Government of India

Ministry of Railways

ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL FATIGUE LIFE OF

BRIDGE NO. 586 NEAR KORAPUT, EAST COAST RAILWAY
.

REPORT NO. BS-107

May, 2010

RESEARCH DESIGNS & STANDARDS ORGANISATION

MANAK NAGAR, LUCKNOW –226011

1
 PREFACE

Indian Railways have permitted running of BOXN wagons, loaded up to

the axle load of 22.9 MT, which works out to CC+8+ 2t. Therefore, Railway Board
has asked Zonal Railways to monitor and observe the bridges on these routes
and review the status every quarter. In addition to physical inspection,
instrumentation for monitoring the effect of increased longitudinal loads and
higher axle loads on bridge components i.e., foundation, piers and abutments,
bearings and superstructure has been recommended. It is proposed that the
bridges are to be instrumented every quarter for one year to assess the impact of
CC+8+2t.

An instrumentation scheme is planned to conduct experimental studies on

the identified railway bridges by the outside Agencies by following RDSO
guidelines issued to the Railways for this purpose. The scheme involves
measurements of parameters like strain, deflection, load, vibrations, tilt etc. on
different components of the bridges under the selected locomotive load and
general goods train load. For some bridges residual fatigue life is also required to
be estimated.

It was planned that RDSO should also instrument some of the bridges
tested by different outside Agencies for assessment of residual fatigue life for
comparison. As such, bridge No.586 near Koraput station of E.Co.R. has been
instrumented by M/s. Pixel Networks and assessed its residual life along with
other parameters. Other Agencies are also conducting similar tests on different
Railways. RDSO has also planned to test bridge No. 586 for assessment of
residual fatigue life. For this work, a team of the RDSO staff under the guidance
of Shri Y.S. Hooda, Director/B&S/SB-II and AIE/B&S/Testing was constituted and
test was conducted.

The simplified approach given in draft fatigue provisions of IRS Steel

Bridge Code as discussed and approved in 78th BSC has been used for
estimation of residual fatigue life. The assessment of residual fatigue life has
been done analytically using the actual values of stress ranges observed during
the instrumentation of the bridge.

(R.K. Goel) (Mahesh Gupta)

Director/B&S/SB-I Executive Director/ B&S

2
 INDEX

S.No Contents Page No.

1. Introduction 1
2. Objective 1
3. General Methodology of Fatigue Assessment 2
4. Simplified approach of Revised Provisions 2-5
5. Assessment of Residual Fatigue Life 5-6
6. Assumptions 6-7
7. Comments on Residual Fatigue Life Assessed 7-8
8. Limitation of the Results Obtained 8
9 Conclusion 8
Annexure-I 9-12
Annexure-II 13
Annexure-III 14-16
Annexure-IV 17-18
Annexure-V 19
Annexure-VI 20
Annexure-VII 21
Annexure-VIII 22
Annexure-IX 23-24

3
 ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL FATIGUE LIFE OF
BRIDGE NO. 586 NEAR KORAPUT, EAST COAST RAILWAY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Bridge No.586 (3x18.3m span plate girder) is situated at Km.198/9-11 on KK line

section of E.Co. Rly., Bhuvneshwar. The above bridge was built for BGML
loading in the year 1960 as per superstructure drawing no.BA - 1057. The track
is laid with 60 Kg rail with SWR and having 3 degree curvature. The gradient is 1
in 100 rising in loaded direction. Instrumentation of the bridges was undertaken
by B&S Directorate of RDSO in compliance of Chief Bridge Engineer/East Coast
Railway letter No. CBE/E.Co.R’s letter No. W3/Br/Instrumentation/Corres
/12.19/4867 dated 4.12.2008. Field tests were conducted to assess the level of
stresses in different members of the girders under the running traffic during Dec.,
2008. The general view of the bridge is shown in Figure – 1.

Figure – 1 General view of the Bridge No. 586, East Coast Railway

2.0 OBJECTIVE:

To strain gauge different members of the girders of bridge No.586 and also to
analyse the data for assessment of residual fatigue life of girders of the bridge.

