Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures -

High Performance, Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Special Loadings and Structural Applications- B. H. Oh, et al. (eds)
ⓒ 2010 Korea Concrete Institute, ISBN 978-89-5708-182-2

Cracking analysis of brick masonry arch bridge

J. M. Chandra Kishen & Ananth Ramaswamy
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India

ABSTRACT: In this work, details of field measurements undertaken at a brick masonry arch bridge under
design train traffic and analytical work based on non-linear fracture mechanics are presented. A parametric
study is done to study the effects of tensile strength on the progress of cracking in the arch. Further, a stability
analysis to assess collapse of the arch due to lateral movement at the springing, in particular near the partially
filled land arches is done. The margin of safety with respect to cracking and stability failure is computed.
Conclusions are drawn on the overall safety of the bridge.

1 INTRODUCTION hancing the permitted axle load to 25t immediately

Most of the railway bridges in the Indian Railway
system that have been built several decades ago have
deteriorated both in terms of strength and stiffness
due to a variety of reasons. These bridges have been
designed for live loads and service conditions that
have changed drastically with time. Increased axle
loads and traffic density have necessitated bridge
owners to get the bridge condition assessed in order
to determine their residual structural strength and
identify strengthening measures to be taken for safe
performance.
Condition assessment provides information re-
garding the intensity and extent of observed defects,
the cause for these defects and possible deterioration
processes that have strong impact on the safety and
service life of structures. Furthermore, this informa-
tion forms the basis for estimating the residual struc-
tural capacity and possible remedial work that needs
to be undertaken.
The present study focuses on a brick masonry
arch bridge in the South Western Railway zone of
the Indian Railways. The bridge has been con-
structed with brick masonry with possibly a com-
pacted granular soil infill and dates back to the
1870’s when it was part of a meter gauge line. Over
the years, the passenger and freight traffic have in-
creased on this section and the section has been
transformed through a gauge conversion to broad
gauge traffic. The permitted axle load untill a few
years ago was classified as 18t axle load and has
subsequently undergone an upward revision to 22t
axle based on an in-house assessment undertaken by
the Indian Railways. At present, there has been a
growth in freight traffic in this section, in particular
for iron ore and coal movement, and the Indian
Railways is considering the possibility of further en-
with possible further upward revisions at a later date.
The condition assessment of the bridges in this
section has been initiated with a view to understand
the present state of the bridge and the ramifications
of increasing the payload on the bridge with or with-
out any intervention for structural enhancement. In
this paper, details of field measurements undertaken
at the bridge under design train traffic and fracture
mechanics based finite element analysis are pre-
sented. Conclusions are drawn with some remarks
on the state of the bridge within the framework of
the information available and inferred.
2 DETAILS OF BRIDGE
The bridge considered in this study is a brick ma-
sonry arch bridge built in the 1870’s on a meter
gauge section. The bridge consists of two major
arches across a water fall with spans of 17.7m and
17.3m (Fig. 1) at springing level and a few smaller
arches of approximately 7.7m that are land arches
and partially closed. The carriage width of the bridge
is 8.8m and is slightly curved in plan and has a steep
rising gradient of 1 in 30. The railway line alignment
is eccentric with respect to the bridge centerline. The
arch has a central rise of about 4.5 meters. The rings
of the arch are about 0.93m in thickness across the
arch barrel, with a brick masonry facing on either
side rising up to the top of the bridge with a parapet
of a meter height on either side. The abutments and
piers appear to consist of brick masonry that has
been encased in reinforced concrete during an earlier
intervention. The piers and abutments rest on bed
rock. The pier width is about 3.82m at the base and
varies over the height. Figure 1 shows the schematic
sketch of the bridge.
 J = − D ( h , T ) ∇h

The proportionality coefficient D(h,T)

moisture permeability and it is a nonlinea
of the relative humidity h and temperature
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
that the variation in time of the water mas
volume of concrete (water content w) be eq
divergence of the moisture flux J

− ∂ = ∇•J
Figure 1. Schematic sketch of brick masonry arch bridge. w
(Left end: Kulem (K) end; Right end: Castle Rock (CR) end).
∂ in BFR wagon.
Figure 2. Spacing of axles
t

