INSTRUMENTATION OF BRIDGES IN VIEW OF INTRODUCTION OF

HEAVIER AXLE LOAD OVER N.C. RAILWAY

1.0 GENERAL

To meet the growing demand of transportation of the country, heavier axle loads have been
permitted on the existing Railway system. CC+6+2T operation have been universalized. The
increased loads have opened a new challenge for Civil Engineers to assess the adequacy of
track & bridges for heavier axle loads. To have an objective assessment on the condition of
bridges along with reserved strength due to increased axle load operation, monitoring of
sample bridges is required to be done by suitable instrumentation. North Central Railway has
entrusted a work to M/s Sharma & Associates, INC, Chicago, to carry out Instrumentation of
five bridges.

2.0 SCHEME OF INSTRUMENTATION

Instrumentation scheme comprises of following:

a. Numerical modeling of superstructure of bridges using standard Finite Element

Analysis softwares like STAAD etc.. Stresses in different members were calculated with
dead load, superimposed load, live load etc.

b. Recording of data and analysis thereof –

-Recording of deflections/tilts and strains at identified points of superstructure, bearings,
piers and abutments
-Longitudinal loads on bearings and proportion transferred to approaches
-Recording dynamic characteristics by acceleration response measurement at mid span.
Recording is to be done initially and repeated quarterly for one year and thereafter
annually or as otherwise required after study of test results.

c. Residual life analysis of the bridges based on metallurgical properties and appropriate S-
N curve.

d. Suitable rehabilitation/strengthening technique to be suggested, if required.

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SAMPLE BRIDGES

Considering type of bridge/girder, type of span, age & condition of bridge, following 5
bridges of different routes have been selected for instrumentation which covers almost all
types of bridges:

S. No. Bridge No. Spans Section Type of superstructure Year of construction

1 30(UP) 14x61.0 Mughalsarai- Through open web 1927 (Super structure)
Allahabad girder (Rail-cum-Road) 1864 (Sub structure)
2 5(UP) 7x45.7m Mughalsarai- Semi through open web 1905 (Super structure)
Allahabad girder 1864 (Sub structure)
3 1258/1(DN) 4x30.48m Jhansi-Agra Through open web 1913
girder
4 1217/1(DN 4x18.30m Jhansi-Agra Plate girder 1913
5 1387/1(UP) 1x6.10 Agra-Mathura Arch 1904

All the above bridges are more than eighty years old and are not of RDSO standard design.
1
4.0 INSTRUMENTATION METHODOLOGY

Following Instrumentation methodology was adopted:-

4.1 DEVELOPMENT OF REALISTIC NUMERICAL MODELLING

3D model of the selected bridge has been developed using appropriate beam/truss element on
Finite Element Analysis software STAAD.Pro. The numerical model has been analyzed to
show the effect of-
(a) Dead load, superimposed load and live load
(b) Static loading conditions including standard Railway loading MBG 87, HML
(c) Static loading conditions for BOXN wagons loaded to CC+6+2 with multiple WAG5 (2
Locos) and with single WAG7/WAG9 combination
(d) Temperature stresses due to rise in temperature
(e) Dynamic property of structure like eigen values(modal frequencies) assuming lumped
mass model for various vertical, transverse and torsional modes
(F) Validation of the numerical model with values actually recorded in the field and
updating.

4.2 DATA COLLECTION AND SUBSEQUENT PROCESSING

All the data channels were connected to a modern, state of the art 32 channel Data
Acquisition System (DAQ) that would sample and collect dynamic data from the channels at
the rate of 1000 samples per second per channel. The data acquisition system offered the
appropriate signal conditioning to each of the channels, in terms of analog signal
amplification and analog anti-aliasing filters. The data so collected was processed using
appropriate software.

4.3 TEST PROCEDURE

Series of tests were conducted using test trains consisting of CC+6+2T freight trains hauled
by (i) multiple WAG5 locos (2 locos) and (ii) single WAG7/WAG9 locos. Further data were
collected by continuously recording data for revenue service trains for two days. Following
sequence of testing was followed with CC+6+2 test trains:-

a. Static/Crawl Run-These tests were conducted by stabling the test train at the middle of
span and running the train at 5 kmph over test span..
b. Braking Run- These tests were conducted with both combination of test trains of
multiple locos & single loco at 20 and 45 kmph under normal and emergency braking
condition at the middle of test span.
c.Tractive Run- These tests were conducted with above test trains under following
condition-
i. Starting of test trains from static condition with full tractive efforts at the middle of
span (Tractive Run-1).
ii. Starting of test trains (with four rear wagons brake binded) from static condition with
full tractive efforts at the middle of span (Tractive Run-2).
d. Speed Test Run- These were conducted to monitor the health of bridge at different speeds
of 5, 15, 30, 45, 60 kmph.

