Journal of Bridge Engineering

IMPROVED ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR STATIC AND FATIGUE RESISTANCE

OF OLD METALLIC RAILWAY BRIDGES
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: BEENG-1061

Full Title: IMPROVED ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR STATIC AND FATIGUE RESISTANCE
OF OLD METALLIC RAILWAY BRIDGES

Manuscript Region of Origin: FRANCE

Article Type: Technical Paper

Manuscript Classifications:
7.03120: (sub 7.031) Bridges; 7.03128: (sub 7.0312) Evaluation (Rating), Overloads
(Permits); 7.03129: (sub 7.0312) Inspection and Maintenance; 8.04010: (sub 8.04)
Structural Behavior; 3.01016: (sub 3.0101) Metals; 3.01050: (sub 3.01) Material
Properties; 4.03010: (sub 4.03) Elasticity; 4.03020: (sub 4.03) Fracture Mechanics;
4.03030: (sub 4.03) Inelastic Behavior; 4.05040: (sub 4.05) Failure Analysis; 8.02021:
(sub 8.0202) Steel Structures; 8.04011: (sub 8.0401) Elasticity & Inelasticity;
8.04012: (sub 8.0401) Plastic Analysis; 8.04060: (sub 8.04) Structure Failure; 8.05010:
(sub 8.05) Structural Computation; 8.05020: (sub 8.05) Structural Deformation Analysis

Keywords: Metallic bridges, Railways bridges, assessment, inspection, static analysis, fatigue

Abstract: A large number of the bridges in the European railway networks are metallic bridges.
The increasing volume of traffic and axle weight of trains mean that for many structures
the loads today are much higher than those envisaged when they were designed. This
paper presents a summary of the different recommendations and advices proposed in
"Guidelines for Load and Resistance Assessment of Existing European Railway
Bridges" of the European Union founded project "Sustainable bridges" for assessing
old metal railway bridges. The knowledge of the material properties of existing metal
bridges is essential for the resistance assessment and the determination of the
remaining lifetime of old metallic bridges. Furthermore, old bridges require more exact
and efficient assessment methods that call for a precise description of the material.
Among the problems met in metal bridges and material properties estimation, fatigue is
the most common cause of failure. To be able to make accurate assessments of
existing bridges, it is important to know the behaviour of bridges exposed to fatigue,
and how the old materials behave due to cyclic exposure. The main question answered
herein is how to make a safe estimation concerning the remaining life in service. The
possible traffic load on steel rail bridges is usually limited by the fatigue resistance, but
for certain situations the static resistance has also to be checked. Most design rules for
steel structures, for instance those in Eurocode 3, are applicable also to riveted
structures. However, some information is missing on how to deal with the special case
that elements are intermittently connected in contrast welded structures that are
connected continuously. As the traditional methods for assessing the resistance of
steel bridges are based on elastic analysis, a method for utilizing a limited redistribution
of bending moments based on beam theory is proposed.

Corresponding Author: Christian Cremona, Ph.D, HDR

Technical Department for Transport, Roads, Bridges and road Safety
Bagneux cedex, FRANCE

Corresponding Author E-Mail: christian.cremona@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Order of Authors: Christian Cremona, Ph.D, HDR

Bjorn Eichler, PhD

Bernt Johansson, PhD

Tobias Larsson, PhD

Suggested Reviewers:

Opposed Reviewers:

Powered by Editorial Manager® and Preprint Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Cover Letter
Click here to download Cover Letter: Cover_letter_120721.doc

MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉCOLOGIE, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE,

DES TRANSPORTS ET DU LOGEMENT

Service d'études sur les transports, Bagneux, le 23 juillet 2012

les routes et leurs aménagements

Centre des Techniques d'Ouvrages d'Art

Référence :
Vos réf. :
Affaire suivie par : Christian Cremona
Christian.Cremona@developpement-durable.gouv.fr
Tél. +33 (0)1 60 52 32 56 – Fax : +33 (0)1 60 52 83 56

Dear Editor
According to the editor's decision, the paper has been modified to fit the length of 10000 words.
The paper has been reduced to 10352 words and the authors hope that the 319 extra words would
be accepted as a tolerance.

In old truss bridges with rails on wooden sleepers which lie on rail bearers and cross girders (open
decks), fatigue problems will probably start in these elements, before having problems in the main
girders. The reason is that the short elements have to endure a greater number of stress cycles
than the elements with greater spans. For the small elements each axle load or boogie represents
a cycle of stress range but for the main girder it is only each train which gives a cycle of stress
range.

The knowledge of the material properties of existing metal bridges is essential for the resistance
assessment and the determination of the remaining lifetime of old metallic bridges. Built between
1870 and 1940, the material parameters are in many cases not available. Yet, especially the old
bridges require more exact and efficient assessment methods that call for a precise description of
the material. This is why a major part of this paper is focused on the material properties of old
metal bridges.

