International workshop on strengthening of steel/composite bridges

(1)

TECHNICAL REPORT

International Workshop on

Strengthening of Steel/Composite bridges

Stockholm, September 28 2015

Peter Collin

Jens Häggström

Robert Hällmark

(2)

Foreword

The European infrastructure is rapidly aging, and steel/composite bridges are no exception to the rule. With thousands of older steel/composite bridges, there is a demand of rational methods to strengthen the older bridges to compensate not only for their age, but also for higher loads and new codes, of which perhaps the new fatigue rules for highway bridges in EC3-2 will be the hardest to meet.

Within the frames of the European R&D project Prolife (RFCS-CT-2015-00025) a workshop was arranged in Stockholm September 28th 2015. Bridge owners, designers and researchers from 12 countries participated, and the similarities between the countries as well as the variety of technical solutions were highlighted.

The contributions are presented in this report and the organizers want to thank all participants for making this seminar successful.

Peter Collin Jens Häggström Robert Hällmark

(3)

Foreword ... ii

Table of contents ... iii

Presentations 1 ‐ Introduction ‐ Peter Collin ... 1

2 ‐ Strengthening of Storströmsbron ‐ Claus Pedersen ... 9

3 ‐ Examples from UK ‐ Paul Jackson ... 28

4 ‐ Examples from Norway ‐ Jon Halden ... 46

5 ‐ Examples from Finland ‐ Tomi Harju ... 55

6 ‐ Årsta Bridge ‐ Tore Lundmark ... 69

7 ‐ Examples from Austria ‐ Thomas Petraschek ... 77

8 ‐ Examples from Netherlands ‐ Bert Hessellink ... 85

9 ‐ Examples from Italy ‐ Alessio Pipinato ... 92

10 ‐ Experiance from Arcelor Mittal ... 122

11 ‐ RFCS project Prolife ‐ Peter Collin ... 141

12 ‐ Sustainable Bridges ‐ Lennart Elfgren ... 164

(4)

Rambölls brokonstruktörer i Norden

SWEDEN (46) Luleå (9)

Stockholm (33) Göteborg (4)

DENMARK (116) Aalborg (29) Köpenhamn (87) NORWAY (40) Oslo (16)

Drammen (24)

Oulu Tampere Turku Espoo

FINLAND (50)

(5)

Bridge over Norrboån

3

Old Lidingö bridge

Ramböll have done inspection and assessment calculations on the bridge.

(6)

Old Årsta bridge (Tore Lundmark will speak about it)

RFCS-project PROLIFE initiated by partners of a previous Workshop

(7)

Workpackage 1-Postcomposite Action

Workpackage 2 - Improvement of composite action of I-girder bridges

(In reality something in between)

(8)

Workpackage 3-Strengthening of old truss bridges

(9)

INTAB-Integral Abutments saving money

Bearings and expansion joints are costly to install and maintain. By using steel piles directly connected to the back walls these and the piers near the abutments can be excluded.

The bridge over Leduån had a budget for 1 MEuro as two span concrete bridge with 3 piers. Our alternative composite bridge in one span, with no piers, was realized for 600 kEuro. The bridge was monitored with in the RFCS-project INTAB, for both termal- and traffic loading.

Hans Petursson will present his PhD thesis on this subject.

Mattias Nilsson

Sekundär utmattning av farbanans deformation

BRIFAG-Fatigue of steel bridges

(10)

ELEM-Composite bridges with prefabricated decks

Robert Hällmark

Bridges with integral abutments Strengthening of steel bridges

Earlier International Workshops at Ramböll

(11)

International Workshop on EC4-2, March 2013

Deltagare från 11 länder

Proceedings tillgängliga på LTU.se

(12)

2015-09-28 STORSTRØM BRIDGE

THE STORSTRØM BRIDGE

CRACKS – BRIDGE CLOSED -

STRENGTHENING – BRIDGE REOPEN

LOCATION

(13)

MAIN DATA FOR STORSTRØM BRIDGE

• Constructed 1933-1937. Open for service September 26, 1937

• Single railway track. 1+1 roadway. Sidewalk

• Ship traffic: Clearance 26 m in 126 m navigation channel

• Length: 3.2 km

• Width: 14 m

• 3 arch spans

• 47 approach spans each ~60 m

MAIN DRAWINGS

(14)