1
3.0 GENERAL METHODOLOGY OF FATIGUE ASSESSMENT:

The essential information which is required to assess the fatigue life of a

structure is the pattern of stresses likely to be observed in it, during the passage
of normal traffic and the relationship between the applied stress cycles and the
number of times these can be withstood by the member detail or connection of
the structure. Such S-N relationships are usually available in various codes of
practices for different type of connections. Under normal service conditions,
Railway bridge structures are subjected to spectrum of varying stress–amplitude
and therefore, a process of damage accumulation continues. The fatigue
damage depends on the combined effect of the frequencies of different stress
ranges observed by the structure under service loading.

The residual fatigue life of an individual member detail or connection thus is

governed by the stress range spectrum causing fatigue damage and the capacity
of the member detail or connection to absorb fatigue effects. The stress range
spectrum primarily depends on the loading intensities, their sequences and the
structural configuration in which the member detail or connections are placed. In
the present case the arrangement is based on the revised fatigue provision of
IRS Steel Bridge Code and then the design life of the steel girders. The residual
fatigue life is thereafter calculated by deducting the service life already obtained.

4.0 SIMPLIFIED APPROACH OF REVISED FATIGUE PROVISIONS

4.1 The recommended equivalents for train loads are adopted in accordance with
existing provisions of IRS Bridge Rules, including the dynamic impact factor ‘φ’,
which is calculated as (1.0 + CDA), where CDA is the coefficient of Dynamic
Augment as specified in IRS Bridge Rules.

4.2 The maximum stress σP,max and the minimum stress σP,min are determined for a
detail or structural connection. The σP,max is for Dead Load + Full Live Load with
dynamic impact factor ‘φ’ whereas the σP,min is for dead load effects only.

4.3 The reference stress range ∆σP for determining the damage due to the stress
spectrum is obtained from:
∆σ P = σ P ,max − σ P ,min

4.4 The damage effects of the stress range spectrum are represented by the damage
equivalent stress range related to 2 million cycles as

∆σ E , 2 = λ * Φ * ∆σ P
Where,
λ is the damage equivalence factor, and
Φ is the dynamic impact factor (1.0 + CDA),
CDA is the coefficient of Dynamic Augment as specified in Bridge Rules
2
4.5 The value of damage equivalence factor, ‘λ’ are specific to the type of loading,
route GMT, design Life of the member detail or connection etc. and the values
are dependent on loaded length, ‘L’ which is defined in para 4.8

4.6 The fatigue assessment has been carried out by ensuring the satisfaction of the
following criteria:

γFf *∆σE,2 ≤ ∆σC / γMf

Where,

∆σC is the reference value of the fatigue strength at NC = 2 million cycles

γMf is the partial safety factor for material

γFf is the partial safety factor for loads

4.7 The damage equivalent factor for railway bridges are determined from:

λ = λ1 * λ2 * λ3 * λ4 subject to the condition that λ ≤ λmax

where

λ1 is a factor that takes into account the damaging effect of traffic and
depends on the base length of the longest loop of the influence line
diagram

λ2 is a factor that takes into account the annual traffic volume in million
tonnes

λ3 is a factor that takes into account the design life of the bridge in years

λ4 is a factor to be taken into account when the bridge structure is loaded on

more than one track

4.8 The values of λ1 are given in Tables-1 for MBG loading as a function of the
loaded length. The loaded length is taken as the base length of largest loop of
the influence line diagram of the structural detail/connection under consideration.
In the present case of Plate Girder, this value is taken as effective length of the
span.

