cec025 - rail track code
Post on 07-Aug-2018
229 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
1/410
RAILTRACK
COMPANY STANDARDS
INFORMATION NOTICE
For Printer Users
RT/CE/C/025 contains colour on the following electronic pages:
26, 30, 43, 66, 77-79, 83, 95, 97, 98, 128, 134, 135, 149, 163-165, 168, 169,
174, 175, 178, 196, 197, 217, 219, 222, 265, 268, 272, 293, 294, 337-340, 343,
349, 354, 360, 363, 368-370 & 384Colour pages may be purchased separately from:The Railtrack Document Centre@ RapidocTel: 01344 404446Fax: 01344 714440Email: rapidoc@techindex.co.uk
On to Document
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
2/410
RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OFPRACTICE
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Copyright 2001 Railtrack PLCAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of Railtrack PLC.
Endorsement and Authorisation
Endorsed by:
Kim Teager, Professional Head Of Structures Engineering
Accepted for Issue by:
Graham Morris, Head Of Corporate Standards
Authorised by
This publication, including the dataand information relating thereto, is
not to be used, disseminated,
stored in a retrieval system,
reproduced, copied or adapted
either in whole or in part without
the express written permission of
RAILTRACK p l c .
Published & Issued by
Railtrack plc
Railtrack House
Euston Square
L O N D O NNW1 2 E E
2001 RAILTRACK PLC
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
3/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges Page 2 of 11
SUMMARY
This Code of Practice provides recommendations for the parameters and methods to
be used for the assessment of underbridges owned by Railtrack.
ISSUE RECORD
This Code of Practice will be updated when necessary by distribution of a complete
replacement or revised sections. Amended or additional parts of revised pages will
be marked by a vertical black line in the margin. Due to the extensive number of
revisions compared with Issue 1 such changes have not be marked in this Issue.
ISSUE 1 DATE February 2001 COMMENTS: New Code of Practice
to provide a limit state code for
assessment of underbridges in respect ofsteel, wrought iron, and concrete and
composite bridges, and to codify
permissible assessment parameters and
methods for under bridges formed from
other materials of construction.
RESPONSIBILITIES AND DISTRIBUTION
This Code of Practice should be used by persons undertaking the assessment of
underbridges and by those responsible for managing the process of bridge assessment
carried out by others.
IMPLEMENTATION
This Code of Practice should be complied with from April 2001.
DISCLAIMER
Railtrack PLC has used its best endeavours to ensure that the content, layout and
text of this document are accurate, complete and suitable for its stated purpose. It
makes no warranties, express or implied, that compliance with the contents of this
document shall be sufficient to ensure safe systems of work or operation. Railtrack
PLC will not be liable to pay compensation in respect of the content or subsequent
use of this document for any purpose other than its stated purpose or for any
purpose other than that for which it was prepared except where it can be shown to
have acted in bad faith or there has been wilful default.
SUPPLY
Paper copies of this document will be available to Railtrack staff on request to the Document
Controller. Copies of this document will be available to other organisations from Technical
Indexes (01334 404409).
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
4/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges Page 3 of 11
CONTENTS
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
SECTION 2 ASSESSMENT PHILOSOPHY
SECTION 3 INSPECTION FOR ASSESSMENT
SECTION 4 LOADING FOR ASSESSMENT
SECTION 5 STEEL AND WROUGHT IRON STRUCTURES
SECTION 6 MASONRY ARCHES
SECTION 7 CONCRETE STRUCTURES
SECTION 8 COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
SECTION 9 CAST IRON STRUCTURES
SECTION 10 TIMBER STRUCTURES
SECTION 11 SUBSTRUCTURES
SECTION 12 BEARINGS
APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT OF STEEL AND WROUGHT
IRON
APPENDIX B ASSESSMENT OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
APPENDIX C ASSESSMENT OF COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
APPENDIX D FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF STEEL AND
WROUGHT IRON
APPENDIX E MODEL BRIDGE ASSESSMENT REPORT
APPENDIX F INFORMATIVE ANNEX
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
5/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 1 - Introduction Page 4 of 11
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................4
1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................................4
1.2 Scope....................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Units .....................................................................................................................................5
1.4 Definitions and Abbreviations.........................................................................................6
1.5 Competency .......................................................................................................................6
1.6 Procedures for Quantitative Assessment.....................................................................7
1.7 Qualitative Assessment Procedures............................................................................10
1.8 Railtrack s Technical Approval Procedures ...............................................................10
1.9 Reporting...........................................................................................................................101.10 Informative Annex.........................................................................................................11
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Code of Practice is to recommend applicable standards and
analytical methods which may be used to determine the load carrying capacity of
existing Railtrack underbridges, in terms of British Standard Units of Type RA1
loading. The load carrying capacity is determined in the context of the performance
requirements of an underbridge. The requirements are that the bridge meets safety
and serviceability criteria whilst regularly carrying rail traffic up to a level of traffic
load and speed in accordance with operational system requirements.
1.2 Scope
This Code of Practice may be used for the assessment of all Railtrack owned
underbridges and is applicable for permissible speeds up to a maximum 125 mph.
This Code of Practice provides recommendations for the assessment of underbridges
constructed from steel, wrought iron, cast iron, concrete, timber, or composite
steel/concrete construction. Recommendations for masonry arches, substructures
and bearings are also included. Limit state principles are used for underbridges of
steel, wrought iron, concrete and steel/concrete composite construction.
Permissible stresses or allowable loads are used for other materials and forms of
construction.
Where appropriate, guidance on the use of simple and more rigorous methods of
analysis is given. Unusual forms of construction such as cable stayed, moveable or
combined road/rail bridges are not specifically covered, but the principles outlined
may be applied in checking the elements of such structures.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
6/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 1 - Introduction Page 5 of 11
Requirements for the assessment of superstructures and supports under accidental
loading conditions are excluded from this document.
1.3 Units
The S.I. system of units is adopted throughout this Code of Practice unless otherwise
stated.
In the course of assessment frequent reference may have to be made to existing
records which may be presented in Imperial Units. Great care should be exercised in
the conversion between the two systems of units. The following table gives
conversion factors for some of the most commonly occurring units.
PROPERTY IMPERIAL UNIT
METRIC
equivalent of
IMPERIAL UNIT
METRIC
UNIT
Length inch 2.5400 cm
foot 0.3048 m
yard 0.9144 m
mile 1.6093 km
chain 20.1168 m
Area inch 645.1600 mm
inch 6.4516 cm
foot 0.0929 m
yard 0.8361 m
Volume inch 16.387 cm
foot 0.0283 m
yard 0.7646 m
Mass lb 0.4536 kg
ton 1016 kg
ton 1.0160 tonnes
Modulus inch 16387 mm
inch 16.387 cm
Inertia inch4 416200 mm4
inch4 41.62 cm4
Speed mph 1.6093 kph
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
7/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 1 - Introduction Page 6 of 11
Table 1.1
Conversion Factors
1.4 Definitions and Abbreviations
For the purpose of this Code of Practice the following definitions apply:
Bridgemeans a structure of one or more spans whose prime purpose is to carry
traffic or services over an obstruction or gap.
PSRmeans Permanent Speed Restriction.
Provisionally Sub-standard Bridgemeans a Bridge that has been assessed at the
Level 1 assessment stage of the Bridge Assessment process to have a safe load
capacity less than the RA Capacity of the route. The Bridge remains Provisionally
Sub-standard until it is confirmed on completion of the Bridge Assessment that the
safe load capacity is not less than the RA Capacity of the route or the Bridge is
classified as a Sub-standard Bridge.
Serviceability Limit State (SLS)means the condition at which the behaviour of a
Bridge becomes unsatisfactory to the extent that it can no longer satisfactorilyperform its function under service loads.
