Milson Line Railway Overbridge

Preliminary Seismic Assessment

Palmerston North City Council

 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

Contents

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1

2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2

3 Structural Analysis .............................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Nature of Structure – Details from Live Load Assessment (July 2010) .......................... 3
3.2 Nature of Structure – Seismic Analysis ......................................................................... 4

4 Preliminary Seismic Analysis ............................................................................................. 5

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................... 6

5 Results.................................................................................................................................. 7
5.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Longitudinal Push-Over Analysis .................................................................................. 7
5.3 Transverse Push-Over Analysis.................................................................................... 7

6 Seismic Retro-fit Recommendations .................................................................................. 8

6.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 8
6.2 Deck Linkages / Shear Keys ......................................................................................... 8
6.3 Bonding of Original / Widened Sections of Structure ................................................... 11
6.4 Priorities for Retro-Fitting Solutions............................................................................. 12

Appendix 1 Findings of Site Investigation of Milson Line Overbridge Bridge Substructure

Undertaken 18 August 2011

Appendix 2 General Arrangement of Milson Line Overbridge (1928)

General Arrangement of Milson Line Overbridge Widening (1963)

Doc Ref 5-P04200,00 FINAL

Date August 2011 i

 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

1 Executive Summary

This report describes the findings of a preliminary seismic assessment undertaken on the
Milson Line Railway Overbridge, which has been produced following the recommendations
within the theoretical live loading assessment, carried out by Opus Palmerston North, in
July 2010.

The seismic analysis has determined that the bridge has insufficient capacity to resist the
forces generated by a 1:500 year return period earthquake event, but is able to resist the
forces generated for a 1:100 year return period under response in the longitudinal direction.
If it is proposed to retain the existing structure, appropriate seismic retro-fitting is
recommended.

The retro-fitting measures identified and discussed within the report will provide some
limited improvement in the overall seismic resistance of this structure. However, we believe
that the nature of this structure is such that an appropriate level of seismic capacity is
unlikely to be able to achieved economically and recommend that the bridge be
programmed for replacement within a short timeframe. It is appreciated that funds may not
be readily available for a complete bridge replacement, and priorities for seismic
strengthening are therefore identified as follows:

- Install linkages and shear key installation to piers / abutments (estimated cost
$400,000);

- Connection of the 5 beam widening to the original superstructure by splicing the two
together using Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) applied to their soffits (estimated
cost $75,000);

- Connection of the pier extensions to the original pier sections by applying Fibre
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) to their faces across the cracks between them and epoxy
injection of the cracks (estimated cost $250,000).

A site investigation using Ground Penetrating Radar, was undertaken on 19 August 2011 to
check for the potential presence of reinforcement in the original 1928 substructural
elements. The investigation confirmed that there is no structural reinforcement present (i.e.
the substructure is formed from mass concrete).

5-P04200.00

August 2011 1
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

2 Introduction

This report describes the findings of a preliminary seismic assessment undertaken on the
Milson Line Railway Overbridge, which has been produced following the recommendations
within the theoretical live loading assessment, carried out by Opus Palmerston North, in
July 2010.

A Condition Assesment, carried out by Opus Central Labs in May 2010 identified the bridge
to be in good condition, but noted several minor defects requiring rectification (principally
deck leakage and reinforcement corrosion), to ensure that it reaches its intended lifespan.

Milson Line Railway Overbridge was originally constructed in 1928 and was subsequently
widened on both sides in 1963. The 6-span bridge structure carries the Milson Line road
over the the North Island Main Trunk Railway Line.

5-P04200.00

August 2011 2
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

3 Structural Analysis

3.1 Nature of Structure – Details from Live Load Assessment (July 2010)

The preliminary seismic assessment of the bridge has been undertaken using the same
principles as the previous live loading assessment, carried out in July 2010.

The July 2010 assessment report describes the structure thus:

“Milson Line Railway Overbridge consists of six spans and was originally constructed in
1928 and widened in 1963.

