement (section BD-TPN,
Figure 1a)

shrinkage effects on the structural elements, based on
measurements collected on concrete specimens, is sub-
jected to extrapolation errors. The higher the difference
on the notional size (i.e., in the structural components
and concrete prisms), the higher might be the committed
error. For instance, the rotation above pier P1 (Figure 8b)
seems to be underestimated by the FE model, mainly in the
trend over time, which indeed might be explained by the
high thickness of the structural components in this zone of
the deck girder. Even though the long-term behavior is
mostly constrained by time-dependent phenomena, that
is, creep and shrinkage of concrete, the environmental
conditions have also an important contribution, as it can
be highly noticed by the seasonal variation of the mea-
surements for the rotation (Figure 8b) and bearing
movement on section PTN3 (Figure 8d). This is mainly
due to the temperature variation. Laboratory tests rev-
ealed that the thermal dilation coefficient of the
employed concrete is approximately 7.9 × 10−6 C−1,25
which is 21% lower than the specified in Eurocode 1—
EC1.26 This value is consistent with results obtained by
other authors.17,27
5 | CONCLUSIONS
A set of good practices is highlighted, mainly:
(a) rigorous scanning of the structure geometry; (b) in
situ properties of the structural materials and foundation
soil; (c) effective loading conditions; and (d) real
SOUSA
construction sequence. Based on the FE modeling for the
three substructures of Lezíria Bridge, the following con-
clusions could be drawn and extended to other civil infra-
structures in similar conditions, mainly:
• Good correlation is observed between both FE predic-
tions and monitoring data during the loading test.
Generally, differences are less than 7% regarding the
maximum vertical displacements of midspan sections.
Also, good agreement has been observed for rotations
and strains in several monitored sections. This allows
assuring, in a first instance, that the FE models show
adequate stiffness under static loading conditions.
• The FE models show high conformity with the moni-
toring data during the construction period. The con-
struction phases and critical events are clearly
identified with very good agreement between both FE
predictions and monitoring data. Taking into account
the results obtained for the loading test, these results
increase the level of confidence in their further exploi-
tation, that is, over the operational phase. Also, the
stress limit of 0.45 × fc from EC2 has not been
exceeded.
• Regarding the operational lifetime period, the mea-
surements trends are satisfactorily predicted by the FE
models, where creep and shrinkage measurements col-
lected from concrete prisms reveals to be crucial.
• The relaxation of the prestressing steel has a minor
effect for the Lezíria Bridge, with an influence lower
than 2.0% (up to the end of the operational phase). The
low relaxation class of the steel and the moderate
stress level applied (approximately 0.7×fpuk) justify
this fact.
• Some aspects still careful further investigation, mainly:
(a) better quantification of creep and shrinkage proper-
ties for the structural components; (b) the effective
influence of the relative importance of interior and
exterior environments for box-girder structures; and
(c) the effect on the creep and shrinkage kinetics when
relevant differences on the thickness along the cross-
section (e.g., between the bottom slab and top slab of a
box-girder section).
• The current era of digitalization (Industry 4.0), by
means of the increased availability of monitoring data,
puts advanced FE modeling with high potential to sup-
port management protocols throughout the opera-
tional phase of civil infrastructures in general. The
case study of the Lezíria Bridge shows that with a care-
ful and detailed scanning of quantities related to the
input parameters, that is, concrete, prestressing steel,
soil, loading, and geometry, reliable predictions are
possible which can be compared to monitoring data
without the need of any type of FE model updating.
11
ORCID
Helder Sousa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8310-0119
RE FER EN CES
1. Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib). Model code for con-
crete structures 2010. Switzerland: Lausanne, 2010.
2. United Nations. About the sustainable development goals.
2015. Retrieved Feb 11, 2020 from https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.
3. Bažant Z k P, Yu Q, Li G-H. Excessive long-time deflections of
Prestressed box girders. II: Numerical analysis and lessons
learned. J Struct Eng. 2012a;138(6):687–696. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000375.
4. Bažant ZP, Yu Q, Li G-H. Excessive long-time deflections of
Prestressed box girders. I: Record-span bridge in Palau and
other paradigms. J Struct Eng. 2012b;138(6):676–686. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000487.
5. Robertson IN. Prediction of vertical deflections for a long-span
prestressed concrete bridge structure. Eng Struct. 2005;27(12):
1820–1827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.05.013.
6. Santos LO. Observaç~ao e análise do comportamento diferido de
pontes de bet~ao [observation and analysis of the deferred behaviour
of concrete bridges] (PhD). Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto
Superior Técnico da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, 2002.
7. Sousa H. Data-based engineering techniques for the manage-
ment of concrete bridges (PhD thesis). Porto, Portugal: Univer-
sity of Porto; 2012.
8. Takács PF. Deformations in concrete cantilever bridges: Obser-
vations and theoretical modelling (PhD thesis). The Norwegian
University of Science and Technology Trondheim; 2002.