CROSS SECTION IN APPROACH SPANS

APPROACH SPAN – “FROM THE INSIDE”

(15)

STATIC SYSTEM FOR APPROACH SPANS

sdsdssd

FIXED ROLLER FIXED ROLLER HINGE HINGE HINGE HINGE

| | | |

SUSPENDED

SPAN SUSPENDED

SPAN ANCHOR

SPAN

MAY-SEPT 2011: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

Documents that several issues must be addressed in the existing Storstrøm Bridge is to be used in the planned Femern Link:

• Braking forces from trains loads – problems with local bracing and global transfer of forces from span-to-span and piers

• Railway stringers – fatigue and cracks

• Half joints in approach spans

• Etc.

• Final report, 1500 pages

(16)

HALF JOINTS IN APPROACH SPANS

MAY-SEPT 2011: CHECK OF CAPACITY

(17)

SEPT 2011: INSPECTION PROGRAM INTIATED

• 100% visual checking

• 20% checked using X-ray

OCTOBER 18, 2011

(18)

FIRST CRACK IDENTIFIED: LENGTH ~45 CM

OCTOBER 18, 2011, LATE EVENING:

… BRIDGE CLOSED IMMEDIATELY FOR TRAINS

(19)

OCTOBER 19-20, 2011

• Decision: 100% X-ray checking of all half-joints

• Strengthening project initiated

• Approx. 20% of the rolling stock at Zealand “caught” on the wrong side (south of the bridge)

• Time table for entire Zealand affected

• Task Force at Banedanmark (owner of the bridge)

• Project group at Rambøll

11 LARGE CRACKS FOUND

• 1 crack at ~60 cm (5

^th

rivet)

• 2 cracks at ~45 cm (4

^th

rivet)

• 4 cracks at ~30 cm (3

^rd

rivet)

• 4 cracks at ~17 cm (2

^nd

rivet)

• Railway girder: 9 cracks

• Roadway girder: 2 cracks

(20)

11 LARGE CRACKS FOUND

STRENGTHENING

• Spreader beams, top and bottom

• Macalloy bars

• Extra bolts through flanges

(21)

STRENGTHENING

(22)

STRENGTHENING

Spreader beams installed Weight: 430 kg

STRENGTHENING

Lower spreader beams

(23)

STRENGTHENING

Check of geometry

(24)

STRENGTHENING

REOPENING OF THE BRIDGE

1. Cracks longer than 30 cm reinforced (3 pcs)

• “Caught” rolling stock passed on November 14

• Bridge closed for vehicle traffic when trains passed 2. Cracks longer than 17 cm reinforced (7 pcs)

• Bridge open for passage of light passenger trains on November 21 3. All 11 cracks reinforced. FE-analyses carried out

• Bridge open for ordinary railway traffic January 23, 2012

(25)

PERIODIC MONITORING USING STRAIN GAUGES

(26)

2012: FUTURE FOR THE STORSTRØM BRIDGE?

• 2 reports: New bridge or existing bridge

IF EXISTING BRIDGE IS RE-USED…

• Half joints in approach spans to be reinforced

• 3 arch spans to be replaced if wider roadway

• Entire roadway trough to be replaced (3200 m)

• Main girders to be reinforced due to train load fatigue

• Railway trough to be re-surfaced

• Top of piers to be reinforced

• Braking load

• Etc…

(27)

FUTURE FOR EXISTING BRIDGE

• Example: Half joints to be reinforced or replaced

NEW BRIDGE

• New alignment

• Trains: 2 tracks, heavier trains

• Road: Wider carriageway

• Cheaper maintenance

• Less interruption of traffic

(28)

DECISION: NEW STORSTRØM BRIDGE

(29)

NEW STORSTRØM BRIDGE

(30)

NEW STORSTRØM BRIDGE

THANK YOU

(31)

SEPTEMBER 2015 UK EXAMPLES

WORKSHOP ON STRENGTHENING OF STEEL/COMPOSITE BRIDGES UK EXAMPLES

• Project was “3 car enhancement project”

• Allowed longer trains

• Done to increase capacity

• Frequency also increased

• Not designed for any heavier maintenance trains (unusual)

• Result: fatigue a major issue

• Consider strengthening here

• Also lengthened stations and added grade separation

• Design and Build Contract with

“illustratve design”

D OCKLANDS L IGHT R AILWAY

THIS IS TWO “CARS”