The original bridge comprised longitudinal concrete encased structural steel beams
spanning between abutments and piers with a cast in situ concrete deck spanning
transversely. The encased structural steel RSJs are not continuous over the piers /
abutments and therefore in the assessment no continuity / fixity has been taken at the
supports with the steel beams being treated as simply supported. Movement joints for the
decks were provided at piers 2, 4 and 6, with the decks being built in at the abutments and
piers 3 and 5 (Note: Pier 1 and 6 were deemed to be the bridge abutments in the July 2010
Report).

The original bridge was widened on each side in 1963 by extending the unreinforced
concrete piers with reinforced extensions and widening the deck with precast prestressed
concrete beam side extensions (ten beams to one side and five to the other). Archive
drawings indicate that the precast beams were not continuous over the supports and were
modelled in the assessment as being simply supported. Steel dowels are provided to
attach the prestressed beams to the piers / abutments, with some lateral movement of the
beams being allowed through the use of flexible material around the dowel bars at the piers
/ abutments (for thermal movements etc.). A concrete slab was cast in situ to the top of the
prestressed concrete beams on the 10 beam side extension with archive drawings
indicating reinforcement provided between them to allow composite action to be taken.
(Note: amended from July 2010 Report).

A site investigation into the condition of the bridge undertaken by Opus (see report
Condition Assessment Milson Line Overbridge, Opus May 2010) concluded that the
structural components of the bridge were in good condition with no indication of significant
corrosion to the steel beams or deterioration of the concrete which would adversely affect
their structural capacities. Therefore a condition factor of 1.0 has been used in the
calculation of capacities for the structural members.’

5-P04200.00

August 2011 3
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

3.2 Nature of Structure – Seismic Analysis

It has not been possible from a review of the existing bridge drawings and documents to
confirm whether the original 1928 substructural elements (piers / abutments) contained any
steel reinforcement, or were mass concrete supports.

For the purposes of a seismic assessment, the ability of the substructure to resist seismic
forces is important, as mass concrete is deemed to have zero tensile capacity. Therefore a
site investigation was carried out by Opus Central Labs on 19 August 2011 to check for the
potential presence of reinforcement by the use of Ground Penetrating Radar equipment.
Details of the investigation are included within Appendix 1 of this Report.

The investigation confirmed that there is no reinforcement, and that the substructural
elements of the original bridge are therefore mass concrete in nature. The investigation
further confirmed that reinforcement is present within the substructures of the widened
sections of the bridge. It is important to note that the original and widened sections of the
bridge substructure are unconnected, as detailed within available historical drawings.

Observations made during the initial desk study and site investigation can be summarised
as follows:

- The substructure of the original bridge is unreinforced. Thus the piers have minimal
capacity for longitudinal flexural moments or shear;

- The pier foundations are shallow and narrow, providing little resistance to flexural
moment acting out-of-plane on the piers;

- The ten beam widening is tied into the original bridge at deck level and it can
therefore be argued that there is some degree of composite action. However, its
pier extension is not integral with the original pier and currently does not act
compositely with the original pier;

- The five beam extension is not tied into the original deck and neither it nor its pier
extension act compositely with the original bridge;

- The original structure superstructure comprises simply supported concrete encased

steel beams. While the corbels at the top of the piers and abutments contain
reinforcement, this reinforcement does not appear to be tied into the beams, and the
beams appear to be a later stage construction with the potential to slide on the
corbels under horizontal loading of the superstructure.

- In the original structure, there are more beams at closer spacings in the longest
(38’) span than in other spans, with a lack of alignment with beams in the adjacent
spans on either side. This feature adds complexity to the potential interlinking of
spans for seismic security.

- The beams of the extensions are both tied down to their supports with dowels and
the spans interlinked with linkage bars installed between the PSC log beams.

5-P04200.00

August 2011 4
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

4 Preliminary Seismic Analysis

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Longtidinal Analysis

As noted in Section 3.2 above, record drawings available for the structure indicate
that there is no structural connection between the original 1928 section of the
bridge, and the 5-beam widened section constructed in 1963. Drawings indicate
that some transverse ½” bars in the original bridge deck were exposed, bent and
cranked so they could be cast into the 10-beam widened section top slab. However,
it is difficult to confirm the resultant structural integrity and performance of this
connection. Therefore, while it can be argued that there is a level of connection, for
simplicity the original structure has been considered as acting independently.