Among the problems met in metal bridges and material properties estimation, fatigue is the most
common cause of failure. To be able to make accurate assessments of existing bridges, it is
important to understand the structural behaviour of bridges exposed to fatigue, and how the old
materials behave due to cyclic exposure. The technique of riveting is no longer used in bridges due
to more developed methods of assembling plates as welding. Modern standards for design of steel
structures cover riveted structures but they do not give complete information. Old design standards
on the other hand are quite incomplete concerning instability phenomena and they are covering
elastic design only.

www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr 110, rue de Paris – BP 214, 77487 Provins cedex – Tél : 33 (0)1 60 52 31 31 – Fax : 33 (0)1 60 52 31 69
 For old metal bridges there is consequently missing information in codes how to deal with and
assess riveted structures. The “Guideline for Load and Resistance Assessment of European
Railway Bridges” of the EU founded project “Sustainable bridges” dedicates one chapter to the
assessment of these structures. The main question answered herein is how to make a safe
estimation concerning the remaining life in service. Influencing factors are also investigated, such
as corrosion, clamping force and material properties, etc. This paper synthesizes the principal
recommendations given in these guidelines.

The paper's co-authors and myself are hoping that this article will receive a positive judgement
from the reviewers.

Looking forward to reading you soon

Christian Cremona

www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr
*Manuscript
Click here to download Manuscript: JBE12-3(SB)_v1.doc

1 IMPROVED ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR STATIC AND FATIGUE

2 RESISTANCE OF OLD METALLIC RAILWAY BRIDGES

3 C. Cremona

4 Technical Department of Transport, Roads and Bridge Engineering, Sourdun, France

5 B. Eichler

6 RWTH Institute of steel construction, Aachen, Germany

7 B. Johansson, T. Larsson

8 Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden

10 KEYWORDS:

11 Metallic bridges, Railways bridges, assessment, inspection, static analysis, fatigue

12
13 ABSTRACT:

14 A large number of the bridges in the European railway networks are metallic bridges.

15 The increasing volume of traffic and axle weight of trains mean that for many

16 structures the loads today are much higher than those envisaged when they were

17 designed. This paper presents a summary of the different recommendations and

18 advices proposed in “Guidelines for Load and Resistance Assessment of Existing

19 European Railway Bridges” of the European Union founded project “Sustainable

20 bridges” for assessing old metal railway bridges. The knowledge of the material

21 properties of existing metal bridges is essential for the resistance assessment and

22 the determination of the remaining lifetime of old metallic bridges. Furthermore, old

23 bridges require more exact and efficient assessment methods that call for a precise

24 description of the material. Among the problems met in metal bridges and material

25 properties estimation, fatigue is the most common cause of failure. To be able to

26 make accurate assessments of existing bridges, it is important to know the behaviour

27 of bridges exposed to fatigue, and how the old materials behave due to cyclic

28 exposure. The main question answered herein is how to make a safe estimation

29 concerning the remaining life in service. The possible traffic load on steel rail bridges

30 is usually limited by the fatigue resistance, but for certain situations the static

31 resistance has also to be checked. Most design rules for steel structures, for instance

32 those in Eurocode 3, are applicable also to riveted structures. However, some

33 information is missing on how to deal with the special case that elements are

34 intermittently connected in contrast welded structures that are connected

35 continuously. As the traditional methods for assessing the resistance of steel bridges

36 are based on elastic analysis, a method for utilizing a limited redistribution of bending

37 moments based on beam theory is proposed.

38
39 1. INTRODUCTION

40 The knowledge of the material properties of existing metal bridges is essential for the

41 resistance assessment and the determination of the remaining lifetime of old metallic

42 bridges. Built between 1870 and 1940, the material parameters are in many cases

43 not available. Yet, especially the old bridges require more exact and efficient

44 assessment methods that call for a precise description of the material. Among the

45 problems met in metal bridges and material properties estimation, fatigue is the most

46 common cause of failure. Furthermore, the technique of riveting is no longer used in

47 bridges due to more developed methods of assembling plates as welding. Modern

48 standards for design of steel structures like Eurocode 3 [9] cover riveted structures

49 but they do not give complete information. Old design standards on the other hand

50 are quite incomplete concerning instability phenomena and they are covering elastic

51 design only.

52 For old metal bridges there is consequently missing information in codes how to deal

53 with and assess riveted structures. The “Guideline for Load and Resistance

54 Assessment of European Railway Bridges” of the European Union founded project

55 “Sustainable bridges” dedicates one chapter to the assessment of these structures

56 [1]. The main question answered herein is how to make a safe estimation concerning

57 the remaining life in service. Influencing factors are also investigated, such as

58 corrosion, clamping force and material properties, etc. This paper synthesizes the

59 principal recommendations given in these guidelines.