(32)

• Use of strain gauging to determine stress range

• Spirol pins to increase interface shear strength

• Ultra impact treatment peening to improve weld fatigue life

• Also more conventional plate strengthening

(but a lot less than there would have been without above)

NOVEL APPROACHES

STRAIN GAUGING: Typical Data over 8 Hours

High sampling rate used (to pick up dynamic effects) Leads to a lot of data

Had to supress to reduce quantity: only look at “events”

(periods when there is a train)

(33)

STRAIN GAUGE RESULTS (for an event. i.e. train) TRAIN)

-90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70

28000 28002 28004 28006 28008 28010 28012 28014 28016 28018 28020

Time [s]

Strain [micro-strain]

-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9

Displacements [mm]

SG1 SG2 SG3 SG4 SG5 SG6 SG7 SG8 DISP1 DISP2

Every axle clear but no evidence of dynamic magnification

NEUTRAL AXIS

(34)

DECK BEHAVIOUR

Top flanges which “illustrative design” required strengthening for tension, actually in small compression.

Major gain as very hard to plate (concrete flange on top and stiffener underneath)

Observed strain due to train, c.f.

conventional analysis

DECK BEHAVIOUR

•Un-cracked section properties - Greater tensile strength?

•Track plinth and other non-structural elements

•Modulus of concrete - Dynamic effects

•Negative shear lag

•Bearing restraint

(35)

STRAIN GAUGING RESULTS

HEV - M ids pan SQ35-36 - Bottom Flange - SG1

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Stress (N/mm^2)

Strain Gauged (Min) Strain Gauged (Max)

Strain Gauged (Min) Factored Analytical Proposed

Analytical Conventional

Only used a small part of theoretical gain

But

Still major savings

ULTRASONIC IMPACT TREATMENT OF WELDS

• 3mm diameter pins

• Frequency 27 Hz

• Smoothes profile of the weld toe

• Residual compressive stresses

e

(36)

UIT – TESTING AT TWI

ULTRASONIC IMPACT TREATMENT

• Fatigue testing at TWI

• Pre-fatigue to simulate 20 years of life

• Halts crack propagation from the toe

• Effective even if pre-cracked (8mm long 1.5mm wide) (Cracks normally visible long before failure!)

• 97.5% probability that life is increased by a factor of 3

• Non-propagating stress increased from 35MPa to 50MPa

(37)

UIT extra major advantage over conventional hammer peening is that it is quiet

“SPIROL” SHEAR PINS

As fatigue governs, had

to consider a range of

(relative) stiffness

(38)

USED IN PREVIOUS STRENGTHENING

But

• Design approach based on minimalist testing (they tested Liebig and tension pins too and the Spirol Pins appeared a bit of an afterthought

!

)

• Design approach hard to justify for fatigue

• Illustrative design used a much more conservative approach

• After a study of 3 sets of previous tests, we developed an intermediate approach

• Since done more tests for thinner plate (for a case not designed as composite)

PREVIOUS FATIGUE TESTS

Pins have increasing

slip but, unlike studs,

do not break. Hence

fatigue life based on

limiting slip

(39)

RELATIVE STIFFNESS

(for fatigue) (for fatigue)

1. Case 1 governed

2. Actual full range of stiffness greater but philosophical reasons for restricting. Not rigorously conservative but ignores redistribution with softening

3. Also, would not really fail when first stud does!

STATIC TEST

SE

TATIC TEST

Spirol Pin

Stud

Too Much slip: base static and fatigue design on specific slip (5mm)

Initial stiffness

variable

(40)

PLATE STRENGTHENING: We did have to do some!

Note Tension Control Bolts

SHOCK TRANSMISSION UNITS

Image option 2

Enabled braking load of

longer trains to be spread

across adjacent structures

(41)