The bridge deck, consisting of concrete encased RSJs, is deemed to be formed

from 6 simply supported spans, with no structural connection between the deck and
piers / abutments (refer Section 3 for further details). This is considered to be the
critical case for the bridge and this has therefore been used as the basis for the
seismic analysis.

With the lack of physical connection by reinforcement or steel elements of the

superstructure to the piers and abutments, the lack of significant moment resisting
foundations and the lack of flexural capacity in the piers, the analysis has assumed
that all reactions to longitudinal response are provided by the abutment towards
which the superstructure moves, with the superstructure simply sliding or being
pushed by the abutment at the other abutment and the piers rocking on their base or
at a flexural crack above the footing. At the resisting abutment, this response would
initially be restrained by the abutment backwall (until shear failure occurs) and by
passive soil pressure behind the abutment.

4.1.2 Transverse Analysis

For transverse seismic security, it is considered essential that the pier extensions
act compositely with the original piers, and the deck extensions with the original
deck. The means of achieving connectivity are discussed further within Section 6.3
of this Report. Due to their aspect ratio, this connectivity should provide the piers
with significant in-plane flexural capacity and shear capacity due to the
reinforcement in the pier extensions.

5-P04200.00

August 2011 5
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

4.2 Analysis Methodology

A seismic assessment has been carried out on the bridge in accordance with:

- NZS 1170.5:2004 – Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions – New

Zealand, Standards New Zealand;

- Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual, Second Edition June 2003 (including
amendments June 2004, September 2004 and July 2005).

In the longtudinal direction, push-over analysis was applied to assess the bridge’s capacity.
The Microstran computer analysis package has been used to carry out the iterative
analysis. The nature of the ground conditions beneath and behind the bridge substructure
(including spring stiffnesses and limiting passive forces), has been determined in
accordance with established parameters for the Palmerston North area, and as calculated
by the Opus Wellington’s Geotechnical Engineering team.

The asssessment has initially been carried out assuming a 1:500 year return period
earthquake event, as it is deemed that this is an appropriate level of seismic resistance to
seek for an old structure on a local authority network.

Ground conditions have been assumed based upon historical knowledge of the area, the
anticpated backfill material for a bridge of this age and type and with reference to geological
maps. However, it has been noted that the the spring stiffnesses could vary by a factor of
up to five, and the ultimate spring loads by a factor of up to two. Therefore, any decision to
move forward with a detailed design should be accompanied by a geotechnical site
investigation, to ensure that actual in situ site parameters are used in the design process.
Such a site investigation should also check for any potential for liquefaction to occur in the
area of the bridge.

In the transverse direction, simple static analysis was applied to assess the most critical
pier’s capacity to withstand the response of the contributory superstructure area that it
supports. With the original pier sections being unreinforced, this analysis only considered
the capacity of the piers for the situation of the pier extensions having been made to act
compositely with the original pier sections.

5-P04200.00

August 2011 6
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

5 Results

5.1 Summary

The seismic analysis has determined that the bridge has insufficient capacity to resist the
forces generated by a 1:500 year return period earthquake event, but is able to resist the
forces generated for a 1:100 year return period under response in the longitudinal direction.
If it is proposed to retain the existing structure, recommendations for providing seismic
security are provided in Section 6.

5.2 Longitudinal Push-Over Analysis

5.2.1 1:500 Year Return Period Earthquake Event

The analysis has determined that the bridge has insufficient capacity to resist the
forces generated through a 1:500 Year return period earthquake event in the
longitudinal direction.

The design site hazard response spectrum value C(T) as determined from NZS
1170.5 Clause 3.1.1. was found to be 1.14.

Taking into account a Structural Performance Factor of 0.7 for Ultimate Limit State
Loading from Bridge Manual Cl. 4.4.2, this gave a seismic coefficient of 0.798 for the
analysis.