Sub-standard Bridgemeans a Bridge where, following completion of a Bridge
Assessment, action(s) is (are) required to protect the safety of the Bridge. A Bridge
remains classified as Sub-standard until actions are taken to remove the applied
controls, or the RA Capacity of the route is amended to not more than the safe load
capacity of the Bridge.
TSRmeans Temporary Speed Restriction.
Ultimate Limit State (ULS)means the condition at which the Bridge, or one of
its constituent parts, would fail due to loss of equilibrium, fatigue induced
deterioration, or exceedance of its collapse strength.
Railtrack Director s Nomineemeans the Structures Engineer with formally
delegated responsibility for the assessment of underbridges within the Railtrack Zone.
1.5 Competency
The skills, expertise and training of those persons responsible for, and carrying out,
the assessment should be appropriate to the nature and complexity of the structureunder consideration.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
8/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 1 - Introduction Page 7 of 11
1.6 Procedures for Quantitative Assessment
The assessment should commence with a definition of the assessment objective. A
clear statement of the required load carrying capacity should be made. In particular,
it should state specifically the existing RA capacity of the structure, the existing RA
capacity of the route and whether an increased structure capacity greater than that of
the route is required. The initial assessment (Level 1) should generally comprise
three distinct phases as follows:
1. Desk Study
All available information relevant to the structure, including record drawings,
inspection and maintenance records, details of past performance and previous
assessments, and any available ground investigation data should be collatedand examined. The documents should be verified for correctness and in
particular, whether they were updated after previous works on the structure.
2. Inspection for Assessment
A detailed examination of the structure is required to verify the form of
construction, its dimensions and the nature and condition of the structural
parts.
3. Analysis
Based on the information obtained from the first two phases of theassessment process, structural analysis to determine the distribution of forces
within the structure and the load capacity of the structural parts is required in
most cases.
In order to determine the adequacy of a particular structure with the minimum
degree of effort, the assessment should be carried out in levels of increasing
refinement and complexity, with the initial level (Level 1) being based on the most
conservative distributions of loads and analytical assumptions. If the structure is
shown to be inadequate in relation to the required load carrying capacity at this level,
assessment work should continue, with subsequent levels seeking to removeconservatism in the assessment where this can be justified. Subsequent more detailed
levels may use:
more refined structural analysis;
more precise estimates of loading based on real vehicles;
material properties based on testing of materials samples;
supplementary load testing.
As illustrated in Figure 1.1 the process is cyclical in nature, each cycle being at an
increasingly refined level until a decision on the adequacy of the bridge is reached.Conceptually it is useful to envisage levels of assessment as follows:
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
9/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 1 - Introduction Page 8 of 11
Level 1 Simplest level using assumptions known to be conservative.
Level 2 Use of more refined analysis and better structural idealisation. This
level may also include use of data on materials strengths based on mill
test certificates or recent material tests on another similar structure.
Level 3 Use of a bridge specific live loading based on the known traffic and/or
the use of tests on materials samples or the use of worst credible
strengths or the use of load tests.
Where, by inspection, it is considered that greater benefit may be gained by theadoption if live loading based on real trains than from a more refined analysis, the
assessment may progress from Level 1 directly to level 3.
The conclusion from the assessment should be subjected to a plausibility check. In
particular, discrepancies between the results of structural analysis, indicating
inadequacy say, and the real structural condition, for example no sign of distress or
failure, should be explained.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
10/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 1 - Introduction Page 9 of 11
Analytical
assessment?
Qualitative assessment
Review structurePass
Further investigation
and review
Level 1 assessment
Analysis
Provisionallysub-standard structure
Urgent safety
measures?
Implement
measures
Level 2-3 assessment
Assessment report
Urgent safety
measures
Review assessment
objective
Implement
measures
Review assessmentobjective
Yes
No
No
YesYes
No
Sufficientcapacity/
adequate condition?
Operational restrictions
/repair/upgrade?
Review past performance and inspection data.
Decide assessment objective.
Bridge
management
programme
Periodic
inspection
Maintenance
Performancereview
Fail
Pass Pass
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fail
Yes
No
Review safety measures
Figure 1.1
Assessment Process Flow Diagram
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
11/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 1 - Introduction Page 10 of 11
1.7 Qualitative Assessment Procedures
For some types of structure where no established method of quantitative theoretical
assessment exists and where increased capacity is not required, assessment may be
made qualitatively on the basis of satisfactory past performance. Structures for which
this procedure may be considered are spandrel and dry stone walls, retaining walls,
jack arches, substructures and foundations. The requirements for assessment on this
basis are:
the structure has demonstrated satisfactory performance over a long periodof time (over 5 years) since any significant repairs or alteration;
careful inspection does not reveal significant damage, distress ordeterioration;
review of the structure confirms its force transfer system;
predicted future deterioration will not jeopardise safety;
no significant changes in the loads and actions on the Bridge are anticipated.
Where the assessing engineer proposed a qualitative method of assessment, this shall
be justified and recorded in accordance with Railtrack s Technical Approval
Procedures.
1.8 Railtrack s Technical Approval ProceduresAll assessments shall be subject to Railtrack s Technical Approval Procedures for
assessment.
Irrespective of whether the assessment is to be carried out on a quantitative or
qualitative basis, the chosen method should be recorded and justified within the
Form AA. Where a qualitative method is proposed for the assessment of one of the
structure types identified in Clause 1.7, reference to this document may be deemed
to be sufficient justification for adoption of the method.
For the assessment of Bridges or structural elements which are outwith the scope ofthis document, the method of assessment should be agreed within the Technical
Approval Procedure by Railtrack s Professional Head of Structures Engineering.
1.9 Reporting
When the assessment has been completed, a report should be prepared detailing the
various stages of the process, together with the results. A suitable format for the
assessment report is given in Appendix E. Summary tables for reporting the
assessment results have been included in Appendix E for metallic structures, masonry
arches and concrete structures. These summary tables should be completed and
incorporated in the final report where applicable.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
12/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 1 - Introduction Page 11 of 11
1.10 Appendices
Additional notes and further information relating to the assessment of underbridges
are contained in Appendices A to F. Clauses within each appendix are numbered
sequentially from 1.0 and are followed by a letter denoting the appendix to which
they belong. For example Clause 4.1.1B indicates Clause 4.1.1 of Appendix B.
1.11 Informative Annex
Background information on the derivation of certain clauses of this code of practice
and guidance on its usage is contained in Appendix F. It should be noted that this
Appendix is not intended to give comprehensive guidance, and should not be assumed
to indicate all aspects of a structure that should be checked in the course of an
assessment.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
13/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 2 - Assessment Philosophy Page 1 of 8
CONTENTS
2. QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT PHILOSOPHY...............................................................1
2.1 Applicability.........................................................................................................................1
2.2 Basis for Quantitative Assessment.................................................................................1
2.3 Assessment Situations ......................................................................................................1
2.4 Limit States..........................................................................................................................3
2.5 Assessment Load Values ..................................................................................................4
2.6 Load Factors .......................................................................................................................4
2.7 Assessment Load Effects ..................................................................................................6
2.8 Assessment Resistance.....................................................................................................7
2.9 Verification of Structural Adequacy...............................................................................8
2. QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT PHILOSOPHY
2.1 Applicability
The analytical procedures for quantitative assessment given in this Section are
applicable to most structural forms. They are not applicable to structures where
analysis is impractical and where the original design was based on good construction
practice of the time and no codes existed. In these cases assessment can be based on
qualitative judgement of satisfactory past performance and the information obtained
from assessment inspections. In all cases the purpose of assessment is to determine
whether the bridge meets relevant safety and serviceability criteria, see Clause 1.1.