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Our Assessment

Reference Design

Mansell St Pass Fail

Royal Mint Viaduct Fail Fail

Bank Extension Pass Pass

Cable St (Lemen N&S) Pass Fail

Cable St (West) Pass Fail

Cable St (Central) Pass Fail

Cable St (East) Pass Fail

Stepney East (West) Pass Pass

Stepney East (Central) (Butcher Row) Fail Fail

Stepney East (East) Pass Pass

Ratcliffe Lane Pass Fail

Limehouse Link Pass Fail

Docks Crossing Middle Fail Fail

Docks Crossing South Fail Fail

Our Assessment

Reference Design

Telecom Curve Pass Fail

South Quay Viaduct Pass Fail

Marshwall Viaduct Pass Fail

Millwall Cut Fail Fail

Harbour Exchange Curve Pass Pass

Harbour Exchange Pass Fail

East Ferry Pass Fail

Crossharbour Pass Fail

Stepney Causeway Pass Fail

Limehouse Viaduct – Precast¹ Pass Pass

Limehouse Viaduct - Brick Arches¹ Pass Pass

North Quay Viaduct Pass Fail

Docks Crossing North Fail Fail

Delta Junction Pass Fail

Strain gauging biggest single factor in this Major saving

We could have got more financial benefit if less risk averse!

Main structures remaining are longer spans due to train length

PROGRAMME ISSUES

• Reduction of Scope of strengthening was a major advantage

but

• Time to investigate would have left a major problem if it did not work!

• Fitting 3 research Projects (lab testing for UIT, site

testing for strain gauging and desk study for pins) and

approval in the programme of a D&B was a challenge!

(42)

INADEQUATE U FRAME RESTRAINT

We have

analysed over 140 and only had to resort to this once!

(this deck props abutments and level under lowered)

INADEQUATE U FRAME RESTRAINT (to code!)

Most shown OK by non- linear analysis without the U frames in

Very beneficial as

condition and stiffness of

joints hard to investigate

Proving strengthening not

needed is cheapest and

least disruptive approach

Not clear this is in our

scope but used to inform

strengthening design so

is?

(43)

NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS

SEPTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SEPTEMBERMBERMBERMBERMBEMBEMBERMBERMBERMBERMBEMBERMBERMBERMBERMBERMBERMBEMMBEMBEMMBER 2015BEBBBEBBEBBERBBEERR2015220152012012015201520152015201520152012012201520122201500150150015

UK EXK EXK EXK EXK EXK EXK EXK EXK EXK EK EXK EXK EXK EXK EXK EXEXEXEEXEXEXEXEXEXEXEEXXAMPLEAMPLEAMPLEAMPLAMPLEAMPLEAMPLEAMPLEAMPLEAMPLEAMPLEAMPLAMPLEAMPLAMPLEAMPLEAMPLEAMPLESMPMPLEPLEPLEPLEPLEPLEPLELLEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

NL analysis includes:

2

^nd

order effects Yielding

Imperfections (normally easier to use nominal which are > actual)

Lift off

Could use Eigen values and feed into conventional code assessment but

This way, only connections to check by hand

SCOPE QUESTIONS

•Assessment to Avoid Strengthening

Also used to design strengthening so not a separate subject

•Wrought Iron

The real dividing lines are cast iron to wrought iron and riveted

steel to welded steel. The approaches for riveted steel and wrought

iron are very much the same (although early steel corrodes more

and can be less ductile than wrought iron). Hence, makes little

difference whether we include wrought iron

(44)

OUSEBURN VIADUCT

Laser scan

(used to check geometry: arch rib seriously S shaped in plan)

• Cracking to corners of tee lattice spandrels from overstress and possibly fatigue

• Spandrels not incorporated into structural model (relies on 1950s strengthening)

• To be retained as feature

(45)

DECK PLATE STRENGTHENING

Why needed?

Corrosion or inadequate original

Bridges with way beams converted to ballast

(either for ease of

maintenance or for track slewing)

Analyse to check really needed

(many thin enough for tensile membrane action to help)

(46)

DECK PLATE STRENGTHENING

New beams installed with neoprene pads on top

Jacked up to plate Holes match

drilled and bolted Access to top not required

CONVERSION TO BALLASTED TRACK

(47)

STIFFENERS

With section limited by

buckling, enhancing stiffeners is often easier than plating Another alternative is

discontinuous plating (only if OK on yield for original

section)

CONNECTIONS

Rivets are stronger than conventional assessment suggests But

Still weaker than modern 8.8 bolts so replacing is an option

If major strengthening needed, typically have to use “cheese plates”

Can weld but care needed on load distribution

On Ouseburn, main splices appeared very inadequate.

Measured strains on ribs unusually > predicted: was web ineffective?

(48)

AVON BRIDGE

Strengthening Tendons

AND FINALLY: A DRASTIC SOLUTION!