3
 Table 1: λ1 for MBG Loading

Span Train Train Train Train Train Train Train Train- Train Train-
Envelope
(m) -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 8 -9 10
0.50 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.53 1.30 1.22 1.28 1.42 0.97 0.96 1.53
1.00 1.19 1.22 1.23 1.51 1.28 1.21 1.27 1.42 0.96 0.95 1.51
1.50 1.18 1.21 1.23 1.50 1.24 1.20 1.25 1.41 0.96 0.95 1.50
2.00 1.17 1.20 1.22 1.48 1.21 1.19 1.24 1.40 0.95 0.95 1.48
2.50 1.16 1.20 1.21 1.45 1.19 1.18 1.23 1.39 0.95 0.94 1.45
3.00 1.15 1.19 1.21 1.42 1.17 1.17 1.22 1.38 0.94 0.94 1.42
3.50 1.14 1.18 1.20 1.39 1.14 1.16 1.20 1.38 0.94 0.93 1.39
4.00 1.13 1.17 1.19 1.36 1.11 1.15 1.19 1.37 0.94 0.93 1.37
4.50 1.12 1.17 1.19 1.33 1.08 1.13 1.18 1.36 0.93 0.92 1.36
5.00 1.11 1.16 1.18 1.30 1.07 1.12 1.17 1.35 0.93 0.91 1.35
6.00 1.09 1.14 1.17 1.24 1.04 1.09 1.14 1.33 0.92 0.90 1.33
7.00 1.07 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.01 1.07 1.12 1.31 0.86 0.88 1.31
8.00 1.04 1.10 1.13 1.07 0.98 1.05 1.10 1.30 0.77 0.86 1.30
9.00 0.97 1.06 1.11 0.99 0.95 1.03 1.08 1.29 0.74 0.84 1.29
10.00 0.95 1.00 1.06 1.04 0.98 1.06 1.09 1.29 0.81 0.86 1.29
12.50 0.93 0.97 1.01 0.93 0.92 1.01 1.05 1.23 0.77 0.83 1.23
15.00 0.92 0.96 1.00 0.83 0.87 0.98 0.97 1.19 0.75 0.81 1.19
17.50 0.90 0.93 0.97 0.75 0.84 0.88 0.90 1.16 0.73 0.80 1.16
20.00 0.92 0.98 1.03 0.70 0.85 0.86 0.90 1.13 0.68 0.80 1.13
25.00 0.85 1.00 1.02 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.83 1.08 0.63 0.65 1.08
30.00 0.80 0.98 1.00 0.55 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.05 0.61 0.61 1.05
35.00 0.76 0.82 0.84 0.52 0.77 0.73 0.76 0.84 0.62 0.63 0.84
40.00 0.73 0.78 0.79 0.50 0.73 0.73 0.78 0.84 0.63 0.65 0.84
45.00 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.49 0.72 0.72 0.74 0.80 0.65 0.65 0.80
50.00 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.49 0.71 0.72 0.74 0.78 0.64 0.66 0.78
60.00 0.61 0.62 0.62 0.49 0.69 0.70 0.74 0.76 0.63 0.65 0.76
70.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.46 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.77 0.61 0.65 0.77
80.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.46 0.70 0.69 0.73 0.75 0.61 0.63 0.75
90.00 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.47 0.70 0.66 0.73 0.74 0.60 0.61 0.74
100.0 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.46 0.66 0.65 0.73 0.73 0.60 0.59 0.73

4.9 The value of λ2 , in terms of the annual volume of traffic to be obtained from the
following expression:

λ2 = 0.5193 * Ta 0.2036

Where Ta is the annual volume of traffic expressed in Gross Million tonnes.

4
4.10 The value of λ3 will be taken as 1.0 for a design life of 100 years. For other
values of design life the corresponding value may be calculated from the
following expression where LD is the design life in years

λ3 = 0.3899 * LD 0.2048

4.11 The value of λ4, is taken as 1.0 for single track bridge.

4.12 The value of λ should not exceed λmax which is specified as 1.4.

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF RESIDUAL FATIGUE LIFE

5.1 Maximum stress range is taken as the difference of maximum stress likely to
come in the member with DL, Impact load and live load and the dead load stress.
The maximum bending stresses due to equivalent uniformly distributed load for
IRS loadings is given in Bridge Rules, have been worked out and the maximum
stress range is calculated for the sectional speeds 75 kmph and 60 kmph. The
detailed calculations are shown in Annexure-I. As per the calculations for design
BGML loading and CDA formula presently being used, the maximum stress
range at 60 kmph is worked out as 98.4 MPa.

