Case study: Rail structure interaction of bridge

across Balram River in the state of Gujrat, INDIA

Anuj Asati1, Vasanth Kumar S1, Subir Das1
1 L&T Construction, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India

Abstract
In long welded rails (LWR) considerable longitudinal forces may develop due to
temperature variation, train loadings like braking and traction, deck end rotation
due to vertical bending. Rail structure interaction (RSI) analysis is an important part
of bridge design to find the longitudinal stresses in LWR, longitudinal forces on the
substructure and deflection/displacement of the structure. This paper presents the
case study of an ongoing bridge project over Balram River, Gujrat India for
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation (DFCC). Total length of the bridge is 195m.
The analysis is carried out by a finite element based software package and as per
the endorsements given in the UIC 774-3 code. Stress developed in LWR largely
depends on the girder stiffness and the support stiffness (pier and foundation). In
general practice, the boundary condition is maintained as fixed on one abutment
and free on the other with all the spans being simply supported having one end free
and other end fixed. The large span of bridge and height of support increases the
flexibility of structure and poses difficulty to satisfy the stress and displacement
criteria mentioned as per UIC & IRS Codal provisions with this boundary conditions.
Excessive displacement of deck can result in deconsolidation of ballast and track
stability cannot be ensured. Use of expansion device may require proper
monitoring and demand for intensive maintenance. Different bearing articulations
were tried and a parametric revision was done to arrive at the optimum/economical
substructure and foundation stiffness and to satisfy the stresses and displacement
limits prescribed in UIC 774-3. It was found that the bearing arrangement with both
the abutments fixed and center pier rendered to be free, with these current
circumstances/assumptions were able to satisfy the stress and displacement
criteria as per Codal provisions and arrive at most economical substructure design.

Keywords: Rail structure interaction; long welded rail; Track bridge interaction;
simply-supported bridge.

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

 1. Introduction
Ministry of Railways (MOR), Government of India has planned to construct a High
Axle Load Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) covering about 3325 km on two
corridors, Eastern and Western Corridors. The Western Corridor is planned from
Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Mumbai to Tughlakabad/ Dadri near Delhi. The Western
corridor of DFC Project covers a length of 1,483 km (JNPT – Ahmadabad –
Palanpur – Rewari – Asaoti - Dadri). The bridges and other structures will be
designed to allow movement of 32.5 ton axle load while the track structure will be
designed for 25 ton axle load operating at maximum train speed of up to 100 Km/hr.
Balram River Bridge is part of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor (WDFC).

1.1 Rail - Structure Interaction (RSI)

Today Long Welded Rails (LWR) are preferred for modern railway track structures
due to their safety, economical, comfortable and less maintenance due to following
reasons:
 LWR tracks eliminate fish plated joints leading to safety.
 Fish plated joints are a source of large dynamic forces. As a result fish
plated joints exhibit large scale rail wear and development of cracks from
fish bolt holes and fractures. In some instances premature rail renewal
may have to be carried out due to excessive fractures.
 Due to development of large dynamic forces at the rail joints the track
geometry at the rail joint gets disturbed frequently resulting in an
increment in the track maintenance effort. It has been estimated that there
is as much as 25% to 33% savings in the track repair and maintenance
costs due to elimination of rail joints.
 Due to impact at rail joints there is an added wear and tear of rolling stock
wheels to an extent of 5% and as the wheel has to negotiate the gap there
is added fuel consumption to an extent of 7%.
 Due to elimination of noise and vibrations at the rail joints passenger
comfort is substantially increased.

As the rails are continuous over the structure, it will induce relative displacement in
the structure and the track due to temperature variation of bridge deck and
movement of train. Due to excessive displacement, additional stresses in rails and
longitudinal forces in rails may develop due to which stability of track and structure
are questionable. So to ensure the stability of track and ballast, controlling the
stresses and displacements are essential.
To ensure the safety of the structure & track, UIC 774 – 3R have given certain
criteria to be met which are listed below:
 The maximum permissible additional compressive rail stress due to
temperature variation of the deck, braking/acceleration and deck-end
rotation is 72 N/mm2 (σrail ≤ 72 N/mm2).