Bridge inadequate but space under no longer used so we filled it up!

Bridge left in place (much more

disruptive to demolish)

(49)

STRENGTHENING OF STEEL BRIDGES, EXAMPLES FROM NORWAY

JON HALDEN, RAMBOLL NORWAY

METHODS OF STRENGTHENING

1. Adding extra steel angles/steel profiles 2. Steel tendons

3. Establishing composite action 4. Adding extra beam(s)

5. Combinations of the 4 first methods 6. Extra supports

7. Reduce dead load

(50)

1A. ADDING OF EXTRA STEEL ANGLES

• Strengthening of steel girder

• 2 angles at the top and 2 at the bottom of the girder.

• Fastened with friction bolts.

• Can increase capacity with 15- 20 %

• Relatively cheap.

• Problem at supports for continuous bridges.

1B. ADDING OF EXTRA STEEL PROFILES

• Strengthening of steel truss

• Steel angles/channels and steel plates to strengthen members in the truss

• Fastened with friction bolts.

• Can increase capacity with 15-

25 %.

(51)

2. STEEL TENDONS

• 1 – 4 tendons mounted at bottom flange

• Brackets fastened with friction bolts.

• Can increase capacity with 15- 20 %

• Relatively cheap.

• Problem at supports for continuous bridges.

3. ESTABLISHING COMPOSITE ACTION

(52)

4. ADDING OF EXTRA BEAM

• Bridge built in 1963

• Spans 20.5 – 36 – 36 – 14.5

• Lack of capacity:

• Mid spans: 46%

• At supports: OK

• Bridge deck: 25%

• Method of strengthening:

Adding one extra beam in the middle.

• Continuity complicated the work.

ONE EXTRA BEAM

(53)

5. COMBINATION OF COMPOSITE ACTION AND TENDONS.

• Bridge built in 1969

• Spans 30-40-30 m

• Lack of capacity:

• Mid spans: 33%

• At supports: 34%

• Method of Strengthening:

Composite action and tendons in spans (40%).

ESTABLISH COMPOSITE ACTION

(54)

WATER BLASTING – ESTABLISH DOWELS

TENDONS (4)

(55)

TENDONS (4)

6. EXTRA SUPPORTS

• Vertical support at mid span

• One/two inclined supports

close to abutments.

(56)

7A. REDUCING DEAD LOAD – ALUMINIUM DECK

• Old truss bridge with concrete bridge deck

• Concrete deck was replaced by aluminium deck

• Thus allowing higher traffic loads and pedestrian path.

• Minimum amount of strengthening.

COMPLETED BRIDGE

(57)

7B. REDUCING DEAD LOAD – TIMBER DECK

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION

(58)

Repair and strengthening of steel bridges in Finland

Tomi Harju, Finnish transport agency

• CONTENT

Steel bridges in Finland

Agenda of monitoring for railway steel bridges Cases

R&D project

(59)

Bridges in Finland: railway and road bridges

11/2/2015 www.liikennevirasto.fi 3

Challenges at steel structures of bridges in Finland

Ɣ Railway bridges

• many steel bridges from 1910-ĺfatigue

• maintenance work poorly done

Ɣ Road bridges

• steel roller bearings (Kreutz)

• museum bridges

• some design failures

(60)

2.11.2015 Tomi Harju 5

Agenda of monitoring for railway steel bridges 2012-2016

Background

Ɣ During maintenance work at

Lestijoki bridge in 2009 broken joint plates were found.

Ɣ Next year same kind of failure at Vetelinjoki bridge.

Ɣ Emergency repair work for both bridges were executed.

Ɣ Risk analysis for railway steel bridges were done in 2010.

¾ Agenda for monitoring and

repairing of railway steel bridges

2011.

(61)

Problems/observations

7 Tomi Harju

• In 1930-50 built railway bridges there are details which are poorly designed for fatigue.

• Safety against collision – specially at pedestrian bridges.

• Poor maintenance (corrosion, settlings behind bridges, problems at substructures)

Problematic secondary beams

(62)

Agenda for railway steel bridges 2012- 2016

Ɣ Special inspections for railway steel bridges

• 94 pieces bridges were found with risk of possible failure.

• Priorisation lists for repairing.

Ɣ Safety issues

• Special monitoring.

• Speed limits.

• Traffic limitations not needed so far.