5.2 As a first step the assessment of design fatigue life has been made based on the
above stress range ( 98.4 MPa) calculated at 60 kmph. The calculation are
shown in Annexure-II. As per these calculation, the design fatigue life comes out
as 12 years. Since the bridge has already given a service life of 50 years, this
estimate of design fatigue life is over conservative and needed revision. Hence,
the experimental data obtained through instrumentation has been utilized to
improve the estimate of residual fatigue life.

5.3 During the field instrumentation a maximum stress range of 70 MPa has been
observed in top flange (bending compression). However, the fatigue is not
considered critical in compression and therefore, the maximum stress range of
60 MPa observed in the bottom flange (bending tension), is considered to govern
the estimate of design fatigue.

5.4 The detailed calculations for design fatigue life using this experimental stress
range in bottom flange is shown in Table – 2.

5
 Table – 2 CALCULATION SHEET TO WORKOUT RESIDUAL FATIGUE LIFE
(Based On Stress Range Observed During Instrumentation)

S.No. Parameter/Variable Value

1 Type of loading MBG
2 Loaded length, L 19.4
3 Loading factor, λ1 1.14
4 Maximum Stress Range, φΔσp 60
5 Fatigue Cat., Δσc 80
6 GMT 40
7 λ2 1.101
8 λ4 1
9 λmf 1
10 λfF 1
11
λ=
(
 ∆σ c / γ mf
 )
  1.333
 φ∆σ p
 

12 λ< 1.40 Okay
13
λ
λ3 = 1.063
λ1.λ 2 .λ 4

14 1
 λ 3  .2048 133.777
Design Life, LD =  
 0.3899 
15 or Design Life (LD ) = 133 years Say
16 Service life already given since 1980 50 years
17 Residual fatigue life 83 years

Note : Further detailed analysis using stress range histogram not considered
necessary in view of sufficient residual fatigue life obtained with
simplified method with maximum stress range observed.

6.0 ASSUMPTIONS

(i) In the analysis only the tensile bending stresses due to maximum bending
moment are to be taken into consideration to find out the maximum stress
range. The design fatigue life has been assessed accordingly.

6
 (ii) GMT factor is taken as per proposed fatigue criteria in 78th BSC, for an
average GMT of 40.

(iii) Partial factor of safety is assumed as 1.0 for analysis of existing bridges.

(iv) Fatigue categories are chosen as per the Table – 3 which is based on the
tables given in draft provisions, discussed in 78th BSC and the engineering
judgment applied.

(v) The design fatigue life has been worked out by using the following
relationship with λ3 as given in draft fatigue provisions discussed in 78th
BSC.

λ 3 = 0.3899 * L D 0.2048

1
 λ 3  0.2048
Or L D =  
 0.3899 

TABLE – 3 FATIGUE CATEGORIES FOR MEMBER DETAIL/CONNECTIONS

Member detail or Fatigue category

S.No. connection to be Remark
assessed Category Reference

Stringer, X-girder & Plate Details 5 & 6

100
girders (welded type) of Table 9.2
Bending stresses
1
Stringer, X-girder & Plate Detail 8 of at mid of span
80
girders (rivetted type) Table 9.1
2 Fillet weld of web-flange Shear stress at
connection of stringer/x- Detail 8 of
80 throat area of
girder Table 9.5
weld.
3 Gusset connections Detail 8 of Axial stresses on
80
Table 9.1 net area.
4 Stringer and x-girder Shear stress on
Detail 11 of
connection 100 shank area of
Table 9.1
rivet/bolt

7.0 COMMENTS ON RESIDUAL FATIGUE LIFE ASSESSED

Based on above assumptions, the design calculations for assessment of design

fatigue life of plate girders is given in Table – 2 for MBG loading. Considering
the service life of 50 years already given by the bridge, the residual fatigue life for
7
 the given conditions of traffic GMT and axle loads is calculated as 83 years. Re-
assessment of residual fatigue life can be made, if the traffic conditions or
loadings are changed drastically.