3 INSTRUMENTATION The water content w can be expressed a

of the evaporable water we (capillary wa
A 64 channel data acquisition system (M/s vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-e
Dewetron, Austria) was used for acquiring the data (chemically bound) water wn (Mil
continuously from all the sensors. The sensors used Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reas
with this acquisition system consisted of linear vari- assume that the evaporable water is a fu
able differential transformer (LVDT) to measure relative humidity, h, degree of hydration
displacements, namely, vertical crown displace- degree of silica fume reaction, αs, i.e. we=w
ments and horizontal springing displacements; elec- = age-dependent sorption/desorption
trical resistance strain gauges to measure surface (Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
strains in a particular direction, either along the by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
circumferential direction of the arch or the arch bar- obtains
rel at the crown, quarter and three quarter point and
∂w ∂h ∂w
∂w
Figure 3. Spacing of axles in BOXNEL wagon.
− e e
α&c + e α&s + w
springing levels and on the rails; vibrating wire
+ ∇ • ( D ∇h ) =
strain gauges mounted on the arch and parapet; uni- ∂h ∂t h ∂α
∂α
axial and tri-axial accelerometers to measure the ac- c
Quasi-static Moving Load Test : A train formation
s
celeration levels in terms of ‘g’ levels at the track
level (sleepers) and corresponding locations on the where ∂we/∂h isintheeach,
slopetwo
consisting of two locomotive engines (WDG4), two
of the sorption/
arch surface. A temperature sensor was fixed on the isotherm
BFR wagons with 152 sleepers
(also called moisture
goods
capac
bridge to measure the variations in the temperature. governing equation (Equation 3)
wagon filled with 25 t axle load with four axles each
must be
A tilt sensor was placed on the vertical surface of the by appropriate boundary
(BOXNEL whose axle spacing are shown in Figure
and
3), followed by two locomotive engines (WDG3A),
initial conditi
pier. The LVDTs were located on the arch surface The relation between the amount of e
and strain gauges were located on the arch intrados, water and relative humidity is called ‘‘
was positioned on the bridge at different pre-
parapet and rail. isotherm” if measured with increasing
determined locations and measurements were taken.
humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm” in th
At the start of the test, the first wheel of WDG4
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
wagon was placed on the left springing position of
4 LOADING SCHEMES the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be
span 1. The test progressed with subsequent wheels
of the formation occupying this first reference point
reference to both sorption and desorption c
A series of four major loading tests: static load tests; By the way, if the hysteresis of the
is succession. Since the formation had forty wheels,
quasi-static moving load tests; speed tests and longi- isotherm would be taken into account, two
the same number of measurements was taken. This
tudinal load tests were carried out over a four-day relation, evaporable water vs relative humi
test was performed to obtain the variations in deflec-
period. In this study, only the first two tests are used be used according to the sign of the varia
tions and strains for different positions of the load.
and hence are described in detail. relativity humidity. The shape of the
Such variations are typically determined in computa-
tional models using the well known method of influ-
isotherm for HPC is influenced by many p
Static Load Test: Two BRN wagons whose axles
ence lines.
especially those that influence extent and
spacings are shown in Figure 2 and loaded with 200 chemical reactions and, in turn, determ
(approx. 20.75 T axle load), 184, 168 and 152 structure and pore size distribution (water-
prestressed concrete sleepers were placed on the ratio, cement chemical composition, SF
5 RESULTS OF FIELD TESTS
bridge structure at a fixed position. The two wagons curing time and method, temperature, mix
In this section, the results of the various field tests
could apply a static load on both the spans of the etc.). In the literature various formulatio
bridge. Displacements and strains were measured at found to describe the sorption isotherm
conducted on the arch bridge as indicated in Section
various locations on the bridge for each load level of concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
4 have been presented.
this test. paper the semi-empirical expression pro
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

5.1 D (h, T )∇ofh static tests
J = −Results (1) explicitly accountsstrains
The tangential for the evolution
in span 1 alongofthe
hydration
center-
reaction
line of theand SFarecontent.
track shown inThis sorption
Figure 4. Theisotherm
strains
Table 1. Vertical deflections at the crown.
The proportionalitySpan
Load coefficient
1 Span 2 is called
D(h,T) readsminimum and almost zero near the crown and
are
moisture permeability mm and it is a nonlinear
mm function maximum near the right springing position. Figure 5
of 184
the sleepers
168 relative humidity0.55
sleepers h and temperature
0.49 0.30 T (Bažant shows the tangential strains ⎡ along the width ⎤ of the
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass 0.60
balance requires arch at the crown position.
we (hone
, α , α ) = G (α , α ) 1 −
⎢ It may be1 mentioned ⎥
+ here
200 sleepers 0.57 0.60
that the variation in time of the water mass per unit c micro
s c corresponds
s ⎢ 10(g α to ∞ ⎥
c − α cin)h ⎥⎦the ma-
that strain
1 approximately
volume of response
concrete in
(water
termscontent w) bedeflection
equal to the ⎢ e) of1 stress
2
The static of vertical at
0.0018 MPa (0.018 kg/mm ⎣ (4)
divergence of the moisture flux J
the crown central position is shown in Table 1. The
sonry. It is seen that the strains are largest near the
⎡ 10(g α ∞ − α )h ⎤
eccentric position (far end
K1 (αthe c
of1 the c
barrel
− 1⎥ arch)
of
s )⎢e line of rail location.
c , αcentre
observed differences in the displacements of the two ⎢
− ∂w =are
when compared to ⎥
spans (2)
∇ • Jindicative of the mild asymmetric nature ⎣ ⎦
that∂t exists in the arch geometry.

The water content w can be expressed as the sum where the first term (gel isotherm) represents the
of the evaporable water we (capillary water, water physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-evaporable term (capillary isotherm) represents the capillary
(chemically bound) water wn (Mills 1966, water. This expression is valid only for low content
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to of SF. The coefficient G1 represents the amount of
assume that the evaporable water is a function of water per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration, αc, and relative humidity, and it can be expressed (Norling
degree of silica fume reaction, αs, i.e. we=we(h,αc,αs) Mjornell 1997) as
= age-dependent sorption/desorption isotherm
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and c α c+ ks α s
G (α c α s ) = k vg (5)
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one 1
,
c vg s
obtains
where kcvg and ksvg are material parameters. From the
∂w the rail
∂w 4.∂hTangential strains along maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
− e
Figure
+ ∇ • ( D ∇h ) = e α ∂wcenterline.
eα w
&+ &+ & (3) fill all pores (both capillary pores and gel pores), one
∂h ∂t h ∂α c
∂α s n
can calculate K1 as one obtains
c s
where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/desorption ⎡
⎢ 10⎜
⎛
g α c∞ − α c ⎞⎟h ⎤⎥
isotherm (also called moisture capacity). The w α s + 0.22α s G
− 0.188
c s − ⎢1 − e ⎝ 1 ⎠
⎥

governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed (6)

