Rutgers Lib 31104 PDF 1

FIELD TESTING AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR
EVALUATION OF RAILROAD BRIDGES

by
OZAN ETKIN KARA
A Thesis submitted to the

Graduate School New Brunswick
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
Graduate Program in Civil and Environmental Engineering
written under the direction of
Dr. Hani H. Nassif
and approved by
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
New Brunswick, New Jersey

January 2011
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
FIELD TESTING AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR

EVALUATION OF RAILROAD BRIDGES
by OZAN ETKIN KARA
Thesis Director:
Dr. Hani H. Nassif
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Throughout the centuries, railroads have been the most important means of
transportation. The capacity of railroads should be increased with the booming economy.
In order to keep in step with an increased demand for freight, goods and services, New
Jersey Department of Transportation increased the capacity of existing railroads to be
able to increase the freight capacity. In New Jersey, a proposed increase of railcar weight
limits from 263,000 lb to 286,000 lb raised additional concerns for the passenger rail
systems since the bridges in the passenger rail system were not designed based on the
increased freight railcar weight. The effect of increased freight railcars on passenger rail
systems must be evaluated.
The impact of the proposed increase freight railcars on three rail road bridges in
New Jersey is investigated through the study presented herein. The AREMA
Specifications were utilized to estimate the load rating of the bridge. Moreover, strain
ii
transducers were implemented to the structural members of Bridge A, one of the selected
bridges, to collect strain measurements. Various measurements were performed to
measure the deflection in companion with the strain measurements by means of reflective
target tapes and Laser Doppler Vibration Unit. A total of 6 tests were performed with the
passenger railcars that NJ Transit provided the axle configuration and axle weights.
Additionally, a three dimensional finite element (FE) model was developed to
evaluate the behavior of three bridges under 286,000 lb railcar on a software program
ABAQUS (Version 6.8.1). The recorded deflection and strain readings from the strain
transducers and Laser Doppler Vibration Unit were utilized to calibrate the three
dimensional FE model. Results from AREMA evaluation procedure and those from FE
Model were compared.
A considerable difference arose between finite element analysis and simple beam
analysis based on AREMA Specifications. It was found out that the bridge has more
capacity to allow the increase of the freight railcar according to the finite element
analysis. A more conservative approach was adopted in AREMA Specifications.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like thank my advisor Dr. Hani H. Nassif for his support throughout all
my study at Rutgers. It was an honor to work with him and have a state of his engineering
and life experience.
I would also like to thank Dr. Husam Najm and Dr. Kaan Ozbay for being in my
thesis committee and their valuable advices.
I would like to thank Rohit Patel and Michael Colville from Arora and Associates
for their help on my study.
I would like to thank Ed Konrath and Miki Krauker from NJDOT, David Dieck,
Charles Maliszewski and Paul Falkowski from NJ Transit for their suggestions and help.
I would like to thank my family for their infinite support and care during all
stages of my life.
Special thanks to Amy Deighan for her support and care at every stage in my life.
Special thanks to Ufuk Ates for his help at the early stages of my laboratory
experience. His friendship and support was really important.
Special thanks to Pasa Ahmet Iscanli, Arda Bakir, Pamir Erturk, Samed Atak,
Sinan Cankaya, Tayfun Kip, Turgut Karaman, Ekrem Gorkem, Aydin Sipit, Batuhan
Uslu, Gokhan Dogan, Caner Aksoy and Ali Fuat Aksoy for their infinite support
regardless of distance.
iv
I would like to thank to Mehmet Yildiriouglu, Mert Kural, Aytug Pala, Erman
Ozguven, Kagan Aktas and Anil Yazici for their support and friendship during my study.
I would like to thank Tim Walkowich, Alex Rothstein and Parth Oza for their
help on my study. Special thanks to Dan Su for being a mentor for my study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS .......................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv
1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1
1.1
Problem Statement .............................................................................................1
1.2
Research Objectives and Scope .........................................................................4
1.3
The Selected Bridges .........................................................................................4
1.4
2
1.3.1
Bridge A .....................................................................................................4
1.3.2
Bridge B .....................................................................................................5
1.3.3
Bridge C .....................................................................................................5
Typical 286 Kips Railcars .................................................................................5
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................8

2.1
Introduction .......................................................................................................8
2.2
Bridge Load Rating Conducted by Other DOT .................................................9
2.3
2.2.1
Wisconsin DOT ..........................................................................................9
2.2.2
Pennsylvania DOT ...................................................................................14
Field Tests on Railroad Bridges ......................................................................18

2.3.1
Timber Trestle Bridges (Colorado State university) ................................18
2.3.2
Built-up Steel Girder Bridge (Rutgers University) ..................................21

vi
2.3.3
Built-up Steel Girder Bridge (University of Delaware) ...........................26
2.3.4
Built-up Truss Bridge (University of Connecticut)..................................28
2.4
Finite Element Modeling .................................................................................31
2.5
Summary..........................................................................................................34
LOAD RATING USING AREMA SPECIFICATIONS ...........................................36

3.1
Rating of Existing Steel Bridge .......................................................................36
3.2
Load Rating of Bridge A .................................................................................41

3.2.1
286K Freight Railcar Ratings (Project Proposal Railcar) ........................46
3.2.1.1 Impact Factor ...................................................................................46

3.2.1.2 Moment Rating ................................................................................48
3.2.1.3 End Shear Rating .............................................................................50
3.2.1.4 286 Kip Equivalent Cooper-E Load Ratings ...................................51
4
INSTRUMENTATION AND FIELD TESTING ......................................................54

4.1
Structural Testing System ................................................................................54
4.2
Laser Doppler Vibrometer ...............................................................................57
4.3
Testing .............................................................................................................58
FINITE ELEMENT BRIDGE ANALYSIS ...............................................................72

5.1
Finite Element Model ......................................................................................72

5.1.1
Material Properties ...................................................................................73

vii
5.1.2
Element Selection and Analysis Procedure ..............................................74
5.1.3
Model Verifications..................................................................................75
COMPARISON OF RESULTS .................................................................................81

6.1
286Kip Rail Car Analysis ................................................................................81
6.2
E Cooper 80 Rail Car Analysis........................................................................86
6.3
Load Rating Calculations Using Finite Element Analysis ..............................87

6.3.1
Moment Rating.........................................................................................87
6.3.2
Shear Rating .............................................................................................89
6.4
286kip Rail Car and Field Data Comparison...................................................90
6.5
Load Rating Comparison between FE Model and Load Rating Calculations
Using AREMA Specifications .......................................................................................91

7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................94

7.1
Summary and Conclusions ..............................................................................94
7.2
Scope for Future Research ...............................................................................95
APPENDIX A BRIDGE B .............................................................................................97

APPENDIX B BRIDGE C............................................................................................100
APPENDIX C quickBridge RESULTS ........................................................................103
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................115
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. View of Selected Bridge A for Field instrumentation and Testing. (Inspection
Cycle Report 3, 2005). .........................................................................................................3
Figure 2. General and Plan View of the Superstructure of Bridge B (Inspection Cycle
Report 3, 2002). ...................................................................................................................3
Figure 3. General Plan of Bridge C (Inspection Cycle Report 3, 2002). .............................4
Figure 4. 286 kips rail car (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus Constructors 2006) ......10
Figure 5. Defects in timber bridge (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus Constructors
2006) ..................................................................................................................................11
Figure 6. Differential settlement of steel bridge pier (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus
Constructors 2006) .............................................................................................................11
Figure 7. Rail car loadings (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus Constructors 2006) .....12
Figure 8. Railcar weight and dimension (Leighty III et al. 2004) .....................................16
Figure 9. Open-deck timber bridge; (a) Schematic drawing; (b) Stringer layout ..............18
Figure 10. Instrumentation on the bridge (Gutkowski et al. 2003) ....................................19
Figure 11. Test train (Gutkowski et al. 2003) ....................................................................20
Figure 12. Typical load position (Gutkowski et al. 2003) .................................................20
Figure 13. Tested Bridge (Nassif et al. 2002) ....................................................................22
ix
Figure 14. Instrumentation locations (Nassif et al. 2002) ..................................................23

Figure 15. Installed sensors (Nassif et al. 2002) ................................................................23
Figure 16. Train positioned for static test (Nassif et al. 2002) ..........................................24
Figure 17. Typical deflection profile in Trough under train loading (Nassif et al. 2007) .25
Figure 18. Dynamic strain measured under moving train (Nassif et al. 2002 ...................25
Figure 19. Tested bridge (Chajes et al. 2001) ....................................................................26
Figure 20. Transducer locations (Chajes et al. 2001) ........................................................27
Figure 21. Typical strain time history data (Chajes et al. 2001) ........................................28
Figure 22. Tested railroad truss bridge (DelGrego 2008) ..................................................29
Figure 23. Stresses in diagonal members (DelGrego et al. 2008) .....................................30
Figure 24. Tied arch bridge (Malm and Andersson 2006).................................................32
Figure 25. Investigated arch bridge (Calcada et al. 2002) .................................................33
Figure 26. Finite element model of bridge for high speed train ........................................34
Figure 27. General View of Span 2 Superstructure and Underside of Girder 2 ................44
Figure 28. Cut-off Points on Girder 2 Span 2. ...................................................................45
Figure 29. Impact Load Configuration on the Floor Beams ..............................................47
Figure 30. Wireless Data Collection System, Bridge Diagnostics Inc. .............................55
Figure 31. Technical Specications of Wi -Fi Data Collection System ..............................56

Figure 32. STS Strain Transducer Installed on a Bridge Superstructure Member ............57
Figure 33. Laser Doppler Vibrometer Measuring Deflections ..........................................58
Figure 34. General View of the Main Span and the Controlling Member for the Load
Rating (Center Girder), View from Google Maps. ............................................................58
Figure 35. Sensor Instrumentation and Test Equipment ....................................................59
Figure 36. Sensor Locations on the Plan View ..................................................................60
Figure 37. Sensor Locations at A-A Section (Midspan) ....................................................62
Figure 38. Sensor Locations at B-B Section (First Cut-off Point ......................................63
Figure 39. Location of Strain Gage Number 2 and 3 .........................................................63
Figure 40. Location of Strain Gages Number 5,6 and 7,8. ................................................64
Figure 41. Plan View and Direction of Case 2 and 3.........................................................64
Figure 42. Strain Data from Case 2, Sensors (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2049. (d) 2050. .......67
Figure 43. Strain Data from Case 4, Sensors (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2049. (d) 2050. .......68
Figure 44. Strain Data from Case 3, Sensors (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2049. (d) 2050 ........69
Figure 45. Strain Data from Case 5, Sensors (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2049. (d) 2050 ........70
Figure 46. Deflection Measurements, (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2. ...........................................71
Figure 47. FE Model ..........................................................................................................72
xi
Figure 48. Deflected Model with GP40-PH-2B Rail Car Loading. ...................................73
Figure 49. Connectors between Different Element Sets ....................................................74
Figure 50. Strain Data Comparison for Case 2, (a) Sensor 2049, (b) Sensor 2046. ..........76
Figure 57. Deflection Data Comparison, (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2. ......................................80
Figure 58. Deflected Shape of FE Model due to Dead Load + Wind Load ......................82
Figure 59. Stress at, (a) First Cut-off Point, (b) Second Cut-off Point, (c) Third Cut-off
Point, (d) Midspan. ............................................................................................................83
Figure 60. Deflected Shape of the Finite Element Model under 286kip Rail Car Live
Load Configuration. ...........................................................................................................84
Figure 61. 286kip Rail Car Analysis, Deflection at the Midspan. .....................................84
Figure 62. 286kip Rail Car Analysis Results at the Location of Sensors , (a) 2487, (b)
2046, (c) 2491, (d) 2050. ...................................................................................................85
xii
Figure 63. Deflected Shape of the Model due to Cooper E-80 Rail Car Loading .............86
Figure 64. Comparison between 286kip Rail Car Analysis, GP40-PH-2B Rail Car
Analysis and Field Data, (a) Midspan, (b) Second Cut-off Point, (c) Third cut-off Point,
(d) First Cut-off Point. .......................................................................................................90
Figure 65. Load Rating Results, Comparison between FEM and Simple Analysis ..........93
Figure 66. Bridge B Finite Element Model ....................................................................99
Figure 67. Bridge C Finite Element Model ..................................................................102
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 286-Kip Railcar Diagrams .....................................................................................7
Table 2. Timber bridge rating results (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus Constructors
2006) ..................................................................................................................................13
Table 3. Steel and concrete bridge rating results (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus
Constructors 2006) .............................................................................................................13
Table 4. Bridge sample selected for evaluation (Leighty III et al. 2004) ..........................15
Table 5. Capacity/Load ration in percentage (Leighty III et al. 2004) ..............................17
Table 6. Train axle weight (Gutkowski et al. 2003) ..........................................................21
Table 7. Allowable Stresses for Normal Rating (AREMA Manual 2010, Table 15-1-11,
Pg. 15-1-40) .......................................................................................................................39
Table 8. Allowable Stresses for Maximum Rating (AREMA Manual 2010, Table 15-7-1,
Pg. 15-7-19), K=Fy , where Fy is the allowable stress. (AREMA 2010, Pg. 15-7-18). .....40
Table 9. Live Load due to E-Cooper 80 Railcar & Section Capacity and Allowable
Stresses ...............................................................................................................................42
Table 10. Necessary Moments for Bridge A Load Rating.................................................48
Table 11. Necessary Shear Forces to Calculate End Shear Rating ....................................50
Table 12. Number of Sensors and Reflector Gages at Bridge A. ......................................60
xiv
Table 13. Sensor ID Numbers and Locations ....................................................................61