2
4.4 IDENTIFICATION OF LOCATIONS FOR FIXING INSTRUMENTS

Following locations were identified for fixing sensors on different type of bridges for
measuring various parameters as indicated below:

S. Through open web Plate Girder Arch

No. Girder
Rail Girder -Bottom Flange- Girder-Bottom Flange-mid span Arch crown
1. mid span (4 strain gauges / Bending) ( 2 strain gauges/
(2 strain gauges/Bending) Compressive )
X girder-Bottom Flange mid Girder-Top Flange-mid span ¼ point of arch
2. span (2 strain gauge / Bending) ( 2 strain gauges/
(2 strain gauges/Bending) Compressive )
Bottom chord-mid span Girder-Bottom Flange-Ist cut off Spring Line of Arch
3. (2 strain gauges/Axial) location ( 2 strain gauges/
(2 strain gauges / Bending) Compressive )
Top chord-mid span Girder-web @ ‘d’ from support- Arch crown
4. (2 strain gauges/Axial) shear (1 deflection sensor/Vertical
(2 strain gauge/Shear) deflection)
Bottom chord-L0L1 Girder- Web+ bottom flange ¼ pt of arch
5. (1 strain gauge/Axial) (2 strain gauge/Long.Force) (1deflection sensor/Vertical
deflection)
End raker-L0U1 Bearing Abutment (1 deflection
6. (2 strain gauge/Axial) (5 strain gauge/Long.Force) sensor/ Vertical deflection)
Diagonal-U1L2 Rail web -both approaches Abutment
7. (1 strain gauge/Axial) (8 strain gauge/Long .Force) (1 tiltmeter/Tilt)
Vertical-L0U0, L2U2 Abutment & Pier Rail web.-both app.
8. (3 strain gauge/Axial) (2 tiltmeter/Tilt) (8 strain gauge/Long.Force.)
Fixed bearings Pier (1 deflection sensor/ Both abutments.
9. (4 strain gauge/Long Force.) Vertical deflection) (2 masonry sensor /Masonry
strain)
Mid span Pier/abutment
10. (1 defection sensor/ Vertical (2 masonry sensor/Masonry
deflection.) strain)
Bearing Mid span- Web
11. (1 deflection sensor/ (1 Deflection sensor/Deflection)
Horizontal deflection )
Mid span Mid span
12. (1 accelerometer/ (1accelerometer/Acceleration)
Acceleration)
Pier
13. (1 tiltmeter/Tilt)
Pier
14 (1 deflection sensor/
Deflection)
Pier/Abutment sensor
15 (2 masonry sensor/ Masonry
strain)
Rail web Both approach
16 (8 strain gauges /Long
Force)

3
4
5
4.5 OBSERVATIONS RECORDED DURING INSTRUMENTATION

2nd round of instrumentation is over for all the five bridges. Reports of 1st round
instrumentation have been submitted by the firm for all the bridges. No report for second
round instrumentation has been submitted so far. Results of 1 st round instrumentation of
important parameters are summarized below. Various members as reported below are given
in the schematics.

4.5.1 SUPER STRUCTURE

Table 1 Comparison of Maximum Stresses and Deflection with Theoretical values &
Permissible Limits for Test Train (2WAG5 + BOXN (CC+6+2))

As per numerical Measured

Parameter Permissible value
modelling (DL+LL)
Bridge no.1217/1
Bending – 1st cut-off (kg/mm2) –
-4.36 -14.20
Top flange (comp) -5.96
BendingMid Span (kg/mm2)–
Top flange (compression) -6.74 -5.29 -14.20
-Bottom flange (tension) 6.90 6.31 14.20
Shear (kg/mm2)- at ‘d’ from support 2.31 1.89 8.70
Mid span deflection (mm) 16.9 15.8 31.9

6
 Bridge No. 1258/1
Bottom Chord Members –L0L1 (tension) 5.54 5.03 14.20
-L2L3 (tension) 8.23 5.64 14.20
Diagonal Member –L2U1 (tension) 6.90 6.92 14.20
Diagonal Member –L0U1 (comp) -4.31 -3.36 -12.32
Vertical Member –L1U1 (tension) 5.64 6.97 14.20
Rail Girders Bending
-Mid Span Top Flange (comp.) -5.38 -3.28 -13.90
Cross Girders Bending
-Mid Span Top Flange (comp.) -7.13 -5.33 -15.00
Mid span deflection (mm) 17.9 15.8 53.3