60 2. BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT

61 The spectrum of metallic bridges is very broad since they represent the largest family

62 of structures. They cover the full history of railway industry; they start from its

63 development until today. Consequently, this family of bridges includes very different
64 bridge types, geometries, structural designs, construction processes and material

65 properties. In contrast to road steel bridges most of the metallic railway bridges are

66 composed of old structures, with the very recent construction of composite structures

67 during the past twenty years.

68 Assessment of an existing railway bridge with the purpose of re-qualifying the bridge

69 for increased loading and/or for prolonging the service life may be seen as an

70 adaptive, step-level process of refining the state of knowledge regarding the present

71 and the future state of the bridge and its behaviour [2-5]. An assessment may involve

72 a review of project documentation, inspection of the structure, testing of materials,

73 testing of structural performance, refined numerical analysis and planning of future

74 inspections. The decision on whether or not to collect more information is always

75 based on the existing information (prior information) and the expected reduction of

76 the life cycle cost obtained on the basis of the additional information [4]. Depending

77 on the actually achieved knowledge (posterior information) it may or may not turn out

78 to be feasible to refine further the state of knowledge. Also, in the same manner, the

79 re-qualification actions (strengthening and repairs) may be evaluated, compared and

80 selected. It should, however, be noticed that economical considerations alone, may

81 not be sufficient for re-qualification purposes as explicit requirements to the safety of

82 the bridge are often dictated by legislation.

83 Figure 1 shows the step-level procedure recommended in the Sustainable Bridges

84 project [1] for the assessment of existing railway bridges. The proposed procedure is

85 divided into three levels: initial, intermediate and enhanced assessment. Generally,

86 an assessment can be carried out within the framework of these three phases.

87 However, the levels of detail within each phase may vary. In this way it is possible to
 88 tailor a reassessment for different purposes. The level of detail of the assessment

89 has to be chosen for the particular bridge in cause considering its specifics.

90 The capacity of a bridge is initially assessed on the basis of simple calculation

91 checks and readily accessible data (drawings, design calculations, earlier

92 assessment calculations, inspection records, etc.). On this basis, the extent to which

93 the bridge fails to comply with the given requirements is evaluated.

94 In the intermediate level of assessment, the capacity of the bridge (which fails the

95 initial assessment) is evaluated using more advanced analysis (e.g. elastic but giving

96 better idealisation, plastic, etc.) and more accurate data (obtained due to inspection

97 an simple tests) on the material properties, the loads, the current state and the

98 behaviour of the bridge (e.g. material properties obtained from simple measurement,

99 loads defined by measurements, etc.).

100 Finally, in the enhanced level of assessment, the capacity of the bridge (which fails

101 the intermediate assessment and which repair or strengthening costs are significant)

102 can be evaluated using most advanced assessment methods (e.g. reliability-based

103 assessment methods) and tools available (e.g. nonlinear analysis, probabilistic

104 analysis, monitoring, etc).

105 The sensitivity analysis, performed during the assessment, may help to identify

106 where the refinement of the knowledge about the bridge may be the most beneficial

107 for the assessment of the bridge. The application of the above procedure to riveted

108 metallic bridges is detailed in the next paragraphs and sections.

109 2.1. Bridge type and geometry

110 The assessment of old metal bridge performance must include an overall

111 conventional safety evaluation for all the joints and all the structural components

112 versus the actual operating conditions. The evaluation has the purpose to identify the
113 risks to predict in terms of stability, strength and fatigue, and to localize the hot spots

114 for which failure due to damages and undetected cracks could lead to bridge

115 collapse.

116 These investigations have to be based on a full set of drawings, highlighting all the

117 details of the structure, and all the parts which have been repaired or upgraded.

118 These elements must provide all the information necessary to handle at least a static

119 calculation. Experience shows that this basic knowledge is rarely available and

120 requires often a special investigation. Most of the documents do not exist, are

121 incomplete, or do not represent the actual structure! In parallel, it is very rare – if not,

122 never – to have a set of calculation reports or to have details regarding the material

123 properties. As a matter of fact, these old bridges oftentimes call for an enhanced

124 assessment which requires a precise description of the material.

125 2.2. Construction and design process

126 The hole drilling, the assembling techniques and the clamping force constitute

127 essential aspects of the construction process which can affect the strength and the

128 lifetime of old riveted structures. The assembling technique of riveting was to drive

129 a hot rivet through the parts that were to be connected. The magnitude of the

130 clamping force differs significantly between rivets. When replacing damage or

131 missing rivets in structures, high strength bolts can be used. A big advantage with

132 high strength bolts compared to rivets is that a defined clamping force can be

133 obtained due to pre-stressing of the bolts. However to use high strength bolts as a

134 replacement of rivets the fit of the bolts can be hard to achieve unless the holes are

135 reamed to fit the high strength bolts. In some cases, due to corrosion, plates can be

136 deformed and pre-stressing forces in the bolts can lead to a plate failure. Preloaded
137 bolts are useful as a substitute for rivets but this is not generally accepted. Some

138 managers prefer to use injected bolts with low pre-stressing force as alternative.