8.0 LIMITATION OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED

The results of analysis may be interpreted keeping in view the following:

i) Assessment is based on average GMT of the route over the life span of
the bridge. The GMT being carried in present may be actually different.

ii) It is to be noted that the annual GMT for a particular route may not be
comprised of the trains causing maximum stress range. Situation may
vary route wise and partial GMT may be due to trains causing much lower
stress range. Therefore fatigue life assessment is on conservative side.

iii) In cases the fatigue life assessed is less than the service life of the bridge
and there are no fatigue cracks reported, a more detailed fatigue
assessment would be required taking into consideration the representative
traffic load model consisting of actual set of trains on the route.

iv) It is assumed that the physical condition of the bridge is otherwise sound
from other considerations and there is no adverse effect of corrosion,
pitting and other defects during the service life of the bridge.

9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 The residual fatigue life as assessed using stress range worked out analytically
stress range worked out analytically for a speed of 60 kmph gives insufficient
design life of steel girders. Hence instrumentation of the bridge was necessary
to find out the actual stresses in the girder at various locations.

9.2 The maximum observed stress range of 90 MPa was noted a top flange (in
bending compression) which is not critical from fatigue consideration. The
bottom flange (in bending tension) is critical from fatigue consideration where
maximum stress range of 60 MPa was observed.

9.3 Based on instrumentation observations, the residual fatigue life of girder has
been estimated as 83 years which is sufficient, provided the physical condition of
girders is otherwise satisfactory.

8
 ANNEXURE-I

18.3 MTS BGML

Section with Angles

18
410

4 L. 150x150x18

WEB PL. 1830x10

10

1866
1830

2 FL. PLs. 410x18

410
18

Dead Load = 23.46 tonnes b= 410

Clear span = 18.3 mts. tf= 18
Effective span = 19.4 mts. tw= 10
dw=1830

Size of each angle – 150 x 150

Thickness of angle – 18mm

Section Properties

2 2
183 3 × 1  183   183 1.8 
I xx = + 2 × 2097.8 + 2 × 101.58 ×  − 4.38  + 2 × 41× 1.8 + 
12  2   2 2 
= 510707.25 + 4194 + 1541962.946 + 1260173.376

9
 = 3317037.572 cm4

Impact Factor

8
CDA = 0.15 +
6+L
8
= 0.15 + = 0.465
6 + 19.4

75
CDA at 75 kmph = 0.465 × = 0.279
125
60
CDA at 60 kmph = 0.465 ×
125
= 0.22

FOR BGML LOADING

Live Load = 193.9 +

(202.7 − 193.9 )
× 0 .4
1

= 197.42 x 1.465

= 289.2203 tonnes

LL with CDA at 75 kmph = 197.42 x 1.279

= 252.5 tonnes
LL with CDA at 60 kmph = 197.42 x 1.22
= 241 tonnes

Stress due to Bending

M
σ= .Y
I

Where,

M = Bending Moment
I = Moment of Inertia of I – Section
Y = Distance of top of top flange plates from N.A.

 183 + 36 
Y= 
 2 

= 109.5 cm

10
 W.l 1
M due to DL = × Where W = DL (ton)
8 2
L = Effective span (mts)
23.46 × 19.4 1
= ×
8 2

= 28.445 t-m

28.445
σ D .L = × 109.5 × 1000 × 100
3317037 .572

= 94 kg/cm2

=σP,min
DL + LL with CDA
275.96 × 19.4 1
MD.L+ L.L + Impact = × W = 23.46+252.5
8 2