Bridge No. 5
Top Chord Member -U3U4 (comp) -5.16 -6.01 -13.53
Bottom Chord Member -L3L4 (tension) 7.94 8.04 14.20
Diagonal Member - U0L1 (tension) 7.96 9.88 14.20
Vertical Members -L0U0 (compression) -4.87 -6.99 -13.54
-L1U1 (compression) -5.82 -7.33 -10.71
Rail Girders Bending
-Mid Span Bottom Flange (tension) 5.29 4.26 15.00
Cross Girders Bending
-Mid Span Bottom Flange (tension) 7.59 6.13 15.00
Mid span Deflection (mm) 43.6
41.4 79.3

Bridge No. 30
Top Chord Member –U4U5 (comp) -7.7 -7.38 -13.33
Bottom Chord Members –L0L1 (tension) 2.8 2.86 14.20
L4L5 (tension) 4.74 4.78 14.20
Diagonal Members – L2U1 (tension) 7.44 7.32 14.20
L0U1(compression) -6.61 -6.12 -13.31
Vertical Members -L0U0 (compression) -1.70 -1.64 -7.30
-L2U2 (compression) -6.84 -6.93 -9.44
Rail Girders Bending
3.57 15.00
-Mid Span Bottom Flange (tension) 3.99
Cross Girders Bending
4.17 15.00
-Mid Span Bottom Flange (tension) 4.97
Mid span Deflection (mm) 46.2 44.2 108.6

Bridge No. 1387/1

Stress (compression) - Spring Line 1 -7.47 -7.66 -8.75
(kg/cm²) -Quarter point Line 1 -2.66 -2.68 -8.75
- Crown Line 0.17 0.32 -8.75
Stress (tension) - Spring Line 1 -5.98 -6.04 1.75
(kg/cm²) -Quarter point Line 1 -1.65 -1.62 1.75
- Crown Line 0.50 0.77 1.75
Vertical Deflection (mm) - Crown Line 0.5 0.4 1.25

Table 2 Comparison of Maximum Stresses and Deflection with Theoretical values &
Permissible Limits for Test Train (1WAG7 + BOXN (CC+6+2))
7
 As per numerical Measured
Parameter Permissible value
modelling (DL+LL)
Bridge no.1217/1
Bending – 1st cut-off (kg/mm2) –
-4.46 -14.20
Top flange (comp) -5.96
BendingMid Span (kg/mm2)–
-5.46
Top flange (compression) -6.74 -14.20
6.58
-Bottom flange (tension) 6.90 14.20
Shear (kg/mm2)- at ‘d’ from support 2.31 2.03 8.70
Mid span deflection (mm) 16.9 16.5 31.9

Bridge No. 1258/1

Bottom Chord Members –L0L1 (tension) 5.54 5.44 14.20
-L2L3 (tension) 7.76 5.71 14.20
Diagonal Members –L2U1 (tension) 6.51 6.87 14.20
Diagonal Members –L0U1 (comp) -4.06 -3.34 -12.32
Vertical Members –L1U1 (tension) 5.29 7.51 14.20
Rail Girders Bending
-3.26 -13.90
-Mid Span Top Flange (comp.) -4.91
Cross Girders Bending
-Mid Span Top Flange (comp.) -6.44 -5.62 -15.00
Mid span deflection (mm) 16.8 16.4 53.3

Bridge No. 5
Top Chord Members -U3U4 (comp) -5.08 -5.94 -13.53
Bottom Chord Members -L3L4 (tension) 7.83 7.95 14.20
Diagonal Members - U0L1 (tension) 7.8 9.83 14.20
Vertical Members -L0U0 (compression) -4.8 -7.03 -13.54
-L1U1 (compression) -5.73 -7.33 -10.71
Rail Girders Bending
15.00
-Mid Span Bottom Flange (tension) 5.73 4.38
Cross Girders Bending
6.05 15.00
-Mid Span Bottom Flange (tension) 7.65
Mid span Deflection (mm) 42.9 41.0 79.3

Bridge No. 30
Top Chord Members –U4U5 (comp) -8.06 -7.32 -13.33
Bottom Chord Members –L0L1 (tension) 2.93 2.91 14.20
L4L5 (tension) 4.94 4.76 14.20
Diagonal Members – L2U1 (tension) 7.76 7.25 14.20
L0U1(compression) -6.92 -6.03 -13.31
Vertical Members –L0U0 (compression) -1.82 -1.66 -7.30
-L2U2 (compression) -7.21 -6.8 -9.44
Rail Girders Bending
15.00
-Mid Span Bottom Flange (tension) 4.89 3.97
Cross Girders Bending
15.00
-Mid Span Bottom Flange (tension) 5.69 4.24
Mid span Deflection (mm) 48.4 43.5 108.6