2.2 Basis for Quantitative Assessment
Assessment of steel, wrought iron, concrete and steel/concrete composite Bridges
should be undertaken by the application of limit state principles. Bridges and
structural elements constructed from cast iron, timber or masonry should be
assessed on permissible stresses or loads.
Irrespective of the basis on which a Bridge is to be assessed, the bridge is required to
satisfy the Operational Safety Limit State requirements given in Clause 2.4(d).
2.3 Assessment Situations
The circumstances in which the Bridge is required to fulfil its function should be taken
into account by selecting relevant situations for assessment. The situations should
encompass all conditions that can reasonably be foreseen during use of the Bridge by
rail traffic. The situations should be determined by making a critical selection of
conditions arising due to dead and imposed load, live traffic loads and where relevant
temperature and wind effects. The situations chosen, characterised by a dominant
live load and one or more coexistent loads, should include the most adverse liveloads as follows:
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
14/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 2 - Assessment Philosophy Page 2 of 8
Situation (1) Maximum vertical live load with coexistent transverse and longitudinal
live loads;
Situation (2) Maximum longitudinal live loads with coexistent minimum vertical and
transverse live loads;
Situation (3) Maximum transverse loads with coexistent minimum vertical and
longitudinal live loads.
In the above situations other live loads where required by Section 4 such as those due
to wind and temperature should also be included where a more onerous loading may
result.
The values of maximum and minimum live loads for each situation are determined by
multiplying the nominal live loads given in Section 4 by the applicable factors given in
Table 2.1. The coexistent loads should be taken as zero if this results in a more
onerous loading of the Bridge.
SITUATION (1) SITUATION (2) SITUATION (3)
Railway Live Loading
Component
Maximum Vertical +
coexistent
Longitudinal and
Transverse
Maximum
Longitudinal +
coexistent
minimum Verticaland Transverse
Maximum
Transverse +
coexistent
minimum Verticaland Longitudinal
Vertical:
Type RA Loading 1.0 0.5 0.5
Longitudinal:
Traction & Braking 1.0 (0) 1.0 0.5 (0)
Transverse:
Nosing
Centrifugal
1.0 (0)
1.0 (0)
0.5 (0)
0.5 (0)
1.0
1.0
Table 2.1
Factors for Combinations of Components of Railway Live Loading
Partial factors for use in commonly occurring situations are given in Table 2.2. In
special cases, other situations may arise and govern the assessment.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
15/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 2 - Assessment Philosophy Page 3 of 8
2.4 Limit States
Where Bridges are to be assessed under the selected situations using limit state
principles, the following should be considered:
(a) Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
The ULS is generally the governing condition for the assessment of
underbridge capacity.
This condition relates to the collapse strength of individual elements of the
Bridge, and to the stability of a part or the whole of the Bridge when
considered as a rigid body. To verify that an ultimate limit state is not
reached, it is necessary to demonstrate that the criteria in the relevantSection of this Code of Practice are not exceeded under the application of
ULS assessment loads.
(b) Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
Serviceability limit states are those situations where excessive deformations
or a deterioration in structural condition may lead to a loss in utility of the
Bridge such that remedial action may be required. Circumstances in which it
may be necessary to carry out checks against SLS criteria are defined in
Clauses 4.2.2A, 4.1.1B and 4.3.2C.
(c) Fatigue Limit State
The limit state for fatigue may be either an ULS or SLS. Where an assessment
situation exists requiring fatigue evaluation (see Clause 4.3.2A) it should be
checked taking the load factors fL and 3f equal to 1.0. For cast iron
Bridges, see Section 9.
(d) Operational Safety Limit State (OSLS)
These conditions are attained when specified limits which govern the safe
operation of the railway are reached. These limits will generally be related to
the changes in structural deformation that occur under the passage of a trainand which, if exceeded may lead directly to derailment, or to degradation of
the track which may, in time, have the same effect. They are limits of
serviceability beyond which a Bridge is operationally unserviceable. Further
information regarding OSLS requirements is given in Appendix F.
For the bridge structure as a whole, an Operational Safety check should be made
relating to track twist in accordance with Section 4. For some structures,
Serviceability Limit States, such as bridge deflections and rotations, may also need to
be checked. Appropriate criteria should be agreed in accordance with Railtrack s
Technical Approval Procedures.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
16/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 2 - Assessment Philosophy Page 4 of 8
2.5 Assessment Load Values
The assessment loads, *AQ , are determined from the nominal loads, KQ according to
the equation:
KfL
*
A QQ = Equation 2.1
where:
fL is a partial factor for each type of loading as given in Table 2.2.
Nominal dead and superimposed dead loads may be determined using theinformation given in Section 4. Details of the nominal live loading and its application
are also given in Section 4.
2.6 Load Factors
Dead and superimposed dead loads should be taken together with live loads using the
factors given in Table 2.2 and in accordance with Section 4. Where it is necessary to
consider loads, such as those due to wind or temperature, which are not defined in
Section 4 of this Code of Practice, reference should be made to BD37/88: Loads for
Highway Bridgesin accordance with Clause 4.4.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
17/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 2 - Assessment Philosophy Page 5 of 8
LOAD Limit
State
fL to be considered inCombination
1 2 3
Dead:
Steel, wrought iron ULS 1.05
SLS 1.0
Cast iron ULS 1.1
SLS 1.0
Concrete, masonry, timber ULS 1.15
SLS 1.0
Superimposed dead:Ballast *1, *2 ULS 1.75
SLS 1.2
Track *3 ULS 1.2
SLS 1.0
Fill ULS 1.2
SLS 1.0
Services ULS 1.25
SLS 1.0
Live:
The multiple components of LiveLoading should be considered to
act in accordance with Clause 2.3
ULSSLS
1.4 *4
1.11.2 *
4
1.01.2 *
4
1.0
Wind:
ULS
SLS
1.1
1.0
Temperature:
Restraint to movement or due to
frictional bearing restraint
ULS
SLS
1.3
1.0
Table 2.2Values of Partial Factors (fL) for Loads in Combinations
*1 A value of fL of 1.35 at ULS and 1.1 at SLS may be adopted provided the depth ofballast is controlled or dictated by the form of construction. Control measures may
include datum plates or a Plimsoll line.
*2 Ballast more than 300 mm below underside of sleepers may be considered as fill.
*3 Track includes rails, fixings and sleepers, but excludes ballast between sleepers.
*4 Subject to the approval of the Railtrack Director s Nominee a reduced value of 1.25
for combination 1 and 1.1 for combinations 2 and 3 may be adopted where theloading is of a controlled nature as follows:
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
18/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 2 - Assessment Philosophy Page 6 of 8
(a) There is reliable control over the trains that can enter the route in question,
and
(b) For vehicles which comprise any of the following:
Locomotives;
Locomotive hauled passenger and/ or mail trains;
Other passenger and/ or mail trains;
Cranes and track plant not able to carry loads whilst in travelling mode;
Freight wagons where loading is physically controlled, for example fluid fuel
tank wagons, closed grain or closed cement wagons;
Standard coal hopper or similar wagons where the load is weighed beforedispatch.
Reduced values of fL can only be assumed for other vehicles where every vehicleafter loading is weighed or is otherwise subject to proper assessment of weight,
before details are submitted and accepted for such vehicles to cross the Bridge.
These vehicles include freightliner container wagons, open top wagons for
aggregates, spoil or waste and wagons for track infrastructure maintenance or
renewal.