139 From the project investigations [6], it was found that the mean clamping stress was

140 100 MPa with a standard deviation of 40 MPa in the rivets. The amount of clamping

141 force obtained by rivets is much smaller than that of bolts but it seems still to be

142 enough to improve the fatigue endurance. Specimens with open holes generally

143 provide lower fatigue endurance than those with rivets or high strength bolts placed

144 in the holes. In the investigations, it was discovered a similar cracking pattern, cracks

145 originated from rivet holes and propagated through angles or plates (unless corroded

146 or damaged in other ways). This is explained by the fact that the hole acts as a stress

147 raiser.

148 2.3. Material properties

149 The knowledge of the material properties of existing metal bridges is essential for the

150 resistance assessment and the determination of the remaining lifetime of the bridge.

151 For old metal bridges that were built between 1870 and 1940 in particular, the

152 material parameters are in many cases not available. For the resistance to static

153 loads, the yield strength ( f y ) and the ultimate strength ( fu ) are the significant

154 parameters. In order to ensure sufficient fatigue resistance, next to the classic fatigue

155 methods using damage accumulation further assessment models have been

156 established that are based on fracture mechanics. For fatigue assessment the fatigue

157 properties are needed. Fracture mechanical approaches, taking into account that

158 crack-like defects are very likely to be in the structure, use the fracture toughness as

159 material resistance. This is usually given by J-Integrals ( Jc ) or stress-intensity-factors

160 ( K Ic ). Further crack growth parameters, e.g. threshold values for crack growth, may

161 also be important.

162 The majority of the old bridges still remaining today are made of steel; however there

163 are some made from wrought iron still in service. The knowledge concerning the

164 wrought iron bridges is not as extensive as for steel bridges. However, results

165 indicate that there is no obvious difference in the fatigue endurance between steel

166 and wrought iron structures concerning fatigue.

167 2.3.1. Characteristics of old metal bridge materials

168 The early metal bridges, until the end of the 19th century, were fabricated mostly of

169 wrought (puddle) iron, next to cast iron. Early mild steels succeeded cast and puddle

170 iron as structural material from approximately 1895. A more detailed identification

171 scheme taking into account typical characteristics concerning chemical compound,

172 microstructure and strength properties can be found in [6].

173 Next to cast iron, which was implemented in compression elements as it showed

174 poor tensile strength properties, the highest attention to the mechanical properties

175 must be paid when dealing with wrought (puddle) iron. Due to the production process

176 these irons have a large amount of slags and inclusions, plus a great anisotropy.

177 Strength properties differ in all three directions of a plate and through-thickness

178 properties. Puddle iron does usually not fulfill the requirements of a steel S235

179 according EN 10025 [7]. Neither the yield strength is reached, nor is the strain

180 elongation at failure, nor the necking reached.

181 The later mild iron and mild steels were much improved in their strength properties.

182 Often the strength and also the deformation values, as the elongation can be

183 comparable to S235. Some care must be taken regarding the toughness values and

184 also the weldability due to the chemical content. Wrought iron was used between

185 1850 and about 1900, old steel from about 1890 to 1925, Thomas Steel till 1940.

186 Based on 667 specimens, the yield stress exhibits a large variation with a standard
187 deviation of 26 N/mm2. The mean value of the yield stress was 261 N/mm2.

188 220 N/mm2 can be taken for the characteristic value of the yield stress (probability of

189 survival 95%).

190 2.3.2. Fatigue phenomenon

191 The problem with fatigue attracted attention with the use of metal in structures. The

192 technique of riveting bridges is obsolete and not practiced today for steel structures.

193 Due to this, knowledge concerning riveted structures ability to withstand fatigue has

194 not been investigated to the same extent as for modern structures assembled by

195 welding. Clamping force, corrosion, hole preparation and material properties largely

196 influence fatigue performance. The information in this section is retrieved from [6].

197 Fatigue results on primary girders or stringers in bridges were investigated and

198 showed that the endurance for all tests (if severe corroded specimen are removed)

199 are over C = 71 N/mm2. For truss girders available tests show that the results are

200 better estimated with detail category C = 63.

