A

CASE STUDY ON HISTORICAL STEEL BRIDGE

OVER RIVER ‘SEENA’ AT AHMEDNAGAR

SUBMITTED BY

ANKUR (15113020)
ASHISH SINGH SENGAR (15113028)
AVINASH KUMAR JHA (15113030)

SUBMITTED TO

PROF. SANJAY CHIKERMANE

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
IIT ROORKEE
 INDEX

 Synopsis

1) History and details of the bridge

2) Technical details

3) Present status (damaged)

4) Aim of the case study

a) To find the strength

b) To find the load carrying capacity

c) To check the feasibility of the bridge.

5) Accident – Failure Analysis

6) Remedies for damages

7) Why to Adopt Such Type of Bridge-Structures ?

 Conclusion

 References
 SYNOPSIS

The curiosity behind the case study of the ' Seena Steel Bridge' is that the

bridge suffered a fatal accident first time in the 130-year history of the bridge.

The 1873 constructed bridge when we were been ruled by British has very

different characteristics of steel structures in the sense it has the curved shape of

its main super structure (i.e. curved arch Pratt truss) also the deck type carriage

way without stringers. As this type bridges are not constructed in this modern

era of civil Engineering. Bridge makes any civil engineer to think something

about it.

The case study aims to find out the strength to check its feasibility and to

suggest remedies for the damages so as to reutilize the bridge. Also provides

sense to improve the urban beauty of the city by using such type of bridges.

Case study also aims to find out the reasons behind the failure due to the

30th July 2018 accident.

 CHAPTER – 1
HISTORY & DETAILS OF THE BRIDGE

In 1878, when British Government completed construction of Daund –

Manmad broad – gauge railway line project Ahmednagar railway station was

established nine year before that British Government constructed this bridge

over ' Seena ' river to facilitate army vehicles going from Nagar to Pune. This was

to avoid the obstacle causing by river 'Seena' in rainy days. This work was

started in 1869 under the supervision of 'Major Gambiar' & was completed by

1873 January. The steel bridge with curved arch frame was topic of astonishment

in those days.

130 years before this bridge was constructed with cost of approx. Rs.

90,000/- having different characteristics of steel structures. The 157.2m length of

bridge consists of 8 sections of 19.65 m. For foundation trenches were excavated

& constructed in stone masonry in the riverbed, which were filled by pouring

foundation blocks. On this base 7 number M.S. pipe piers of 500-mm diameter

are erected. The abutment consists of stone masonry. The main girder consists of
M.S. plates on which cross girders rest. Each section of bridge consist of 4 no of

supports. 8 no of c/s girder supports the deck – slab which in made up of 7 no of

curved mild steel sheeting on which lime concrete slab is casted to form carriage

way.

The bridge is situated on the old Nagar – Pune road going towards

railway station, which is the shortest route. The transportation of heavy goods by

railway is connected to the city by this road. Ahmednagar city has many &

different important defense offices, camps, battalions & tank training areas for

their transportation this road is of prime importance. Also the residential

population around station road especially the 'Agarkar Mala' area is increasing

day by day therefore this road & the bridge contribute a major part of

transportation activities of the city, from the city & to the city.
Location
 CHAPTER – 2
TECHNICAL DETAILS

1) Type : Bow – string girder (Deck type) bridge.

2) Length : 157.2m.

3) No of sections : 8 nos.

4) Span of each sections : 19.65m.

5) Carriage way : 5.5m.

6) Foundation : 5.18m below G.L. with double – pier support

7) Ground clearance : At abutment = 2.75m, At river bed = 5.6m.

8) Span of c/s girder trusses : 5.6m.

9) Span of Pratt truss : c/c distance between 8 no of cross girder trusses

= 2.29 x 8

= 18.31m

10) Total length of each section :

= Span of Pratt truss + c/c distance between piers

= 18.32 +2 (1.35)
2
= 19.67m.

11) No of piers : = no of support x 2

= 7x2

= 14 nos. (on one side)

Total no of piers = 14 x 2

= 28 nos. (on both side)

 DETAILS OF COMPONENT PARTS:

1) DECK :-
2) CROSS – GIRDER TRUSS
3) PRATT TRUSS:-
Main Girder :-

Main girder which acts as the bottom chord for the Pratt truss consist of

M.S. plates of size 150 x 13.14 mm provided with combination of 2,3 & 4 nos. As

the bending moment changes from mid-point of the span towards end at the

support these rests on pier table & at the end of the bridge anchored into

abutments for length of 2.3m from face of the wall with hold fast by pouring

concrete around it.