Table 14. Information about the Tested Trains. .................................................................65
Table 15. Types and Configurations of Tested Rail Cars. .................................................66
Table 16. Laser Doppler Vibrometer, Location of Deflection Measurements ..................71
Table 17. Dead Load and Wind Load. ...............................................................................82
Table 18. 286kip Rail Car Analysis Results. .....................................................................82
Table 19. Cooper E-80 Analysis Results ...........................................................................86
Table 20. 286kip Rail Car Analysis Results, Shear Forces ...............................................89
Table 21. Normal Load Rating Comparison between FE Model Results and Simple Beam
Analysis Results at First Cut-off Point and Second Cut-off Point.....................................91
Analysis Results at First Cut-off Point and Second Cut-off Point.....................................92
Table 23. Maximum Load Rating Comparison between FE Model Results and Simple
Beam Analysis Results at First Cut-off Point and Second Cut-off Point. .........................92
Beam Analysis Results at First Cut-off Point and Second Cut-off Point. .........................93
Table 25. 286K Rail Car Live Loads Effecting on Girder 8, Midspan. .............................97
Table 26. Section Properties and Allowable Stresses for Midspan Girder 8. ....................98
xv
Table 27. Comparison between FE Model and Simple Beam Analysis ............................99
Table 28. 286K Rail Car Live Loads Effecting on Member L4-L8 Span 13, Midspan. .100
Table 29. Section Properties and Allowable Stresses for Member L4-L8 Span 13,
Midspan............................................................................................................................101
Table 30. Comparison between FE Model and Simple Beam Analysis ..........................102
xvi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Problem Statement
The overall growth in the economy and population in the United States led to a
significant expansion of railroad traffic levels by the late 1990s. The freight railroad
system facilitates large volume of freight movement cost-effectively. The railroad system
is obviously important because the other alternative transportation methods, such as
vehicles and trucks, cause concerns about congestion, air quality, and safety. Moreover,
the cost to build and maintain new infrastructure and equipment is extremely high. Many
railroad bridges were built before World War II approaching their design lives, and
freight railcars, in many cases, use passenger rail systems to reduce maintenance cost.
In New Jersey freight railcars travel over many passenger rail systems. Recent
increase of railcar weight limits from 263,000 lb to 286,000 lb raised additional concerns
for the passenger rail systems since the bridges in the passenger rail system were not
designed based on the increased railcar weight. Impact of the railcar weight on those
bridges should be evaluated first to allow the use of passenger lines for the freight travels.
In this study, the impact of the increased railcar weight was investigated on the
bridges located in New Jersey. The research approach adopted by the RIME team is
aiming at evaluating current load-carrying capacity of various types of bridges and
2
providing recommendations for load rating, repair, and maintenance to allow 286,000-lb
railcar traffic on the passenger lines.
A detailed literature review was conducted to find similar previous research and
practices, followed by a review of inspection reports of all bridges. In cases where
inspection reports were not available or there was lack of information, current bridge
conditions and actual dimensions of the bridges were evaluated from field inspections.
Based on the field inspections, Bridges A and B (Figure 1) bridges on New Jerseys rail
lines were selected and load-rated based on the current American Railway Engineering
and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) specifications as well as the analytical
studies. The selected bridges represent bridges with various structural systems and
material types. Finite element modeling was also adopted and the model was validated
using the data gathered in the field for more accurate assessment of the bridges and to
develop a methodology for evaluating and load-rating railroad bridges. The selected
bridges were instrumented and tested under live loads (moving railcars). Finally,
recommendations for load rating, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the bridges
were provided for safe operation of the bridges on various New Jersey lines. The
recommendations will be applicable for other railroad bridges that support railcars with
the increased standard weight.
Briefly, this project addresses problems with the existing railroad bridges under
the increased railcar loading. Through this research, the RIME research team provides
guidelines for the inspection, maintenance, and load rating of the existing railroad bridges
as well as the cost-effective analysis of this change in the freight weight limits.
Figure 1. View of Selected Bridge A for Field instrumentation and Testing. (Inspection
Cycle Report 3, 2005).
Figure 2. General and Plan View of the Superstructure of Bridge B (Inspection Cycle
Report 3, 2002).
Figure 3. General Plan of Bridge C (Inspection Cycle Report 3, 2002).

1.2
Research Objectives and Scope

The main objective of this study is to evaluate current conditions of various
railroad bridges, and load-rate the bridges according to AREMA provisions to allow
travels of 286-kip railcars. Field tests and detailed finite element analysis were conducted
for more accurate condition evaluation of the bridges. Based on the study of the selected
railway bridges, general guidelines for bridge inspection and maintenance are also
provided in this study.
1.3
1.3.1
The Selected Bridges

Bridge A
Bridge A is a two track, three spans, simply supported riveted steel through plate
Girder Bridge which 77.0 in length and 15.0 in width. Both tracks are active. The
ballasted desk is supported by a steel deck late on rolled steel floor beams which frame
onto three through girders. The abutments and wing walls are plain concrete and the pier
column bents are built-up steel columns that are fully encased in concrete. The bridge
was built in 1930.
5
1.3.2
Bridge B
Bridge B is a four span, open deck, riveted deck plate girder. The bridge is
supported by one stone masonry abutment, one concrete abutment and 3 concrete piers.
The bridge carries two active tracks which are supported by Girders 5 through G8. The
bridge was built in 1902.
1.3.3
Bridge C
Bridge C is a seventeen span structure comprising through truss, bascule span and
deck girder approach spans. It has two active tracks. The bridge was built in 1911.
1.4
Typical 286 Kips Railcars

The basis of this study is to evaluate the live load effect on the selected bridges
due to various 286 kip railcars. Other than the project proposal car, five different 286 kip
railcars were investigated in terms of their live load effect on the bridges. Table 1 shows
the diagrams of 286 kip railcars.
Railcar diagrams through Number 2 to 4 were taken from the web page of
FreightCar America, Inc. The reasoning behind selecting those three railcars is due to the
fact that railcars with closer axle spacing provide conservative values needed. Railcars
Number 2, 3 and 4 have the shortest axle distances amongst the railcars available in the
FreightCar America catalogue.
The railcar diagram Number 5 is taken from a study of Wisconsin Department of
Transportation on which Impact of Railcar Weight Change on Bridges of the State of
Wisconsin Owned Railroad System.
6
The last railcar diagram is represented as a model railcar to develop a program
that will provide a consistent methodology for evaluating the timber bridge inventory.
This study was performed by John Horney, P.E. and presented in American Short Line
and Regional Railroad Associations AREMA Conference in 2003, Chicago, IL.
7
Table 1. 286-Kip Railcar Diagrams
Car Type
1) Project Proposal
Railcar
2) Ore Hopper Railcar

(FreightCarAmerica)
3) Aggregate Railcar
(FreightCarAmerica)
4) Ballast Railcar
(FreightCarAmerica
)
5)WSOR Railcar
6) AREMA
Conference Railcar
2003
Loading Diagram
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
In New Jersey freight railcars travel over many passenger rail systems. Recent
increase of railcar weight from 263,000 lb to 286,000 lb raised additional concerns for the
passenger rail systems since the bridges in the passenger rail system were not designed
based on the increased railcar weight. To increase the railcar weight, the 31 bridges on
the line between Oak Island rail yard and Metuchen need to be inspected and load-rated
to allow the 286,000-lb freight car travels. It is also required to provide maintenance,
repair, and retrofit recommendations to facilitate the heavier railcars.
As a first step of the project, previous research studies and practices were
reviewed in this study. Similar studies were already conducted by other transportation
agencies (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus Constructors 2006, Leighty III et al. 2004).
Wisconsin DOT and Pennsylvania DOT recognized the problem of the load-carrying
capacities of existing railroad bridges. They conducted bridge inspection, load rating, and
structural evaluations for the existing railroad bridges.
Field tests of the railroad bridges were conducted in many research studies
(Gutkowski, et al. 2003, Nassif et al. 2002, Chajes et al. 2001). Due to deterioration,
complex geometry, unexpected restraints, effects of non-structural elements, repair, and
9
modifications, the behavior of the railroad bridge under train loading can be different
from the intended behavior at the time of design and construction. Field tests sometimes
provide engineers with better understanding of the bridge behavior and load rating.
Information regarding test methods, instrumentation, and test setup was gathered in this
study to obtain better data from the possible bridge testing.
Due to the economical and practical limit, field tests cannot be conducted for all
the bridges. Finite element analysis method can be adopted for accurate load rating of the
bridge. Previous research studies on finite element modeling of the railroad bridges were
reviewed to build accurate bridge models.
Brief descriptions of load rating and strengthening methods of concrete, steel,
timber bridges are also presented in this study. American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) also provides methods for repair and
strengthening of existing railroad bridges (AREMA 2000).
2.2
2.2.1
Bridge Load Rating Conducted by Other DOT

Wisconsin DOT
Similar study was conducted on Wisconsin railroad system to determine the
impact of 286-kips railcars (Figure 4). The condition of older existing railroad bridges
was additional concerns for the bridges. The scope of the project covers evaluating of
current condition, determining their load carrying capacity, and making repair and retrofit
recommendations based on the investigations.
10
Figure 4. 286 kips rail car (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus Constructors 2006)
In the study, 26 sample bridges were selected on two rail lines operated by
Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co. The selected bridges consisted of steel bridges,
concrete bridges, timber bridges, and combined timber-steel bridges. The sample bridges
were built between 1900 and 1965.
Current condition of the selected bridges was inspected by field engineers.
Recommendations for repair and priority lists were provided based on the on-site
inspection results. For timber bridges, a complete visual inspection was conducted for
both superstructure and substructure. Bridge members were hammer sounded to inspect
the conditions of the bridge members, and holes were drilled to investigate the internal
decay if necessary. For steel and concrete bridges, a visual inspection was conducted
first. Concrete structures suspecting deterioration were hammer sounded to evaluate the
deterioration.
The inspection results indicate a requirement of several years of maintenance on
timber bridges. Many defects in the timber bridges were observed, including caps,
stringers and deck timbers (Figure 5). For steel and concrete bridges, the conditions were
11
relatively good. However, the pier settlement was observed at one of the bridge, which
requires a significant amount of maintenance cost (Figure 6).
(a) Defective stringer
(b) Pile settlement
Figure 5. Defects in timber bridge (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus Constructors
2006)
Figure 6. Differential settlement of steel bridge pier (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus
Constructors 2006)
Two rail car loadings, the Cooper E80 load and the 286 kip railcar load, were
used for the load rating. The two railcar loads used for the analysis are shown in Figure 7.
12
In addition to the two railcar loading, the equivalent Cooper E load for the 286 kip rail
car was also used for the load rating. The equivalent Cooper E load causes the same load
effect as a series of 286 railcar loads.
Figure 7. Rail car loadings (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus Constructors 2006)
Two rating levels, normal rating and maximum rating, were considered in the load
rating. The normal rating level is the rating level which the structure can carry for its
service life without damage in the structure. The maximum rating level is the rating level
which the structure can carry at infrequent interval. The maximum load level may begin
to deteriorate and reduce its service life.
Rating results of a few bridges are shown in Table 2 and Table 3. In the study, the
rating results of the timber bridges showed that many of them are not able to carry
13
sustained heavy weight railcar traffic. For steel and concrete bridges, most of them are
able to allow the 286 kips freight car.
Table 2. Timber bridge rating results (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus Constructors
2006)
Table 3. Steel and concrete bridge rating results (West Brook Associate and E80 Plus
Constructors 2006)
14
The evaluation of the 26 sample bridges in Wisconsin showed that a sizable
amount of maintenance and repair were required for the bridges to support the 286-kips
freight cars. The study estimated the repair and strengthening cost of the bridges over the
next five years, and the cost was about $25 million to upgrade the railroad bridges in
Wisconsin and owned by the Wisconsin & Southern CO. For the sample bridges, about
$3 million was required to allow the 286-kips rail freight car.
The study gave priority for the repair recommendations from 1st priority
(Emergency) to 5th priority (Regular Maintenance) to have the State allocate the budget
more efficiently. The study also recommended immediate inspection and rating of all
bridges in Wisconsin and a routine maintenance and inspection program. This may
enable to extend the service life of the current bridges.
2.2.2
Pennsylvania DOT
Pennsylvania State University (Leighty III et al. 2004) sponsored by the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation investigated the impact of higher rail car