2.7 Assessment Load EffectsThe assessment load effects, *AS , are obtained from the assessment loads by the
relation:
( )*Af*
A QS ofeffects3= Equation 2.2A
( )KfLf*
A QS = ofeffects3 Equation 2.2B
Note: For steel and wrought iron only (Section 5), 3f is applied within the
resistance *R (see Clause 2.8) such that:
*
A
*
A QS ofeffects= Equation 2.3A
KfL
*
A QS = ofeffects Equation 2.3B
where:
3f is a factor that takes account of inaccurate assessment of the effects of
loading, such as unforeseen stress distribution in the structure, inherent
inaccuracies in the calculation model, and variations in the dimensional
accuracy from measured values. The effects of the assessment loads should
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
19/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 2 - Assessment Philosophy Page 7 of 8
be obtained by the use of analytical procedures applicable to the form of
construction.
The factor 3f should normally be taken as 1.1 for ULS and 1.0 for SLS. 3f
may be taken as 1.0 for the ultimate limit state for members where the
following conditions (a), (b) and (c) are all met:
(a) members are either:
(i) Rail bearers or cross girders of steel, wrought iron or
composite construction that are assumed to be simply
supported, or;
(ii) Main girders of steel, wrought iron or steel/concrete
composite bridges with skew not greater than 25 (If main
girders are continuous, any splices should be welded or made
with HSFG bolts or rivets, and have cover plates to both
flanges) or;
(iii) Main beams of reinforced or prestressed concrete bridges with
skew not greater than 25 that are assumed to be simply
supported.
(b) load effects are based upon static distribution within the structure;
(c) geometric dimensions of the members are verified during inspection.
2.8 Assessment Resistance
The assessment resistance, *AR , of any structural element is the calculated resistance,*R , of that element, making appropriate allowance for any deterioration identified.
The calculated resistance, *R , determined from material strengths and measuredsection properties should be calculated from the following equation:
( )mk* fR = function Equation 2.4
Except for steel and wrought iron structures only where (Section 5):
( )( )3function fmk* fR = Equation 2.5
where:
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
20/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 2 - Assessment Philosophy Page 8 of 8
kf is the characteristic (or nominal) strength of the material;
m is a partial factor for material strength.
Values ofk
f andm
are given in Sections 5, 7 and 8 according to the material ofconstruction.
For those materials where the calculated resistance is determined on a permissible
stress basis, the following may be applied:
( )p* fR function= where pf is the material permissible stress.
2.9 Verification of Structural Adequacy
Structures should be deemed to be capable of carrying a specified level of assessment
loading when the following relationship is satisfied:
*
A
*
A SR >
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
21/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 1 of 18
CONTENTS
3. INSPECTION FOR ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................1
3.1 General ................................................................................................................................1
3.2 Requirements prior to Inspection..................................................................................2
3.3 Inspection for Loading ......................................................................................................2
3.4 Inspection for Resistance.................................................................................................3
3.4.1 General ........................................................................................................................3
3.4.2 Metal Bridges ..............................................................................................................4
3.4.3 Masonry Arch Bridges ..............................................................................................7
3.4.4 Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Bridges.................................................13
3.4.5 Composite Bridges..................................................................................................153.4.6 Timber Bridges.........................................................................................................15
3.4.7 Substructures............................................................................................................16
3.4.8 Bearings......................................................................................................................17
3.5 Report on Inspection......................................................................................................18
3. INSPECTION FOR ASSESSMENT
3.1 General
This Section gives recommendations for the inspection of underbridges, following the
desk study of existing information. The purpose of the inspection is to obtain
information required for the structural assessment and determination of safe load
carrying capacities. The principles outlined below may be applied to all types of
underbridge, and all materials of construction referred to in this Code of Practice.
Inspection for assessment is necessary to verify the form of construction, the
dimensions of the structure and the nature and condition of the structural
components. Inspection should cover not only the condition of individual
components but also the condition of the structure as an entity, noting especially any
signs of distress and possible causes.
Should the inspection reveal a defect which is believed to seriously compromise the
structures ability to carry load safely, the Railtrack Directors Nominee is required to
be advised urgently in order that consideration may be given to the appropriate
emergency action to be instructed. Examples of defects that may require urgent
action to maintain the safety of the Bridge would include cracks in metallic structures,
or in the case of a masonry arch bridge if part of the arch is sagging.
Where practicable, advantage should be taken of the presence of scaffolding forrepairs/painting, the removal of ballast, longitudinal timbers, walkway boarding,
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
22/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 2 of 18
periods of low water etc. which may improve access for inspection of concealed and
otherwise inaccessible parts.
Where reasonably practicable Bridges should be observed under rail traffic and any
signs of abnormal movement such as excessive deflection, working of connections,
vibration or movement should be noted and considered as part of the assessment.
Where possible, these observations should be made under the passage of the heaviest
rail traffic using the Bridge.
When inspection is to be carried out in the hours of darkness the Bridge should first
be observed in daylight.
The skill, expertise and training of the person carrying out the inspection should be
appropriate to the complexity of the structure being assessed. This person should be
involved in the subsequent assessment process.
Where the taking of samples is considered necessary to confirm material parameters
or condition, the number, position and size of samples to be taken and any
consequential making good is required to be agreed by the Railtrack Directors
Nominee. With regard to metallic structures, material testing should generally only
be used to confirm the material types, allowing the adoption of typical material
properties form Table A2 for assessment. Only in circumstances where this process
shows the material to be untypical should additional testing be undertaken to confirm
the yield stress and other appropriate material properties. Guidance on material
identification, sampling and testing is included in Appendix F.
3.2 Requirements prior to Inspection
Prior to undertaking an inspection of a Bridge all existing information pertaining to
the Bridge should be examined, including as-built drawings, soils data, past assessment
and examination reports and details of mineral extraction, as appropriate. This
examination may be useful in determining what further information should be
obtained from the inspection and which items require special attention. Special
attention should be paid to checking whether previously identified defects have
worsened.
Emergency reporting arrangements should be established and inspection personnel
advised of these in advance of all site activities.
3.3 Inspection for Loading
The inspection should enable the material type and all dimensions necessary to
calculate an accurate estimate of the dead and superimposed dead loads to be
determined.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
23/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 3 of 18
The position of tracks, rail joints (e.g. fish plated, welded and expansion) or switchesand crossings (within 18 metres of the bridge bearings) relative to the Bridge and
whether timber or concrete sleepers are installed should be recorded.
Track cant, radii, permissible speeds and any PSR or TSR should also be recorded
where appropriate.
The presence of longitudinal timbers, methods of fastening and positions of joints and
notches in timbers should be recorded.
Where the Bridge carries ballasted tracks, the overall ballast depth and depth to
underside of sleepers should be determined. The extent and height of any ballastheaped on the bridge should also be noted, and the level relative to any control
marks recorded.
The location, number, size and type of services and service troughs should be
recorded.
3.4 Inspection for Resistance
3.4.1General
The Bridge should be inspected to record all the parameters needed to determine:
the strength of elements and joints, including any observed defects, such ascracks, loss of section due to corrosion, settlement, defective materials,
damage etc.;
the form of the structure to enable, in particular, assessment of dynamiceffects (see Section 4).
This inspection should be carried out within touching distance.
The inspection should supplement and provide confirmation of any informationobtained from existing records, particularly:
dimensions of internal sections that may not be related to external features;
strengthening and repairs that may not appear on record drawings, as theseelements may limit the load carrying capacity of the Bridge.
All constituent parts of the structure should be inspected in sufficient detail so that
their respective strengths can be determined. In some cases sampling of materials
may be required. Those parts not inspected should be recorded clearly and reasons
given.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
24/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 4 of 18
For buried members and those with hidden parts, excavation of trial holes etc.,
should be considered where there is doubt about the above parameters, especiallywhere such parameters could be critical. Care should be exercised to ensure that
there is no permanent damage caused to the structure by such excavations.
3.4.2Metal Bridges
3.4.2.1General
Prior to the inspection, a preliminary review of the structure, should be undertaken
to identify and assess potentially fatigue prone components and details.