DETAILS OF JOINTS:-

1) End portion of c/s girder truss & the Racker.

2) Connection of inclined member with main girder:-
 CHAPTER – 3

PRESENT STATUS (DAMAGED)

1) The stones of abutment wall at station side have loosened as the binding

mortar in deteriorated. The main –girders resting into it have slipped out of

position. Due to which station side section is in more dangerous condition.

2) The M.S. sheeting of the deck is completely corroded & broken, even through

– holes are created.

3) The M.S. sheeting of the deck on the both sides of the carriage way is

completely corroded & torned.

4) Except piers, main girder & Pratt – truss the c/s girder trusses are corroded &

in present status it's upper crust is getting removed layer by layer due the

which the steel – sections have become week.

5) The compression member of the c/s girder trusses are buckled.

 CHAPTER – 4
AIM OF THE CASE STUDY

A) To find the strength :-

Tensile strength test on specimens acquired from debris at site.

Result Table :-

Sr. Size of specimen Wt. Equivalent Yield Ultimate Actual

N mm Kg/ c/s area stress N/ tnsile stress thick
o m mm2 mm2 N/ mm2 mm2
1. Tension member
2.98 379.5 236.26 370.68 14 mm
300 x 30.92 x 13.12
2. Compression
1.45 184.65 251.32 355.95 8 mm
member
307 x 30.54 x 6.72
3. T section
2.10 267.4 247.26 364.66 12 mm
307 x 28.82 x 10.61
4. Angle section
2.36 300.5 226.56 314.05 12 mm
304 x 30.82 x 11.22

The corrosion has made all the sections weak thickness are reduced by 1.5

to 2 mm. Which reduces the cross sectional area by about 10.68% therefore test

results are not satisfactory as the structural steel.

The minimum yield stress we got from test is 226.56 N/mm2. Therefore

we will consider 226 N/mm2 as yield strength of the steel member of the bridge

for the analysis.

B) To find the Load carrying capacity :-

 As we know the cross – girders have suffered much of the corrosion,

obviously the max. load carrying capacity will be defined by the max. load

carried by the members of c/s girder truss.

C/s girder trusses are provided in 8 panels of Pratt truss with c/c distance

of 2.29m. The c/s girder carries load of the deck in form point load due to the

curved arch action of M.S. sheeting.

Dead load on deck :-

1) 100 mm thick tar Macadam finish = 2.2 kN/m

2) Thickness of lime concrete = 260 + 160 = 210 mm

2
D.L. for 1 m strip = 0.21 x 1 x 25 = 5.25 KN/m

3) M.S. sheeting thk = 8mm

Curved length = 835 mm

D.L. = (0.835 x 2.29 x 0.008) 7854 x 9.81

= 1178.61 N

= 10178 KN

4) Self weight of cross girder truss = 3.5 KN

5) Stringer = 0.0156 KN/m

6) Point load =

1) = 2.2 x 0.8 x 2.29 = 4.03 KN

2) = 5.25 x 0.8 x 2.29 = 9.61 KN

3) = 1.178 KN

4) = 0.0358 KN

Total Dead load at a point = 14.85 KN

Geometrical Properties For The Cross Girder Truss Sections :-

1) For Double angle 75 x 75 x 10.34 mm

r min = 21.11 mm, Iyy = 594.62 x 103 mm4 , A = 2667.04 mm2

L eff = 0.7 x 1.34

= 0.938 m

L eff = 0.7 x 1.46

= 1.008 m

2) For T sections 70 x 70 x 12.94 mm

r min = 12.95mm, Iyy = 195.95 x 103 mm4 , A = 1167.1 mm2

L eff = 0.7 x 0.53

= 0.374 m

3) Tension member : 80 x 13.02 mm

A eff = 682.23 mm2

4) Compression member : 80 x 7.64 mm

r min = 1.93mm Iyy = 2023.09 mm4 , A = 537.6 mm2

 Analysis of Cross Girder Truss For Dead Load

Force Table :-

Fy=226 Remaining caring

Sr Member P Kn A mm2 6 N/ 6a N/mm2 capacity
. mm2 6a – 6 P=(6a – 6) x A KN
1) AB, DE - 107.75 2667.04 40.40 124.5 84.10 224.29 C
2) BC,CD - 138.53 2667.04 51,94 95,95 44.01 117.37 C
3) AH,FE 116.01 1916.45 60.53 135.6 75.07 143.86 T
4) BH, DF -39.38 1167.1 33.74 131.92 98.18 114.58 T
5) CG -22.59 1167.1 19.35 131.92 112.57 131.37 C
6) CH, CF -10.53 537.6 19.58 122.81 103.23 55.490 C
7) HG,GF 117.61 2384.34 43.32 135.6 86.24 205.720 T
8) BG,DG 32.78 682.23 48.04 135.6 87.55 59.730 T

The feasibility will be defined by the remaining load carrying capacity.