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

  The maximum permissible additional tensile rail stresses due to
temperature variation of deck, braking/acceleration and deck-end rotation
is 92 N/mm2 (σrail ≤ 92 N/mm2).
 The maximum permissible relative horizontal displacement between the
deck and the rail due to braking/acceleration is 4 mm (δrel ≤ 4 mm).
 The maximum permissible absolute horizontal displacement of the deck
due to braking/acceleration is 5 mm (δabs ≤ 5 mm).
 The maximum permissible displacement between the top of the deck-end
and the embankment or between top of the consecutive deck-ends to
vertical bending (including the dynamic factor) is 8 mm (δ (θH) ≤ 8 mm).
Based on the above criteria, certain limitations in stresses are been stipulated in
IRS as mentioned below:
 The maximum permissible additional compressive rail stress due to
temperature variation of the deck, braking/acceleration and deck-end
rotation is 60 N/mm2 (σrail ≤ 60 N/mm2).
 The maximum permissible additional tensile rail stresses due to
temperature variation of deck, braking/acceleration and deck-end rotation
is 75 N/mm2 (σrail ≤ 75 N/mm2).
The purpose of RSI analysis is to examine these extra stresses in rails due to the
actions of temperature change, braking / traction of rolling stock combined with the
vertical bending caused due to live loads. These stresses are required to be kept
within allowable limits so that the track is safe under tension as well as
compression.
If the extra stresses in rails are beyond permissible limits, these can be brought
within limits by altering the structural & other arrangements. Similar type of changes
are made in the study and presented in the subsequent sections.

1.2 General arrangement

This bridge is multiple span (simply supported) with cast in-situ deck slab and
precast post tensioned beams supported on bearings resting on pier caps &
abutment caps. The cross section of superstructure consist of precast post
tensioned I girders and cast in-situ deck slab construction. Total depth of
superstructure including the deck slab is 3m. The superstructure is supported on
spherical bearings placed over the abutment cap & pier cap. Vertical forces are
transferred to substructure through free spherical bearing whereas horizontal
forces are transferred through guided spherical bearings. Twin pier system was
adopted with height of pier being 25.75m. Details about pier and abutments are
given in Annexure 1.

Figure 1. Elevation of the bridge

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

 Figure 2. Plan View of the bridge

Figure 3. View of the existing Indian Railway Bridge

Table 1. Details of Existing & Proposed Bridge

Description Existing Bridge No. 845 Propose Bridge No. 845
Chainage at center of 637/09-638/1 19+618.066
bridge (km)
Span (Nos. x length) (m) 1x29.143+ 1x29.115 + 6x32.45 m
1x29.143+ 1x29.135 +
1x29.170 + 1X29.290
Standard of Loading 25T IR loading 32.5T DFC loading
Length of the Bridge (m) 191.496 194.7 m

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

 2. Modelling
The design criteria adopted for rail structure interaction analysis as per UIC 774-
3R and IRS bridge rules. The bridge was modelled in finite element based software
package. Rail structure interaction to be computed in terms of Additional rail
stresses, Absolute and relative displacement of deck & rail and Support reaction at
fixed support.

Figure 4. Representation of Analysis Model for RSI

The analysis model is done for the total bridge length of 194.7m and embankment
length of 300m on either sides of bridge as per the recommendations by UIC 774-
3R. The substructure is connected to the top of bearing by elastic link. Rigid links
connect bearing bottom to pier head, pier bottom to pile cap top and pile cap bottom
to pile head.

Figure 5. Complete Model for Analysis

2.1 Assumptions
I. Track & deck are been modelled as discrete elements with maximum
element length of 1.0m to generate more accurate results.
II. Nonlinear springs are being used to connect track and deck to represent
the actual behaviour of ballast and rail fastening system and stiffness of
ballast has been applied for these springs.
III. For this analysis pile is modelled up to the depth of fixity and given fixed
supports at the fixity point.

2.2 Track properties

The resistance of the track to longitudinal displacement is a function of the
displacement of the rail relative to its supporting structure. The resistance increases
rapidly while the displacement remains low, but remains virtually constant once the

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

 displacement has reached a certain magnitude. The graph representing the bilinear
behaviour of the track as per UIC 774-3 as shown below:

Figure 6. Bilinear Behaviour of the track

The displacement between the plastic and elastic zone is 2 mm. The value of track
resistance for computations shall be taken as 25 KN/m of track in unloaded
condition and 50 KN/m of track in loaded condition.