9. Coba-PC&A-Civilser-Arcadis. Construç~ao da Travessia do Tejo
no Carregado Sublanço A1/Benavente, da A10 Auto-Estrada
Bucelas/ Carregado/IC3, Empreitada de Concepç~ao, Projecto
e Construç~ao da Travessia do Tejo no Carregado, Volume II
– Ponte sobre o rio Tejo. Portugal: Lisbon, 2005a in
Portuguese.
10. COBA-PC&A-CIVILSER-ARCADIS. Construç~ao da Travessia do
Tejo no Carregado Sublanço A1/Benavente, da A10 Auto-
Estrada Bucelas/Carregado/IC3, vol. I. “Viaduto Norte”.
Empreitada de Concepç~ao. Lisbon, Portugal: Projecto e Con-
struç~ao da Travessia do Tejo no Carregado, 2005c in Portuguese.
11. COBA-PC&A-CIVILSER-ARCADIS. Construç~ao da Travessia do
Tejo no Carregado Sublanço A1/Benavente, da A10 Auto-
Estrada Bucelas/Carregado/IC3, vol. III. “Viaduto Sul”.
Empreitada de Concepç~ao. Lisbon, Portugal: Projecto e Con-
struç~ao da Travessia do Tejo no Carregado, 2005d in Portuguese.
12. TACE. Construç~ao da Travessia do Tejo no Carregado Sublanço
A1/ Benavente, da A10 Auto-Estrada Buce-las/Carregado/IC3:
Plano de Qualidade. Portugal: Lisbon, 2007 in Portuguese.
13. Sousa H, Bento J, Figueiras J. Construction assessment and
long-term prediction of prestressed concrete bridges based on
monitoring data. Eng Struct. 2013a;52:26–37. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.02.003.
14. Sousa H, Sousa C, Neves A, Bento J, Figueiras J. Long-term
monitoring and assessment of a precast continuous viaduct.
Struct Infrastruct Eng. 2013b;9(8):777–793. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15732479.2011.614260.
15. Sousa H, Bento J, Figueiras J. Assessment and Management of
Concrete Bridges Supported by monitoring data-based finite-
12
element modeling. J Bridg Eng. 2014;19(6):05014002. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000604.
16. European Committee for Standardization. Design of concrete
structures—Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildings,
Eurocode 2: EN January 1, 1992. Brussels, Belgium: CEN, 2004.
17. Santos TO. Concrete shrinkage in bridges: Observation and
analysis (PhD thesis). Lisbon, Portugal: LNEC; (2007).
18. Sousa C, Sousa H, Neves AS, Figueiras J. Numerical evaluation
of the long-term behavior of precast continuous bridge decks.
J Bridg Eng. 2012;17(1):89–96. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0000233.
19. Barr BIG, Vitek JL, Beygi MA. Seasonal shrinkage variation in
bridge segments. Mater Struct. 1997;30(2):106–111. https://doi.
org/10.1007/bf02486311.
20. Kristek V, Bazant ZP, Zich M, Kohoutkova A. Box girder
deflections: Why is the initial trend deceptive? ACI Concr Int.
2006;28(1):55–63.
21. Malm R, Sundquist H. Time-dependent analyses of segmentally
constructed balanced cantilever bridges. Eng Struct. 2010;32(4):
1038–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.030.
22. Sousa C, Neves A. DIANA user-supplied subroutine for concrete
creep modelling. Porto, Portugal: University of Porto, 2009.
23. Coba-PC&A-Civilser-Arcadis. Construç~ao da Travessia do Tejo
no Carregado Sublanço A1/Benavente, da A10 Auto-Estrada
Bucelas/Carregado/IC3, Empreitada de Concepç~ao, Projecto e
Construç~ao da Travessia do Tejo no Carregado, Vol. IV, Estudo
Geológico e Geotécnico. Portugal: Lisbon, 2005b in Portuguese.
24. DIANA FEA bv. DIANA – Finite element analysis release
notes release 10.3. TNO DIANA, BV. Delftechpark, Delft: The
Netherlands, 2019.
25. Sousa H, Figueiras J. Experimental evaluation of thermal com-
pensation for vibrating wire strain gauges placed in concrete
prisms. Internal report. LABEST, Faculty of Engineering, Uni-
versity of Porto, Portugal, 2009 in Portuguese.
SOUSA
26. Standardization European Committee. Eurocode 1 – Actions
on structures. Part 1–5: General actions; thermal actions. Brus-
sels, Belgium: CEN, 2009.
27. Kada H, Lachemi M, Petrov N, Bonneau O, Aïtcin P-C. Deter-
mination of the coefficient of thermal expansion of high perfor-
mance concrete from initial setting. Mater Struct. 2002;35(1):
35–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02482088.
28. Sousa H, Félix C, Bento J, Figueiras J. Design and implementa-
tion of a monitoring system applied to a long-span prestressed
concrete bridge. Struct Concr. 2011;12(2):82–93. https://doi.
org/10.1002/suco.201000014.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Helder Sousa, PhD
Department of Research & Innova-
tion, HS Consulting
Matosinhos, Portugal
mail@hfmousousa.com
How to cite this article: Sousa H. Advanced FE
modeling supported by monitoring toward
management of large civil infrastructures: The case
study of Lezíria Bridge. Structural Concrete. 2020;
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900382