The feasible load will be that which will not exceed remaining load carrying

capacity.
 Type of loading for checking the feasibility :-

As per the importance of the bridge, type of bridge & the area in which

the bridge is situated the Indian road congress has provided 3 types of loading

for checking the feasibility of bridges.

1) I.R.C. class 'AA' – certain municipal limits, existing on contemplated

industrial areas. Some specified highways used for tracked – vehicle with

total load of 70 tones & maximum point load of 6.25 tones.

2) I.R.C. class 'A' – on all roads for permanent bridges & culverts used for train

of vehicles with total load of 55.4 Tones & maximum point load of 11.4

Tones.

3) I.R.C. class 'B' – for temporary structures and bridges with timber span used

for train of vehicles with total load of 33.2 Tones & maximum point load of

6.8 Tones.

So considering the situation of 130-years life span & importance of the

structure, we will adopt I.R.C. class - B type of loading.

I.R.C. Class ‘B’ type of loading
Force Table :-
Sr. No. Members Force generated Kn Carrying capacity Kn
1. AB 89.20 C < 224.29
2. DE 56.66 C < 224.29
3. BC 106.13 C < 117.37
4. CD 94.16 C < 117.37
5. AH 96.05 T < 143.86
6. FE 61.01 T < 143.86
7. HG 101.36 T < 205.72
8. GF 80.79 T < 205.72
9. BH 31.15 C < 114.58
10. CG 19.97 C < 131.37
11. DF 13.83 C < 114.58
12. BG 18.19 T < 59.73
13. CH 12.97 C < 55. 49
14. CF 25.73 C < 55. 49
15. DG 39.99 T < 59.73

As the member forces are not exceeding maximum load carrying capacity
class 'B' loading is feasible.
Geometrical Properties of Pratt Truss Sections :-

Vertical members :-

A = 1508.06 mm2

I yy = 18.147 x 103 mm2

r yy = 18.26 mm

Inclined member :-

A = 1117.8 mm2

I yy = 18.147 x 106 mm4

I yy = 127.4 mm

Bottom Chord :-

L3 – L5 L5 – L7 L7 – L8

A = 7884 mm2 A = 5913 mm2 A = 3942 mm2

I yy = 1.815 x 106 mm4 Iyy = 0.765 x 106 mm4 Iyy = 226.87

r yy = 15.17 mm r yy = 11037 mm x 103 mm4

r yy = 7.58 mm

Top Chord :-

A = 9598.28 mm2

I yy = 40.42 x 106 mm4

r yy = 64.89 mm
Force Table :-
 Sr. Member L mm A mm2 6 a N/mm2 Safe load KN Max Member
Force KN
1. U5 U 6 & U6 U7 1150 9598.28 131.76 1264.6 > 330.54 C
2. U7 U 8 & U4 U5 1150 9598.28 131.76 1264.6 > 263.42 C
3. U3 U 4 & U8 U9 1200 9598.28 131.70 1264.09 > 265.5 C
4. U U3 & U9 U10 1150 9598.28 131.76 1264.09 > 226.41 C
5. U1 U2 & U10 U11 1200 9598.28 131.7 1264.09 > 235. C
6. U0 U1 & U11 U12 2350 9598.28 129.4 1242.01 > 115.17 C
7. U0 L0 & U12 L8 1500 9598.28 130.0 1247.77 > 144.28 T
8. L4 L5 & L3 L4 2290 7884 135.6 1069.0 > 215.41 T
9. L5 L6 & L2 L3 2290 5913 135.6 801.80 > 178.84 T
10. L6 L7 & L1 L2 2290 5913 135.6 801.80 > 165.56 T
11. L7 L8 & L0 L1 2290 3942 135.6 534.5 > 124.95 T
12. L 4 U6 2250 1508.06 135.6 204.5 > 101.13 T
13 L4 U 7 & L3 U 5 2400 1508.06 135.6 204.5 > 101.13 T
14 L5 U 7 & L3 U 5 2350 2235.6 131.08 293.04 > 80.92 C
15 L5 U 8 & L3 U 8 1850 1508 135.6 204.48 > 6.12 T
16 L5 U 9 & L3 U 3 2200 2235.6 135.6 303.06 > 86.65 T
17 L6 U 9 & L3 U 3 2100 2235.6 131.7 294.42 > 139.44 C
18 L6 U 10 & L2 U 2 1500 1508 135.6 204.4 > 35.7 T
19 L6 U 11 & L2 U 1 1700 2235.6 131.7 294.42 > 15.24 C
20 L1 U1 & L7 U 11 1650 2235.6 131.7 294.42 > 15.24 C
21 L1 U0 & L7 U 12 1150 2235.6 135.6 303.14 > 42.25 T