The location, extent and remaining section of members where corrosion or otherforms of deterioration has occurred should be recorded accurately (preferably in
sketch form) to enable calculations to be made of section properties. The extent of
corrosion should also be established where metal sections are in contact with timber
decking or longitudinal timbers.
The location, nature and extent of distortion of structural elements resulting from
bridge strikes should be recorded.
Samples should be taken where required for testing to determine yield stress or
other material properties. Signs of poor quality and inferior metal should be notedand further tests carried out if appropriate.
All cast iron members should be checked for the presence of cracks and blow holes
especially in tensile areas. The location and extent of such defects should be
recorded.
Where suspension bolts support a live load carrying member, particularly where their
failure could directly lead to collapse of the member, consideration should be given to
removal of a bolt or plate for inspection purposes. The stability of the structure must
be maintained after removal of these components.
Evidence of water seepage which may have contributed to corrosion of parts that are
not directly amenable to inspection should be noted. Exploration to establish the
extent of any corrosion should be considered.
Loose or missing bolts or rivets, rivets with severely corroded heads and any
working or rust staining of any connections should be recorded.
The dimensions and condition of free spanning longitudinal timbers should be
recorded.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
25/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 5 of 18
The verticality, and magnitude and direction of horizontal bow of top flanges of maingirders as required by Clause 9.8.2A plus details of the end restraints including those
for vehicle restraint should be recorded. Out of flatness of web panels should also be
recorded.
For half through type bridges with solid web or truss girders the presence of and
condition of features which may be contributory to compression flange stability
should be noted such as:
(i) cross girder to main girder connections including the relative locations of
vertical stiffeners;(ii) signs of loose or working elements such as rivets, bolts or packings;
(iii) presence of concrete or other haunching or infilling to the main girders;
(iv) other connections between floor and main girders such as troughing, plate or
timber floor, resting onto the bottom flange etc.;
(v) trimmers or end cross girders and any infilling at or adjacent to the bearings;
(vi) type of bearings and whether they or any infilling or haunching is providing
torsional restraint to the main girders. A note should be made of any wear,
cracking or spalling of bedstones;(vii) details and location of bearing stiffeners, end plates and other stiffening local
to the bearings;
(viii) verticality of the main girders at the bearings. Magnitude, shape and direction
of horizontal bow of the main girder top flanges. A note should be made of
any additional movements of the main girders under live loading.
3.4.2.2Fatigue
Members particularly susceptible to fatigue should be closely examined for visible
cracks so far as reasonably practicable. In particular close attention should be paid tothe details shown in Figure 3.1 which are known to be fatigue susceptible. In addition
to these, areas of severe and/or pitted corrosion around areas which have been
subjected to mechanical damage and distortions, such as may arise from vehicle
impact should be closely examined.
Where visible cracks are found, their extent should be measured and recorded.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
26/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 6 of 18
NOTCHED RAILBEARERS
LIABLE TOFATIGUECRACK
WELDED DOUBLER ENDS
LIABLE TOWELDUNDERCUT
FATIGUE CRACK
RIVET HOLES INTENSION AREAS
CRACK
LIABLE TOFATIGUECRACK
NOTCHED CROSS GIRDER END
WELDED ATTACHMENTSAT FLANGE EDGES
STRESSRAISER
STRESSRAISER
ENDS OF TRUSS MEMBERS
TENSIO
N COMPRESSION
CRACK
WELDED REPAIRSOR
ATTACHMENTSTO
RIVETED MEMBERS
ATTACHMENTSWELDED
WELDED REPAIRPATCH
Figure 3.1
Fatigue Susceptible details
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
27/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 7 of 18
3.4.3Masonry Arch Bridges
3.4.3.1General
The external fabric should be inspected. The arch barrel should be inspected to
ascertain all the information needed to determine the loading and resistance in
accordance with Section 6. This information should be recorded on the arch data
sheets on Figures 3.2 and 3.3. In particular the following information should be
determined:
(i) thickness of the arch ring carrying rail traffic (this may not be the same as the
number of rings visible on the face) and its shape;
(ii) nature and condition of the brickwork, stonework and mortar, including thelocation and extent of any crushing, and the direction of bonding in the case of
skew bridges;
(iii) thickness of the joints and the depth of any mortar loss;
(iv) presence of cracks, their width, length, position and number;
(v) location and extent of any loss of section due to spalling or damage by vehicles
from bridge strikes;
(vi) location of any displaced voussoirs and displacement across cracks;
(vii) deformation of the arch barrel from its original shape;
(viii) the presence and effectiveness of any previous strengthening such as saddling,
stitching, grouting or strengthening rings;
(ix) the presence and extent of any ring separation, which may be deemed to have
occurred if the engineer has any reasons to believe that the ring is not acting
integrally with the rest of the arch;
(x) haunching over abutments and piers of multispan structures.
On site measurements should be made in imperial units and then converted to metricprior to commencement of assessment analysis.
If part of the arch exhibits a significant change in profile from that described in
previous reports, the bridge should not be assessed but the condition of the bridge
reported to Railtrack immediately.
Where there is uncertainty about the above information a site investigation should be
considered, including trial holes where necessary. Probing into the construction
should be carried out where the strength of the bridge is in doubt or if internal scour
and leaching of the fill is suspected.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
28/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 8 of 18
The extent and location of water seepage should be recorded. The colour and
nature of any leachates should be closely examined for signs of brick or stone slurrythat may indicate internal movement.
Parapets and spandrel walls should be inspected for evidence of any defects and their
extent recorded on Figures 3.2 and 3.3, including, but not limited to:
tilting, bulging or sagging;
lateral movement of parapet or spandrel wall relative to the face of the archbarrel;
lateral movement of parapet or spandrel wall accompanied by longitudinalcracking of the arch barrel;
weathering and lack of pointing;
cracking, splitting and spalling;
loosening of any coping stones;
presence, location and details of ties, straps and patress plates.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
29/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 9 of 18
LINE OR
BRANCH
MAP REFERENCE
NEAREST
STATION
BRIDGE No. M C LINE REFERENCE
ARCH PROFILE SEMICIRCULAR
SPAN DIMENSION
(SQUARE)
SEGMENTAL
SPAN DIMENSION
(SKEW)
ELLIPTICAL
NUMBER OF RINGS PARABOLIC
POINTED
C ARCH
A
A
= ===
SPAN
ELEVATION LOOKING :
SECTION A-A
The following information should be recorded above:
A. SKETCH PROFILE OF SURFACE BALLAST AND TRACKS.
B. DIMENSION FROM TOP OF PARAPET TO SOFFIT OF
ARCH.