0 1
⎢ ⎥
K (α c α s ) = ⎣ ⎦
by appropriate boundary and initial conditions. 1
,
⎛
g αc − αc h
∞ ⎞

The relation between the amount of evaporable

10⎜ ⎟
e ⎝ 1
− ⎠ 1

water and relative humidity is called ‘‘adsorption

isotherm” if measured with increasing relativity The material parameters kcvg and ksvg and g1 can
humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm” in the opposite be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant to
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al. 1994), in free (evaporable) water content in concrete at
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be used with various ages (Di Luzio & Cusatis 2009b).
reference to both sorption and desorption conditions.
By the
Figure way, ifstrain
5.Tangential thealong
hysteresis ofSpan
the barrel of the1. moisture 2.2 Temperature evolution
Figure 7. Maximum strains measured in Span 1 and Span 2
isotherm would be taken into account, two different during the quasi-static test.
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must Note that, at early age, since the chemical reactions
be used according to the sign of the variation of the associated with cement hydration and SF reaction
relativity humidity. The shape of the sorption areFigure
exothermic, the the
6 shows temperature
transversefield is notalong
strains uniform
the
isotherm for HPC is influenced by many parameters, for non-adiabatic
crown for differentsystems evenofif loading.
magnitude the environmental
It is seen
especially those that influence extent and rate of the temperature
that is constant.
all the transverse Heatareconduction
strains tensile in can be
nature.
chemical reactions and, in turn, determine pore described
The maximumin concrete,
value ofattransverse
least for temperature
tensile strainnotis
structure and pore size distribution (water-to-cement exceeding
about 100°C (Bažant
17 microstrains & 2 Kaplan to1996),
which corresponds by
a tensile
ratio, cement chemical composition, SF content, Fourier’s
stress law, which
of about readskg/mm . This value is less
0.00306
curing time and method, temperature, mix additives, than the codal permissible value [Code A, Rule A]
etc.). In the literature various formulations can be = − λ∇Tkg/mm2 in tension.
ofq 0.011 (7)
found to describe the sorption isotherm of normal
concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in the present where q is the heat flux, T is the absolute
paper 6.the
Figure semi-empirical
Transverse expression
strains at crown of Span proposed by
1 for different
temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity; in this
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because it
magnitude of loads.

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

5.2 Results of quasi-static moving load test a modulus of 1800J MPa = − D (and
h, T )∇ahPoisson’s ratio of 0.2.
The soil infill has been idealized to have modulus of
The influence line like study indicates that the maxi-
mum vertical displacement on the crown is about
800 MPa with a Poisson’sThe proportionality
ratio of 0.18. A coefficient
relatively D(h,T)
0.88 mm and the maximum horizontal springing de- moisture permeability and assumed
small tensile strength of 0.3 MPa has been it is a nonlinea
flection is 0.1mm at abutment and 0.17 mm in the of thea relative
for the masonry with humidity
similar value h and
of 0.3 MPa temperature
for
central pier in span 1. In span 2 the maximum verti- & Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
the infill. These values are obtained through an itera-
tive process of that
model the calibration
variation inusing
time ofthethefield
water mas
cal deflection at the crown is 0.75 mm, while the
measurements ofvolume of concrete (water content
the static load – deflection andw) be eq
springing deflection in the abutment was 0.01mm
and -1.4mm / +1.2mm in the central pier due to a 25
quasi-static movingdivergence of theThe
load studies. moisture
boundaryfluxcon-
J
dition on the vertical face of the abutment (left end
t axle load. The negative value implies horizontal
− ∂w =of∇ the
of span 2) is restrained in the longitudinal traffic di-
movement of the central pier to the left (Kulem side, • J abutments and central
Fig. 1) and the positive value represents horizontal
rection and the base ∂t
pier have been constrained in the vertical direction.
movement towards Castle Rock side (Fig. 1). It may
The boundary at theThe water
right sidecontent
abutmentw can
of be
spanexpressed
1 a
be mentioned here that the LVDT was mounted on
the repaired (encased) concrete at the springing of the evaporable water we (capillary wa
has been elastically constrained for longitudinal
movement using vapor,linear and adsorbed
springs (the water)
value ofandthis
the non-e
level. The large values of horizontal deflection sug-
reported later).bound) water w (Mil
spring constant is(chemically
gests that delamination (separation) of the repaired n
concrete from the parent masonry pier could have Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reas
The following assume that been
studies have the evaporable
undertaken:water is a fu
occurred.
Figure 7 shows the maximum compressive and relative humidity, h, degree of hydration
tensile strains measured at different locations on the
1. degree
Simulation of silica
of static fume
load – deflection
s, i.e. we=w
reaction, αtest
bridge. The maximum value of strain is reckoned = age-dependent sleepers
(BFR wagons carrying PSC sorption/desorption
posi-
tioned as(Norling Mjonell
in the field 1997). Under this assum
studies).
across the measured responses taken for all forty
placements of the formation on the bridge.
2. by substituting Equation
Simulation of quasi-static 1 into
moving load test Equati
obtains
(25 t axle load BOXNEL wagons arranged
at critical position as in the field studies)
3. Parametric studies varying tensile strength
6 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ∂w ∂h ∂w ∂w
e +and e α& e α& + w
Dh ∇h)and c +
of brick −masonry ∇ • ( filler = the bound-
In this section, details of finite element modeling of
∂h ∂ t
ary condition of the abutment of span ∂α
c 1 ons ∂α s