weight on the load carrying capacity of short-line railroads (SLRR). Out of 2,000 bridges
located in Pennsylvania short-line railroads, 1,174 bridges were under consideration, and
25 sample bridges were selected and evaluated based on field test results and the
American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) Specifications. Load ratings of five
bridges out of 25 bridges were not high enough to support the 286 kips rail car loading
safely. Bridge strengthening methods were recommended for the under-capacity bridges,
and the retrofit cost was also obtained from contractors. Based on the studies of 25
bridges, state-wide rail bridge retrofit cost was also estimated in the study, which is $8.5
million.
15
Through a combination of mail surveys, telephone interviews, and on-site visits,
data was gathered from each bridge. The data gathered included milepost location, bridge
type, length, construction material, construction data, bridge width, Gross Car Weight
(GCW) capacity, date inspected, description of physical condition, availability of bridge
plans. Information was gathered for total 1,174 SLRR bridges.
The main interest of the study was to evaluate the cost for bridge strengthening to
carry the 286 kips rail car. The variables and bridge characteristics affecting the cost
include construction material, bridge type, length, deck width, and age. Considering those
variables, 25 representative bridges were selected to estimate a statewide bridge
strengthening. The selected bridges consist of eight bridge types and four construction
materials as shown in Table 4
.
Table 4. Bridge sample selected for evaluation (Leighty III et al. 2004)
16
For the selected 25 bridges, field inspections were conducted to evaluate current
conditions of the bridge which can be used for the load rating. This includes section loss
of structural members, unrecorded repair, and damage. The field inspection results were,
then, used for load rating. The sample bridges were evaluated for five different loading,
which are Cooper loading, Alternative live load, 263 kips railcar, 286 kips railcar, and
315 kips railcar (Figure 8). The loadings were applied with standard impact factor
without a reduction corresponding to speed.
Figure 8. Railcar weight and dimension (Leighty III et al. 2004)
17
In the study, evaluation results were reported as the percentage ratio of allowable
resistance to applied load. The results are listed in Table 5. As shown in the table, five
bridges out of the 25 sample bridges cannot carry the 286 kips railcar loading. Of the
sample bridges, 12 bridges meet E80 loading criteria. Note that many bridges can carry
315 kips railcar loading.
Table 5. Capacity/Load ration in percentage (Leighty III et al. 2004)
For the bridge which cannot carry the heavier 286 kips railcar and 315 kips
railcar, cost-effective methods were developed to strengthen the bridges. The
strengthening scheme includes post-tensioning floor-beam, alleviating soil pressure on
the wall of arch bridge, attaching steel channels to timber stringers, replacing deteriorated
timber members, and adding ties to steel truss members.
18
Construction cost of the developed strengthening techniques was estimated, and
the results were extrapolated to evaluate the repair and strengthening cost of the SLRR
bridges in Pennsylvania. Inspection, screening analysis, engineering analysis,
strengthening design costs were also added to the cost estimation. Detailed cost
estimation was made and the results were extrapolated to 2,000 bridges statewide. The
study concluded that the total cost to strengthen SLRR bridges n Pennsylvania for the
heavy axle railcars would be about $8.5 million.
2.3
2.3.1
Field Tests on Railroad Bridges

Timber Trestle Bridges (Colorado State university)
Colorado State University and Association of American Railroads (AAR)
conducted field tests of a timber trestle railroad bridge to determine the effects of
additional stringers on the stiffness of the bridge. A three-span timber bridge tested in the
study is shown Figure 9. The bridge is about 40 ft long, and main components were made
of
creosote-treated
Douglas
fir
timbers.
Figure 9. Open-deck timber bridge; (a) Schematic drawing; (b) Stringer layout
19
The bridge was instrumented with various sensors, which are displacement
transducers, extensometers, optical surveying equipment, and accelerometers. The
linearly variable differential transducers (LVDTs) were installed to measure relative
displacement between components and vertical displacement. Vertical displacements of
the bridge during the static tests were also measured with the optical survey equipment.
Accelerometers were used for the moving load testing. Figure 10 shows installed LVDTs
and extensometer for the tests.
Figure 10. Instrumentation on the bridge (Gutkowski et al. 2003)

Loading was applied to the bridge using the AARs track loading vehicle (TLV)
as shown in Figure 11. The TLV is able to apply concentrated loading to railroad track
using hydraulic actuators. By moving the TLV at various locations, the bridge was tested
under static loading. A typical TLV loading position is shown in Figure 12. Moving load
tests were also conducted while the test train passed over the bridge. The test train
consists of a locomotive, instrumentation car and TLV. The train axle weights are shown
in Table 6. In the study, sinusoidal loading using the TLV actuator was also applied to the
bridge.
20
Figure 11. Test train (Gutkowski et al. 2003)
Figure 12. Typical load position (Gutkowski et al. 2003)
21
Table 6. Train axle weight (Gutkowski et al. 2003)
Gutkowski et al. (2003) at Colorado State University also conducted similar tests
on part of a 31-span bridge, and a four-span bridge. Both of them are timber trestle
railroad bridges. Based on the test results and following analysis, the three span bridge
was strengthened by adding stringers in the bridge.
2.3.2
Built-up Steel Girder Bridge (Rutgers University)

Nassif et al. (2002) tested two steel girder bridges located in New Jersey. The
bridges have three spans with simply supported girders. The thru-girders are riveted builtup girders, and overall length of the bridge is about 60 ft (Figure 13). A transverse trough
floor filled with stone ballast supports the rail lines. The field tests were conducted to
evaluate stresses and deflections of the bridges under passenger train loading and
compare with allowable stresses according to the current provisions.
Strain transducers and Linearly Variable Differential Transducers (LVDTs) were
installed to measure strains and displacements, respectively. A portable data acquisition
system was used to obtain data under the train loading. The instrumentation locations are
shown in Figure 14. The strain transducers and LVDTs were installed at south span
because the span had better accessibility than the other spans. Installed sensors are shown
22
in Figure 15. The strain transducers were installed to the steel flange with C-clamps or to
a custom-made steel plate attached to the bottom of the trough. The LVDTs were
installed on a temporary platform.
Figure 13. Tested Bridge (Nassif et al. 2002)
23
(a) LVDT locations in the bridge
(b) Strain transducer locations

Figure 14. Instrumentation locations (Nassif et al. 2002)
Figure 15. Installed sensors (Nassif et al. 2002)
24
Static tests were conducted by positioning a railcar at predetermined locations at
night time. A field engineer from Metro North communicated with an onboard engineer
to position the train at the locations (Figure 16). The train was stopped at each location
for 2 to 5 min. to obtain static test results. A typical deflection results from the static
loading is shown in Figure 17. Dynamic live load tests were also conducted under
multiple train passages with known axle weights. These dynamic tests were conducted to
evaluate the dynamic impact on the bridges. The trains were passed over the bridge at 10
mph and 70 mph.
The test results showed that the measured deflections are higher than the
calculated deflections with the full section properties (assuming no section loss). This
might be attributed to the section loss due to corrosion. Dynamic test results in the study
indicate that the dynamic impact factor for the bridge is lower than the AREMA
provisions. Figure 18 shows strain data measured at a girder, showing the difference in
the maximum strains between the two tests is not significant.
Figure 16. Train positioned for static test (Nassif et al. 2002)
25
Dynamic Trough Mid-Span Deflection

0.00
Genesis (2996) 70 mph
Deflection (in.)
-0.05
North (LVDT 9)
-0.10
South (LVDT 6)
-0.15
-0.20
Middle (LVDT 10)

-0.25
0
3
4
Longitudinal Distance (ft)
Figure 17. Typical deflection profile in Trough under train loading (Nassif et al. 2007)
Girder Strain Profile

Train #2903 (Genesis) At Gage #5161
400
Max Strain = 278.0 me
Max Stress = 8.34 ksi
300
200
Strain ( me )
100
0
10 mph
-100
300
Max Strain = 291.1 me

Max Stress = 8.73 ksi
70 mph
200
100
0
0
-100
10
15
20
25
30
Time (sec.)
Figure 18. Dynamic strain measured under moving train (Nassif et al. 2002
35
26
2.3.3
Built-up Steel Girder Bridge (University of Delaware)

Chajes et al. (2001) at the University of Delaware conducted load tests and in-
service monitoring of a steel-girder railroad bridge. The bridge is located on the New
Jersey Transit line. The bridge is about 45-ft long, with simply supported girders (Figure
19). The bridge has two rails, but only one rail is used for service. Load rating of the
bridge is sufficiently low that the restriction on speed was applied on the bridge. To
evaluate the steel-girder bridge under the train loading, strain transducers were installed
on the bridge. Strain transducer locations and plan view of the bridge are shown in Figure
20.
Figure 19. Tested bridge (Chajes et al. 2001)
27
Figure 20. Transducer locations (Chajes et al. 2001)
The load test was conducted using the regularly scheduled transit train without
interrupting the train service. The locomotive weight was provided by NJ Transit
officials. A typical strain time history data measured under the moving passenger train is
shown in Figure 21. An in-service monitoring system was installed in the bridge after the
load test, and the stresses in the structural components were measured for a week. The
system automatically records time, peak strain, and strain transducer number when the
strains in the sensors are higher than a pre-specified strain limit. The test results showed
that the measured stresses were 15 percent of the computed stresses in the load rating,
indicating possible increase of current load rating of the bridge.
28
Figure 21. Typical strain time history data (Chajes et al. 2001)
2.3.4
Built-up Truss Bridge (University of Connecticut)

DelGrego et al. (2008) conducted tests on a truss railroad bridge with built-up
section members. Field monitoring under regularly scheduled train loading were
conducted to evaluate the structural behavior and live load distribution in the bridge. The
bridge tested by the team of the University of Connecticut was one of the typical large
truss bridge structures which were constructed with eye-bars, small angles, channels,
plates, lacing, and bars. The connections were made with large pins and rivets. The
monitoring of the bridge was conducted because of the lateral movement of the middepth
pins on the bridge. The experimental data provided an opportunity to compare the bridge
behavior under the train loading with the expected behavior in the original design which
was conducted more than 100 years ago.
29
The bridge tested has seven spans and the tested span is 210-ft long (Figure 22
(a)). A total 372 weldable strain gages were placed on different truss members, primarily
to tension members. Main interests of the tests were the load distribution in diagonal
members and load sharing in multiple eyebars (Figure 22 (b)), and the influence of floor
beam rotation on the adjacent truss members.
(a) Tested span
(b) Multiple eyebars
Figure 22. Tested railroad truss bridge (DelGrego 2008)
Tests were conducted and data were collected for 16 different trains. A typical strain data
obtained during the tests is shown in Figure 23 which is for diagonal members. In the
study, DelGrego et al (2008) emphasized a significant influence of aging on the loadcarrying ability of the century-old truss. The difference in behavior from the design
assumption was also noted in the study.
30
(a) Truss member layout
(b) Collected data

Figure 23. Stresses in diagonal members (DelGrego et al. 2008)
31
2.4
Finite Element Modeling

Railway bridges have relatively short span compared to the bridges for the truck
traffic. Many railroad bridges have been in service for a long time and are composed of
timbers and built-up truss, and riveted built-up sections. Due to the simple structural
systems, simple frame analysis was adopted in many previous research studies
(Gutkowski et al. 2001, Chajes et al. 2001, Nassif et al. 2002). Detailed finite element
analysis for railroad bridges can be found in studies on the dynamic interaction between
railcars and tracks (Majka and Hartnett 2009, Song et al. 2003).
Malm and Andersson (2006) investigated dynamic effects of train passages on a
tied arch bridge. The bridge investigated is 45m long and used for both passenger and
freight train traffic. The bridge consists of two hollow arches without ballast. The finite
element (FE) model shown in Figure 24 was developed using the general purpose finite
element program, ABAQUS. The developed model was used to compare the field test
results with the simulation results and better understand the bridge behavior under the
moving train loading. Dynamic characteristics and structural behavior of the bridge were
investigated with the model as well as the field tests.
(a) Investigated bridge
32
(b) Bridge FE model

Figure 24. Tied arch bridge (Malm and Andersson 2006)
At the University of Porto (Calcada et al. 2002), Portugal, an arch bridge used for
urban road traffic was evaluated for possible use of the light rail (Figure 25 (a)). A
detailed FE model was developed to evaluate interaction between the bridge and the
trains and dynamic amplification factors for the moving train loads. The model was built
using the beam element as shown in Figure 25(b) and the developed model was validated
with field test results. After the validation, numerical simulations were conducted to
evaluate structural behaviors under the rail traffic.
33
(a) Existing bridge
(b) 3-dimensionl finite element model

Figure 25. Investigated arch bridge (Calcada et al. 2002)
Song et al. (2003) investigated the interaction between the high-speed train and
the bridge, and the analysis results with the model were compared with test results
conducted on the bridge. The deck of the bridge was modeled with the shell element and
the track structures were modeled with the beam element. Spring elements were used to
34
model ballast (Figure 26). In the study, a high-speed train model was also developed to
investigate the interaction between the train and the bridge.
Figure 26. Finite element model of bridge for high speed train
These detailed finite element analysis is not considered to be adequate for

the load rating of the existing railroad bridges in New Jersey. The modeling technique of
the railroad bridges, however, can be adopted for the bridge load rating.
2.5
Summary
The needs for condition evaluation of existing railroad bridges have been
identified by other transportation agencies. Wisconsin DOT and Pennsylvania DOT

conducted research on the existing bridges to allow the 286-kip railcars. The research
results showed that many timber trestle bridges do not satisfy the load rating for the
increased railcar weight. Field investigation of the bridges indicated significant
maintenance needs over several years.
35
Field tests of railroad bridges have been conducted in many research agencies to
identify bridge behavior under moving train loading and to evaluate stresses in the
structural components under the loading. Strains, deflections, and accelerations in the
bridges were measured in many studies. Many field tests were conducted under normally
scheduled train loading, and some tests were conducted by stopping trains at
predetermined locations. To further evaluate the bridge behavior, finite element analysis
programs were used in many studies. Field test results were used to validate the
developed model, and parametric studies were conducted with the validated model.
Due to the large number of railroad bridges and economical reasons, it is not
practically possible to replace many structurally deficient bridges in short time period.
Thus, studies have been conducted to develop efficient repair and strengthening methods
for existing bridges. It is considered that the developed methods by other researchers can
be used for existing bridges in New Jersey.
36
CHAPTER III
LOAD RATING USING AREMA SPECIFICATIONS
3 LOAD RATING USING AREMA SPECIFICATIONS
The American
Railway
Engineering
and
Maintenance-of-Way
Association (AREMA) was founded October 1, 1997 by merging four industry-related

groups: the American Railway Bridge and Building Association, the American Railway
Engineering Association (AREA), the Roadmasters and Maintenance of Way
Association, and the Communications and Signal Division of the Association of
American Railroads. AREMA publishes Manual for Railway Engineering with updates
annually. The Railway Company and consultants use the manuals recommendation as a
basis for railway design in the United States and Canada.
3.1
Rating of Existing Steel Bridge