Ɣ R&D study of secondary beam joints

Ɣ Repairing design and execution started with budget of 5 M€ per year.

11/2/2015 Tomi Harju 9

CASE: Mansikkakoski railway bridge,

repair work 2014

(63)

2.11.2015 11 2.11

2.11.201.201.201555 111111111

Ɣ The bridge built in 1933.

Ɣ Length 582 m, width 19.4 m

Ɣ Structures: steel truss bridge; railway on top level and road on bottom of the truss and approach bridge. steel girder bridge Ɣ Repair work for truss and girder bridge Ɣ Repair work designed by VR-Track Oy

Mansikkakoski railway bridge, Imatra

(64)

Example: Repair of one joint (1)

(65)

5:24 0:05

0:24 0:29

0:10 0:03

2:27 0:10

1:09 0:13 1:13 Working time

Temporary supports Removing bolts Detachment of joint plate Grinding of web plate Fitting of joint plates Boring of bolt holes Installation of web plates Pre-tensioning of bolts Final tensioning Installation of support plates

Example: Repair of one joint (2)

Ɣ Tight shcedule ( example of one working shift)

CASE: Lapinlahti bridge,

repair work 1995

(66)

Lapinlahti bridge, Helsinki

2.11.2015 Tomi Harju 17

Ɣ The bridge built in 1964-65

Ɣ Length 582 m, width 19.4 m

Ɣ Structure: two box girders and orthotropic deck

Ɣ Mid-90’s widening of bridge with 2x1.2 m

Ɣ Repair work designed by Pontek Oy

Widening and strengthening of Lapinlahti bridge

Strengthening of box girders; work phases 1. Assembling of new lateral web stiffeners VJ1…VJ6 2. Assembling of new vertical web stiffeners LJ1…LJ14

3. Assembling of new transverse flange stiffeners PB1…PB3 and PV 4. Assembling of additional bottom flange plates; bolts M16 8.8

(67)

Widening and strengthening of Lapinlahti bridge

2.11.2015 Tomi Harju 19

Widening of box girders

Ɣ

After strengthening work of box girders the widening phase was started.

Ɣ Supported with SHS 200x200x8.

Ɣ Bolt connection at web plates.

Lapinlahti bridge, Helsinki

(68)

2.11.2015 Tomi Harju 21

CASE: Sääksmäki bridge, repair work 2003-05

Sääksmäki bridge

Ɣ Designed by Chr. Ostenfeld & W. Jønson Denmark.

Ɣ Bridge built in 1963

Ɣ Span lengths: 25 m + 155 m + 25 m. Width 16 m.

Ɣ Cracks at secondary beams were found late 1990’s.

Ɣ Repair work at 2003-05.

Ɣ Repair design by Pontek Oy.

(69)

Connection of longitudinal steel girders and concrete slab

2.11.2015 Tomi Harju 23

Sääksmäki bridge

(70)

2.11.2015 Tomi Harju 25

R&D project –

riveted joints of railway bridges

Riveted joints of railway bridges

Ɣ Some damage were found in secondary structures of a railway bridge in Finland.

•Five riveted stringer to floorbeam connections were fatigue tested in laboratory conditions.

•Additionally existing bridge was monitored and joints were studied under actual train loads.

Ɣ Project started at spring 2013 (Head of project prof. Anssi Laaksonen)

•Prestudy 03-09/13: Joonas Tulonen

•Loading test, master thesis 10/13-10/14: Tuomo Siitonen

•Follow-up research, field tests 09/14-05/15: Joonas Tulonen

Ɣ Publications: Master thesis, 2 pcs conference articles (ECCS Steel bridge symposium Istanbul)

Ɣ Still to come: Research article (peer-review), End report

Ɣ Ready at autumn 2015.

(71)

Riveted joints of railway bridges

Ɣ The goal of the R&D-project was to get knowledge of failure mechanism under fatigue loads for such a riveted joints.

•Both FEM-analyses and full scale laboratory tests were executed.

•The results will be compared to measurements of existing railway bridge and analyse shall be done.

Ɣ The connections seems to be able to take much more load cycles than theory is giving.

•Ductile fracture – the inner stresses will distribute to other parts of the joint.

•The joint has good robustness.

Ɣ Fretting and reduction of friction may lead (accelerate) to fracture

Ɣ The inaccuracy during installation work (exceedings of tolerances e.g.) can remarkably shorter fatigue life of the joint.