= 334.6 t-m = 275.96 tonnes for 75 kmph

264.46 × 19.4 1
MD.L+ L.L + Impact = × W = 23.46+241
8 2

= 320 t-m = 264.46 tonnes for 60 kmph

334.6 × 109.5
σD.L.+ L.L + Impact for 75 = × 1000 × 100
3317037.572

= 1104.57 kg/cm2

= σP,max

320 × 109.5
σD.L.+ L.L + Impact for 60 = × 1000 × 100
3317037.572

= 1058.54 kg/cm2

= σP,max

Stress Range at 75 kmph, ∆σ P = σ P ,max − σ P ,min

11
 = 1104.57 − 94

= 1010.57 kg/cm2

= 103.00 N/mm2

Stress Range at 60 kmph, ∆σ P = σ P ,max − σ P ,min

= 1058.54 − 94

= 964.54 kg/cm2

= 98.40 N/mm2

12
 ANNEXURE-II

Table – 2 CALCULATION SHEET TO WORKOUT RESIDUAL FATIGUE LIFE

FOR ANALYTICAL STRESS RANGE AT 60 KMPH

S.No. Parameter/Variable Value

1 Type of loading MBG
2 Loaded length, L 19.4
3 Loading factor, λ1 1.14
4 Maximum Stress Range, φΔσp 98.4
5 Fatigue Cat., Δσc 80
6 GMT 40
7 λ2 1.101
8 λ4 1
9 λmf 1
10 λfF 1
11
λ=
(
 ∆σ c / γ mf
 )
  0.813
 φ∆σ p
 

12 λ< 1.40 Okay
13
λ
λ3 = 0.648
λ1.λ 2 .λ 4

14 1
 λ 3  .2048 11.949
Design Life, LD =  
 0.3899 
15 or Design Life (LD ) 12 years (Say)

Note : Since the bridge was constructed in 1960, a service life of 50 years has
already been given. Hence, the estimate needs revision based on
actual stress ranges observed during instrumentation.

13
 ANNEXURE-III

INSTRUMENTATION , RECORDING & ANALYSIS OF DATA

Span No.1 (first span from Koraput end) was selected for instrumentation of the
bridge. The details of the instrumentation on the selected span are shown in Annexure-
VII. The following members of the girders were instrumented for observing strains under
running traffic.

i) Top flange Up stream (near center of the girder)

ii) Top flange Dn stream (near center of the girder)
iii) Bottom flange Up stream (near center of the girder)
iv) Bottom flange Dn stream (near center of the girder)
v) Web plate Dn stream (shear gauge KRPU end)
vi) Web plate Up stream (shear gauge KRPU end)
vii) Running rail Dn stream KRPU end ( wheel marker for speed )

Electrical resistance strain gauges were fixed in all the selected members near
the critical locations. The details of the strain gauges used and the calibration details
are given in Annexure-VII. Two strain gauges were also fixed in one of the running rails
of the girder for calculating the speed of the train, just before the train passing through
the instrumented girder for locating the position of wheels of the trains passing over the
bridge on the recording paper (wheel marker). The relative distance of the wheels of a
particular rolling stock being known, the speed of the trains can be calculated by
measuring the time interval that elapsed between the passages of particular wheels.
The strains were recorded for different type of trains which comprises passenger and
goods trains. The details of the trains recorded are shown in Annexure-V. As an
average 24 trains of different types passes over the bridge during 24 hours, analysis of
observed values of strains in the members instrumented has been done for 24 trains (2
passenger and 22 goods) for calculating the damage experienced by the girder of the
bridge.

The surface of the members is smoothened by emery paper/grinder and cleaned

by acetone before fixing the strain gauges. The surfaces are dried by using electrical
heater to remove any moisture present. Strain gauges were fixed with the help of Fevi-
quick. Brush and Astro-med strain recorders were used to record the strains from
different members for different types of trains passing on the bridge. Earlier strain
gauges were fixed at the centre of the girder (T1,T2,B1 & B2 refer Annexure-VII ) but
due to lower value of strains observed and existence of strengthening plate,
subsequently gauges were shifted 155mm away from the centre of the girder towards
KRDL in both the girders (T3,T4,B3,B4 refer Annexure-VII ). Before acquiring the data
calibration of all the channels has been done. The Astro-med strain recorder with trace
of strains in different members is shown in Photograph-1.