An iterative analysis using Microstran found that, under the 1:500 year return period
earthquake event, the passive force behind the restraining abutment was insufficient
to resist the force applied. A check on the shear force applied to the resisting
abutment backwall under seismic loading found that it was at the limit of its capacity.

5.2.2 1:100 Year Return Period Earthquake Event

The Microstran model was re-analysed for a 1:100 year event, which halves the
factor used for analysis (0.399 instead of 0.798).

The iterative analysis found a maximum movement in the deck of 85mm, which
would not cause the unseating of the abutments.

5.3 Transverse Push-Over Analysis

A simple analysis, assuming composite action between the original / widened sections of
the structure has determined that the bridge has sufficient capacity against a 1:500 year
return period earthquake event based on elastic response.

In order to ensure composite action, recommendations within Section 6 of this report are
provided to provide physical bonding between the original and widened substructure /
superstructure sections.

5-P04200.00

August 2011 7
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

6 Seismic Retro-fit Recommendations

6.1 Summary

Recommendations are detailed below that will assist the structure to resist the forces
determined through the preliminary seismic assessment. It is important to note that the
solutions described are based upon an outline assessment only and a more detailed
investigation would be required to confirm precise details.

While the measures identified will provide some limited improvement in the overall seismic
resistance of this structure, we believe that the nature of this structure is such that an
appropriate level of seismic capacity is unlikely to be able to be achieved economically and
it is recommended that the bridge be programmed for replacement within a short timeframe.
However, it is appreciated that funds may not be readily available for a bridge replacement,
and priorities for seismic strengthening are discussed within Section 6.4 of this report.

6.2 Deck Linkages / Shear Keys

The NZTA Bridge Manual requires simply supported spans to be linked to their piers with
tensile linkages. In order to ensure that sections of the simply supported deck do not
become unseated as a result of an earthquake event, physical linkages and shear keys
should be provided to each of the bridge spans.

In the case of the ‘cast-in’ piers (2 No.), linkages can be drilled and fixed between adjacent
spans and vertical shear key brackets can be located on the front face of the piers, in a
manner similar to the sketch below:

5-P04200.00

August 2011 8
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

In the case of the piers with movement joints (3 No.), the linkages will be provided in a
similar manner to the cast-in piers. However, the gap between the top of the pier and the
deck diaphragm means that a lengthened shear key system would need to be provided.
Alternatively, shear keys could be drilled and fixed to the underside of the soffit beams, as
shown on the sketch overleaf. Note that this solution would require drilling into the flanges
of the existing RSJs, which would require careful consideration (accurately locating the
beams within the concrete encasement would be a critical factor in undertaking this
solution).

The largest span on this bridge (38’ in length) has additional beams that complicate the
design and installation of linkages / shear keys into the adjacent spans. This can be
overcome by the use of spreader beams fixed between the beams to which the linkages are
anchored, which would need to be developed as part of a detailed solution.

5-P04200.00

August 2011 9
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

In the case of the abutments, it is important to ensure that the deck does not become
unseated in the case of longitudinal push-over. A series of shear keys, attached to the front
face of the abutment and bolted through the back of the abutment wall, will restrain the end
spans from unseating and can also be used to restrain movement in the other direction. I-
Beams connected between the concrete-encased longitudinal RSJs will assist in providing
restraint, as shown in the sketch below.

It is estimated that the cost of providing linkage rods and shear keys to the bridge spans will
cost a minimum of $400,000.

5-P04200.00

August 2011 10
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

6.3 Bonding of Original / Widened Sections of Structure

In order to mobilise the combination of the original and widened sections of the structure, it
is important to ensure that they are linked together to resist transverse response.

There is a connection between the 10 beam widened section and the original structure, and
this is deemed satisfactory for transverse response. However, there is no structural
connection between the 5 beam widened section and the original structure. This can be
achieved through the installation of bonded Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) strips
connected across the superstructure soffit of the original and widened sections of the
bridge. Any gaps / cracks could be removed through a process of epoxy injection prior to
installation. The estimated cost for this work is a minimum of $75,000 (assuming 2 layers
of FRP).