C. DIMENSIONS FROM TOP OF PARAPET TO RAIL LEVEL.
D. DIMENSIONS BETWEEN PARAPETS.
E. POSITIONS OF TRACK ON STRUCTURE.
F. TYPE OF SLEEPER AND TRACK
Figure 3.2Arch Data Sheet 1
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
30/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 10 of 18
Figure 3.3
Arch Data Sheet 2
GENERAL FAULTS
MAP REFERENCE
BRIDGE No. M C LINE REFERENCENEARESTSTATION
ARCHRINGMATERIAL
HARD STONE
MEDIUM STONE
ENGINEERING BRICKS
BUILDING BRICKS
CONCRETE
OTHER (STATE) :
ARCH RING JOINTS
LIMESTONE
MORTAR ARCH RINGMATERIAL
GOODSOUND OR FRIABLE
TYPE OF LAYINGRANDOMSQUAREDCOURSED
CORRECT BONDINGREGULAR JOINTS
YES NO
WIDTH OF JOINTS
UP TO 6mm6mm TO
12mmOVER 12mm
DEPTH OF JOINTS
0mm (FLUSH TO FACE)
UP TO 12mm
12mm TO 0.1 OF RINGTHICKNESS
OVER 0.1 OF RING THICKNESS
YES NO IF YES' GIVE DETAILSDIAGONAL CRACKS FROMSPRINGING TO CENTRE
ARCHRING
LONGITUDINAL CRACKS INSOFFITTRANSVERSE CRACKS INSOFFITRADIAL DISPLACEMENT OFINDIVIDUAL STONE OR BRICKSPERMANENTDEFORMATIONCONSTANTLY WET
OR DAMPDIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTSPREADCRACKS AT QUARTER POINTSBULGINGCRACKSMOVEMENTSCONCRETE SLAB OR SADDLEGROUTED MATERIALWELL COMPACTED MATERIALS
ABUTMENTS&/OR PIERSSPANDRELWALLS
WINGWALLS
FILLINGNOT KNOWN
WEAK MATERIALS EVIDENCED BY`TRACKING' OF SURFACE
LINE ORBRANCH
SOFT STONE
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
31/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 11 of 18
3.4.3.2
Cracking in Masonry ArchesThe inspection should investigate all cracks in an effort to establish their size and
depth, any associated displacement and their age. Old cracks, which probably
occurred soon after the bridge was built, and are no longer propagating, may usually
be ignored. Recent cracks, on the other hand, usually show clean faces, with possibly
small and loose fragments of masonry. Although appearing as shear of the bricks or
masonry, cracks normally follow an irregular line through the mortar. For this
reason, care should be taken in checking that the defects are cracks and not
deficiencies of the pointing material.
Cracks in abutments may generally be ignored unless they are new or growing. Ifcracks in abutments are caused by subsidence they may have affected the arch ring.
The possible causes of cracks in the arch are noted below:
longitudinal cracks outside the centre third of the arch between the spandrelsand the arch ring may be caused by shear stresses generated by the spanwise
deformation of the arch relative to the spandrels under the passage of live
load (see Figure 3.4);
longitudinal cracks within the centre third of the bridge emanating from theabutments may be due to varying amounts of subsidence in different places
along the length of the abutment, and are dangerous if large, because suchcracks tend to indicate secondary breaking up;
longitudinal cracks along the centre of a twin track bridge, spreading outwardsfrom the midspan area, may be caused by the stresses generated by the arrival
on the bridge of trains travelling in opposite directions;
transverse cracks, usually found near the quarter points, due to permanentdeformation of the arch, may be caused by partial collapse of the arch or
movement at the abutments;
Diagonal cracks normally start near the sides of the arch at the springing andspread up towards the centre of the bridge at the crown may be due to a
subsidence at the sides of the abutment. Diagonal cracks indicate that the
bridge could be in a dangerous state. Where diagonal cracks meet or cross,
there is a possibility that a portion at the joint could be punched out, as shown
in Figure 3.5 below, and therefore, action should be taken as soon as possible
to prevent this happening;
cracks in the corners and abutments of skewed arch bridges may be due tothe differential resistance provided by the backfill.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
32/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 12 of 18
(a)
(c) (b)
Spandrel wallsFace of abutment
Figure 3.4
Plan on Arch showing Longitudinal Cracks
a) Between arch ring and spandrels out with middle third
b) From abutment within middle third
c) Along centreline
Could be punched out
Diagonal cracks from arch springing
Figure 3.5
Diagonal Cracking in Arch
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
33/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 13 of 18
3.4.3.3 I nspection of Jack Arches
The inspection of a jack arch deck should record the following information:
(i) the geometric configuration of the jack arches and their supporting members;
(ii) the presence of arch ties, details of their size, spacing, condition and position
within the height of the arch;
(iii) rotations or horizontal displacement of a supporting member;
(iv) transversely braced bottom flange of a supporting member;
(v) inadequate support to springings, for example, corrosion of the bottom flange
of supporting beam over a horizontal length or loss of bedding mortar;
(vi) cracking at the crown of the arch due to spreading of springings;
(vii) distortion and any associated cracking of the jack arch barrel;
(viii) arch cracking associated with substructure cracking or distress.
3.4.4Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Bridges
A covermeter survey should be undertaken to check the cover and the location of
reinforcing bars and prestressing tendons particularly in critical areas. If there are no
drawings, if the available drawings do not give sufficient detail for assessment, or if
there is evidence that the bridge is not as shown in the drawings, further investigationwill be required. Other evidence may arise from records, from the covermeter
survey, or from other findings of the inspection. Further investigation usually consists
of a more comprehensive covermeter survey supplemented by local exposures of
reinforcement to determine its size and confirm the position of critical bars. It will
not normally be practical or desirable to expose sufficient reinforcing or prestressing
steel to fully determine, its position, cross-sectional area and condition. When it is
considered necessary to locally expose reinforcement, the extent and depth to be
removed and method of making good is required to be agreed by the Railtrack
Directors Nominee.
The worst credible strength of concrete should generally be derived from tests
carried out on cores in accordance with BS 6089. Cores are destructive and cannot
generally be taken at the critical locations of an element; hence interpretation or
extrapolation is necessary to arrive at worst credible strengths in these locations.
To assist in interpreting or extrapolating the results of core tests, an integrated
programme of testing which may include destructive, semi-destructive (e.g. near
surface) and non-destructive tests is necessary for each element. Care and
judgement is required in selecting the locations and numbers of samples for such
tests. The non-destructive tests can be used to give an indication of whether the area
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
34/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 14 of 18
of concrete from which the cores are taken is representative of the concrete in the
critical areas.
For reinforcement or prestressing tendons and bars, a worst credible strength should
be obtained by testing samples taken from the element being assessed. It should be
noted that bars of different sizes are likely to have significantly different yield
strengths. Removal of prestressing steel for sampling will alter the stress distribution
in the concrete section and the change should be allowed for in the assessment
calculations.
The extent and nature of spalling, corrosion of reinforcement, rust staining, crazing
or soft or friable concrete should be recorded. Where cracking is present thefollowing information should be obtained:
details of position, extent and widths of significant or unusual cracks;
details of any cracks showing evidence of rust staining;
all cracks over approximately 0.2 mm wide;
all flexural cracks in prestressed elements.
Consideration should be given to undertaking additional tests to determine
constituents and condition of the concrete. The tests may include tests for chloride,
half cell potential, sulphates, carbonation, alkali silica reaction or ettringite formation
and cement content. However, in general these tests are not required unless there is
other evidence of the associated forms of deterioration.
For post-tensioned concrete structures the fundamental design and construction
details should be established by a desk study, prior to the inspection for assessment,
as outlined in BA 50/93: Post-tensioned Concrete Bridges. Planning, Organisation and
Methods for Carrying Out Special Inspections. The inspection should follow the
procedures for Special Inspections as described in BA 50/93, if the bridge may be at
risk of sudden failure following tendon corrosion or if the integrity of transverse
prestressing is to be assumed in the subsequent analysis of the adequacy of the
structure.
Any evidence of distress should be recorded, especially evidence of rust staining,
spalling, cracking or water penetration at anchorage or tendon positions. In
particular unexpected cracking and unexpected or changing deflection should be
recorded. Further investigation is required whenever there is evidence that suggests
tendon corrosion. Corrosion of tendons in post-tensioned members may not be
visually manifest during inspection. For pretensioned concrete members, significant
tendon corrosion usually causes visible rust staining and cracking of the cover
concrete.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
35/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 15 of 18
3.4.5Composite Bridges
The steel and concrete elements of composite bridges or composite members known
to have been designed for composite behaviour should be inspected in accordance
with Clauses 3.4.2 and 3.4.4 as appropriate. For other bridges or members where
concrete (or brick jack arches) is in contact or surrounds steel or wrought iron
members then inspection should be used to decide whether composite behaviour can
be assumed using Appendix A or Appendix C. It should be noted (see Clause 8.3.1C)
that composite behaviour of cross girders is not to be assumed in Type A or other
filler beam type decks less than 300 mm deep where there is no encasement above
the top flange or below the bottom flange.