The rating of the existing steel bridges in terms of carrying capacity shall be
determined by the computation of stresses based on authentic records of the design,

details, materials, workmanship and physical condition, including data obtained by
inspection (and tests if the records are not complete). If deemed advisable, field
determination of stresses shall be made and the results given due consideration in the
final assignment of the structure carrying capacity. For a specific service the location and
behavior under load shall be taken into account (AREMA 2010). Please note the rating of
the bridge should be controlled by its weakest member.
37
The existing steel bridges may be assigned two types of ratings: Normal rating
and Maximum rating. The rating or ratings assignment should be directed by the
Engineer. If both ratings were computed, the lesser will govern.
(1) Normal Rating:
For Normal rating, it considered the load level can be carried by the expected life
of the bridge. This rating could be computed with allowable reduced speed per Article
7.3.3.3, Chapter 15 for impact deduction. The speed selection shall be directed by the
Engineer. Allowable stresses for normal rating were specified in Section 1.4, Chapter 15
supplemented by Article 1.3.14.3, and Chapter 15. The Normal rating should include the
fatigue requirements of Article 7.3.4.2, Chapter 15 unless a remaining fatigue service life
is computed.
The rating factor (SLN) was computed using the following formula:
S f D E B SF
SLN
L I CF
Where,
SLN
= Service Load Normal Rating Factor,
Sf
= Permissible Stress due to the Dead Load,
= Effect due to the Earth Pressure,
= Effect due to Buoyancy,
SF
= Effect due to Stream Flow Pressure,
Equation 1
38
L
= Effect due to Live Load,
= Effect due to Impact Load,
CF
= Effect due to Centrifugal Force.
Please note if the rating needs to be expressed in terms of Cooper EM (E) Series,
the rating value shall be computed using Equation 2 with regards to Cooper EM3600
(E80) series. For other Cooper EM (E) Series, the rating value would be changed
accordingly:
Normal Rating = SLN 360 (SLN 80)
Equation 2
Normal ratings are evaluated with design allowable stresses shown in Table 7.
(2) Maximum Rating
For the Maximum rating, it considered the load level can be carried at infrequent
intervals with any applicable speed restrictions. Table 8 presents the allowable stresses
for Maximum rating. Fatigue need not be considered in Maximum Rating.
This rating factor (SLM) shall be computed in accordance with the following
formula:
SLM
S f D E B SF
L I CF
Where,
SLM = Service Load Maximum Rating Factor.
Equation 3
39
Please note if the rating needs to be expressed in terms of Cooper EM (E) Series,
the rating value shall be computed using Equation 4 with regards to Cooper EM3600
(E80) series. For other Cooper EM (E) Series, the rating value would be changed
accordingly:
Maximum Rating = SLM 360 (SLM 80)
Equation 4
This rating may be increased if the speed of traffic reduced. A reduction of impact
as defined in Section 19.3.4, Chapter 8, AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering (2010)
can be used to recalculate the rating.
Table 7. Allowable Stresses for Normal Rating (AREMA Manual 2010, Table 151-11, Pg. 15-1-40)
40
Table 8. Allowable Stresses for Maximum Rating (AREMA Manual 2010, Table 15-7-1,
Pg. 15-7-19), K=Fy , where Fy is the allowable stress. (AREMA 2010, Pg. 15-7-18).
41
3.2
Load Rating of Bridge A

The steel used in the determination of member capacity of Bridge A were
assumed to be fabricated from Open Hearth Steel in accordance with Inspection Cycle
Reports. The yield strength, FY for open-hearth steel was taken as 30 ksi from AREMA
2010 Specification 7.3.4.3.
In this study, effect due to live load of 286 kips railcar was determined by using
the quickBridge, Moment and Shear Envelopes V1.2 2001 (Prof. Noyan Turkkan,
Ecole de Genie/School of Eng., Universite de Moncton, Canada). quickBridge is an Excel
program which analysis and estimates the moment and shear envelopes of a bridge due to
a moving vehicle. Vehicles may have 2 to 20 axles and bridges 1 to 5 spans which have
the constant EI. Results can be obtained either in tabular or graphical forms.
42
Table 9. Live Load due to E-Cooper 80 Railcar & Section Capacity and Allowable
Stresses
LIVE LOAD DUE TO E80 RAILCAR and LOAD RATINGS & SECTION CAPACITY
AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Mid span
x=14.4'
x=11.0'
x=8.65'
MLL-E80 (k-ft)
3094.5
2756.3
2392.8
2009.3
Normal Moment Rating
Maximum Moment Rating
E 64
E 102
E 62
E 98
E 58
E 92
E 52
E 84
Section Modulus in3
3420.9
2940.5
2408.6
1878.5
Fy NORMAL (ksi)
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
Fy MAXIMUM (ksi)
24
24
24
24
M Capacity-NORMAL (k-ft)
4703.7
4043.2
3311.8
2582.9
M Capacity-MAXIMUM (k-ft)
6841.8
5881
4817.2
3757
V Allowable-NORMAL (ksi)
10.5
V Allowable-MAXIMUM (ksi)
18
V Capacity-NORMAL (kips)
543.4
V Capacity-MAXIMUM (kips)
931.5
Only one section is considered for Shear Rating

2
Shear Area is 51.75 in
Shear Normal Rating
E 77
Shear Maximum Rating
E 144
43
Load ratings and the live load effect due to E-Cooper 80 Railcar represented on
Table 9 were acquired from Inspection Cycle Report No: 1, 1994, Pg. 65-72, where the
section properties and dimensions were taken from Inspection Cycle Report No: 2, 2001,
Pg. 2-23.
The load rating calculations based on following assumptions:
1- Ratings are as per New Jersey Transit Corp. Rating Existing Railroad Bridges
(2000).
2- Assumed each Girder carries half of the load per adjacent track.
3- Ratings for moments are at point of maximum moment and at plate cut-off.
Ratings for shear are at supports.
4- Steel assumed to be fabricated from Open Hearth Steel.
5- Allowable stresses for Ratings are as per A.R.E.M.A article 7.3.4.3 and 1.41.
6- Overstress calculations are not included.
7- Fatigue ratings are not included.
Controlling superstructure member was designated as Girder 2- Span 2 (Figure
27) in Inspection Cycle Report No: 2, 2001. Span length is 44.8 feet.
44
GIRDER 2
Figure 27. General View of Span 2 Superstructure and Underside of Girder 2

Girder 2 is riveted plate girder which has three cover plates on top and bottom.
The angles on top and bottom are riveted to the web plate. It is 69 in depth and 15 in
width. The methodology covered in Inspection Life Cycle Reports simply applies load
rating checks and calculations to the cut-off points and the maximum moment point
(Figure 28).
45
Third Cut-Off Point
First Cut-Off Point
Second Cut-Off Point

Figure 28. Cut-off Points on Girder 2 Span 2.
First cut-off point is at 8.65 distance from the bearing, where second and third
cut-off points are at 11.0 and 14.4 distance consecutively.
Since, Girder 2 is in good condition, as-inspected ratings are equal to as-built
ratings. Therefore, following calculations are for both as-inspected and as-built
conditions.
46
3.2.1
286K Freight Railcar Ratings (Project Proposal Railcar)
3.2.1.1 Impact Factor

Impact load, due to the sum of vertical effects and rocking effect created by
passage of locomotives and train loads, is determined by taking a percentage of the live
load. It is applied vertically at top of each rail.
Impact load due to vertical effects for span length less than 80 feet is determined
by the formula below;
Impact 40
3L2
1600
Equation 5
Equation 5 shows the related formula to calculate the impact factor in accordance
with AREMA 2010 1.3.5.
On the other hand, impact load due to rocking effect, RE, is created by the
transfer of load from the wheels on one side of the railcar to the other side from periodic
lateral rocking of the equipment. RE is calculated as a vertical force couple, each being
20 percent of the wheel load without impact, acting downward on one rail and upward on
the other. The couple is oriented in a way that creates the greatest force in the member.
Therefore, Equation 5 can be modified as follows;
3L2
I RE 40
1600
Where,
RE 20
Equation 6
47
2
3 44.8
I 0.9 20 40
50.61 and 14.61
1600
Equation 5 is modified due to the ballast deck effect with a factor of 0.9
(Inspection Cycle Report No: 2).
In order to obtain the configuration that creates the greatest force in the member,
first, the exact location of the rails must be determined. The eccentricity of the tracks is
1.5 to the North over the floor beams (Inspection Cycle Report No: 2, Pg. 2-15). Figure
29 shows the configuration that has the greatest effect on the member.
Figure 29. Impact Load Configuration on the Floor Beams
50.61 9.13 14.61 4.13 40.2 0.4

13
48
3.2.1.2 Moment Rating
Moment rating due to 286 kip railcar is calculated by modifying the equations 1
and 3. After finding the rating factor, it is multiplied with 71.5 kips which is the
maximum axle weight of the Project Proposal Railcar to find out the member rating due
to 286 kip railcar.
The effect due to live load of 286k Project Proposal Railcar, M LL286kip (Table 10)
was determined by using qBridge Excel Program. Table 10 also shows M DL and
M WL values taken from the Inspection Cycle Report No: 2, Pg. 2-23.
Table 10. Necessary Moments for Bridge A Load Rating
MOMENT (k-ft)
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Maximum Resisting Capacity, Mrm
6841.8
5881.1
4817.2
3757.0
Normal Resisting Capacity, Mrn
4703.7
4043.2
3311.8
2582.9
Dead Load, MDL
972.7
844.7
718.3
603.3
Wind Load, MWL
72.0
62.5
53.4
44.9
2338.1
2079.3
1761.7
1498.3
Live Load due to 286kip railcar
49
Section 1 (Maximum Moment Point)
RNormal Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
RMaximum Moment =
71.5
6841.8 972.7 72
71.5 126.63
2338.11.40
M LL286kip Impact 1
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
RMaximum Moment =
71.5
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
4043.2 844.7 62.5

71.5 77.03
2079.3 1.40
71.5
5881.0 844.7 62.5

71.5 122.17
2079.3 1.40
71.5
3311.8 718.3 53.4

71.5 73.64
1761.7 1.40
Section 3 ( x 11.0' )
RNormal Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
RMaximum Moment =
4703.7 972.7 72
71.5 79.92
2338.11.40
Section 2 ( x 14.4' )
RNormal Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
71.5
M Cap M DL M WL
71.5
4817.2 718.3 53.4

71.5 117.28
1761.7 1.40
71.5
2582.9 603.3 44.9

71.5 65.95
1498.3 1.40
M LL286kip Impact 1
Section 4 ( x 8.65' )
RNormal Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
50
RMaximum Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
71.5
3757.0 603.3 44.9

71.5 105.97
1498.3 1.40
3.2.1.3 End Shear Rating

Ratings for shear were carried for supports. Basically, the maximum reaction at
the supports due to 286 kip railcar live loading is used for end shear rating calculations.
Table 11 shows the necessary shear forces to carry out the shear end rating
calculations. Shear due to dead load and wind load were taken from Inspection Cycle
Report No: 2, Pg. 2-23. And live load effect due to 286 kip railcar is calculated by using
qBridge Excel Program.
Table 11. Necessary Shear Forces to Calculate End Shear Rating
RNormal Shear =
VDL (kips)
86.84
VWL (kips)
6.44
VLL-286 (kips)
242.20
VRM (kips)
931.50
VRN (kips)
543.40
VCap VDL VWL
VLL286kip Impact 1
RMaximum Shear =
VCap VDL VWL
71.5
VLL286kip Impact 1
543.4 86.84 6.44

