INSTRUMENTATION OF BRIDGES IN

VIEW OF INTRODUCTION OF HEAVIER

AXLE LOAD OVER N.C. RAILWAY
 1. GENERAL
 Introduction of heavier axle load inescapable to
meet transportation requirement.
 CC+6+2T already universalized.
 For 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.
 N.C. Railway has entrusted a work to M/s Sharma &
Associates, to carry out Instrumentation of five
bridges.
 2. SCHEME OF INSTRUMENTATION
Instrumentation scheme comprises of following:

 Numerical modeling of superstructure of bridges- using standard

Finite Element Analysis software like STAAD etc..

 Recording of data and analysis thereof –

• 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.

 Residual life analysis of the bridges based on metallurgical

properties and appropriate S-N curve.

 Suitable rehabilitation/strengthening technique to be suggested,

if required
 3. 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:

S. Bridge Span Section Type of Year of construction

No. No. superstructure
1 30 (UP) 14x61.0m Mugalsarai- Through open 1927 (Super structure)
Allahabad web girder (Rail- 1864 (Sub structure)
cum-Road)
2 5 (UP) 7x45.7m Mugalsarai- Semi through 1905 (Super structure)
Allahabad open web girder 1864 (Sub structure)

3 1258/1 4x30.48m Jhansi-Agra Through open 1913

(DN) web girder

4 1217/1 1x18.3m Jhansi-Agra Plate Girder 1913

(DN)

5 1387/1 1x6.1m Agra- Arch 1904

(UP) Mathura
4. INSTRUMENTATION METHODOLOGY
 Development of realistic numerical modelling
 Data collection and subsequent processing
 Series of tests using test trains consisting of
single/multiple loco train,
• Static/crawl run
• Tractive runs
• Braking runs
• Speed runs
Testing/Data collection in progress for bridge no. 1258/1
Comparison of Maximum Stresses and Deflection
with Theoretical values & Permissible Limits for
Test Train (2WAG5 + BOXN (CC+6+2))

As per
Measured Permissible
Parameter numerical
(DL+LL) value
modelling
Bridge no.1217/1 (Plate Girder)
Bending – 1st cut-off
(kg/mm2 ) -5.96 -4.36 -14.20
-Top flange (comp)
Bending Mid Span
(kg/mm2) -6.74 -5.29 -14.20
-Top flange (compression) 6.90 6.31 14.20
-Bottom flange (tension)
Shear (kg/mm2) 2.31 1.89 8.70
-at ‘d’ from support
Mid span deflection (mm) 16.9 15.8 31.9
 Comparison of Maximum Stresses and Deflection
with Theoretical values & Permissible Limits for
Test Train (2WAG5 + BOXN (CC+6+2))
Parameter As per numerical Measured Permissible
modelling (DL+LL) value
Bridge No. 1258/1 (Through Open Web)
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
Comparison of Maximum Stresses and Deflection
with Theoretical values & Permissible Limits for
Test Train (2WAG5 + BOXN (CC+6+2))

Parameter As per numerical Measured Permissible

modelling (DL+LL) value
Bridge No. 5 (Through Open Web)
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
Comparison of Maximum Stresses and Deflection
with Theoretical values & Permissible Limits for
Test Train (2WAG5 + BOXN (CC+6+2))
Parameter As per numerical Measured Permissible
modelling (DL+LL) value
Bridge No. 5 (Through Open Web)
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
Comparison of Maximum Stresses and Deflection
with Theoretical values & Permissible Limits for
Test Train (2WAG5 + BOXN (CC+6+2))

Parameter As per numerical Measured Permissible

modelling (DL+LL) value
Bridge No. 30 (Semi Through Open Web)
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
Comparison of Maximum Stresses and Deflection
with Theoretical values & Permissible Limits for
Test Train (2WAG5 + BOXN (CC+6+2))

Parameter As per numerical Measured Permissible

modelling (DL+LL) value
Bridge No. 1387/1 (Arch)
Stress (compression) - Spring Line 1 -7.66 -6.77 -8.75
(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
 Comparison of Mid-span bottom flange stress & vertical
deflection for normal loaded freight and CC+6+2T trains