For concrete slabs supported on steel or wrought iron beams the steel/ metal
interfaces should be examined especially near the supports for signs of:
corrosion;
fretting;
relative longitudinal slip;
vertical separation;
cracking or spalling of concrete.
Any relative movement should be recorded including any under live loading.
For cased beams the soffit (and other surfaces where practicable) should be examined
for signs of:
rust forcing or leakage;
separation of or hollowness of the casing concrete.
For filler beams or concrete or brick arch decks the soffit (and other surfaces where
practicable) should be examined for signs of:
corrosion; relative longitudinal slip;
separation;
cracking or spalling of concrete.
Where the infill consists of unreinforced concrete or brickwork or is unknown then
probing should be undertaken to prove the presence of dense material in contact
with the beam before composite behaviour can be assumed in assessment.
For concrete infilled troughs, probing or other inspection should be undertaken to
determine the depth and condition of concrete above the crests before composite
behaviour can be assumed in assessment.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
36/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 16 of 18
3.4.6Timber Bridges
The timber should be inspected, noting the presence of any protective coatings and
searching for the presence of rot or infestation (especially around metal fixings and
where there is standing water round piers in estuary waters). Heart rot may only be
detected by probing. The use of pressure sensitive, non-destructive drilling
techniques should be considered. Inspection for splitting and rot should be carried
out especially in areas of notching. Care should be taken not to transfer fungal spores
to sound timber by the use of contaminated tools. Any holes drilled should be made
good with sound timber dowels. Particular attention should be paid to timber in
contact with metal.
If site inspection indicates modifications to the structure, especially to primary
members, and weak timber is suspected, or if the species is unknown, samples should
be taken for identification of the timber.
3.4.7Substructures
It is not normally possible to inspect the foundations, but where they are exposed, for
example in tidal waters, their condition should be checked. Any defects present and
their extent should be noted; defects may include cracking, erosion, disintegration or
corrosion of reinforcement.
Dimensional checks are required for preparing sketches for analysis or for
confirmation of record drawings. The dimensional checks may require excavation or
probing to determine depth and the extent of foundations. Care should be taken to
ensure that exploratory work does not impair stability or damage underground
services.
In river beds and banks the removal of material by scouring, from around the base of
piers or abutments may lead to undermining of the foundations, especially during
flooding. Whilst assessment of the susceptibility of a substructure to scour is outside
the scope of this standard, evidence of scour holes and approximate dimensionswhere possible should be recorded. The presence and type of scour protection
should be recorded.
Foundation deficiencies usually appear as movements which may be sufficiently large
to cause tilting, cracking or excessive movements at joints or bearings. In arch bridge
foundations movement or arch spreading is generally apparent from cracks showing
distress in the arch rings and spandrels; diagonal cracking may be indicative of
differential settlement of the foundations.
All accessible parts of the substructures should be examined and any defects,including extent, and possible causes recorded.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
37/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 17 of 18
Some typical substructure defects are:
tilting and rotation, in any direction;
rocking;
cracking, splitting and spalling;
erosion beneath water level;
weathering and other material deterioration, including lack of pointing formasonry and brickwork;
vegetation intrusion; lack of effective drainage;
internal scour and leaking of fill;
settlement of structure;
settlement of fill.
Movement of substructures is likely to be caused by foundation movements.
Differential foundation movements may be evident on abutment or pier walls in the
form of vertical or inclined cracks.
The effects that any observed substructure movement may have on the
superstructure or deck should be investigated. For example, differential settlement
will cause a twist in the deck; inspection may reveal dislocated bearings. Where
continuous decks are encountered, substructure movements may be evident from
signs of distortion or distress consistent with a sag over the settling support or
hogging over intermediate adjacent supports.
Movement of substructure may be related to the support of spans of unequal length
or character.
In arch bridges, predominantly horizontal cracks in piers or abutments may be the
result of the arch spreading.
3.4.8Bearings
Bearings if present, should be inspected so that the general condition and efficiency or
operation of the bearings can be established. The following should be noted:
general condition of bearings and their type and articulation;
any binding or jamming, looseness, or reaching limits of rotational or
translational movement, or vertical movement under live load; condition of seating bedding and plinth;
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
38/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 3 - Inspection for Assessment Page 18 of 18
whether correct operation of the bearings is prevented or impaired, such asby structural members built into abutment or pier;
for metal girder bridges, where applicable, whether the bearings are fulfillingtheir function of providing end torsional restraint.
In bridges without bearings or where the bearings have failed to function correctly,
there may be local crushing or cracking, especially where supports are stone or
brickwork.
3.5 Report on Inspection
A report containing all the relevant information obtained from the inspection should
be produced. The report should include:
a description of the structure including details of any services carried;
a description of the condition of the structure including any repairs and adiscussion of the effect of any significant defects on the operational safety and
assessment of the structure;
sketches, drawings or photographs identifying the nature, location and extentof any defects;
sketches giving as measured dimensions;
other photographs, including general views and specific details.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
39/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 4 - Loading for Assessment Page 1 of 33
CONTENTS
4. LOADING FOR ASSESSMENT.............................................................................................1
4.1 Dead Loads .........................................................................................................................1
4.2 Superimposed Dead Loads..............................................................................................2
4.2.1 Ballast ...........................................................................................................................2
4.2.2 Track ............................................................................................................................2
4.2.3 Services ........................................................................................................................2
4.2.4 Miscellaneous..............................................................................................................2
4.3 Railway Live Load ..............................................................................................................3
4.3.1 Vertical Static Loading ..............................................................................................3
4.3.2 Dynamic Effects..........................................................................................................74.3.3 Dispersal of Railway Live Loading onto the Structure.....................................25
4.3.4 Nosing ........................................................................................................................28
4.3.5 Centrifugal Load.......................................................................................................29
4.3.6 Longitudinal Loads...................................................................................................30
4.3.7 Load Combinations .................................................................................................31
4.3.8 Elements Supporting More Than One Track.....................................................31
4.3.9 Structures Carrying Light Rail Systems...............................................................32
4.4 Other Live Loads.............................................................................................................32
4.4.1 Wind Loads...............................................................................................................32
4.4.2 Temperature.............................................................................................................32
4.5 Operational Safety Requirements................................................................................33
4.5.1 Track Twist ...............................................................................................................33
4.6 Accidental Loads from Vehicles....................................................................................33
4.6.1 Bridges over Highways ...........................................................................................33
4.6.2 Intersection Bridges ................................................................................................33
4.6.3 Train Derailments on Bridges ...............................................................................33
4. LOADING FOR ASSESSMENT
4.1 Dead Loads
The dead loads should, where possible, be based on dimensions verified during the
inspection. For assessment Level 1 analysis the applicable values of unit weight given
in Table 4.2 should be used. Where, however, the initial assessment shows
inadequacies, or there is doubt about the nature of a particular material, tests should
be carried out to determine actual densities.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
40/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 4 - Loading for Assessment Page 2 of 33
4.2 Superimposed Dead Loads
4.2.1Ballast
The superimposed dead load due to ballast should be based on the measured depth
with unit weight 1800 kg/m.
4.2.2Track
Where applicable, the superimposed dead loads due to track components given in
Table 4.1 may be used. Where a different configuration of sleepers and rails has been
identified during the inspection, the self weight to be used should be determined by
measurement of dimensions of the configuration and by reference to data on weights
of components produced by the manufacturer.