the Castle Rock end. It may be recalled

the arch bridge under various loading conditions
have been presented. The analysis is done using the where
that a few smaller
∂we/∂h ispresent
land the slope
arches of of the sorption/
approxi-
finite element program ATENA (Cervenka & Pukl, isotherm
mately 7.7m span (also
are called
on moisture
the Castle capac
2007). The Atena software has been used to study
Rock end governing
closed. by
of Span equation
1 that(Equation 3) must be
are partially
the bridge under monotonically increasing loads po- appropriate
Hence, this boundary
boundary is and initial
simulated conditi
sitioned as in rail load configurations with a view to
by providing The relation between the amount of e
springs and also by restrain-
understand cracking in masonry and its propagation. water and relative humidity is called ‘‘
ing it completely.
Furthermore, parametric studies have been under- isotherm” if measured with increasing
taken by considering the tensile strength of brick 6.1 Simulation humidity and test
of static load ‘‘desorption isotherm” in th
masonry and filler and the boundary conditions as case.
In this study, the the
Neglecting their
twofollowing,
difference (Xi et al.
parameters.
BFR wagons ‘‘sorption
with PSC isotherm”
sleep-will be
The masonry arch bridge with a soil infill has reference
ers (as detailed above) to both
are placed onsorption and
the bridge desorption
with c
been idealized as composed of two isotropic homo- By
loads coinciding with the
the way,
axle if
position the ashysteresis
in the field of the
geneous materials, namely, masonry and filler. A
test. isotherm would be taken into account, two
two dimensional plane stress model of the bridge has relation,
The vertical deflection evaporable
obtained atwater vs
the crown relative
of humi
been used in this study. The finite element package
span 1 is 0.55 mm be with
used according
as against to theThe
a measured sign of the
value of varia
ATENA encompasses many material model formu-
0.57 mm for BFR relativity 200humidity.
sleepers. The vertical
shape of the
corre-
lations for quasi-brittle concrete like materials, such
sponding value of isotherm
computed for HPC
and is0.54
influenced
measured by many p
as a bi-axial failure surface with different tension especially
deflection at the crown those
of span 2 isthat influence
mm andextent 0.6 and
and compression thresholds, post crack strain soften-
mm. This indicates chemical
that the reactions
materialand, inforturn,
properties of determ
ing based on exponential and multi-linear softening, structure
modulus of elasticity
masonry and the ratio,
and and analysis
pore sizeare
Poisson’s ratio distribution
used the (water-
specific fracture energy of the material, compression
ment with the curing
cement chemical
infill in the composition,
in agree- SF
softening in cracked concrete and other fracture time
deformations and method,
observed temperature,
at field, mix
based parameters, such as crack interface shear
thereby calibratingetc.). In the literature
the material model. various formulatio
transfer. found to describe the sorption isotherm
A two-dimensional plane stress finite element 6.2 Simulation concrete (Xi etmoving
of quasi-static al. 1994). load However,
test in th
model for the masonry arch bridge is shown in Fig- paper
In this study, the Norling
the semi-empirical expression pro
ure 8. The brick masonry has been assumed to have
entire rakeMjornell
used for(1997)this testisas adopted
scribed above is used for applying the load on the
de- b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 J = − D (in
bridge h, Ta )sequential
∇h way. One particular position(1) explicitly
cracks are accounts
developedfor when the the
evolution
axle loadof due
hydration
to the
of the rake on the bridge which causes maximum ef- reaction and
BOXNEL SF to
reaches content.
about 105 Thist. sorption
The load isotherm
configu-
Thehasproportionality
fects been simulated.coefficient
Figures 8 D(h,T) is called
and 9, show the reads used is the same as shown in Figure 9. In the
ration
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear function
finite element model and load positions, respec- analysis the axle loads on the BOXNEL wagons are
of the relative humidity h and temperature T (Bažant
tively. increased in steps of 5 t from ⎡ an initial value⎤ of 25 t.
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires The corresponding loads⎢ of the 1681 sleepers⎥ loaded
we (h, αwagons
that the variation in time of the water mass per unit BRN c , α s ) = Gare
1
(α , α ) 1 −
cscaleds ⎢ up10(proportionately.
∞ ⎥
g1α c − α c )h ⎥
+ The
volume of concrete (water content w) be equal to the boundary of the abutment ⎢
⎣ of e span 1 on the (4)
⎦ Castle
divergence of the moisture flux J Rock end (Fig. 1) is assumed to be on springs. The
⎡ 10(g α ∞ − α )h ⎤
1 c c
spring constant (1300 N/mm) is calibrated
K1 (α25
c , αt son)⎢ethe BOXNEL wagons,
⎢ − 1⎥ that
such
− ∂ = ∇•J
for an axle load of ⎥ the
w
(2) deflection at the crown of⎣ spans 1 and 2 match ⎦
∂ t
with
the field measurements.
The water content w can be expressed as the sum where the first term (gel isotherm) represents the
of the evaporable water we (capillary water, water physically bound (adsorbed) water and the second
vapor,8.and term (capillary isotherm) represents the capillary
Figure Finiteadsorbed water)
element model withand the non-evaporable
boundary conditions. water. This expression is valid only for low content
(chemically bound) water wn (Mills 1966, of SF. The coefficient G1 represents the amount of
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to water per unit volume held in the gel pores at 100%
assume that the evaporable water is a function of relative humidity, and it can be expressed (Norling
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration, αc, and Mjornell 1997) as
degree of silica fume reaction, αs, i.e. we=we(h,αc,αs)
= age-dependent sorption/desorption isotherm
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assumption and c α c+ ks α s
G (α c α s ) = k vg (5)
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one 1
,
c vg s
obtains9. Loads on the finite element model.
Figure
where kcvg and ksvg are material parameters. From the
∂w ∂h ∂w maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
− e +2∇shows
Table • ( D ∇hthe e α of∂wthis
) = results
e α simulation(3)
&+ & + w&
at fill all 10.
Figure pores (both capillary
Maximum Principal pores
Stress and gel pores),
(without one
self weight)
∂h ∂t h ∂α c
∂α s n
can calculate K1 as one obtains
versus Axle Load at Crown of Span 1.
c s
various points together with the field results for the
loading configuration as in Figure 9. This loading
configuration is the slope ofto the
where ∂we/∂h corresponds onesorption/desorption
of an episode of ⎡
⎢ 10⎜
⎛
g α c∞ − α c ⎞⎟h ⎤⎥
isotherm (also called moisture capacity).
the quasi-static load test that results The
in the highest w α s + 0.22α s G
− 0.188
c s − ⎢1 − e ⎝ 1 ⎠
⎥

governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed (6)

0 1
crown vertical displacement. ⎢ ⎥
K (α c α s ) = ⎣ ⎦
by appropriate boundary and initial conditions. 1
,
⎛
g αc − αc h
∞ ⎞

The relation between theanalysis.

amount of evaporable
10⎜ ⎟
Table 2. Results of finite element
e ⎝ 1 ⎠− 1

water and relative humidity is calledSpan

Description Span 1
‘‘adsorption
2
isotherm” if measured with increasing relativity
Crown displacements The material parameters kcvg and ksvg and g1 can
humidity and
Computed (mm) ‘‘desorption0.64 isotherm” in0.3the opposite be calibrated by fitting experimental data relevant to
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et0.2al. 1994), in
Measured (mm) 0.68 free (evaporable) water content in concrete at
theCrown
following,
strains ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be used with various ages (Di Luzio & Cusatis 2009b).
reference
Computed to(microstrain)
both sorption 10.7and desorption 1.26conditions.
By the way, if the hysteresis of Not
Measured (microstrain) 8.35
the meas-
ured moisture 2.2 Temperature evolution
isotherm would be taken into account, two different
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must Note that,
Figure at early
11. Vertical age, since
Deflection the of
at Crown chemical reactions
Span 1 versus Axle
be used
6.3 accordingstudy
Parametric to the sign of the variation of the associated with cement hydration and SF reaction
Load.
relativity humidity.
In the parametric study, Thetheshape of configuration
loading the sorption are exothermic, the temperature field is not uniform
isotherm
used in theforquasi-static
HPC is influenced
test and by manyinparameters,
shown Figure 4.3 forFigure
non-adiabatic
10 shows systems
the ploteven
of ifmaximum
the environmental
principal
is considered. The tensile strength of and
especially those that influence extent the rate
brickofma-
the temperature
stress is constant.
at the crown of SpanHeat
1 with conduction
respect to can be
the ap-
chemical reactions and, in turn, determine
sonry and the filler and the boundary condition at the pore described
plied axle inload.concrete, at least
From this figure,forit temperature not
is seen that the
structure and
abutment pore1size
of span has distribution
been varied (water-to-cement
to study their in- exceeding
rise 100°C (Bažant
in the maximum principal& stress
Kaplanis only
1996),about
by
ratio, cement chemical composition,
fluence on the crack widths and the failure SFmode.
content, Fourier’s
0.1 MPa for law,anwhich readsof 100 t axle load which is
increase
curing time and method, temperature, mix additives, quite small. Furthermore, at 25 t axle load and with-
etc.).
No In the Analysis
Cracking literature various formulations can be q = the
out − λ∇Tself weight, the maximum principal stress (7)
found to describe the sorption isotherm of normal near the crown is 0.0245 MPa (0.16 MPa with self
concrete
The finite(Xi et al. analyses
element 1994). However,
are doneinbythe present
assuming where qSince
weight). is no
the cracking
heat flux, T is theat this
was observed absolute
load
paper the semi-empirical expression
higher values of tensile strength of the brick ma- proposed by temperature, and λ is the heat conductivity; in this
in the field studies, it is expected that the minimum
sonry and the filler material in such a way that noit
Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted because