Bridge No. 1387/1

Stress (compression) - Spring Line 1 -7.66 -6.77 -8.75
8
 (kg/cm²) -Quarter Point Line 1 -2.80 -2.86 -8.75
- Crown Line 0.11 0.28 -8.75
Stress (tension) - Spring Line 1 -5.97 -6.03 1.75
(kg/cm²) -Quarter Point Line 1 -1.63 -1.49 1.75
- Crown Line 0.99 0.80 1.75
Vertical Deflection (mm) - Crown Line 0.5 NR 1.25

Table 3 Comparison of Mid-span bottom flange stress & vertical deflection for normal
loaded freight trains and CC+6+2T trains

Bridge No. Mid-Span Bottom Live Load

Train
Flange Stress(Kg/mm ) Vertical Deflection (mm)
2

Normal Freight Train 4.12 11.7

Bridge No. 1217/1 CC+6+2 4.64 14.0
Difference (%) 12.6 19.6
Normal Freight Train 2.98 10.3
Bridge No. 1258/1 CC+6+2 3.42 12.8
Difference (%) 14.8 24.2
Normal Freight Train 4.60 28.8
Bridge No. 5 CC+6+2 4.83 29.3
Difference (%) 5 1.7
Normal Freight Train 2.09 22.5
Bridge No. 30 CC+6+2 2.19 23.8
Difference (%) 5 6

4.5.2 SUB-STRUCTURE

Table 4 Parameters recorded for sub structure

Br. S. Parameter Observation
No. No.
1 Pier  For the test train runs, measured peak pier deflection was 0.24 mm.
Deflections  The peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was 0.23 mm
2 Pier Stress  The peak strain observed under all conditions was about 2.99 Kg/cm2.
1217/1 3 Pier/Abutment  Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
Tilt  Peak tilt angles under revenue service traffic for both freight and passenger
traffic were less than 0.10. This is very small value.
1 Pier  For the test train runs, measured peak pier deflection was 0.1 mm.
Deflections  The peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was 0.2mm
2 Pier Stress  The peak strain observed under all conditions was less than 0.2 Kg/cm2.
1258/1 3 Pier/Abutment  Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
Tilt  Peak tilt angles under revenue service traffic for both freight and passenger
traffic were less than 0.10.
1 Pier  For the test train runs, measured peak pier deflection was 0.4 mm.
Deflections  The peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was 0.2 mm
2 Pier Stress  The peak strain observed under all conditions was about 1.45 kg/cm2.
5
3 Pier Tilt  Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
 Peak tilt angles under revenue service traffic for both freight and passenger
traffic were less than 0.10.
1 Pier  For the test train runs, measured peak pier deflection was 0.2 mm.
Deflections  Peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was also 0.2 mm

9
 2 Pier Stress  The peak strain observed under all conditions was about 2.59 Kg/cm2.
3 Pier Tilt  Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
30
 Peak tilt angles under revenue service traffic for both freight and passenger
traffic were less than 0.10.
1 Abutment  For the test train runs, measured peak abutment deflection was 0.1 mm.
1387/1 Deflections  Peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was also 0.1 mm
2 Abutment  The peak strain observed under all conditions was about 0.84 Kg/cm2.
Stress
3 Abutment Tilt  Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
 Peak tilt angles under revenue service traffic for both freight and passenger
traffic were less than 0.10.

4.5.3 LONGITUDINAL FORCE STUDY

Following instrumentation and analysis has been done for Longitudinal force study:

4.5.3.1 In the first step, tractive effort has been measured in the following three ways:
 By instrumenting the coupler and directly recording the force applied by loco for
pulling the train
 Minimum tractive effort required to pull the train load as per RDSO Technical Circular
No.27
 Tractive effort based on traction current recorded on loco cab during instrumentation