Component Mass
Single Bullhead Rail 47.07 kg/m
Single Type 113A Rail 56.22 kg/m
Single UIC 60 Rail 60.22 kg/m
Conductor Rail 75.2 kg/m
Concrete Sleeper (Type F40 for use with 113A Rail)*11 300 kg
Concrete Sleeper (Type G44 for use with UIC 60 Rail)*11
315 kgTimber Sleeper 94 kg
Chair for Bullhead Rail 21 kg
*1 Includes shoulder, clips and rail pads.
Table 4.1
Permanent Way Component Weights
4.2.3Services
The superimposed dead load resulting from service cables and ducting should bedetermined, where possible, from examination and measurement during the
inspection or from information provided by the service owner. Where this is not
possible, any assumptions made regarding such equipment should be clearly stated in
the assessment calculations.
4.2.4Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous items such as walkways which are not deemed to be part of the
structure should be considered as superimposed dead load. The nature and
dimensions of such items should be established during the inspection, and the partial
factor fL for dead load applicable to the material (given in Table 2.2) should be used.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
41/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 4 - Loading for Assessment Page 3 of 33
Material11
Unit Weights kg/m
Metal AluminiumCast Iron
Wrought Iron
Steel
27507200
7700
7850
Concrete Reinforced or Prestressed
Plain
Breeze Block
2400
2300
1400
Masonry Engineering Brickwork
Other Brickwork
Granite
Sandstone
2400
2100
2600 to 2930
2200 to 2400
Timber2 Softwood
Hardwoods generally
Jarrah
Greenheart
640 typical (480 to 720)
640 to 1200
840 to 960
1040 to 1200
Fill Sand (dry)
Sand (saturated)
Hardcore
Crushed Slag
Packed Stone RubbleEarth (dry, compact)
Earth (moist, compact)
Puddled Clay
1600
2000
1920
1440
22401600
1800
1920
Asphalt
Macadam
2300
2560
1 Reference may also be made to BS 648 and BS 5268: Part 2: 1996.
2 Wide range of unit weights because of the variability of timber. For densities
of specific timber types refer to BS 5268: Part 2: 1996
Table 4.2
Density of Materials used in Bridge Construction
4.3 Railway Live Load
4.3.1Vertical Static Loading
4.3.1.1Route Availabil ity (RA) Number
The assessment of a Bridge should be determined in terms of its Route Availability(RA) number, that is its safe traffic load capacity. Route Availability numbers generally
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
42/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 4 - Loading for Assessment Page 4 of 33
range from the lowest capacity RA0 to the highest at RA15 represented by 25 British
Standard Units (BSUs) of Type RA1 loading respectively as shown by Table 4.3.R.A. NUMBER RANGE OF BSUs
IN GROUP
RANGE OF SINGLE AXLE
WEIGHTS IN GROUP
RA0 Up to 10.99 units Under 13.96 tonnes
RA1 11.00 to 11.99 units 13.97 to 15.23 tonnes
RA2 12.00 to 12.99 units 15.24 to 16.50 tonnes
RA3 13.00 to 13.99 units 16.51 to 17.77 tonnes
RA4 14.00 to 14.99 units 17.78 to 19.04 tonnes
RA5 15.00 to 15.99 units 19.05 to 20.31 tonnes
RA6 16.00 to 16.99 units 20.32 to 21.58 tonnes
RA7 17.00 to 17.99 units 21.59 to 22.85 tonnesRA8 18.00 to 18.99 units 22.86 to 24.12 tonnes
RA9 19.00 to 19.99 units 24.13 to 25.39 tonnes
RA10 20.00 to 20.99 units 25.40 to 26.66 tonnes
RA11 21.00 to 21.99 units 26.67 to 27.93 tonnes
RA12 22.00 to 22.99 units 27.94 to 29.20 tonnes
RA13 23.00 to 23.99 units 29.21 to 30.47 tonnes
RA14 24.00 to 24.99 units 30.48 to 31.74 tonnes
RA15 25.00 units and over 31.75 tonnes and over
Table 4.3
Route Availability Classification for Bridges
Type RA1 loading excludes dynamic effects which should be added in accordance
with Clause 4.3.2 and are dependent upon train speed. RA numbers should therefore
be determined according to a given train speed. In some cases it may be necessary to
determine more than one RA number for a given Bridge, for example RA6 at
100 mph representing passenger trains (normally the permissible speed) and RA10 at
60 mph for freight trains.
The number of units of Type RA1 loading that the Bridge can carry should be
determined by calculating the live load capacity factor, C, as defined below:
loadingRA1Typeofunits20ofEffects
CapacityLoadLive=C Equation 4.1
Capacity in terms of units of Type RA1 loading = C20
The RA number of the Bridge should be obtained from Table 4.3.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
43/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 4 - Loading for Assessment Page 5 of 33
Where the assessed RA number is below the RA of the line, the effects under static
EUDLs for the real (actual) permitted vehicles and combinations, together withdynamic factors for their respective permitted speeds, may be considered acceptable.
It should be noted that the RA effect of vehicles on a specific span (loaded length) is
often less than the RA classification for the vehicle which has to allow for a full range
of Bridge spans.
4.3.1.2RA1 Loading
The static loading used to determine the RA number is shown in Figure 4.1 for
20 units of Type RA1 loading. The Short Lengths configuration should be used when
it produces more onerous effects than the axle and uniformly distributed load model.
65kN/m
4x200kN 4x150kN 4x200kN 4x150kN
1.51.81.82.71.51.51.5 1.51.51.54.01.81.8 1.81.82.7
2x250kN
1.8
SHORT LENGTHS
2.4
Figure 4.120 Units of Type RA 1 Loading
Note 1: 20 units of Type RA1 loading is equivalent to Route Availability RA10without allowance for dynamic effects.
4.3.1.3Equivalent Unif ormly Di stributed Loading
For simply supported spans (with the exception of Masonry Arches, see Section 6),Type RA1 loading may be represented by an Equivalent Uniformly Distributed Load
(EUDL). Table 4.4 gives EUDL and maximum end shear values for simply supportedspans for 20 units of Type RA1 loading. The EUDL values equate with the maximumbending moment within the span that occurs under RA1 loading.
For continuous spans the values in Table 4.4 are not strictly applicable, and loadingshould be as shown in Figure 4.1. This loading should be considered as a whole, butany parts of the loading that reduce the effects on the part of the element beingconsidered should be omitted.
4.3.1.4Application of Loads
Type RA1 loading should be applied to each track and such as to produce the
maximum effect in the part of the element being considered.
-
8/21/2019 CEC025 - Rail Track Code
44/410
RAILTRACK LINE CODE OF PRACTICE RT/CE/C/025
Issue: 1
Date: February 2001
The Structural Assessment of Underbridges
Section 4 - Loading for Assessment Page 6 of 33
(SPAN)
(m)
EUDL
(kN
END
SHEAR(kN)
SPAN
(m)
EUDL
(kN)
END
SHEAR(kN)
1.2 500 250 9.4 1105 640
1.4 500 250 9.6 1121 650
1.6 500 250 9.8 1137 659
1.8 500 250 10.0 1152 668
2.0 500 269 11.0 1219 707
2.2 500 291 12.0 1282 752
2.4 500 308 13.0 1351 792
2.6 500 322 14.0 1411 835
2.8 500 335 15.0 1475 873
3.0 500 346 16.0 1547 9073.2 513 356 17.0 1620 947
3.4 532 364 18.0 1687 983
3.6 554 372 19.0 1760 1017
3.8 574 378 20.0 1837 1055
4.0 594 384 22.0 1983 1146
4.2 618 390 24.0 2126 1233
4.4 643 395 26.0 2265 1319
4.6 667 401 28.0 2415 1405
4.8 689 417 30.0 2547 1488
5.0 709
top related