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

tensile strength of the masonry arch is over by the code itself. D (h, Thorizontal
J = −The ) ∇h deflection ob-
0.16MPa. served at other springing (Figs. 13 – 15) is less than
Figure 11 shows the vertical deflection at the The ofproportionality
0.2 mm for an axle load 105 t. coefficient D(h,T)
crown of span 1 with the self weight and increasing moisture permeability and it is a nonlinea
live load. The live load corresponding to a relative of the relative humidity h and temperature
displacement of 1.2 mm (Code A) caused by live & Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balanc
load alone is 45 t. This corresponds to a margin of that the variation in time of the water mas
safety at 25 t equal to 1.8. This margin of safety is volume of concrete (water content w) be eq
over and above the margin already provided by the divergence of the moisture flux J
code. For completeness, the vertical crown deflec-
− ∂ = ∇•J
tion of Span 2 are also computed and are found to be w
lower than those in Span 1 since this part of the span ∂ t
is subjected to loads lower than those in Span 1.
The water content w can be expressed a
of the evaporable water we (capillary wa
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-e
(chemically bound) water wn (Mil
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reas
Figure 14. Horizontal Deflection at Springing of Span 2 (CR-
assume that the evaporable water is a fu
end) versus Axle Load.
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration
degree of silica fume reaction, αs, i.e. we=w
= age-dependent sorption/desorption
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
obtains
∂w ∂h
− e + ∇ • ( D ∇h) = ∂we ∂w
α&c + e α&s + w
∂h ∂t h ∂α ∂α
Figure 12. Horizontal Deflection at Springing of Span 1
c s
(CR-end) versus Axle Load.
where ∂we/∂h is the slope of the sorption/
isotherm (also called moisture capac
governing equation (Equation 3) must be
by appropriate boundary and initial conditi
The relation between the amount of e
water and relative
Figure 15. Horizontal Deflection at Springing humidity
of Span is called ‘‘
2 (K-
isotherm”
end) versus Axle Load. if measured with increasing
humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm” in th
case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
Cracking analysisthe following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be
reference to both sorption and desorption c
A cracking analysisBy isthe way,outifto the
carried hysteresis
determine if theof the
failure of the archisotherm
bridge would
takes placebe takendue into account, two
to exces-
sive cracking nearrelation,
the crownevaporable
or by any water vs mode.
other relative humi
be of
The tensile strength used according
brick masonrytoofthe signMPa
0.20 of the
is varia
Figure 13. Horizontal Deflection at Springing of Span 1 used and the analysis is carried out by applying the of the
relativity humidity. The shape
(K-end) versus Axle Load. self weight and isotherm for HPC
incrementally is influenced
increasing by many p
the axle
loads on the BOXNELespecially thoseinthat
wagons influence
steps of 5 t. extent
The and
corresponding loadschemical
of the 168reactions
sleepersand, in BRN
loaded turn, determ
Figures 12 to 15 show the horizontal deflection at wagons are scaled up proportionately. It was found (water-
structure and pore size distribution
the springing of abutment and piers of span 1 and ratio,to crack
that the crown starts cementat an chemical
axle load composition,
of 15 t. SF
span 2 respectively with increasing axle load. curingcontinues
The cracking process time andand method,
at antemperature,
axle load mix
From Figure 12 it is seen that for a relative dis- of 40 t the crack etc.).
reachesIn the
the entire
literature variousof formulatio
thickness the
placement (i.e., due to live load alone) of 0.2 mm found to describe the
brick arch. The crack widths from this incremental sorption isotherm
(Code A) at the springing the corresponding live analysis is plottedconcrete
against the(Xiaxleet al.load1994). However,
in Figure 16. in th
load is 65 t. This offers a margin of safety at 25 t It is seen that thepaper
crackthe semi-empirical
widths increase at expression
a faster pro
axle load of 2.6 over and above the margin offered rate after 40t axleNorling
load thatMjornell
is when(1997) the crackis adopted
has b

Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010

 J = − D ( h , T )∇
propagated h
through (1)
the entire thickness of the brick explicitly
life. Due toaccounts
repeatedfor the evolution
loading of hydration
over a period of time
arch. Thereafter, on increasing the axle load the reaction120and
(about SF stiffness
years), content. degradation
This sorption and isotherm
damage
Thewidth
crack proportionality coefficient
increases without D(h,T)
the crack is called
propagating reads
accumulation could have taken place and hence the
moisture permeability and it is a nonlinear
further. The arch softens considerable duefunction
to in- major principal stress near the crown region is in-
of the relative
creased opening humidity h and temperature
of the crack. T (Bažant
The final failure may ferred to be tensile. ⎡ ⎤
& Najjar 1972). The moisture mass balance requires
take place due to cracking at the crown of the arch. Empirical relations are
we (h, α cthat
, α ) = G (α , α ) 1 −
⎢ developed, 1 ⎥
especially
+ for
that the variation in time of the water mass per unit metals, s relate
1 cthe sapplied
⎢
10(g α
∞
stress ⎥value of
− α c )h ⎥
(peak
the fluctuating load) and⎢⎣ theenumber 1 c of cycles
volume
100 of concrete (water content w) be equal to the
⎦ N (4) re-
divergence
90 of the moisture flux J quired to cause the failure. This relation is generally
⎡ 10(g α ∞ − α )h ⎤
known as the S – N curve. The1 c
majorc drawback of
80
K (α c , α s ) eis that it does not
the S – N curve 1approach
⎢ − 1⎥explore
− ∂ = ∇•J
70
⎢ ⎥
w
60 (2) the mechanisms of failure⎣ and it does not distinguish ⎦
∂
Load (t)