71.5 94.91
242.2 1.40
71.5
931.5 86.84 6.44

71.5 176.75
242.2 1.40
51
3.2.1.4 286 Kip Equivalent Cooper-E Load Ratings
Equivalent Cooper E load rating is a measure of equipment in terms of live load
effect on a bridge member. It is simply to find out the live load effect of a Cooper E
railcar that is the same with the equipment generates.
In order to be able to make a reliable comparison between the load capacity of a
bridge member and live load effect of a railcar, to compute equivalent Cooper E load
rating is a significant milestone of the study.
First, the ratio between moments of 286 kips railcar and Cooper E-80;
Moment Ratio
M LL286 ki p
M LL E 80
2338.1
0.756
3094.5
Then, multiply the ration with the heaviest axle load of Cooper E-80 railcar which
is 80 kips.
286 Kips Equivalent Cooper E Load = Moment Ratio 80 0.756 80 60.48
E 60
Section 2 ( x 14.4' )
Moment Ratio
M LL286 ki p
M LL E 80
2079.3
0.75
2756.3
52
E 60
Section 3 ( x 11.0' )
Moment Ratio
M LL286 ki p
M LL E 80
1761.7
0.736
2392.8
E 58
It is not uncommon to have different equivalent load ratings on the same girder. It
is due to the differences in the axle spacing and positioning of the rail cars at the different
points of output generation. It means the load ratings can be different from each other
depending where the cutoff point is. It is possible that one axle of the 286 kip car "falls
off" the bridge. In other words, it is on the approach and not loading the bridge.
Section 4 ( x 8.65' )
Moment Ratio
M LL286 ki p
M LL E 80
1498.3
0.75
2009.3
53
E 60
Since Section 8.65 is critical (lowest rating), it is necessary to check whether

speed reduction calculations is required or not;
The AREMA rating equation for speed restrictions (Equation 7) must be equal or
greater than 0.2. This agrees with the principle that impact is no longer reduced once the
speed of the train goes below 10 mph, which would give 0.2 when input into the
equation. Speed restrictions apply only to the maximum ratings.
R 1
0.8 60 S 2
2500
0.2
Equation 7
E 60 < E 84
(Original Cooper E Maximum Load Rating Value taking from Inspection Cycle
No: 3, Page 3-7a.)
Therefore, speed reduction calculations are not necessary.
54
CHAPTER IV
INSTRUMENTATION AND FIELD TESTING
4 INSTRUMENTATION AND FIELD TESTING
A complete field testing program was performed to understand the behavior of the
Bridge A. The target bridge was monitored to determine the actual strain and deflection
for load rating calculations and improve accuracy of the analysis model. In the bridge
monitoring, Structural Testing System (STS) Sensors and Laser Doppler Vibrometer
(LDV) were utilized.
4.1
Structural Testing System

The Structural Testing System (STS) is a modular data acquisition system
manufactured by Bridge Diagnostics, Inc. (BDI) of Boulder, Colorado. The system

consists of a main processing unit that samples data, junction boxes, and strain
transducers. The strain transducers are mounted to structural elements with clamps or
bolted to epoxied tabs. Each sensor has a unique identification number and a microchip,
so the sensors can be identified easily in the system. The sensor calibration factors are
stored in the configuration files and applied automatically. Main components and the
technical specifications of the Wi-Fi system are shown in Figure 30 and Figure 31
respectively.
55
Figure 30. Wireless Data Collection System, Bridge Diagnostics Inc.

The test system consists of strain transducers, junction box, and the main STS unit.
Each test is assigned to an automatic file number and the test is initiated using a trigger
button called the clicker. Once the test is completed, the data can be downloaded from the
STS unit to a laptop computer. The STS data files contain basic test information such as
date, time, duration, sensor ID numbers, and the stress data in ASCII text format. Figure
32 shows a strain gages installed on the floor beam flange.
56
Figure 31. Technical Specications of Wi -Fi Data Collection System

( Source ; http://www.bridgetest.com/products/STS3-WiFi.pdf)
57
Figure 32. STS Strain Transducer Installed on a Bridge Superstructure Member

4.2
Laser Doppler Vibrometer

The Laser Doppler Vibrometer (LDV), shown in Figure 33, is a non-contact
sensor that measures displacement and velocity of a remote point. A change in the
distance between the laser head and the reflective target will produce a Doppler shift in
the light frequency that is decoded into displacement and velocity.
The system is
composed of three parts: 1) the helium neon Class II laser head, 2) the decoder unit, and
3) the reflective target attached to the structure. The laser head is mounted to a tripod
that is positioned underneath the target. The reflective target, typically retro-reflective
tape, provides the strongest signal. The signal strength is read on a scale on the laser
head. The tripod is adjusted to maximize the signal prior to a test run.
58
Figure 33. Laser Doppler Vibrometer Measuring Deflections

4.3
Testing
The sensor instrumentation at this structure will be focused on the center girder on
Span #2 since this member rates the lowest due to loading from 2 adjacent tracks on the
ballast deck. The behavior of the center girder will be evaluated at the cut-off locations
and at mid span.
For the exterior girders, strain gage installation will not be possible since the
girders are encased in concrete and the girder flanges are not accessible.
Figure 34. General View of the Main Span and the Controlling Member for the Load
Rating (Center Girder), View from Google Maps.
59
Figure 35. Sensor Instrumentation and Test Equipment

On 18th of September 2010, Saturday Rutgers Research Team met with Arora
Associates and Paterson Police to instrument strain transducers and laser reflective tapes
on Bridge A. Instrumentation started at 9:30 AM and finished at 12:30 PM. The sensors
and reflective tapes were installed to the bridge by means of a bucket truck which was
provided by Arora Associates. Research Team have run several tests with the scheduled
passenger trains of NJTransit from Paterson to Hawthorne at 11:58 AM, 12:58 PM &
1:58 PM and from Hawthorne to Paterson at 12:39, 1:39 and 2:39 PM (Table 14). During
the first run at 11:58 AM, only Laser Doppler Unit measurement could be executed, on
the other hand, the other runs involve STS Strain Transducer strain measurements also.
Table 12 shows the number of gages and reflector tapes that installed to the bridge.
60
Table 12. Number of Sensors and Reflector Gages at Bridge A.
Type of Sensor
Number of Sensors
Remark
Every 4 STS sensors connect
to one junction box, and then
STS strain transducers
12
the 5 junction boxes will be a

series system connects to
main processing unit.
Monitor the deflection of
Reflector for Laser
Doppler Vibrometer
various location on Floorbeam and Girder
G4
13'
PIER
CAP
G5
13'
14'-8"
(Span 1)
11
2& 3
G7
611
2
2
G6
G3
FB(TYP)
1
Strain Gages
Laser Reflectors
Connection Boxes
5&6 7&8
5
7
10
34
8 12
G2
G8
G1
G9
44'-10"
(Span 2)
14'-8"
(Span 3)
Figure 36. Sensor Locations on the Plan View

Figure 36 shows the location of the strain gages and reflector tapes that were
instrumented on the members of Bridge A. Since the controlling member was found out
61
to be the center girder after reviewing the previous inspection reports, the focus of sensor
instrumentation was shifted to this member.
Notes for Figure 36:
1. B-B Section is at the first cut-off location. (8.65 feet from the support).
Reflectors 1, 2, and 3. Strain gages 1, 2, 3 and 4.
2. A-A Section is at the mid span section. Reflector 5, Strain gages 10, 11, and 12.
3. Strain gages 5 and 6 are at the second cut off location.(11 feet from the support)
4. Reflectors 4 and Strain gages 7 and 8 are at the third cut off location.(14 feet from
the support)
Table 13. Sensor ID Numbers and Locations
Sensor No.
Sensor ID Number
Sensor Location
2047
Floor Beam (First Cut-off Point, G2-G3)
2049
Girder 2, First Cut-off Point, First Plate
2050
Girder 2, First Cut-off Point, Second Plate
2042
Floor Beam (First Cut-off Point, G1-G2)
2045
Girder 2, Second Cut-off Point, Second Plate
2046
Girder 2, Second Cut-off Point, Third Plate
2491
Girder 2, Third Cut-off Point, Third Plate
2490
Girder 2, Third Cut-off Point, Fourth Plate
2493
Girder 2, between Midspan and Third Cutoff
10
2487
Girder 2, Midspan
11
2488
Floor Beam (Midspan, G2-G3)
12
2484
Floor Beam (Midspan, G2-G1)
62
Table 13 shows the unique ID numbers of the STS Strain Transducers that been
utilized for instrumentation of Bridge A.
Figure 37 to Figure 40 illustrates the sensor layout in a detailed view. At every
cut-off point, two sensors were attached to both of the plates to understand the behavior
of the girder when the cross section is changing throughout the length. Figure 39 and
Figure 40 demonstrate the sensor configuration on the cut-off points.
Strain Gages
Laser Reflectors
G1
G2
G3
73.88"
12
11
15"
5 7
10
13'
13'
A-A Section
Figure 37. Sensor Locations at A-A Section (Midspan)
63
Strain Gages
Laser Reflectors
G1
G2
G3
73.88"
3 3
1 1
15"
2 2
2&3
13'
13'
B-B Section
Figure 38. Sensor Locations at B-B Section (First Cut-off Point
Second Cover
Plate
11.5"
2 ' - 0 13
16
5 @ 3"
3.5"
5 @ 4.5 "
A
1 ' - 3"
1.25 "
First Cover
Plate
Figure 39. Location of Strain Gage Number 2 and 3
A
4.38 "
First Physical
Cut-Off Point
64
8 @ 2 34
13 @ 3 "
Third Cover
Plate
Second Cover Plate
1.25 "
1.25 "
4.38 "
4.38 "
Second Physical
Cut-Off Point
Third Physical
Cut-Off Point
Figure 40. Location of Strain Gages Number 5,6 and 7,8.
Case 1, 3 and 5
to Hawthorne
Case 2, 4 and 6
to Paterson
Figure 41. Plan View and Direction of Case 2 and 3.
65
Table 14. Information about the Tested Trains.
Train Case
No Number
Direction
Time
Unit
Number
Type
Locomotive
Weight, lbs
Number
of Axes
Distance
Axle
Between Axle
Weight
Truck Spacing
lbs
Centers
Speed
mph
1715
Paterson - 11:58
Hawthorne AM
4100
GP40PH-20
293650
373
73412.
5
31.6
76
Hawthorne - 12:39
Paterson
PM
4201
GP40PH-2B
284200
373
71050
31.4
1717
Paterson - 12:58
Hawthorne PM
4029
PL42AC
288000
424
95
72000
30.9
1716
Hawthorne - 1:39
Paterson
PM
4100
GP40P
H-20
293650
373
73412.
5
37.4
1719
Paterson Hawthorne
1:58
PM
4904
GP40F
H-2M
282500
373
70625
31.4
1718
Hawthorne - 2:39
Paterson
PM
4029
PL42AC
288000
424
95
72000
33.4
66
Table 15. Types and Configurations of Tested Rail Cars.
Train Type
Rail Car Configuration
GP40-PH-20
GP40-PH-2B
PL-42AC
GP40FH-2M
The information about the tested trains including the axle configuration, axle
weight and speed (Table 14 and Table 15) were provided by NJ Transit to the Rutgers
Research Team.
Figure 41 shows the direction of each Case that tested with related trains on Table
14 and Table 15.
67
The strain and deflection measurements taken from the same direction cases show
similar values. Figure 42 to Figure 45 show typical strain data obtained from the STS
Strain Transducers.
100
100
Sensor 2046
80
60
60
Strain ()
Strain ()
Sensor 2045
80
40
40
20
20
-20
10
-20
12
(a)
10
12
10
12
(b)
100
100
Sensor 2049
Sensor 2050
80
80
60
60
Strain ()
Strain ()
Time (s)
Time (s)
40
40
20
20
-20
-20
Time (s)
(c)
10
12
Time (s)
(d)
Figure 42. Strain Data from Case 2, Sensors (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2049. (d) 2050.
68
100
100
Sensor 2046
80
60
60
Strain ()
Strain ()
Sensor 2045
80
40
40
20
20
-20
-20
0
10
12
(a)
10
12
10
12
(b)
100
100
Sensor 2050
Sensor 2049
80
80
60
60
Strain ()
Strain ()
Time (s)
Time (s)
40
40
20
20
-20
-20
Time (s)
(c)
10
12
Time (s)
(d)
Figure 43. Strain Data from Case 4, Sensors (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2049. (d) 2050.
69
100
100
Sensor 2046
80
80
60
60
Strain ()
Strain ()
Sensor 2045
40
40
20
20
-20
10
-20
12
Time (s)
10
12
10
12
(b)
100
100
Sensor 2049
Sensor 2050
80
80
60
60
Strain ()
Strain ()
Time (s)
(a)
40
20
40
20
0
-20
Time (s)
(c)
10
12
-20
Time (s)
(d)
Figure 44. Strain Data from Case 3, Sensors (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2049. (d) 2050
70
100
100
Sensor 2046
80
80
60
60
Strain ()
Strain ()
Sensor 2045
40
40
20
20
-20
-20
10
12
10
12
10
12
(b)
(a)
100
100
Sensor 2049
Sensor 2050
80
80
60
60
Strain ()
Strain ()
Time (s)
Time (s)
40
40
20
20
-20
Time (s)
(c)
10
12
-20
Time (s)
(d)
Figure 45. Strain Data from Case 5, Sensors (a) 2045, (b) 2046, (c) 2049. (d) 2050
71
Table 16. Laser Doppler Vibrometer, Location of Deflection Measurements
Case No
Reflective Target No
0.08
0.025
0.025
0.015
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.005
0.01
0
Time (s)
(a)
10
0
12
Deflection (cm)
0.04
Deflection (inch)
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.015
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.005
0.01
0
Time (s)
(b)
Figure 46. Deflection Measurements, (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2.
10
0
12
Deflection (inch)
0.06
0.06
Deflection (cm)
0.03
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.03
72
CHAPTER V
FINITE ELEMENT BRIDGE ANALYSIS
5 FINITE ELEMENT BRIDGE ANALYSIS
Rail Bridge A was modeled and analyzed in the finite element program
ABAQUS (Version 6.8.1) to simulate the structural behavior of Span 2. The ultimate
objective is to evaluate the load rating of the bridge under 286kip railcar loading. This
section illustrates the ABAQUS FE model of the target bridge.
5.1
Finite Element Model

A three-dimensional finite element model was adopted to point out the behavior
of the bridge under 286kip railcar loading. To create the FE model, various modeling
features were considered including element types, material behavior, boundary conditions
and interaction between the floor beams and steel girders.
WOOD-TIE
STEEL
GIRDER
RAILS
FLOOR
BEAM
Figure 47. FE Model
73
Figure 47 shows the FE model. The model consists of 4 different members.
Figure 47 illustrates the members; 1) Steel Girders, 2) Steel Floor Beams, 3) Wood-Ties
and 4) Steel Rails.
Figure 48. Deflected Model with GP40-PH-2B Rail Car Loading.