There is currently no structural connection between the original and widened sections of the
substructure. Therefore, strips of FRP should be applied to the piers to generate composite
action under transverse response, by wrapping in a manner similar to the following:

5-P04200.00

August 2011 11
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

The bridge has 6 spans and large intermediate piers, and this therefore leads to a
requirement to provide a significant amount of FRP bonding. We would estimate the cost of
the FRP works detailed in Section 6.3 to be a minimum of $250,000 (assuming 2 layers of
FRP required).

Note that, for both the superstructure and piers, the spacing / number of layers would need
to be confirmed and refined as part of the detailed design process.

6.4 Priorities for Retro-Fitting Solutions

When assessing the seismic upgrade requirements for the the Milson Line Overbridge, it is
clear that the structure is relatively complex, primarily as a result of the widening
undertaken to the original 1928 bridge.

As replacement may not be an immediate option for the bridge owner due to financial
constraints, the following priorities should be considered if a staged approach to seismic
strengthening is considered appropriate:

- Linkages and shear key installation to piers / abutments;

- FRP connection to original structure / 5 beam widened superstructure;

- FRP wrapping to substructure.

Due to the nature of the original bridge structure, the option of further breaking down the
linkage / shear key installation is not recommended, as an earthquake event may still result
in the collapse of individual bridge deck spans.

5-P04200.00

August 2011 12
 Milson Line Railway Overbridge – Preliminary Seismic Assessment

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Findings of Site Investigation of Milson Line Overbridge Bridge Substructure

Undertaken 18 August 2011

Appendix 2 General Arrangement of Milson Line Overbridge (1928)

General Arrangement of Milson Line Overbridge Widening (1963)

5-P04200.00

August 2011 13
22 August 2011

Darren Goodall
Senior Bridge Engineer
Opus International Consultants Ltd
Level 7 Majestic Centre
100 Willis St
Wellington 6011

11 – 5P0420.00 102CL
Dear Darren

Absence of Reinforcement in Milson Line Overbridge Piers

As requested, I arranged for an inspection of the reinforcement configuration of the original

1928 concrete piers of the Milson Line Overbridge, Palmerston North. A previous concrete
condition assessment report (Bruce, 2010) was unable to discern the presence of rebar
using an electromagnetic cover-meter. However the practical detection limits of
instruments of this type allowed the suspicion that a reinforcing cage with concrete cover
greater than approximately 130 mm may still be present. To avoid this ambiguity, the
current work employed ground penetrating radar (G.P.R.) as the investigative technique.

The inspection was carried out on 18 August 2011, with the assistance of Martin King of
G.P.R. Geophysical Services, Marton. The instrument used was a GSSI SIR-20 multi-
channel data acquisition unit, variously coupled to a 1,600 MHz high resolution concrete
detection antenna, or a lower frequency 900 MHz shielded antenna to maximise depth of
signal penetration.

Radar surveys were conducted on the 2nd and 3rd piers, as enumerated from the northern
end of the bridge, and the south abutment. None of the resulting scans showed any
evidence for the presence of either continuous vertical or horizontal vertical reinforcement
and the survey traces typically contained a clear boundary reflection from the rear face of
the scanned element, indicating full thickness penetration. Scans made at a single specific
height on the piers did reveal repeated strong reflections from sub-surface objects, but
physical inspection revealed these to exactly coincide with the location of embedded
formwork tie wires; these isolated results are consequently dismissed as spurious.

On the basis of the findings described, I am confident that both the piers and abutments of
the Milson Line Overbridge are unreinforced mass concrete elements and should be
modelled as such in any seismic evaluation.

I trust this meets your needs. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries.

Kind regards,

Concrete Technologist

References
Bruce S. 2010. Condition Assessment of Milson Line Overbridge. Report # 10–5P0227.00.
Opus Central Laboratories, Gracefield.

Opus International Consultants Limited 138 Hutt Park Road, Gracefield Telephone: +64 4 587 0600
Central Laboratories PO Box 30 845, Lower Hutt 5040, Facsimile: +64 4 587 0604
New Zealand Website: www.opus.co.nz