t 50
between crack initiation life and crack propagation
40
The water content w can be expressed as the sum whereonly
life, thethefirst term fatigue
overall (gel isotherm) representsFur-
life is considered. the
physicallyinbound (adsorbed)there water and theanysecond
30
of the evaporable water we (capillary water, water
20 thermore,
term (capillary
this approach, is hardly con-
vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-evaporable
10 sideration on sizeisotherm)
effects: that represents the capillary
is, data generated on
(chemically water. This expression is valid only for low content
0.1 bound) 0.3water (Mills 0.71966,
0
w0.5 small size specimen in a laboratory is directly ap-
of SF.onThe largecoefficient G1 represents the data
amounton S of
0 0.2 0.4 n 0.6
Pantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reasonable to plied size components. Also, the –
Crack Width (mm)
assume that the evaporable water is a function of water
N per has
curve unit avolume held insuggesting
large scatter the gel poresthat atthe100%
for-
relative humidity, h, degree of hydration, αc, and relative humidity,
mulation needs to and be moreit canrigorous.
be expressed (Norling
To overcome
degree16.ofCrack
Figure silicawidth
fumeversus
reaction,
axle loadαs,ati.e. we=ofwSpan
crown e(h,α1.
c,αs)
Mjornell 1997) as
these drawbacks of the S – N curve approach, more
= age-dependent sorption/desorption isotherm sophisticated models are developed using the con-
(Norling Mjonell c αmechanics. s α s In this theory of fracture
with 1997).
tractiveUnder
forcesthis due assumption
to braking and G1 (α cof
,α ) = k
c c +isk vgassumed (5)
cepts fracture
6.4 Analysis
by substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 one mechanics, s a vgcrack s to exist at the posi-
obtains
A longitudinal tractive force analysis is carried out tion where maximum tensile stress occurs. The rate
by including horizontal forces at the rail level at where
of kcvg and of
propagation arecrack
ksvgthis materialwithparameters.
respect to the From num-the
∂w position
wheel we 35∂twbased
equal to ∂about on an aver- maximum amount of water per unit volume that can
ber of cycles of fatigue load is computed and this de-
age e ∂h +measured
− field ∇ • ( D ∇hvalue.
) = α&
For +
this e α& + w&a tensile
analysis, (3) fill allthepores
fines (bothlifecapillary
fatigue pores and gel
of the component pores), one
/ structure.
∂h ∂t of 0.2 MPa h is∂αassumed c
∂αfor both
s n
can calculate K1 as one obtains
strength c s the brick
masonry and the filler material. From this analysis, it The simplest crack propagation law is the Paris law
where
was ∂we/∂h that
observed is thecracking
slope ofinitiated
the sorption/desorption
at the crown of which is defined by [Kumar 1999] ⎡
⎢ ⎜ g α − α ⎟h ⎥
⎛
10
∞
c c
⎞ ⎤

isotherm (also called moisture capacity).

Span 1 at a live load of 65 t, offering a marginThe of w −0.188 α s + α s −G ⎢ −e
c 0.22
s 1
⎝ 1 ⎠
⎥
da
governing equation (Equation 3) must be completed ⎦ (6)
0 1
safety of 2.6 with respect to a 25 t axle load. Fur- ⎢ ⎥
KdN(α c =α C
m
(∆ K ) ⎣ (1)
by appropriate
thermore, boundary
no cracks wereand initial conditions.
observed at the springing 1
,
s )=
⎛
g α ∞
α ⎞
h
e ⎝ c c⎠ −
−
Thepierrelation between the amount of thatevaporable ⎜
10 ⎟
of the and abutments, suggesting the hing- 1
1

