Universitatea Politehnica Timioara Facultatea de Construcii

Str. Traian Lalescu nr. 2A - 1900 TIMIOARA - ROMNIA Telefon: 02560256-403919; Fax: 02560256-404010 E E-mail: epetzek@ssf.ro epetzek@ssf.ro www.ct.upt.ro

Cap. 02 Cap Aplicaia nr. 1

Conf.dr.ing. Conf .dr.ing. Edward PETZEK

Facultatea de Construcii Timioara / 20 2010 10

Bridge nr.

Constr. year

Curs general de poduri metalice

6,60 m

Span

Cross section type / main elements

Photo

1940

1942

2 x 11,8 m

1942

2 x 11,8 m

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Curs general de poduri metalice

9 1942 8,60 m

13

1942

9,80 m + 26,90 m

15

1942

19,00 19 00 m + 18,80 m

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Curs general de poduri metalice

16 1942 26,90 m

17

1880/ 1942

8,40 m

20

1942

37,20 m

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Curs general de poduri metalice

22 1942 14,00 m

24

1944

53,60 m

25

19401944

58,25 m

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Curs general de poduri metalice

22 1942 14,00 m

24

1944

53,60 m

25

19401944

58,25 m

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Curs general de poduri metalice

22 1942 14,00 m

24

1944

53,60 m

25

19401944

58,25 m

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Curs general de poduri metalice

34 1966 14,20 m

37

1960

23,00 m

40

19421944

31,20 m

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Curs general de poduri metalice

41

1880/ 1942

16,00 m

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

After the stress analysis and the fatigue verifications based on the Whler concept which were made in relation with the prescriptions of the Romanian standard SR 19111911-1998, Swiss code 161 & SBB Richtlinie 2002 and the German code DS 805805-2002, a life prediction analysis based on fracture mechanics principles was performed in order to evaluate the remaining fatigue life for these structures for the new traffic UIC conditions.

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Example for bridge no. 28, km 125+323,25. Riveted structure. Construction year 1940.

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Span: p 3 x 14,10 , m + 1 x 13,90 , m St 37 max 97,13 N / mm 2

UIC

Damage accumulation value: D = 0,98 !

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Traffic mixed Eurocode 1

Train T i type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N of No. f trains i /d day 12 12 5 5 7 12 8 6 67 T i weight Train i h [t] 663 530 940 510 2160 1431 1035 1035 Traffic T ff volume l [Mil. t/an] 2,90 2,30 1 72 1,72 0,93 5,52 6,27 3,02 2,27 24,95

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Solicitari din Tren Tip 1

600

500

400
2 Ds s [daN/cm ]

300

200

100

0 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 113 120 127 134 141 148 155 162 169 176 183 190 197 204 211

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Solicitari din Tren Tip 2

400

350

300

250
2 Ds [daN/cm ]

200

150

100

50

0 1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 100 111 122 133 144 155 166 177 188 199 210 221 232 243 254 265 276 287 298 309 320 331 342

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Solicitari din Tren Tip 3

350

300

250

2 Ds [daN/cm ]

200

150

100

50

0 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191 201 211 221 231 241 251 261 271 281 291 301

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Solicitari din Tren Tip 4

350

300

250

2 Ds [daN/cm ]

200

150

100

50

0 1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181 187

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Solicitari din Tren Tip 5

600

500

400
2 Ds [daN/cm ]

300

200

100

0 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 113 120 127 134 141 148 155 162 169 176 183 190 197 204 211 218

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Solicitari din Tren Tip 6

600

500

400
2 Ds [daN/cm ]

300

200

100

0 1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190 199 208 217 226 235 244 253 262 271

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Solicitari din Tren Tip 7

600

500

400
2 Ds [daN/cm ]

300

200

100

0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Solicitari din Tren Tip 8

600

500

400
2 Ds [daN/cm ]

300

200

100

0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Stress history
Stress history

Ds [daN/cm2] 50 100 150 175 200 250 275 300 350 400 450 475 500
2

T1

600

T2 0 0 12 108 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0
19 2 3

T3 0 0 10 0 0 65 10 10 108 0 0 0 0 0
4 291

0 0 500 12 0 400 132 12 0 300 12 0 200 0 0 100 12 0

0 1

249

34

MAIN GIRDER (L/2) mix T4 T5 T6 0 105 0 7 0 0 0 0 10 105 60 0 149 10 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 080 0 0 0 20 0 36 0 14

6 7 8 9 10

T7 36 12 0 0 36 0 0 60 60 36 0 0 72
11

350

T8

94

Dse [daN/cm ] =

381.3612
5 12 No. of classified intervals

0 108 300 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 8 0 200 0 12 0 0 0 6 150 8 0 0 0 100 94 88 6 0 0 50 8 0 Total/day 0

13 No. of cy ycles n

Total 249 19 34 108 291 149 20 100 80 36 94 12 94 1037

Facultatea de Construcii

Stress r range N/cm 2] Ds [daN

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

The material characteristics adopted in the verifications St 37; y = 230 N/mm2; 2 ult lt = 360 N/mm . CV = 27 J for T T= -20 20C B = 10 mm (steel plates thickness) Kmat = 1528 N/mm3/2 Jcrit = 20 N/mm

m = 3 and C = 3 x 10-12

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Crack model

Web

crack initiala
A l Angle

Fi Fisura

crack initiala

Fisura

Flange

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Remaining fatigue life - RFL

Case 1 Main Girder / lower flange middle span section (1/2 L): a0 = 2,00 mm acrit it = 85 mm JIc = 20 N/mm m = 3 i C = 3x10-12 N

= 1 566 000 cycles cycles

RFL = 8,31 8 31 years

Case 2 Main Girder / web middle span section (1/2 L): a0 = 2,00 2 00 mm acrit = 95 mm JIc = 20 N/mm m = 3 i C = 3x10-12 N

= 1 67 676 6 000 c cycles ycles

RFL = 8, 8,89 89 years

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Oth defects Other d f t

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Oth defects Other d f t

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Decision:
The FM approach indicated a very short remaining fatigue life of

the bridges (aprox. 9 years). NOTE: The Railway Administration wants a guarantee for 48 years. A repair of the riveted structures would be very difficult from the constructive point of view. Also the (direct) consolidation of riveted structures is complicated and connected with high manufacturing costs. In this situation the replacement of the superstructures was proposed. proposed

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Decision:
The FM approach indicated a very short remaining fatigue life of

the bridges (aprox. 9 years). NOTE: The Railway Administration wants a guarantee for 48 years. A repair of the riveted structures would be very difficult from the constructive point of view. Also the (direct) consolidation of riveted structures is complicated and connected with high manufacturing costs. In this situation the replacement of the superstructures was proposed. proposed

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10

Case Study Railway Campina Predeal

Decision:
The FM approach indicated a very short remaining fatigue life of

the bridges (aprox. 9 years). NOTE: The Railway Administration wants a guarantee for 48 years. A repair of the riveted structures would be very difficult from the constructive point of view. Also the (direct) consolidation of riveted structures is complicated and connected with high manufacturing costs. In this situation the replacement of the superstructures was proposed. proposed

Facultatea de Construcii

Timioara / 20 2010 10