201 Investigations concerning the constant amplitude limit (N > 5 106 cycles) and the

202 cut off limit (N > 1 108 cycles) are time consuming and expensive. Thus only a few

203 investigations have been conducted on low stress ranges at 40 to 60 MPa. In the

204 investigations with constant stress range no cracks were found for stresses below the

205 constant amplitude limit 52.3 MPa. From the evaluation of the full scale tests fatigue

206 endurance conducted with variable stress range, it appears that the level for no

207 fatigue accumulation (cut off limit) can be raised from 28.7 MPa to 40 MPa. A

208 constant stress range below 52.3 MPa does not provide cracking in components

209 according to the evaluated tests. This is only valid providing that there is no severe

210 corrosion or damage present on the structural components. The cut off limit of

211 40 MPa is reasonably verified for girders together with C=71. For trusses there is no
212 experimental evidence and as the detail category is C = 63 for trusses the cut off limit

213 cannot be extrapolated. On the basis of all known results, the S-N curve in Figure 2

214 is recommended:

215 2.3.3. Corrosion

216 Corrosion is a problem for metal structures. Unless treated with some kind of

217 protection, the resistance of structural details will decrease due to corrosion.

218 Concerning old metal bridges some degree of corrosion will always be present due to

219 the assembling technique with layered parts making corrosion protection hard to

220 perform and maintain.

221 The fatigue life will not be influenced in the same way if the corrosion damage is

222 located at the compressed flange rather at the tension flange. Especially corrosion

223 near rivets increases the local stress levels which lead to lower fatigue endurance.

224 The rough surfaces due to corrosion acts as a stress raiser which can cause the

225 growth of cracks, the amount of corrosion that can be allowed before it becomes a

226 larger stress raiser than the rivet holes can however not be established.

227 The loss of cross-sectional area can be measured either mechanically or with ultra

228 sound equipment. The reduced area is then used for a conventional verification of

229 the static resistance.

230 The increased roughness may influence the fatigue resistance of the structure. Light,

231 general corrosion has no effect but severe corrosion with pitting may be negative if it

232 interacts with other stress risers. One such example is corroded plates with open

233 holes. The fatigue resistance may be reduced with one or two categories depending

234 on the severity of the corrosion. On the other hand there are several riveted girder

235 tests that do not show a negative response due to corrosion. The explanation is
236 probably that corrosion did not affect the material close to the rivet holes and hence

237 the effects of the corrosion and the hole did not interact.

238 2.3.4. Reference values

239 On the basis of the different investigations and studies, when no specific data is

240 available, the following reference values can be chosen and used for preliminary

241 evaluations for the mechanical properties.

242 For wrought iron and old steels the following characteristic values may be adopted:

243 - Yield stress: f y = 220 N/mm2

244 - Ultimate tensile strength: fu = 320 to 380 N/mm2 (direction of rolling)

245 - Young’s modulus: E = 200000 N/mm2

246 - Shear modulus: G = 77000 N/mm2

247 - Density:  = 78 kN/m3

248 - Ultimate elongation in direction of rolling (only as informative values):

249 o wrought iron 12% / old steels 20%

250 In transverse direction, the values for ultimate tensile strength, yield point and

251 ultimate elongation are decreasing strongly for wrought iron and only a little bit for old

252 steels. The recommended resistance factors are respectively:

253 - R = 1.20 for wrought iron (anisotropic material, lower ultimate elongation),

254 - R = 1.10 for old steels

255 The following reference values for steel with Siemens-Martin process (since 1925)

256 can be chosen:

257 - Yield stress: f y = 240 N/mm2

258 - Ultimate tensile strength: fu = 370 to 460 N/mm2

259 - Young’s modulus: E = 200 000 N/mm2

260 - Shear modulus: G = 81 000 N/mm2

261 - Density:  = 78,5 kN/m3

262 The recommended resistance factor is R = 1.10.

263 These data is particularly important for initial assessment analysis. Since these old

264 bridges often call for an enhanced assessment, they require a precise description of

265 the material. For this reason, for intermediate assessment, it is often necessary to

266 identify the properties of the relevant material parameters by testing (in particular

267 fracture mechanics properties).

268 If a fracture mechanics model is used, it is important to express the capability of a

269 crack to grow by the fatigue crack growth threshold. A crack can exist in a structural

270 member that is subjected to an alternating stress, and yet the crack will not exhibit

271 any measurable growth. If the stress intensity range K at the crack tip is below a

272 threshold value Kth , then the crack will likely remain dormant. Investigations and

273 studies tend to prove that this threshold level ranges from 3 to 11 MPa.m1/2.

274 Nevertheless, these values have to be considered with care because of the large

275 scatter.

276 2.3.5. Improvement of basic information

277 Since the direct analysis of material properties is costly and implies a destruction of

278 parts of the structure it is only recommended where reference values or statistically

279 derived material models lead to a too conservative assessment. In many cases the

280 testing of the chemical analysis and the microstructure, information necessary for

281 identifying the material, may be sufficient. This section is related to intermediate

282 assessment.