5.1.1
Material Properties
The modulus of elasticity of the steel girder, steel beams and rails, E, and
Poissons Ratio, s , is used as 29,000 ksi and 0.3, respectively. Since, the steel girders,
steel beams and rails are not expected to show inelastic behavior, therefore, steel material
behavior was not considered in inelastic behavior.
Material properties for Wood-Tie members such as modulus of elasticity, E, and
Poissons Ratio, s were considered as 1,600 ksi and 0.3, respectively.
74
5.1.2
Element Selection and Analysis Procedure

The Steel Girders were modeled by using a 4-node shell element (S4). Element
type S4 in ABAQUS is a fully integrated, finite membrane strain shell element.

Simpsons Rule is used to calculate the cross-sectional behavior of the shell elements
(ABAQUS 2008).
A 2-node linear beam element (B31) was selected in the model to simulate the
steel Floor Beams, Rails and Wood Ties. Element type B31 is a first-order, shear
deformable beam elements, meaning that shear deformation as well as flexural
deformation can be accounted in the analysis (ABAQUS 2008).
One type of connector element was used in the analysis model. Connection type
JOIN which makes the position of one node the same with the other node was utilized to
idealized the pin connections. JOIN connectors were used to idealize the bold
connections between Steel Girders and Floor Beams.
JOIN Connectors between Rail and

Wood Tie Elements
JOIN Connectors between WoodTie and Floor Beam Elements

Figure 49. Connectors between Different Element Sets
75
JOIN connectors were used to simulate the ballast deck between the wood ties
and the floor beams (Figure 49). Every element of a Wood Tie member was connected
to the Floor Beam members to distribute the load uniformly as the ballast deck distributes
in reality.
JOIN connectors were also utilized to connect the Rail Elements to the Wood tie
elements (Figure 49).
In the model, a set of point loads simulating a rail car was applied on the Rail
Elements. A multiple load case analysis was adopted to apply the rail car loading at
various nodes on both tracks of the target bridge.
The accuracy of the model can be verified with comparing the strain and
deflection results gathered from the finite element analysis and the obtained field test
data.
5.1.3
Model Verifications
Deflections and strains of the structural elements were recorded from the strain
transducers and Laser Doppler Unit as the test rail cars passing over the bridge span. The
found deflection and strain of the structural members under the rail car loading were
compared with the analysis results.
Figure 50 to Figure 52 show the comparison for Case 2, when the rail car travels
from Hawthorne to Paterson. The horizontal axis shows the location of the rail car front
axle from west (designated direction in Cycle Reports) support in the span. The same
analysis was carried out for Case 3 (Figure 53 to Figure 56) when the rail car trails from
76
Paterson to Hawthorne. The horizontal axis shows the location of the rail car front axle
from east (designated direction in Cycle Reports) support in the span. Analysis results
using ABAQUS reflect good prediction of the bridge behavior under the same rail car
loading.
Deflection of the bridge under the rail car loading was also compared with the
model results. Figure 57 show the deflection comparison between FE Model and field
data at the Midspan for both Case 1 and Case 2. The horizontal axis is the distance from
the supports in the traveling direction.
()
Strain()
Strain
40
40
50
EXP
EXP
FE
FEMODEL
MODEL
30
30
20
20
10
10
EXP
FE MODEL
40
Strain ()
50
50
30
20
10
00
-10
-10
0 0 55 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40 45
45
Distance
Distancefrom
fromSupport
Support(ft)
(ft)
(a)
-10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance from Support (ft)
(b)
Figure 50. Strain Data Comparison for Case 2, (a) Sensor 2049, (b) Sensor 2046.
77
5050
50
EXP
FE MODEL
30
20
10
0
-10
EXP
EXP
FEFE
MODEL
MODEL
4040
()
Strain ()
Strain
Strain ()
40
3030
2020
1010
00
-10
-10
0 0 5 5 1010 1515 2020 25253030353540404545
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance
Distancefrom
fromSupport
Support(ft)(ft)
(a)
(b)
50
50
EXP
FE MODEL
30
20
30
20
10
10
-10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a)
EXP
FE MODEL
40
Strain ()
Strain ()
40
-10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(b)
78
50
50
EXP
FE MODEL
30
20
30
20
10
10
-10
EXP
FE MODEL
40
Strain ()
Strain ()
40
-10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a)
(b)
50
50
EXP
FE MODEL
30
20
10
30
20
10
0
0
-10
EXP
FE MODEL
40
Strain ()
Strain ()
40
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a)
-10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(b)
79
50
40
30
20
10
30
20
10
0
-10
EXP
FE MODEL
40
Strain ()
Strain ()
50
EXP
FE MODEL
0
0
-10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a)
(b)
50
50
EXP
FE MODEL
30
20
30
20
10
10
-10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a)
EXP
FE MODEL
40
Strain ()
Strain ()
40
-10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(b)
0.05
Displacement (inches)
Displacement (inches)
80
EXP
FE MODEL
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a)
0.05
EXP
FE MODEL
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(b)
Figure 57. Deflection Data Comparison, (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2.

The difference between the FE model analysis results and the field test results can
be addressed to the unexpected restraints at connections and supports. Possible small
dimension differences between the actual bridge sections and the FE model can be
attributed to the variation between the analysis results and the field test results. Another
reason of having that variation can be also addressed to idealization of load distribution
through the ballast deck. The connectors between Wood-Tie members and Floor Beam
members were modeled to distribute load applying on the Rail element, where, in reality,
the load is distributed to the floor beams and girders through the ballast deck. From the
comparison made, the developed analytical model displays good estimate for the actual
behavior of the target bridge under rail car loading.
81
CHAPTER VI
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
6 COMPARISON OF RESULTS
6.1
286Kip Rail Car Analysis

The Project Proposal Rail Car was selected to analyze for 286kip rail car analysis
case after having the model calibrated. Table 1 shows the configuration of the rail car.
The loading was considered two rail cars traveling on the direction Hawthorne to
Paterson consecutively. In order to input the necessary parameters to Equation 1, two
separate cases were analyzed on finite element model. The loading system of the first
case consists of live load effect due to the 286kip rail car. On the other hand, dead load
and wind load without any effect of live load was considered on the second case (Figure
58). Figure 61 shows how the model deflects at the Midspan. Figure 62 illustrates how
the model behaves under Project Proposal Rail Car in terms of stress and strain at cut-off
points and Midspan.
Dead Load and Wind Load are taken from Bridge Evaluation Survey Report,
Cycle 1.
82
Table 17. Dead Load and Wind Load.
Load Type
Load, K/FT
G1, Dead Load
3.16
G2, Dead Load
3.47
G3, Dead Load
3.16
Wind Load
0.2
Table 18. 286kip Rail Car Analysis Results.
Midspan
Third
Cut-off
Point
Second
Cut-off
Point
First
Cut-off
Point
1.70
1.62
1.43
0.98
Section Modulus, in3
3420.90
2940.5
2408.6
1878.5
Max. Moment due to

Live Load, k-ft
484
397
287
153
Moment due to Dead

Load + Wind Load, k-ft
328
168
165
54
Max. Stress, ksi
Figure 58. Deflected Shape of FE Model due to Dead Load + Wind Load
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
Stress, psi
Stress, psi
83
500
0
0
-500
-500
-1000
500
-1000
10
20
30
40
10
(a)
40
(b)
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
Stress, psi
Stress, psi
30
Distance from Support, ft
500
0
-500
-1000
20
500
0
-500
10
20
30
40
(c)
-1000
10
20
30
40
(d)
Figure 59. Stress at, (a) First Cut-off Point, (b) Second Cut-off Point, (c) Third Cut-off
Point, (d) Midspan.
84
Figure 60. Deflected Shape of the Finite Element Model under 286kip Rail Car Live
Load Configuration.
0.06
286
Deflection (inch)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 61. 286kip Rail Car Analysis, Deflection at the Midspan.
85
.
60
60
2
strain
strain
50
50
stress
0.5
Strain ()
Strain ()
20
30
20
0.5
10
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
-10
-0.5
50
10
(a)
30
40
-0.5
50
(b)
60
60
2
strain
strain
50
20
50
stress
stress
1.5
1.5
40
0.5
30
20
0.5
Stress (ksi)
20
Stress (ksi)
30
Strain ()
40
10
10
0
-10
Stress (ksi)
Stress (ksi)
30
10
Strain ()
1.5
40
40
-10
stress
1.5
10
20
30
-0.5
50
40
(c)
-10
10
20
30
40
-0.5
50
(d)
Figure 62. 286kip Rail Car Analysis Results at the Location of Sensors , (a) 2487, (b)
2046, (c) 2491, (d) 2050.
86
6.2
E Cooper 80 Rail Car Analysis

E Cooper -80 Rail Car was analyzed to rate the effect of 286kip rail car in terms
of E-Cooper Loading. Table 19 shows the found stresses and moments.

Table 19. Cooper E-80 Analysis Results
Midspan
Third
Cut-off
Point
Second
Cut-off
Point
First
Cut-off
Point
2.22
2.04
1.83
1.24
Section Modulus, in3
3420.9
2940.5
2408.6
1878.5
Max. Moment due to

Live Load, k-ft
627
500
368
194
Max. Stress, ksi
Figure 63. Deflected Shape of the Model due to Cooper E-80 Rail Car Loading
87
6.3
6.3.1
Load Rating Calculations Using Finite Element Analysis

Moment Rating
RNormal Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
RMaximum Moment =
71.5
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
Moment Ratio
M LL 286 ki p
M LL E 80
4703.7 328
71.5 460
485 1.40
71.5
6841.8 328
71.5 685
485 1.40
484.0
0.7719
627
286 Kips Equivalent Cooper E Load = Moment Ratio 80 0.7719 80 61
Section 2 ( x 14.4' )
RNormal Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
RMaximum Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
71.5
M LL286kip Impact 1
Moment Ratio
M LL 286 ki p
M LL E 80
4043.2 168
71.5 498
397 1.40
71.5
5881.0 168
71.5 734
397 1.40
397
0.794
500
88
Section 3 ( x 11.0' )
RNormal Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
RMaximum Moment =
71.5
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
Moment Ratio
M LL 286 ki p
M LL E 80
3311.8 165
71.5 559
287.14 1.40
71.5
4817.2 165
71.5 827
287.14 1.40
287
0.779
368
Section 4 ( x 8.65' )
RNormal Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
M LL286kip Impact 1
RMaximum Moment =
M Cap M DL M WL
71.5
M LL286kip Impact 1
Moment Ratio
M LL 286 ki p
M LL E 80
2582.9 53.68
71.5 844
153.04 1.40
71.5
3757.0 53.68
71.5 1235
153.04 1.40
153
0.788
194
89
6.3.2
Shear Rating
Table 20. 286kip Rail Car Analysis Results, Shear Forces
RNormal Shear =
V DL + VWL
39.58 kips
V LL
61.7 kips
V Normal
543.4 kips
V Maximum
931.5 kips
VCap VDL VWL
VLL286kip Impact 1
RMaximum Shear =
VCap VDL VWL
71.5
VLL286kip Impact 1
543.4 39.58
71.5 417
61.7 1.40
71.5
931.5 39.58
71.5 738
61.7 1.40
90
6.4
286kip Rail Car and Field Data Comparison

When the strain values in Figure 62 compares to the testing data obtained from
GP40-PH-2B Rail Car run, it can be said that the 286kip rail car analysis will show a
good prediction. Figure 64 shows the comparison between 286kip rail car analysis,
GP40-PH-2B Rail Car analysis and field test data.
60
60
EXP
FE MODEL
286
50
40
Strain ()
Strain ()
40
30
20
30
20
10
10
-10
EXP
FE MODEL
286
50
10
20
30
40
-10
50
10
50
60
EXP
FE MODEL
286
EXP
FE MODEL
286
50
40
40
Strain ()
Strain ()
40
(b)
60
30
20
30
20
10
10
-10
30
(a)
50
20
10
20
30
40
50
-10
10
20
30
40
50
(d)
(c)
Figure 64. Comparison between 286kip Rail Car Analysis, GP40-PH-2B Rail Car
Analysis and Field Data, (a) Midspan, (b) Second Cut-off Point, (c) Third cut-off Point,
(d) First Cut-off Point.
91
Figure 64 points out that the analysis gives reasonable results. The difference
between two finite element analyses arises from the different kind of load cases. 286kip
rail car analysis carried out using two consecutive railcars whereas GP40-PH-2B Rail Car
analysis consists of just one rail car.
6.5
Load Rating Comparison between FE Model and Load Rating Calculations

Using AREMA Specifications
Table 21 and Table 22 show the comparison and difference between FEM model
and simple beam analysis results for normal load rating calculation of Girder #2 at cut-off
points and the midspan. Table 23 and Table 24 display the same comparison for
maximum load rating results at cut-off points and midspan which is the maximum
moment point. Figure 65 illustrates the tendency of normal and maximum load rating
values along Girder #2 for both FE Analysis and Simple Beam Analysis.
Analysis Results at First Cut-off Point and Second Cut-off Point.
Section
8.65 from the End of the Girder #2
FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
844
65
1198
11.0 from the End of Girder #2

FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
559
73
665
92
Analysis Results at First Cut-off Point and Second Cut-off Point.
Section
Midspan
FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
498
77
546
460
79
482
Beam Analysis Results at First Cut-off Point and Second Cut-off Point.
Section
FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
1235
105
1076
11.0 from the End of Girder #2

FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
827
117
606
93
Beam Analysis Results at First Cut-off Point and Second Cut-off Point.
Section
Midspan
FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
734
122
501
685
126
443
1400
FEM-Normal
AREMA-Normal
FEM-Max
AREMA-Max
Load Rating
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
10
20
30
40
50

Figure 65. Load Rating Results, Comparison between FEM and Simple Analysis
94
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1
Summary and Conclusions

The primary purpose of this study is to analyze and investigate the behavior of
Rail Bridge A under 286kip rail car loading. A total of 6 test runs were obtained from the
scheduled NJT passenger rail cars traveling over the bridge by mounting and utilizing 12
STS Strain Transducers and Laser Doppler Vibration Unit. Later, the obtained data were
used to validate and calibrate the FE model which was created to simulate the structural
behavior of Rail Bridge A. After validating and running the model for 286kip rail car,
results were compared to the results that calculated based on AREMA Specifications. As
it can be seen in Chapter 6, there is a huge difference between two approaches. The
following conclusions can be made from the results:
1) The assumed boundary conditions while calculating the load rating values
using AREMA Specifications were not found to reflect the actual bridge
boundary conditions. The field data obtained from the test runs show that
the target bridge has small values for strain and deflection. In the FE
Model, the girders were modeled as a fixed pin supports. Moreover,
being encased with concrete and built as a half concrete and ballast deck,
the girders were also modeled to prevent the any kind of displacement at
the top flange of girders in the third degree of freedom. As it seems in
95
Chapter 5, presumed boundary conditions reflect very good correlation
with the field test data.
2) The loading cases simulated on finite element model are based on
applying the live load and the wind load to the rail as concentrated loads.
The load transfer is assumed to go through the connectors between the
wood tie and floor beam elements. However, in reality, the load transfer is
distributed to the floor beams and girders through the ballast deck. This
phenomenon can cause some inaccuracy in the model.
3) FE Model shows us that the target bridge has more capacity than AREMA
Specifications predict. This extra capacity can be addressed to the good
condition of the target bridge.
4) E-Cooper Equivalent Equipment Rating calculated both using AREMA
Specifications and FE Analysis show that both approach have almost
exactly the same rating for 286kip rail car. These phenomena can be used
to prove the validity of the model.
5) The 286kip rail car analysis on the FE model is close to the actual data
obtained from the field. It should be kept in mind that the rail car used for
Case 2 has a similar rail car configuration and axle weight.
7.2
Scope for Future Research

Future research is needed to investigate the other selected bridge for the field
testing. More data will be needed to verify the results and identify the reasons the
96
difference between finite element analysis and AREMA Specification analysis. Using the
experimental philosophy described in this study, the AREMA Specifications could be
studied in more detail to make it more reliable in terms of load rating the bridges.
97
APPENDIX A BRIDGE B
Table 25. 286K Rail Car Live Loads Effecting on Girder 8, Midspan.
Load
Unit
MDL
98.4
k-ft
MWL
53.7
k-ft
MLL-286 kip
945
k-ft
Eccentricity (2.567%)
0.026
Meccentricity-286
25
Impact
1.526
(MLL-286 +MEccentricity)* Impact
1480.034
k-ft
VDL
10.2
kips
VWL
5.6
kips
VLL-286 kip
110
kips
Veccentricity-286
kips
(VLL-286 +VEccentricity)* Impact
172.6941
kips
k-ft
98
Table 26. Section Properties and Allowable Stresses for Midspan Girder 8.
Normal Rating
Section Modulus
Tension (in3)
Compression (in3)
1252.4
1482.9
Shear Area(in2)
20.25
Allowable Stress
Tension (ksi)
Compression (ksi)
Shear (ksi)
16.5
15.87
10.5
Maximum Rating
Section Modulus
3
Tension (in )
Compression (in )
1252.4
1482.9
Shear Area(in2)
20.25
Allowable Stress
Tension (ksi)
Compression (ksi)
Shear (ksi)
24
23.1
18
99
Figure 66. Bridge B Finite Element Model
Table 27. Comparison between FE Model and Simple Beam Analysis
Section
Types of
Loading
286 Rail Car

Loading
Girder 8 Midspan, Normal Rating
Girder 8 Midspan, Maximum

Rating
FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
201
75
113
160%
%
FE Model
Difference
168%
294
100
APPENDIX B BRIDGE C
Table 28. 286K Rail Car Live Loads Effecting on Member L4-L8 Span 13, Midspan.
Load
Unit
MDL
280.44
k-ft
MWL
132.25
k-ft
MLL-286 kip
1684.293
k-ft
Meccentricity-286
202.1
k-ft
Impact Factor
1.538
VDL
18.5
kips
VWL
9.2
kips
VLL-286 kip
141.3368
kips
Veccentricity-286
16.96
kips
101
Table 29. Section Properties and Allowable Stresses for Member L4-L8 Span 13,
Midspan.
Normal Rating
Section Modulus
Tension (in3)
Compression (in3)
Fatigue (in3)
2267.543
2733.492
2267.543
Allowable Stress
Tension (ksi)
Compression (ksi)
Fatigue (ksi)
16.5
16.36
Maximum Rating
Section Modulus
3
Tension (in )
Compression (in )
2267.543
2733.492
Shear Area(in2)
33.75
Allowable Stress
Tension (ksi)
Compression (ksi)
Shear (ksi)
24
23.8
18
102
Rails
WoodTies
Cross
Frames
Girders
Figure 67. Bridge C Finite Element Model
Table 30. Comparison between FE Model and Simple Beam Analysis
Section
Types of
Loading
286 Rail Car

Loading
Span 13 Midspan, Normal Rating
Span 13 Midspan, Maximum

Rating
FE Model
Simple
Beam
Analysis
Simple
Beam
Analysis
%
Difference
169
66
101
152%
%
FE Model
Difference
156%
255
103
APPENDIX C quickBridge RESULTS

BRIDGE A
Truck definition
Number of axles
8
Axle No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X
0
5.68
25.27
30.95
37.61
43.29
62.88
68.56
W
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
X is the coordinate and

W the weight of the axle
Coordinate of axle 1 is 0
Bridge geometry
Number of span
1
Span No
1
L
44.8
q
0
div
115
L is the length,
q uniform load and
div number of divisions
on a particular span
L and div must be > 0
104
Results
X
0.00
0.39
0.78
1.17
1.56
1.95
2.34
2.73
3.12
3.51
3.90
4.29
4.67
5.06
5.45
5.84
6.23
6.62
7.01
7.40
7.79
8.18
8.57
8.96
9.35
9.74
10.13
10.52
10.91
11.30
11.69
12.08
12.47
12.86
13.25
13.63
14.02
14.41
14.80
15.19
15.58
15.97
16.36
16.75
17.14
Vmax
239.1
235.4
231.6
227.9
224.8
221.7
218.6
215.5
212.4
209.3
206.1
203.0
199.9
196.8
193.7
190.6
187.5
184.4
181.5
179.0
176.6
174.1
171.6
169.1
166.6
164.1
161.6
159.2
156.7
154.2
151.7
149.2
146.7
144.2
141.7
139.3
136.8
134.3
131.8
129.3
126.8
124.3
121.8
119.4
116.9
Mmin
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mmax
0.0
91.7
180.5
267.3
351.7
434.4
514.7
592.6
668.1
741.1
811.7
879.9
945.7
1009.1
1070.0
1128.5
1184.6
1238.2
1289.5
1340.2
1391.6
1441.0
1488.5
1534.0
1577.6
1619.2
1663.1
1709.5
1753.5
1795.0
1834.2
1870.9
1905.1
1940.4
1978.1
2014.0
2047.9
2079.9
2109.9
2138.0
2164.1
2188.4
2210.6
2231.0
2249.4
Rmin
N
1
2
Rmax
0.0
0.0
239.1
239.1
105
17.53
17.92
18.31
18.70
19.09
19.48
19.87
20.26
20.65
21.04
21.43
21.82
22.21
22.59
22.98
23.37
23.76
24.15
24.54
24.93
25.32
25.71
26.10
26.49
26.88
27.27
27.66
28.05
28.44
28.83
29.22
29.61
30.00
30.39
30.78
31.17
31.55
31.94
32.33
32.72
33.11
33.50
33.89
34.28
34.67
35.06
35.45
35.84
36.23
36.62
114.4
111.9
109.4
106.9
104.4
101.6
98.5
95.4
92.3
89.2
86.0
82.9
79.8
79.9
83.0
86.1
89.2
92.3
95.4
98.5
101.6
104.5
107.0
109.4
111.9
114.4
116.9
119.4
121.9
124.4
126.8
129.3
131.8
134.3
136.8
139.3
141.8
144.3
146.7
149.2
151.7
154.2
156.7
159.2
161.7
164.2
166.6
169.1
171.6
174.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2266.4
2281.9
2295.5
2307.1
2316.8
2324.6
2330.4
2334.2
2336.2
2336.2
2334.2
2330.3
2324.5
2324.5
2330.3
2334.2
2336.1
2336.1
2334.2
2330.3
2324.5
2316.7
2307.0
2295.4
2281.8
2266.3
2249.5
2231.1
2210.7
2188.5
2164.2
2138.1
2110.0
2079.9
2048.0
2014.0
1978.2
1940.4
1905.2
1870.9
1834.2
1795.1
1753.5
1709.5
1663.1
1619.2
1577.5
1533.9
1488.4
1440.9
106
37.01
37.40
37.79
38.18
38.57
38.96
39.35
39.74
40.13
40.51
40.90
41.29
41.68
42.07
42.46
42.85
43.24
43.63
44.02
44.41
44.80
176.6
179.1
181.6
184.4
187.5
190.6
193.7
196.8
200.0
203.1
206.2
209.3
212.4
215.5
218.6
221.7
224.8
227.9
231.7
235.4
239.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1391.5
1340.2
1289.4
1238.2
1184.5
1128.4
1069.9
1008.9
945.6
879.8
811.6
741.0
667.9
592.4
514.5
434.2
351.5
267.1
180.5
91.7
0.0
107
BRIDGE B
Truck definition
Number of axles
8
Axle No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X
0
5.68
25.27
30.95
37.61
43.29
62.88
68.56
W
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5

Bridge geometry
Number of span
1
Span No
1
L
40
q
0
div
115
L is the length,
q uniform load and
108
Results
X
0.00
0.35
0.70
1.04
1.39
1.74
2.09
2.43
2.78
3.13
3.48
3.83
4.17
4.52
4.87
5.22
5.57
5.91
6.26
6.61
6.96
7.30
7.65
8.00
8.35
8.70
9.04
9.39
9.74
10.09
10.43
10.78
11.13
11.48
11.83
12.17
12.52
12.87
13.22
13.57
13.91
14.26
14.61
14.96
15.30
15.65
16.00
Vmax
224.2
221.1
218.0
214.8
211.7
208.6
205.5
202.8
200.3
197.8
195.4
192.9
190.4
187.9
185.4
182.9
180.4
178.0
175.5
173.0
170.5
168.0
165.5
163.0
160.5
158.1
155.6
153.1
150.6
148.1
145.6
143.1
140.6
138.2
135.7
133.2
130.7
128.2
125.7
123.2
120.8
118.3
115.8
113.3
110.8
108.3
105.8
Mmin
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mmax
0.0
76.9
151.6
224.2
294.6
362.8
428.9
493.8
557.5
619.4
679.5
738.0
794.7
849.6
903.6
956.0
1006.6
1055.5
1102.7
1148.2
1191.9
1233.9
1274.2
1312.7
1349.6
1384.6
1418.0
1449.6
1479.5
1510.9
1550.3
1588.0
1623.9
1658.6
1692.0
1723.6
1753.5
1781.7
1808.1
1832.8
1855.8
1877.0
1896.5
1914.3
1930.3
1944.7
1957.2
Rmin
N
1
2
Rmax
0.0
0.0
224.2
223.8
109
16.35
16.70
17.04
17.39
17.74
18.09
18.43
18.78
19.13
19.48
19.83
20.17
20.52
20.87
21.22
21.57
21.91
22.26
22.61
22.96
23.30
23.65
24.00
24.35
24.70
25.04
25.39
25.74
26.09
26.43
26.78
27.13
27.48
27.83
28.17
28.52
28.87
29.22
29.57
29.91
30.26
30.61
30.96
31.30
31.65
32.00
32.35
32.70
33.04
33.39
103.3
100.9
98.4
95.9
93.4
90.9
88.4
85.9
83.4
80.8
77.7
77.4
80.5
83.2
85.7
88.2
90.6
93.1
95.6
98.1
100.6
103.1
105.6
108.0
110.5
113.0
115.5
118.0
120.5
123.0
125.5
127.9
130.4
132.9
135.4
137.9
140.4
142.9
145.4
147.8
150.3
152.8
155.3
157.8
160.3
162.8
165.2
167.7
170.2
172.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968.1
1977.2
1984.6
1990.3
1994.2
1996.5
1996.9
1995.7
1992.7
1988.0
1981.6
1981.6
1988.1
1992.9
1996.0
1997.4
1997.0
1994.9
1991.0
1985.4
1978.1
1969.1
1958.3
1945.8
1931.6
1915.7
1898.0
1878.6
1857.4
1834.5
1809.9
1783.6
1755.5
1725.7
1694.2
1661.0
1626.0
1589.3
1550.8
1510.9
1479.6
1449.8
1418.3
1385.0
1350.0
1313.3
1274.8
1234.7
1192.8
1149.1
110
33.74
34.09
34.43
34.78
35.13
35.48
35.83
36.17
36.52
36.87
37.22
37.57
37.91
38.26
38.61
38.96
39.30
39.65
40.00
175.2
177.7
180.2
182.7
185.1
187.6
190.1
192.6
195.1
197.6
200.1
202.6
205.2
208.3
211.4
214.5
217.6
220.7
223.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1103.8
1056.7
1007.8
957.3
905.0
851.0
795.2
737.8
678.6
618.5
556.7
493.2
428.2
362.2
294.1
223.8
151.4
76.8
0.0
111
BRIDGE C
Truck definition
Number of axles
8
Axle No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X
0
5.68
25.27
30.95
37.61
43.29
62.88
68.56
W
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5