The member forces are not exceeding the maximum load carrying

capacity. Hence the bridge if feasible for I.R.C. class 'B' type of loading.
 CHAPTER – 5
ACCIDENT

The bridge has completed 100 years of its life time in 1973. The British

construction company which has constructed the bridge sent a letter to

Ahmednagar Collector, saying that last 100 years the bridge is giving good

service but then the guarantee period of the bridge is over & better you should

construct a new bridge. Further saying that the contract of construction should

be given to them.

When railway fly over on Nagar – Pune road was completed in 1980,

permission was granted to construct a new bridge on river Seena. Accordingly

an alternative 100 m long R.C.C. bridge was constructed in 1982. After this new

bridge the old steel bridge was used as secondary mode of transportation. To

restrict heavy vehicles to move from this bridge steel portal frames of 2m above

G.L. were provided.

Even after giving the precautionary warning given from time to time by

authorities that this bridge is dangerous to use any more people did not stopped

using it for heavy transportation. On same day an unknown vehicle damaged the

portal frame of the city end. Before the notice was issued to repair this portal

frame, at a night , a Volvo trailer carrying load of steel – pipes, weighing about 70

Tones going from Chhatisgarh – Banglore via Nagar.

Instead of going along R.C.C. bridge started going through the old steel

bridge. The weak bridge was not able to bear the heavy load the bottom side of

the 3rd section fractured & collapsed into the riverbed.

Sr. No. Member Member force KN Carrying capacity KN
1. AB 346.92 C > 224.29
2. DE 183.9 C > 224.29
3. BC 337.37 C > 117.37
4. CD 278.45 C > 117.37
5. AH 373.74 T > 143.86
6. FE 198.0 T > 143.86
7. HG 348.84 T > 205.72
 8. GF 244.74 T > 205.72
9. BH 137.76 C > 114.58
10. CG 31.22 C < 131.37
11. DF 51.14 C < 114.58
12. BG 10.16 C < 59.73
13. CH 2.057 C < 55.49
14. CF 64.87 C > 55.49
15. DG 100.71 T > 59.73

The heavy sudden load due to depression exceeded the member forces in the
cross girder truss too much beyond the remaining load carrying capacity.
Force Table :-

6a Safe load Max Member

Sr. Member L mm A mm2
N/mm2 KN force KN
1. U5 U 6 & U6 U7 1150 9598.28 131.76 1264.6 > 1101. 04 C
2. U7 U 8 & U4 U5 1150 9598.28 131.76 1264.6 > 1182.47 C
3. U3 U 4 & U8 U9 1200 9598.28 131.70 1264.09 > 1178.35 C
4. U2 U3 & U9 U10 1150 9598.28 131.70 1264.6 > 1111.6 C
5. U1 U & U10 U11 1200 9598.28 131.70 1264.09 > 1158.47 C
6. U0 U1 & U1 U12 2350 9598.28 129.40 1242.01 > 672.75 C
7. U0L0&U12L8 1500 9598.28 130.0 1247.77 > 821.42 C
8. L4 L5 & L3 L4 2290 7884 135.6 1069.0 < 110.19 T
9. L5 L6 & L2 L3 2290 5913 135.6 801.80 > 621.72 T
10. L6 L7 & L1 L2 2290 5913 135.6 801.80 > 750 T
11. L7 L8 & L0 L1 2290 3942 135.6 534.5 > 711.37 T
12. L 4 U6 2250 1508.06 135.6 204.5 < 378.6 T
13 L4 U 7 & L3 U 5 2400 1117.8 135.6 151.57 > 663.13 T
14 L5 U 7 & L3 U 5 2350 1117.8 131.08 146.52 > 371.78 C
15 L5 U 8 & L3 U 4 1850 1508 135.6 204.48 > 25.46 C
16 L5 U 9 & L3 U 3 2200 1117.8 135.6 151.57 < 547.8 T
17 L6 U 9 & L2 U 3 2100 1117.8 131.7 147.21 < 664.72 C
18 L6 U 10 & L2 U 2 1500 1508 135.6 204.4 > 199.06 T
19 L6 U 11 & L2 U 1 1700 1117.8 135.6 151.57 < 669. T
20 L7 U11 & L1 U 1 1650 1117.8 135.6 151.57 > 45.78 T
21 L7 U12 & L1 U 0 1150 1117.8 135.6 151.57 < 199.05 T

The comparison between last two columns shows that some of the

member forces generated due to 70 tones of train of vehicle loading are exceed in

safe load capacity.