283 It is recommended to limit any testing as far as possible and to material parameters

284 that may influence the assessment result in a great manner. Tests should only be
285 performed to gain the most important values, such as chemical analysis, mechanical

286 properties (yield strength and ultimate tensile strength), fracture toughness

287 ( Kmat (KIc ),Jmat (Jc ), Kth,T27J ). Testing of fatigue properties as well as fracture

288 mechanical threshold values ( Kth ) is expensive. In order to limit the amount of

289 destruction on an existing structure it is necessary to extract samples as small and

290 compact as possible. If several material parameters need to be determined the

291 extraction of cylindrical bore cores is suggested which allow the fabrication of several

292 small scale test specimens. The minimum diameter recommended is 60 mm, this

293 dimension is given mainly by the size of the tensile test specimens that need a

294 minimum size in order to provide reliable results.

295 The circular core provides enough material to produce small scale test specimens for

296 a tensile test, a Charpy impact test, a fracture mechanical test and leaves material to

297 analyze the chemical components, hardness and microstructure. The Charpy test

298 and the fracture mechanical test should preferably be done on full thickness

299 specimens because the toughness properties may vary substantially over the

300 thickness. The material properties can be derived by small scale tests using a 60mm-

301 borehole as shown on Figure 3. For the extraction of samples cut-off-wheels or saws

302 are suitable. Welding torches are not recommended in order to avoid embrittling and

303 ageing effects by the inserted torch heat.

304 For advanced assessment, in particular when probabilistic calculations are

305 performed, it is necessary to have probability functions as well as statistical

306 parameters. It is therefore recommended from intermediate assessment updating

307 to perform tests able to fit statistical parameters.

308 3. BRIDGE CONDITION

309 The analysis of the bridge condition provides an essential information regarding the

310 performance of the bridge. In particular, for metal bridges, reporting cracks and and

311 repairs provides valuable information. The number of rivets inspected overall in a

312 structure shall be at least of 5%, with a minimum of 5 [8]. Heads of driven rivets shall

313 be visually inspected and shall satisfy the following acceptance criteria (in some

314 cases provisions for detection of non-conformities will not be available):

315 a. The rivet heads shall be centred. The head eccentricity relative to the

316 shank axis shall not exceed 0.15 d0 where d0 is the hole diameter,

317 b. The rivet heads shall be well formed and shall not show cracks or pits,

318 c. The rivets shall be in satisfactory contact with the assembled parts both at

319 the outer surface of the plies and in the hole. No movement or vibration

320 shall be detected when the rivet head is lightly tapped with a hammer.

321 d. A small well-formed and centred lip may be accepted if only a small

322 number of rivets in the group is concerned.

323 e. Outer faces of plies free of indentation by the riveting machine may be

324 specified.

325 Inspection of satisfactory contact shall de done by lightly ringing the rivet head with a

326 hammer of 0.5 kg. The inspection is carried out in a sequential fashion according to

327 the sequential method for bolt tightening inspection described in [8] to a sufficient

328 number of rivets until either the acceptance or the refusal conditions for the relevant

329 sequential type are met for the relevant criteria. If it is necessary to replace a

330 defective rivet, it shall be done while the structure is not loaded. Cutting out shall be

331 done by means of a chisel or by cutting.

332 Defects in riveted connections may originate from fabrication or may be induced

333 during service life by corrosion. Rivets with defects that originate from fabrication

334 usually are not critical, because they have been in service since assembly without

335 any negative effects. Rivet defects induced by corrosion are of particular concern.

336 Typical fabrication defects of riveted connections are listed in [8]. The tolerable

337 deterioration of rivet heads is a main topic for condition assessment of old riveted

338 steel railway bridges. Possible results of rivet head corrosion are the loss of pre-

339 stress, the constitutional change of riveted connection, the loss of position

340 permanence and the gaping of plies followed by stress corrosion cracking. The visual

341 inspection of the rail bearers and cross girders is also very important. The bridge

342 inspector should be certified for this kind of inspections. Accessibility must eventually

343 be made possible by special inspection platform.

344 4. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

345 A component of an old metal bridge can, due to previous damages or undetected

346 cracks, lead to brittle or ductile failures. These failure modes are affected by the

347 material properties, the temperature, the loading conditions and the shape of the

348 component. For metallic bridges, these two modes are pertinent, since the

349 assessment has to be done for low temperatures for which fracture toughness is

350 generally very low. This explains why the possible traffic load on metal railway

351 bridges is usually limited by the fatigue resistance.

352 But, for certain situations the static resistance has to be checked. Most design rules

353 for steel structures, for instance those in Eurocode 3 [9], are applicable to riveted

354 structures. However, some information is missing on how to deal with the special

355 case that elements are intermittently connected in contrast to welded structures that

356 are connected continuously. One such issue is how to define the cross section class
357 of a riveted member. One question that is not covered is the distance between rivets

358 in the direction of stress. Another is to quantify the positive effect of restraint to local

359 buckling provided by the connecting angles.