4.5.3.2 In the second step, longitudinal force transmitted through the bearings has been calculated
and validated in following three ways:
 Total input Tractive effort is calculated from the coupler force measured earlier and
total axles on span at the time of testing. Longitudinal force transmitted through bearing
has been calculated by subtracting longitudinal force transferred to approaches through
track from total input Tractive effort calculated before.
 Longitudinal force transmitted through has been calculated from direct measured strain
on bearings
 Longitudinal force has also been calculated by component resolution of axial force on
bottom chord and end raker, in case of open web girder, and strain gauging bottom
flange near bearing, in case of plate girder.
Table 5 Forces transmitted to the bearings/substructure
Bridge No. 1217/1
Tractive force measured through Tractive effort from measurement of
Longitudinal
coupler strain in bearing
force by
TE
Run TE TE output component
transmitted Bearing strain Longitudinal
input through the resolution
to bearings (uS) load (tons)
(tons) rail (tons) (tons)
(tons)
Tractive Run1-
27 5 22 22 24 37
WAG5
Tractive Run2-
33 5 28 20 22 29
WAG5
Tractive Run1- 41 15 28 20 22 -

10
 WAG7
Tractive Run2-
40 10 30 8 9 -
WAG7
Bridge No. 1258/1
Tractive Run1-
65 27 38 12 33 40
WAG5
Tractive Run2-
61 23 38 13 36 39
WAG5
Tractive Run1-
37 19 18 8 22 30
WAG7
Tractive Run2-
38 - - 9 25 26
WAG7
Bridge No. 5
Tractive Run1-
39 15 24 7 28 22
WAG5
Tractive Run2-
45 17 28 7 28 29
WAG5
Tractive Run1-
27 7 20 5 20 15
WAG7
Tractive Run2-
29 15 14 8 32 26
WAG7
Bridge No. 30
Tractive Run1-
36 16 20 10 22 19
WAG9
Tractive Run2-
33 6 27 8 17 20
WAG9
Bridge No. 1387/1
Due to ballasted track structure, there is no direct method to measure the longitudinal force
transferred to the arch span. However, no notable changes in superstructure or substructure
behavior were observed during braking or traction runs.

From the above test results, it may be noted that there is dispersion of longitudinal force to
approaches. There is much variation in the Tractive effort inputs of different bridges. One of
the reasons may be driver’s response in loco operation. No distinct conclusion could be
drawn from the results of 1st round of testing. This aspect will be observed more carefully in
subsequent rounds of testings.

4.5.4 FREQUENCY RESPONSE

Vertical accelerations were measured using uni-axial accelerometer at mid-span of the girder.
These acceleration data were analyzed to evaluate the measured vibrational response of the
bridge. This analysis was done through evaluation of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) of
the acceleration signals. A PSD is in essence, the vibration signature of the signal that it was
generated from, and it identifies the key frequencies present in the signal. This was compared
with the primary vertical mode frequency derived from dynamic numerical analysis.

Table 6 Frequency response

S. Bridge Primary vertical frequency Primary vertical frequency Remark
No No. (From numerical analysis) (Measured)

1 1217/1 11.2 6.8 To be confirmed in

subsequent tests
2 1258/1 8.8 9.9 Compares well
3 5 4.9 5.2 Compares well
11
 4 30 3.8 3.2 Compares well

4.6 ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL LIFE OF THE BRIDGE

Residual Life Analysis of the Bridge is done based on selection of appropriate SN Curve,
which depends on the physical and metallurgical properties of the material. In the SN curve
N is the number of cycles, of the varying stress. Value of ‘N’ for any given material depends
on ‘S’ (Stress range), which is difference of maximum and minimum stress in fatigue cycle.
Due to introduction of higher axle loads, the stress range for any member will increase,
which will reduce the fatigue life of the member. By strain gauging of the various members
of the steel girder, the number of cycles due to any trainload passage and the stress pattern
get recorded. Using this information, the fatigue damage done by one train passage is arrived
at. The traffic history over the bridge is required to be obtained to get the fatigue damage
already done for the steel structure and this is used to get the residual fatigue life for various
members. Traffic data has been provided to the firm for residual life analysis.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 From the results of first round of testing of bridges in NCR, it may be concluded that there is
marginal increase of stresses as a result of higher axle load trains. Though, increased values
are well within permissible limits, but it will certainly affect fatigue life of bridges.

5.2 Results of first round report of the instrumentation are encouraging. The recorded actual
stresses are, in general, lower than the theoretical and permissible stresses. It appears at this
stage that with further analysis after getting subsequent quarter reports and after getting the
report for residual life analysis, a broad vision will be established regarding effect of
increased axle load on ageing bridges.

5.3 To analyse the existing assets, carrying out such scientific studies is very useful and essential.
Such rational studies will save huge assets from avoidable and premature condemnations and
replacements of assets. This will not only save a lot of unnecessary expense of efforts and
money but, will also help Indian Railways in mopping up additional revenue by effective and
optimum utilization of existing resources.

12