3. Loading
Following are the loads considered for the analysis as per UIC:
I. Temperature loads
II. Horizontal braking and acceleration forces due to Train loading
III. Vertical loads due to train loading

3.1 Temperature loads

A uniform temperature variation of 35 degree Celsius has been applied in the deck.
The maximum uniform variation of temperature in the rail of 50 degree Celsius is
considered but in case of CWR a variation in temperature of the track does not
cause a displacement of track and thus there is no interaction effect due to variation
in the temperature of the track.

3.2 Live loads

Various possible combinations of live load are provided in IRS bridge rules and the
most critical load case has been adopted for the analysis. The vertical loads are
multiplied with the coefficient of dynamic augment.

4. Analysis
Since the bridge is straight and simply supported spans with lesser span length,
simplified separate analysis has been carried out. Results are been summarized
separately for thermal variations, braking/traction and vertical bending and
combined finally to compare with the allowable stresses. Instead of doing moving
load analysis various static load cases were made by placing the train load at
different support locations in forward as well as reward direction. The total train
length was assumed to be 500m. In the first load case the train load starts from left

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

 embankment and ends at abutment A1. Similarly, other load cases are formed
ending at other support locations.

5. Case Study

5.1 Case 1
In this case the bearing arrangements are adopted in such a way that one abutment
is fixed and other abutment is free with all spans fixed at one end and free on the
other end (refer Figure 2a in Annexure 2). It was found that the proposed structural
arrangements are not sufficient to satisfy the stress criteria specified by IRS bridge
rules and results are summarised in Annexure 3.
5.2 Case 2
In this case the bearing arrangements are adopted such that the up track is fixed
and the down track is free at A1 and the up track is free and down track is fixed at
A2 (refer Figure 2a in Annexure 2). With this arrangement there was a reduction in
stress due to temperature variation but the stress due to breaking and traction was
found to be increasing which resulting in overall stresses crossing the permissible
limit. The results are summarised in Annexure 3
5.3 Case 3
In this case bearing arrangement is adopted such that both the abutments A1 and
A2 were kept fixed with centre pier P3 completely free and all the spans fixed at
one end and free on the other (refer Figure 2a in Annexure 2). This bearing
arrangement resulted in least compressive stress at the abutments and hence,
resulted in most economical design. The results are summarised in Annexure 3.

6. Results summary
Detailed results have been attached in the annexure and below have discussed the
comparison of the results for different cases. As it can be seen from the charts that
rail stress is exceeding the recommended value as per IRS Bridge rules fore Case
1 and Case 2. The absolute maximum displacement of the deck is coming to be
greater than 5mm limit prescribed in UIC 774-3R. Whereas the relative
displacement between the deck and the rail was found to be within limits for all the
three cases. Only case 3 for which both the abutments were kept fixed and the
centre pier as free satisfies both strength as well as the serviceability criteria.
Hence, this bearing arrangement was adopted for final construction.

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

 Figure 7. Stress comparison for different cases at support location

Figure 8. Displacement comparison for different cases at support locations

7. Conclusion
With the requirement of LWR, the present study have been carried out with three
different cases and following are the conclusion drawn:
 In case of long bridges if the stresses in the rail are beyond permissible
limits alteration of the bearing arrangement can be tried before going for
increase in structural dimensions or expansion device for rails.
 As both the abutments are fixed a tensile stress is generated at both the
abutments due to vertical bending which negates the compressive stress
developed due to braking and traction.
 Due to fixity at both the ends the stress due to temperature variation is
guided towards the free pier at the centre. Hence, the maximum stress
due to temperature and live load do not occur at the same location
resulting in reduction in overall stress.

8. References
1. UIC 774-3R October 2001: Track/Bridge Interaction – Recommendations for
calculations.

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use

 2. EN 1991-2 – 2003: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures — Part 2: Traffic loads on
bridges
3. Indian Railway Standards - Concrete Bridge Code: IRS Code of Practice For Plain,
Reinforced & Prestressed Concrete For General Bridge Construction
4. Indian Railway Standards - Bridge Rules: Rules specifying the loads for design of
super-structure and sub-structure of bridges and for assessment of the strength of
existing bridges
5. Indian Railway Standards - Substructure and Foundation Code: For the design of
Substructure and foundation.
6. RDSO guidelines for carrying out rail-structure interaction studies on metro
systems, research designs and standards organization, Lucknow, India
7. Long Welded Rails, Indian Railway Institute of Civil Engineering, Pune

Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use