360 The traditional method for assessing the resistance of steel bridges is based on

361 elastic analysis. In case the resistance in the ultimate limit state is insufficient it is

362 possible that allowing for plastic deformations gives a more favourable answer. Such

363 a situation may occur if one wants to allow one or a few exceptionally heavy trains

364 that do not contribute to the fatigue.

365 Fracture critical members represent the most sensitive parts in old metal bridges. It is

366 therefore essential to analysis the bridge behaviour in terms of failure consequences.

367 This helps to identify the most critical parts and to reduce the analysis to these hot

368 spots. This risk analysis will help to identify the failure consequences for the critical

369 bridge components for different calculation conditions and is required for

370 intermediate assessment.

371 The critical components which are subjected to tensile stresses, must be checked,

372 except if they are subject to low stresses (  0.20 fy ) or if they are sufficiently

373 redundant (Figure 4). The evaluation has to be done for different combinations of

374 permanent loads, traffic loads and temperature conditions.

375 Modern standards for design of steel structures like Eurocode 3 cover riveted

376 structures but they do not give complete information. Old design standards on the

377 other hand are quite incomplete concerning instability phenomena and they are

378 covering elastic design only. Eurocode 3-1-1 [9] can be taken as the starting point

379 and some additional information relevant for riveted structures will be developed. The

380 cross-section classes in Eurocode 3-1-1 [9] are essential in defining the resistance to

381 bending moment and axial compression. They are defined for rolled or welded
382 sections but those definitions are not sufficient for riveted girders. First the maximum

383 distance between rivets in the stress direction has to be defined. Further, there are

384 some beneficial effects of confinement of plates in certain cases. The traditional

385 method for assessing the resistance of steel bridges is based on elastic analysis.

386 This approach is appropriate for initial assessment analysis at ULS and for assessing

387 fatigue cycles. But for intermediate and enhanced assessment, if the resistance in

388 ULS is insufficient it is possible that allowing for plastic deformations gives a more

389 favourable answer. This is very obvious if the girders are stocky enough for using

390 plastic hinge analysis. This is rarely the case but also more slender girders have

391 some plastic deformation capacity, which can be utilised for a limited redistribution of

392 moments in the girders.

393 Cross-section classes are defined in Eurocode 3-1-1 [9] in order to describe the

394 behavior of a girder in bending or axial compression with respect to effects of local

395 buckling. The cross section class is governed by the slenderness of elements in

396 compression expressed as width over thickness. The thickness creates no problem

397 but the width is not defined in Eurocode 3 for typical riveted cross sections (Figure 5).

398 For an outstand flange of single angles as in the left part of Figure 5 it is reasonable

399 to apply the normal definition of width for an outstand flange in an I-girder, which is

400 from the free edge to the start of the fillet. The width of the web for the first and

401 second parts of Figure 5 is suggested to be taken as that clear width between the

402 angles, because the web is clamped between the angles. This is however not the

403 case for the truss chord in Figure 5 because it has an angle on one side only. For this

404 case it is suggested to use the center distance between the rivet rows as width. The

405 I-girder in the middle of Figure 5 has a flange plate which contains an outstand flange

406 and also an internal flange with the terminology from Eurocode 3. The definitions of
407 their width as taken from the center lines of rivet rows are slightly conservative. For

408 the condition that the plate only can buckle in one direction the rules for composite

409 plates from EC4-2 [12] are applicable. They are shown in Table 1 in which the

410 limitations for Class 2 and 3 are from EC4-1 [11] and the ones for Class 1 are

411 estimated values. t represents the thickness of the compression part while

412   235 / fy . As the rivets are discrete connections between the plates and angles

413 there is a need to check also the longitudinal distance between the rivets. A review of

414 old design rules has shown that the longitudinal distance is not likely to exceed 12

415 times the plate thickness. This will be sufficient for Class 1 sections. The definition of

416 cross section classes has to be made in initial assessment procedure.

417 In case the girder has all cross sections in class 1 normal plastic hinge analysis can

418 be used. In addition there is a requirement that the girder should remain elastic in

419 SLS. This check may be done considering residual moments after unloading from

420 ULS state. This checking is performed in initial assessment. If one or more cross

421 sections are in class 2, 3 or 4 the deformation capacity of the plastic hinges has to be

422 considered in intermediate assessment. This deformation capacity depends on the

423 slenderness of the web and the compression flange.