Ɣ Monitoring the joint gives reliable information of the functionality and may increase the service life of the bridge.

2.11.2015 Tomi Harju 27

Thank you! Questions?

(72)

GAMLA ÅRSTABRON STOCKHOLM

1929

- REINFORCEMENT OF AN OLD

ARCH BRIDGE

ÅRSTA BRIDGE

(73)

156 M TOTAL ARCH LENGTH

• ISOTROPIC DECK

• 12 BOLTED CROSSJOINTS

• 86 NEW BEARINGS

• 350 DRAWINGS

• 3D MODELLING

• 4 MONTHS ASSEMBLY TIME

PLANNING AND

PREPARATION WORKS

(74)

- REINFORCEMENTS

- CONNECTING NEW AND OLD

Den här mallen är för presentationer i 16:9 widescreen-format.

Det är i första hand denna mall du

ska använda för dina presentationer.

I KOMPASS finns även en mall för 4:3- format, om det skulle behövas.

BRIDGE CLOSED

FOR TRAFFIC

APRIL 6, 2015

(75)

A TOTAL OF 15 ASSEMBLY PARTS LIFTED AND TURNED

…AND TRANSPORTED BY A

TRACK-BOUND CRANE

(76)

- 900 TONS OF NEW STEEL - 17 000 BOLTS

TIGHT FIT BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION PARTS

(77)

- ISOTROPIC DECK - BOLTED JOINTS

350 TONS

60 M MIDSECTION DISASSEMBLED

12 LIFTING JACKS

(78)

5 HOURS LATER

NEW MIDSECTION ASSEMBLED

(79)

60 YEARS EXTENDED LIFESPAN

BRIDGE OPENS FOR TRAFFIC ON SCHEDULE-AUG 3, 2015

THANK K K YOU U! U!

(80)

ÖBB-Infrastruktur // GB SAE // LCI – R&I Stockholm, September 2015

Strengthening of Steel Bridges

Stockholm, September 2015

DI Dr. Thomas Petraschek

GB SAE – Research and Development, ÖBB Infrastruktur AG

Selected Bridges within the railway network of ÖBB

(81)

Selected Bridges within the railway network of ÖBB

3

Selected Bridges within the railway network of ÖBB

(82)

Selected Bridges within the railway network of ÖBB

5

Assetmanagement – Strategy ÖBB

Global Decision

Interpretation of management strategy

on level of action Funding

LCM & current net status

Basis and Support to traceable decisions REQUIREMENTS

derived from current status of

existing asset

Target System 2020 – 25+

STRATEGY MANAGEMENT BOARD

(83)

Assetmanagement – Amount of Components within ÖBB

7

Total length of Railway network ÖBB:

Core Network: 3.473,6 km Supplementary: 1.457,0 km Total: 4.930,6 km

Assetmanagement – Amount of Components within ÖBB

Datenquellen für Bestand und Altersdurchschnitt: technische Anlagendatenbanken Gleisrang a: Streckengleise und durchgehende Hauptgleise im Bahnhof

ETCS: European Train Control System

Anlagenart Einheit Bestand am 31.12.2011

Altersdurch- schnitt in Jahren am 31.12.2011

Technische Nutzungsdauer in

Jahren Gleise Kernnetz (Gleisrang a) km 5.341 17 Ø 30 Jahre (20-50) Gleise Ergänzungsnetz (Gleisrang a) km 1.400 27 Ø 40 Jahre (30-50) Weichen Kernnetz (Gleisrang a) Stk. 5.263 15 Ø 30 Jahre (20-50) Weichen Ergänzungsnetz (Gleisrang a) Stk. 775 30 Ø 40 Jahre (30-50)

Brücken Stahl Stk. 1.056 52 Ø 100 Jahre (80-120)

Brücken Massiv Stk. 6.260 36 Ø 90 Jahre (80-100)

Tunnel Stk. 222 60 Ø 180 Jahre (100-200)

Hochbau Stk. 5.207 67 100*

Stellwerke Stk. 788 24 Ø 30 Jahre (25-40)

ETCS km 63 5 25

Energietechnik Oberleitung km 7.916 25 Ø 50 Jahre (40-60)

* gilt für tragende Bauteile (wie Fundamente, Wände, Stützen, Decken, Träger) Bautechnik