Bridge geometry
Number of span
1
Span No
1
L
59.5
q
0
div
115
L is the length,
q uniform load and
112
Results
X
0.00
0.52
1.03
1.55
2.07
2.59
3.10
3.62
4.14
4.66
5.17
5.69
6.21
6.73
7.24
7.76
8.28
8.80
9.31
9.83
10.35
10.87
11.38
11.90
12.42
12.93
13.45
13.97
14.49
15.00
15.52
16.04
16.56
17.07
17.59
18.11
18.63
19.14
19.66
20.18
20.70
21.21
21.73
22.25
22.77
23.28
23.80
Vmax
287.2
283.5
279.8
276.1
272.3
268.6
264.9
261.1
257.4
253.7
249.9
246.2
242.5
238.7
235.0
231.3
227.6
223.8
220.1
216.4
212.6
208.9
205.2
201.4
197.7
194.0
190.3
186.5
182.8
179.1
175.3
171.6
168.5
165.4
162.3
159.2
156.1
152.9
149.5
145.8
142.1
138.4
134.6
131.5
128.4
125.3
122.2
Mmin
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mmax
0.0
146.7
289.5
428.5
563.6
694.8
822.2
945.7
1065.4
1181.2
1293.2
1401.2
1505.5
1606.2
1704.6
1799.2
1889.9
1976.7
2059.7
2138.9
2230.2
2320.9
2407.8
2490.8
2569.9
2645.2
2716.6
2784.2
2847.8
2907.7
2963.7
3015.8
3064.0
3109.5
3152.0
3190.6
3225.3
3256.2
3283.2
3321.8
3364.3
3402.9
3437.6
3468.5
3495.5
3518.7
3538.0
Rmin
N
1
2
Rmax
0.0
0.0
287.2
285.3
113
24.32
24.83
25.35
25.87
26.39
26.90
27.42
27.94
28.46
28.97
29.49
30.01
30.53
31.04
31.56
32.08
32.60
33.11
33.63
34.15
34.67
35.18
35.70
36.22
36.73
37.25
37.77
38.29
38.80
39.32
39.84
40.36
40.87
41.39
41.91
42.43
42.94
43.46
43.98
44.50
45.01
45.53
46.05
46.57
47.08
47.60
48.12
48.63
49.15
49.67
119.1
116.0
112.6
108.8
105.1
101.4
97.7
93.9
90.2
86.5
82.7
80.8
84.6
88.3
92.0
95.7
99.5
103.2
106.9
110.7
114.4
117.5
120.6
123.7
126.8
129.9
133.1
136.5
140.2
143.9
147.6
151.4
154.5
157.6
160.7
163.8
166.9
170.0
173.4
177.2
180.9
184.6
188.3
192.1
195.8
199.5
203.3
207.0
210.7
214.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3553.4
3565.0
3572.7
3576.6
3576.6
3572.7
3565.0
3553.4
3539.9
3536.7
3532.2
3529.5
3533.2
3542.3
3556.8
3567.5
3574.2
3577.2
3576.2
3571.4
3562.7
3550.2
3533.8
3513.6
3490.0
3463.9
3434.0
3400.3
3362.7
3321.2
3283.6
3257.5
3227.6
3193.9
3156.3
3114.8
3069.4
3020.3
2967.2
2910.3
2849.5
2784.9
2716.4
2644.0
2567.8
2487.7
2405.0
2319.1
2229.4
2139.0
114
50.19
50.70
51.22
51.74
52.26
52.77
53.29
53.81
54.33
54.84
55.36
55.88
56.40
56.91
57.43
57.95
58.47
58.98
59.50
218.2
221.9
225.7
229.4
233.1
236.8
240.6
244.3
248.0
251.8
255.5
259.2
263.0
266.7
270.4
274.1
277.9
281.6
285.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2060.9
1978.9
1893.0
1803.3
1709.7
1612.2
1510.9
1405.8
1296.7
1183.8
1067.1
946.5
822.0
693.7
561.5
425.5
287.5
145.7
0.0
115
REFERENCES
1. Abhari, R. S., (2007), Rehabilitation of Timber Railroad Bridges Using
Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite, M.S. Thesis, West Virginia
University.
2. AREMA, (2000). AREMA Manual of Engineering, Chapter 8 and
Chapter 15, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Association,
3. Calcada, R., Cunha, A., and Delgado, R. (2002), Dynamic Analysis of
Metallic Arch Railway Bridge, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol.7,
No.4, pp.214-222.
4. Chajes, M.J., Shenton III, H.W., Finch Jr, W.W. (2001), Diagnostic and
In-Service Testing of Transit Railway Bridge, Transportation Research
Recor, No.1770, pp.51-57.
5. DelGrego, M.R., Culmo, M.P., and DeWolf, J.T. (2008), Performance
Evaluation through Field Testing of Century-Old Railroad Truss Bridge,
Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol.13, No.2, pp.132-138.
6. Gutkowski, R.M., Shigidi, A.M., Tran, A.V., Peterson, M.L. (2001),
Field Studies of Strengthened Timber Railroad Bridge, Transportation
Research Record, No.1770, pp.139-148.
7. Gutkowski, R.M., Shigidi, A.M., Tran, A.V., Peterson, M.L. (2003),
Field Investigation of a Strengthened Timber Trestle Railroad Bridge,
Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University.
8. Kober, A. C., et al., (2003) Rehabilitation of the Historic Kate Shelley
High Bridge, AREMA 2003 Proceedings.
9. Leighty III, C.A., Laman, J.A., and Gittings, G.L. (2004), Heavy Axle
Study: Impact of Higher Rail Car Weight Limits on Short-Line Railroad
Bridge Structures, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systesms,
Vol.21, No.2, pp.91-104.
10. Majka, M. and Hartnett, M. (2009), Dynamic Response of Bridges to
Moving Trains: A Study on Effects of Random Track Irregularities and
Bridge Skewness, Computers and Structures, Vol.87, pp.1233-1252.
116
11. Malm, R. and Andersson, A., (2006), Field Testing and Simulation of
Dynamic Properties of a Tiled Arch Railway Bridge, Engineering
Structures, Vol.28, pp.143-152.
12. Radford, D.W., VanGoethem, D., Gutkowski, R.M., Peterson, M.L.
(2002), Composite Repair of Timber Structures, Construction and
Building Materails, Vol.16, pp.417-425.
13. Song, M, Noh, H, Choi, C. (2003), A New Three-Dimensional Finite
Element Analysis Model of High-Speed Train-Bridge Interactions,
Engineering Structures, Vol.25, No.13, pp.1611-1626.
14. Taljsten, B. and Carolin, A., (1998) Strengthening of a Concrete Railway
Bridge in Lulea with Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymers-CFRP, Project
Report, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden.
15. WestBrook Associated Engineers, E8 plus Constructors (2006), Impact
of Railcar Weight Chanes on Bridges of the State of Wisconsin-owned
Railroad Systems, Wisconsin DOT Research, Development &
Technology Transfer, Final Report No. 0092-05-13, Wisconsin DOT.
16. Horney, J. (2003, October 5-8). Capability Evaluation of Short Line
Timber Trestles to handle 286K Loads, American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association/Federal Railroad Administration, AREMA
Conference Presentation, Carter & Burgess, Chicago, IL.
17. Uppal, A.S (2005, September). Coping with the older Railroad Steel
Bridges, IMA Infrastructure Engineering Inc. Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada.
18. Turkkan, N. quickBridge Moment and Shear Envelopes V1.2 2001,
Universtite de Monton, Moncton, N.B. Canada.
19. Unsworth, J.F. Evaluation of the Load Capacity of a Rehabilitated Steel
Arch Railway Bridge, Canadian PacificRailway, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
20. Chebrolu, K, Raman, B, Mishra N, Valiveti, P.K, Kumar,R. BriMon: A
sensor Network System for Railway Bridge Monitoring, Indian Institue of
Technology, Kanpur (2008).
21. Commander, B, Varela-Ortix, W, Stanton T.R, (May 2009) Field Testing
and Load Rating Report. Brdige FSBR-514, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, US
117
Army Corps of Engineers.
22. Harris, F.R. (1994, May), Bridge Evaluation Survey Report of Bridge A,
1st Cycle.
23. Polytran Engineering Associates, PC, (2001, February) Inspection Report
for Bridge A, Cycle 2.
24. Polytran Engineering Associates, PC, (2005, December) Inspection
Report for Bridge A, Cycle 3.
25. Harris, F.R. (1989, August), Bridge Evaluation Survey Report of Bridge
D, 1st Cycle.
26. Baker, M. Jr., Inc. (1996, April) Inspection Report for Bridge D, Cycle
2.
27. Nassif, H.H., Suksawang, N., Davis, J.C. (2007, January). Evaluation of
Bridge Deck Cracking on the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge.
28. Nassif, H.H., Kwon, G, Su, D. (2008, January). Behavior of Early Age
Concrete Deck on the Hackensack River Bridge.
29. ABAQUS User Manual.
30. Parsons Transportation Group, (May 20, 2002), Inspection Cycle
Number 3, Bridge C.
31. Chas. H. Sells, Inc. (August 23, 2007), Inspection Cycle Number 4,
Bridge B.

Rutgers Lib 31104 PDF 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rutgers Lib 31104 PDF 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIELD TESTING AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR

EVALUATION OF RAILROAD BRIDGES

A Thesis submitted to the

New Brunswick, New Jersey

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

FIELD TESTING AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Problem Statement .............................................................................................1

Research Objectives and Scope .........................................................................4

The Selected Bridges .........................................................................................4

Typical 286 Kips Railcars .................................................................................5

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................8

Bridge Load Rating Conducted by Other DOT .................................................9

Wisconsin DOT ..........................................................................................9

Pennsylvania DOT ...................................................................................14

Field Tests on Railroad Bridges ......................................................................18

Timber Trestle Bridges (Colorado State university) ................................18

Built-up Steel Girder Bridge (Rutgers University) ..................................21

Built-up Steel Girder Bridge (University of Delaware) ...........................26

Built-up Truss Bridge (University of Connecticut)..................................28

Finite Element Modeling .................................................................................31

LOAD RATING USING AREMA SPECIFICATIONS ...........................................36

Rating of Existing Steel Bridge .......................................................................36

Load Rating of Bridge A .................................................................................41

286K Freight Railcar Ratings (Project Proposal Railcar) ........................46

3.2.1.1 Impact Factor ...................................................................................46

INSTRUMENTATION AND FIELD TESTING ......................................................54

Structural Testing System ................................................................................54

Laser Doppler Vibrometer ...............................................................................57

FINITE ELEMENT BRIDGE ANALYSIS ...............................................................72

Finite Element Model ......................................................................................72

Material Properties ...................................................................................73

Element Selection and Analysis Procedure ..............................................74

COMPARISON OF RESULTS .................................................................................81

286Kip Rail Car Analysis ................................................................................81

E Cooper 80 Rail Car Analysis........................................................................86

Load Rating Calculations Using Finite Element Analysis ..............................87

Shear Rating .............................................................................................89

286kip Rail Car and Field Data Comparison...................................................90

Load Rating Comparison between FE Model and Load Rating Calculations

Using AREMA Specifications .......................................................................................91

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................94

Summary and Conclusions ..............................................................................94

Scope for Future Research ...............................................................................95

APPENDIX A BRIDGE B .............................................................................................97

Figure 14. Instrumentation locations (Nassif et al. 2002) ..................................................23

Figure 31. Technical Specications of Wi -Fi Data Collection System ..............................56

Table 13. Sensor ID Numbers and Locations ....................................................................61

Figure 3. General Plan of Bridge C (Inspection Cycle Report 3, 2002).

Research Objectives and Scope

The Selected Bridges

Typical 286 Kips Railcars

2) Ore Hopper Railcar

Bridge Load Rating Conducted by Other DOT

(a) Defective stringer

(b) Pile settlement

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation investigated the impact of higher rail car

Figure 8. Railcar weight and dimension (Leighty III et al. 2004)

Field Tests on Railroad Bridges

Figure 10. Instrumentation on the bridge (Gutkowski et al. 2003)

Figure 11. Test train (Gutkowski et al. 2003)

Figure 12. Typical load position (Gutkowski et al. 2003)

Built-up Steel Girder Bridge (Rutgers University)