water and relative humidity is called ‘‘adsorption

ing mode of failure is unlikely. It may be noted where a is the crack length, N is the number of cy-
isotherm” if measured with increasing relativity
here that the failure of the arch through the forma- clesThe materialload,
of fatigue parameters
(∆K) is the and ksintensity
kcvgstress vg and g 1 can
factor
humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm” in the opposite
tion of hinge near the crown can take place if there is be calibrated
range, C and mbyare fitting experimental
material constants.data relevant to
case. Neglecting
excessive theirmovement
horizontal difference at(Xitheet springing
al. 1994), ofin free (evaporable) water content in concrete at
the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be used with
the abutment. various ages (DilifeLuzio
The fatigue & Cusatis
estimation for 2009b).
the arch bridge is
reference to both sorption and desorption conditions. done using the above Paris law. The material pa-
By the way, if the hysteresis of the moisture rameters for mortar used in the present case for ma-
2.2 Temperature
7isotherm would beOF
ESTIMATION taken into account,
FATIGUE LIFE two different sonry are assumedevolution
as C = 1.70E-03 m/cycle and m =
relation, evaporable water vs relative humidity, must Note that, at early age, since the chemical reactions
2.1.
be used
The according
bridge structure to isthesubjected
sign of the variationfluctu-
to repeated of the associated with cement hydration and SF reaction
relativity humidity. The shape of the
ating loads due to the passage of trains. Thesorption
loss of areThe
exothermic, the temperature
stress intensity fieldisiscomputed
factor range not uniform
as
isotherm forintegrity
mechanical HPC is influenced
of the structureby manydueparameters,
to this re- for non-adiabatic systems even if the environmental
[Kumar 1999]
especially those that influence extent and rateA ofcom-
peated fluctuating load is known as fatigue. the temperature is constant. Heat conduction can be
chemicalwhich
ponent reactions
fails atand,a high in constant
turn, determine
load, maypore
fail described
∆K = f ( β )in
∆σconcrete,
πa at least for temperature (2)not
structure
under and pore sizesmaller
a substantially distribution
fatigue(water-to-cement
load. The proc- exceeding 100°C (Bažant & Kaplan 1996), by
ratio,
ess cementinchemical
of fatigue the masonry composition,
arch bridge SF maycontent,
lead to Fourier’s∆law,
where σ iswhich
the reads
stress amplitude range =
curing time and method, temperature, mix additives,
excessive deformations, formation of tension zones
σ max − σ min . This is considered to be equal to 0.06
etc.). In the literature various formulations canmor-
at the crown region of the arch and cracking of be q = − λ ∇T
MPa which is the difference of the maximum and (7)
found
tar to masonry.
in the describe the sorption isotherm of normal minimum principal stress as obtained in the analysis
concrete
It may(Xi be etmentioned
al. 1994).here However,
that a insmall
the present
tensile
wheretheq 25is t axle
using the load.
heat The
flux,factor
T is f (the
β ) isabsolute
the ge-
paper the semi-empirical expression proposedarch
stress is observed in the static analysis of the by temperature,
ometry factor and is the
= 1.3λ for heat arch.
circular conductivity;
An initialincrack
this
NorlingThis
bridge. Mjornell
may not(1997)be the is caseadopted
when thebecause
bridge isit
size of 0.1 mm is assumed at the crown of the arch.
newly constructed and is at its beginning of service
Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010
 Numerical integration is performed on the Paris J = − D ( h, T
of 2.6 on springing ) ∇h
displacements for a 25 t
law and the number of cycles required for an initial axle load is obtained over and above the margin
crack of size 0.1 mm to propagate until the crack provided by theThecode.proportionality coefficient D(h,T)
grows to a size of 10 mm is obtained as 242.6E+03 • moistureof permeability
The above margin safety valuesand dropit to
is a2.6nonlinea
cycles. Assuming each cycle of loading to be a pas- for 25 t axleofload
the relative
over and humidity
above hthe andmargin
temperature
sage of train (54 Wagons + 7 WDG4) loaded to 25 t provided by &theNajjar 1972). The moisture mass
code under the presence of lon- balanc
per axle, and assuming ten trains running on this that the variation in time of the water mas
gitudinal tractive forces (42 t) due to braking.
bridge per day, it takes about 66 years for a crack of volume of concrete (water content w) be eq
size 0.1mm to reach a size of 10 mm. (3) divergence
From Fatigue Analysis:of the moisture flux J
It may be noted that a crack initiated at the crown
of the arch may propagate until half the ring thick- • The estimated ∂number of years for a crack at
the crown of−size =0.1
∇ •mm
w
J to grow to 10 mm as-
ness of the brick masonry which is 465 mm. There- ∂t
after, this crack does not propagate further as due to suming ten trains (54 wagons+7 WDG4) per
stress redistribution, the nature of stress would be The
day loaded to 25 waterpass
t /axle content can beisexpressed
on thew bridge 66 a
compressive. A compressive stress near a crack tip years. of the evaporable water w (capillary wa
e
tends to close a crack and prevent further propaga- vapor, and adsorbed water) and the non-e
tion. Hence, it is unlikely that the arch ring may col- (chemically bound) water wn (Mil
lapse due to crack propagation. The cracking process 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTPantazopoulo & Mills 1995). It is reas
may only result in excessive displacements and so assume that the evaporable water is a fu
these cracks have to be sealed during the regular relative
The financial support humidity,
provided by theh,South
degree of hydration
Western
maintenance program. Railway of the degree
Indian of silica fume
Railways reaction, αsac-
is gratefully , i.e. we=w
knowledged. = age-dependent sorption/desorption
(Norling Mjonell 1997). Under this assum
8 CONCLUSIONS by substituting Equation 1 into Equati
REFERENCES obtains
Based on the investigations, the following conclu-
sions are made: Cervenka V. & Pukl R., 2007, ATENA program Documenta-
∂w ∂hCzech Republic, Praha. ∂w
− e for +the
tion, Cervenka Consulting,
( D ∇and
∇ •design h e α ∂we α w
&+
) = construction &+
(1) From Field Measurements Code A: Code of practice
∂h ∂t h ∂α c of s
∂α
masonry and plain concrete arch bridges (Arch c Bridge s
Code), RDSO, Lucknow, India.
• Under known loads (load deformation and quasi where
Kumar P, 1999.Elements is the slope
∂we/∂h Mechanics,
of Fracture of thePub-
Wheeler sorption/
Rule A: Rules specifying the loads for design of superstructure capac
isotherm (also called moisture
static load tests) the structural load deforma- lishing, New Delhi.
tional behavior is within the elastic regime based
and sub-structuregoverning
of bridgesequation
(Bridge(Equation 3) must be
Rules), RDSO,
on the full recovery of the strains observed in the Lucknow, India. by appropriate boundary and initial conditi
test. The stiffness properties used in the analyti- The relation between the amount of e
cal simulations have been obtained from these water and relative humidity is called ‘‘
tests. isotherm” if measured with increasing
• In the field measurements, it was observed that humidity and ‘‘desorption isotherm” in th
there were no visible cracks observed in the case. Neglecting their difference (Xi et al.
brick masonry under the applied axle load of 25t. the following, ‘‘sorption isotherm” will be
• The maximum stresses in the static and quasi- reference to both sorption and desorption c
static tests are within the code permissible limits. By the way, if the hysteresis of the
• The maximum displacements observed in the isotherm would be taken into account, two
quasi-static tests indicate that they are within relation, evaporable water vs relative humi
code permissible limits except for the springing be used according to the sign of the varia
displacement of the pier in Span 2. This may be relativity humidity. The shape of the
due to the delamination caused between the outer isotherm for HPC is influenced by many p
concrete repair and the inner masonry pier. especially those that influence extent and
chemical reactions and, in turn, determ
(2) From Finite Element Analysis: structure and pore size distribution (water-
ratio, cement chemical composition, SF
• Based on the IRS codal provisions on the dis- curing time and method, temperature, mix
placements for Arch bridges, a margin of safety etc.). In the literature various formulatio
of 2.6 on crown displacements for a 25 t axle found to describe the sorption isotherm
load is obtained over and above the margin concrete (Xi et al. 1994). However, in th
provided by the code. paper the semi-empirical expression pro
• Based on the IRS codal provisions on the dis- Norling Mjornell (1997) is adopted b
placements for Arch bridges, a margin of safety
Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28, 2010