14
 Photograph-1 Astro-med strain recorder

Passenger train can be identified from the dynamic strain signals recorded on the
chart paper. This is because there is an initial large strain peak, followed by a
substantially lower peak strain level during the passage of the train over the span. The
initial large strain peak coincides with the passage of the engine, and the subsequent
lower peak strain level corresponds to the passage of the passenger coaches. Similarly,
a goods train with fully loaded wagons can be easily identified. This is because the
peak strain levels are fairly uniform during the passage of the train, as the weight of the
engine and the fully loaded goods wagons are roughly similar. The flicks given by strain
gauges fixed on the web of the running rail due to passing of wheels on the rail can also
be used to identify the type of train along with number of coaches/wagons passing on
the tested span. The copy of actual record of strains in some of the instrumented
members of the girder for a passenger train is shown in Annexure-VIII.

ANALYSIS OF DATA: In order to draw the stress histogram i.e., the diagram which
represents the number of times various stress level occurs at a point in a bridge under
defined traffic conditions. Stress- time history records for equivalent number of the trains
passing over the bridge during 24 hours were analyzed. Data recorded on date
25.12.08 was analysed as these data were collected for the strain gauges fixed for the
shifted locations, where the strains observed were comparatively on higher side. The
analysis of data was done by Rain-flow counting method. This method of counting is
15
preferred for bridges as this method counts all parts of the stress- time history exactly
once and is described briefly as under:

In Rain flow counting method, a half cycle is counted from the initial strains to the
maximum from where, it drops to the next slope and to the next maximum and so on.
Again a half cycle is counted from the highest maximum reached on the previous half
cycle down to the next slope and on the next minimum and so on. The counting started
from the minimum strain value and ended at a minimum value when the similarity of the
cycle ends. A sample sheet of calculation of stress-time history by Rain flow counting
method is shown in Annexure-VI. The number of half cycles was counted separately for
each train composition. These half cycles were sum up for all the trains recorded and
these values are divided by two to make a full cycle. The peak values of these cycles
are converted into strains in microns and stresses in N/mm2. The values of observed
strains/stresses with their cycles for different members are shown in Annexure-IV. The
stresses computed from observed strains under dynamic conditions are divided into
different groups of stress ranges, like 0-10, 10-20, 20-30 N/mm2, and so on, with
number of occurrences of these stress ranges. Stress histograms are prepared for
different members having maximum value of observed stress ranges. With the
frequencies of these different stress ranges, stress histograms prepared, are shown in
Annexure-IX.

16
 ANNEXURE-IV

FIELD OBSERVATIONS

1. The highest value of stress range observed is 70 N/mm2 for Top flange D/S
member of the girder having only 10 cycles and the next lower range i.e., 60
N/mm2 has only 5 cycles (Ref. table-3 & Fig.4)

2. The highest value of stress range observed for bottom flange U/S member is 60
N/mm2 of the girder having only 6 cycles, but the next lower range i.e., 40 N/mm2
has 16 cycles (14 as effective cycles). Other members are having lower level of
stress ranges. These values are observed during the entire 12 train’s record in
two days. (Ref. table-2 & Fig.4). Since 24 trains passes during 24 hours through
this section ,therefore the observed cycles were doubled for the calculating
damage per day.

3. Highest value of stress at 50 Kmph was observed in Top flange D/S member
was 67.5 N/mm2 whereas at 20 Kmph same is observed as 45 N/mm2 for Top
flange U/S girder.