Bridge No. Mid-Span Bottom Live Load

Train 2
Flange Stress(Kg/mm ) Vertical Deflection (mm)
Normal Freight Train 4.12 11.7
1217/1 CC+6+2 4.64 14.0
Difference (%) 12.6 19.6
Normal Freight Train 2.98 10.3
1258/1 CC+6+2 3.42 12.8
Difference (%) 14.8 24.2
Normal Freight Train 4.60 28.8
5 CC+6+2 4.83 29.3
Difference (%) 5 1.7
Normal Freight Train 2.09 22.5
30 CC+6+2 2.19 23.8
Difference (%) 5 6
 Results of substructure parameters

Br. S. Parameter Observation

No. No.
1 Pier 1. For the test train runs, measured peak pier deflection was 0.24 mm.
Deflections 2. The peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was 0.23 mm
2 Pier Stress 1.0The peak strain observed under all conditions was about 2.99 Kg/cm2.
1217/1 3 Pier/Abutment a. Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
Tilt b. 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 3. For the test train runs, measured peak pier deflection was 0.1 mm.
Deflections c. The peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was 0.2mm
2 Pier Stress 2.0The peak strain observed under all conditions was less than 0.2 Kg/cm2.
1258/1 3 Pier/Abutment d. Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
Tilt e. Peak tilt angles under revenue service traffic for both freight and passenger
traffic were less than 0.10.
 Results of substructure parameters
Br. S. Parameter Observation
No. No.
1 Pier 1. For the test train runs, measured peak pier deflection was 0.4 mm.
Deflections a. The peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was 0.2 mm
2 Pier Stress 1.0The peak strain observed under all conditions was about 1.45 kg/cm2.
5
3 Pier Tilt b. Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
c. Peak tilt angles under revenue service traffic for both freight and passenger
traffic were less than 0.10.
1 Pier 2. For the test train runs, measured peak pier deflection was 0.2 mm.
Deflections d. Peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was also 0.2 mm
2 Pier Stress 2.0The peak strain observed under all conditions was about 2.59 Kg/cm2.
3 Pier Tilt e. Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
30
f. Peak tilt angles under revenue service traffic for both freight and passenger
traffic were less than 0.10.
1 Abutment 3. For the test train runs, measured peak abutment deflection was 0.1 mm.
1387/1 Deflections g. Peak deflection measured under revenue service traffic was also 0.1 mm
2 Abutment 3.0The peak strain observed under all conditions was about 0.84 Kg/cm2.
Stress
3 Abutment Tilt h. Peak tilt angle observed under the test trains were less than 0.10.
i. Peak tilt angles under revenue service traffic for both freight and passenger
traffic were less than 0.10.
Longitudinal Force Studies
 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
Forces Transmitted through bearings/substructure
Bridge No. 1217/1
Tractive force measured through Tractive effort from measurement
Longitudinal
coupler of 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
27 5 22 22 24 37
Run1- WAG5
Tractive
33 5 28 20 22 29
Run2- WAG5
Tractive
41 15 28 20 22 -
Run1- WAG7
Tractive
40 10 30 8 9 -
Run2- WAG7
Bridge No. 1258/1
Tractive
65 27 38 12 33 40
Run1- WAG5
Tractive
61 23 38 13 36 39
Run2- WAG5
Tractive
37 19 18 8 22 30
Run1- WAG7
Tractive
38 - - 9 25 26
Run2- WAG7
Forces Transmitted through bearings/substructure

Bridge No. 5
Tractive
39 15 24 7 28 22
Run1- WAG5
Tractive
45 17 28 7 28 29
Run2- WAG5
Tractive
27 7 20 5 20 15
Run1- WAG7
Tractive
29 15 14 8 32 26
Run2- WAG7
Bridge No. 30
Tractive
36 16 20 10 22 19
Run1- WAG9
Tractive
33 6 27 8 17 20
Run2- 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.
Conclusions
 There is marginal increase of stresses
due to increased axle load.
 Stresses due to higher axle load are well
within permissible limit.
 Such studies are useful for analysing
existing assets and taking decisions on
rehabilitation/ replacement.
 After getting subsequent quarter reports
& residual life assessment, broad vision
of instrumentation will be established.