 Conclusion of Failure Analysis

The analysis proves that the third bay of the bridge has suffered accident

due to the heavy load beyond its capacity as the bridge has lost its initial strength

due to corrosion through out the life span.

The bridge was not able to withstand the sudden loading of 70 Tones train

of vehicles from which we can conclude that –

The depression on the carriage way provided the impact load which was

in multiple greater than sudden loading, first made the failure of cross girder

truss the debris of the cross girder truss shows some of the members are broken

due to which the whole section suffered excessive bending. The bending enables

the end portion of the cross girder resting on the main girder to slip out of the

slot from one side of the bridge and the whole section came down providing

torque on the other side.

 CHAPTER – 6
REMEDIES FOR THE DAMAGES

1) The deck is completely corroded even torned & has through holes. The

depression on carriage way makes water to percolate which causes

deterioration of the lime concrete. So the complete renovation of the deck has

to be done. Deck should replaced by new one with thick and corrosion

resistant material of sheeting or the modern type of flat slab supported with

stringers should be provided.

2) The cross girders have suffered too much corrosion that we can remove about

1 to 1.5 mm rust by simply scratching over the surface which reduces the

cross sectional area by about 10.68% also the test results does not give

satisfactory values as a structural steel.

If we observe the gap between cross members of the cross girder truss

it has widened due to buckling of the compression member which is

indication of initial failure. If we provide intermittent welding to make it as a

joint it will reduce the effective lengths of the members and the cross girders

truss can be strengthened.

3) The masonry construction of the abutment wall has becomes so weak that the

stones are getting loosed and the anchorage of the main girder are slipped out

of the abutment. Though the authorities have provided I-section support at

the abutment wall to hold the main girder in position but it is not providing

anchorage so the reconstruction of the abutment wall has to be done.

4) The Pratt trusses and pier supports have not suffered much from corrosion

that even after accident they withstood intact in position so they don't require

any alterations only regular maintenance is required like painting.

 CHAPTER – 7
Why to Adopt Such Type of Bridge-Structures ?

1) As an attractive feature for tourist centre :-

a) If the bridge-structure get blended with attractive landscape for example

lawns , trees and footpaths. It can be attractive feature harmonizing and

adding dignity and beauty of the spot.

It is well said by 'Ruskin'

" All forms of beauty are composed

exclusively of curves ".

And this type of bridge has such characteristics of continuous curvilinear

from to create magnificent effect.

b) Light and shed determines the third dimensions of an object. They also

emphasize the colour and texture of the object. At night lights can play

dramatic role. It can become an attractive element of expressions –

- For this if the bridge steel is provided with protective coating of stain-

less steel, the steel arches will start glittering to speak their special

qualities of Aesthetics & Architecture.

- So this bridge can become a main feature for a tourist centre.

2) As a crossing remedy for a busy & fast road :-

Now a days many big cities require to provide cross-over bridges on rush

traffic road for pedestrians. If we provide such type of single arch cross over

bridge instead of foot over bridge it will improve the urban beauty of the

area.
3) As an everlasting conveyer :-

In this modern era, civil engineering with improved techniques of precast and

pre-stressed bridges, steel bridges are not constructed just because of the

problem of corrosion. This can be solved by using alloy steel (e.g. addition of

some percentage of Nickel & chromium with proper guidance of

metallurgists) such improved corrosion resistant steel structure can be proved

as an everlasting conveyer.
 CONCLUSION

The observations show that the bridge structure has lost its capacity due

to corrosion throughout its life span of 100 years. And now after 130 years the

analysis shows that still it is feasible to withstand the loading of IRC class B that

is it can be utilized for transportation of routine vehicles within the city, if the

suggested alterations are done and regular maintenance is provided.

The analysis of the failure concludes that the 70 Tones vehicle was already

heavy beyond the feasible loading. And the impact load due to the depression on

the carriage way made the third bay of the bridge to collapse in to the river.
 REFERENCES

1) Steel Structures : By V.N. Vazirani &

M. M. Ratwani

2) Designs of Steel structures : By L. S. Negi

3) Theory of Structure : By S. Ramamrutham

4) Brief Investigation Report : By P.W.D. Ahmednagar

5) I.S. Code : 800 - 1984