4. ESTIMATION OF RESIDUAL LIFE:

4.1 Member: Top flange U/S (T4)

Stress Range No. of effective No. of theoretical cycles(Ni) as

in N/mm2 cycles (ni) per SN curve X 106

0-10 13 3990.00
10-20 60 498.75
20-30 0 147.78
30-40 5 62.34
40-50 14 31.92

17
4.2 Member: Top flange D/S (T3)
Stress Range No. of effective No. of theoretical cycles (Ni)
in N/mm2 cycles (ni) as per SN curve X 106

0-10 13 3990.00
10-20 87 498.75
20-30 24 147.78
30-40 3 62.34
40-50 7 31.92
50-60 5 18.47
60-70 10 11.63

4.3 Member: Bottom flange U/S (B4)

Stress Range No. of effective No. of theoretical cycles (Ni)
in N/mm2 cycles (ni) as per SN curve X 106

0-10 22 3990.00
10-20 67 498.75
20-30 2 147.78
30-40 1 62.34
40-50 14 31.92
50-60 6 18.47

4.4 Member: Bottom flange D/S (B3)

Stress Range No. of effective No. of theoretical cycles (Ni)

in N/mm2 cycles (ni) as per SN curve X 106

0-10 16 3990.00
10-20 93 498.75
20-30 17 147.78
30-40 5 62.34
40-50 14 31.92

18
 ANNEXURE- V

DETAILS OF TRAINS FOR RECORDING STRAINS IN DIFFERENT MEMBERS

Date Run No Type of train Type of Time

Engine (hrs)
28.12.07 1 Goods WAG5 12.05
2 Passenger 2VK WAG5A 12.55
3 Goods WAG5D 13.45
4 Passenger 1VK WAG5D 14.10
5 Goods WAG5A 14.40
6 Goods WAG5B 15.45
7 Goods WAG5B 16.10
29.12.08 8 Goods WAG5D 09.40
9 Goods WAG5 12-00
10 Pass. 2 VK WAG5 13.00
11 Goods WAG6C 13.40
12 Passenger 1 VK WAG5A 14.25
13 Goods WAG6C 15.35
14 Goods WAG5D 16.05
15 Goods WAG5A 18.35
30.12.08 16 Goods WAG5 09.05
17 Test train(Goods) WAG5 11.50
30kmph
18 -do- 50KMPH WAG5 12.05
19 Pass 2VK WDG5 13.15
20 Goods WAG5 13.30
21 Power triple WAG5 14.45
22 Pass. 1VK WAG5A 14.52
23 Goods WAG5 E 15.30
24 Goods WAGHA 15.55
25 Goods WDG5D 16.25
26 Goods WDG5E 16.45
27 Goods WAG6B 17.15
28 Pass 2 VK WAG5A 12.55
29 Pass WAG5A 14.05

19
 ANNEXURE-VI

OBSERVED VALUES OF STRESS RANGES IN DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE

GIRDER WITH THEIR OBSERVED CYCLES BY RDSO

S.No Member Observed value Computed values No. of cycles observed by

of strains in of stress Ranges in RDSO
Microns N/mm2 Observed Effective

1 Top Upto 48 Upto 10 373 13

flange
U/S (T4)
48- 96 10-20 423 60
96-144 20-30 0 0
144-192 30-40 8 5
192-240 40-50 16 14
Total 820 94

2 fop Upto 48 Upto 10 6

Flange
D/S (T3)
48- 96 10-20 379 13
96-144 20-30 614 87
144-192 30-40 75 24
192-240 40-50 5 3
240-288 50-60 8 7
288-336 60-70 5 5
336-384 70-80 10 10
Total 1096 148

3 Bottom Upto 48 Upto 10 608 22

flange
U/S (B4)
48- 96 10-20 473 67
96-144 20-30 7 2
144-192 30-40 2 1
192-240 40-50 16 14
240-288 50-60 6 6
288-336 60-70 0 0
Total 1112 112

4 Bottom Upto 48 Upto 10 442 16

flange
D/S (B3)
48- 96 10-20 655 93
96-144 20-30 52 17
144-192 30-40 8 5
192-240 40-50 16 14
240-288 50-60 0 0
288-336 60-70 0 0
Total 1173 145

20
 ANNEXURE-VII

INSTRUMENTATION DETAILS OF TEST SPAN

21
 ANNEXURE-VIII

COPY OF ACTUAL RECORD OF STRAINS FOR A PASSENGER TRAIN

22
 ANNEXURE-IX

HISTOGRAM OF OBSERVED AND EFFECTIVE CYCLES VS STRESS RANGE

23
24