Leit- und Sicherungstechnik

(84)

Financial Ressources (Mio. €) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Inspection/Service, Elimination of Faults,

Maintenance 466,5 471,5 481,5 489,8 498,2 510,3

Replacement Investment

618,0 563,0 527,3 528,1 543,2 560,0

Quelle: Zuschussvertrag gemäß 㼲 42 Abs. 2 Bundesbahngesetz zur Rahmenplanperiode 2011-2016 vom 30.03.2011, Seite 2 von 6

Assetmanagement – Funding ÖBB

9

ONR 24008 – Nachrechnungsrichtlinie

NEW

EXISTING

(85)

Evaluation of Load Bearing Capacity – when?

11

?

Experimental Evaluation of Load Bearing Capacity

Bridge over River Metnitz 2013

Bridge Weigh in Motion (BWiM) – Evaluation of Remaining Life

(86)

Special problems within the existing Bridges of ÖBB

02.11.2015 13

No wind bracing!!

Steel Framework Structure, Age 112 Years urban area, defrosting products

Research and Development

Modelling of Material Resistance vs. Real Load Impact Evaluation

ܦ = ߛ

_ி௙

ή ߛ

_ெ௙ ^ହ

ή

ĭ_ଶ

ή οߪ

_଻ଵ

ή Ȝ

_௟௢௖

οߪ

_௖

ହ

+

ĭ_ଶ

ή οߪ

_଻ଵ

ή Ȝ

_௚௟௢

οߪ

_௖

ହ

(87)

15

Thank You!

(88)

Bert Hesselink, September 28^th 2015, Stockholm

International Workshop on Strengthening of Steel/Composite Bridges

Examples from Netherlands

භ Status in the Netherlands;

භ Studies භ Road bridges භ Rail bridges භ Conclusions

Examples from the Netherlands

භ There is code for the assessment of existing structures in case of

reconstruction and disapproval o NEN 8700 - Basic Rules o NEN 8701 - Actions

භ The assessment of existing bridges is governed by Law

භ Heavier loads

o Road traffic, major differences

between old and new codes. Static and fatigue;

o Train traffic, minor differences between old and new codes.

Status in the Netherlands (1)

9/28/2015 International Workshop on Strengthening of 3

Steel/Composite Bridges

Examples from the Netherlands

භ Road traffic:

o In 1997 problems in deck Brienenoord basculebridge (after 7 years servies) o The bridges in the major

highways have been assessed o Programme for renovation:

http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/wegen/projectenoverzicht/renovati e-bruggen/index.aspx

Status in the Netherlands (2)

(90)

Examples from the Netherlands

භ Train traffic:

o Some fatigue problems due to bad detailing;

o Not so far as highway administrators;

Status in the Netherlands (3)

Examples from the Netherlands

භ Road traffic:

o Development of new codes (NEN8700 and NEN8701);

භ Train traffic:

o Year tonnage per location;

o Fatigue cracks connection longitudinal girder and crossgirder

Studies

g

(91)

Examples from the Netherlands

Studies

Year tonnage Codes – Eurocode o tonnage 25 mio ton per

year

Year tonnage real ? භ ProRail archive data භ timetable

භ Track loading card භ ProRail data

භ Quo Vadis monitoring stations

TPS_MEETUNITNR VWM_TREINNUMMER TPS_DATETIME PS_NRAXLENVELOCITY TPS_OUTVELOCITY_KMU TCF_VEHICLETYPE TAQ_AXLE TAQ_AXLEDISTANCE_M TAQ_AXLELOAD_TON TPS_KALENDERDAG

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 1 0 14,13 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 2 2,5 14,62 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 3 17,47 13,15 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 4 2,51 13,41 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 5 3,86 12,54 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 6 2,51 12,84 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 7 17,48 11,59 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 8 2,5 12,28 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 9 3,84 11,68 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 10 2,51 11,78 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 11 17,48 12,28 20150604

101 3616 04Jun2015 5:47:47,200 26 132,79 132,58 EMU DDZ V mDDZ 12 2,51 12,81 20150604

Examples from the Netherlands

Roadbridges

(92)

Examples from the Netherlands

Roadbridges

Examples from the Netherlands

Roadbridges, standard solutions

භ HSC layer

භ Glued steel plate for

moveable bridges

(93)

Examples from the Netherlands

Railbridges