424 With this approach, it is assumed that a plastic hinge develops at the support and

425 that hinge retains a moment Mref for a rotation not exceeding an allowable value

426 ref .The choice of Mref can be any moment not exceeding MRd which is the design

427 bending resistance calculated according to EC3-1-1 [9] or EC3-1-5 [10], as

428 applicable. Such a choice leads to a lower Mref and consequently to a higher rotation

429 capacity. Data is here given for Mref  MRd by the formulae below as function of the

430 plate slenderness of compression flange and web:

  17 
431  0   3  1,8   f < 63 mrad; f  3.6  4.8f ; 0  f  1.0 (1)
 w 

432 For Mref  0.9 MRd the formulas takes the following form:

 10 
433 0  3  2,6   f <63 mrad; f  3.8  5.9f ; 0  f  1.0 (2)
 w 

bf fy hw
434 where f  and w   . bf is the outstand of the flange as
18.6tf  cr 28.4tw  k

435 defined above, tf the thickness of the flange, hw the web depth, tw the web

436 thickness. f is the buckling coefficient for the web according to EC3-1-1 [9]. The

437 upper limit 0 of 63 mrad corresponds to the limit of Class 1. If that limit is reached

438 normal plastic hinge theory is applicable provided that the cross section in the span is

439 also Class 1.

440 The rotation capacity given above is applicable if the girder is an I-girder, the rotation

441 takes place at an internal support, the girder has no significant fatigue cracks and

442 sufficient toughness not to suffer brittle fracture (some concern has been expressed

443 about wrought iron in this context), the shear force at the support is smaller than 80%

444 of the resistance, and the bottom flange is prevented from lateral torsional buckling.

445 The calculations can be done with a simple FE-program for elastic beam analysis

446 provided that it includes rotation springs with defined moment (hinge with friction).

447 The calculation is stopped if either 0 is reached at the support or the bending

448 resistance in the span is reached. If the computer program does not have this kind of

449 spring an alternative procedure can be used. Instead of inserting a spring a hinge

450 can be inserted close to the support under study and a fixed moment Mref is

451 introduced at each side of the hinge. The subsequent steps are the same as
452 previously but note that the rotation 0 is the sum of the rotations on both sides of

453 the hinge.

454 If the computer program can handle non-linear problem the analysis can be made in

455 one run. At the considered support a non-linear rotation spring with characteristics

456 according to Figure 6 is introduced. The unloading branch may be useful to include

457 especially if 0 is small. The slope of the unloading branch can be taken as

458 k = 0.007 mrad-1.

459 In this simple assessment approach, two load situations have to checked, one for

460 maximum hogging moment and one for maximum sagging moment. If the pier

461 section has undergone plastic rotation there will be residual moments after

462 unloading. These residual moments should be considered in the check for yielding at

463 SLS.

464 5. SERVICE LIFE ASSESSMENT

465 For initial assessment, fatigue life is evaluated by using Miner cumulative damage

466 law. Based on the Miner’s rule and Wöhler curves an equivalent stress range for

467 stress spectra can be derived. The equivalent stress spectra are obtained by:

m
n
n   i 
468 e  max m  i   (3)
i 1 n  max 

469 for n ≤ 5x 106 with m = 3, taken from the set of reference values. Determination of the

470 remaining fatigue life of a structure exposed to a varied stress range can also be

471 obtained by calculating an equivalent stress range. The remaining life is then

472 determined by comparison of that stress to the valid Wöhler curve (detail category).

473 For intermediate assessment, enhanced methods beyond the conventional design

474 and assessment procedures as required in Eurocode 3 [9] for the resistance
475 assessment of old steel railway bridges must be introduced. As alternative methods

476 fracture mechanical models can be applied that allow a more detailed assessment

477 appropriate for two cases:

478 1. A component shows damages like cracks and crack-like defects,

479 2. Cracks are not detected in a structure during inspections.

480 In both cases the fracture mechanics assessment can be performed in the same

481 way. It can be used for the determination of operating time intervals to prevent from

482 unforeseen fracture within the inspection interval, for a detected crack as well as in

483 cases where fatigue damages remain undetected during inspection.

484 If a visible initial crack length a0 is assumed or measured and if the critical crack

485 length acrit is determined, one can calculate the maximum permissible number of

486 load cycles for a steel member under a certain fatigue load. This maximum

487 permissible number of load cycles defines the period in which a crack growth under

488 fatigue loads starting with an initial crack length a0 to a critical length acrit . For that

489 the maximum permissible number of load cycles gives a hint on the residual service

490 life of the structure/member and on its resistance. One advantage of this procedure is

491 that the accumulated damage due to past traffic is satisfied by the assumption of the

492 crack of the defined crack size.

493 After the calculation of maximum permissible number of load cycles two cases can

494 occur, depending if the maximum permissible number of load cycles is higher or

495 lower than the number of load cycles occurring between two inspections. In the first

496 case the structure / member has a proven sufficient resistance against crack initiation

497 and crack growth. However, in the second case the resistance is insufficient and

498 either the inspection interval must be decreased or the assessed structure/member

499 has to be strengthened.

500 For the determination of the maximum permissible number of load cycles the most

501 common formula in fracture mechanics calculations is the so-called Paris-equation:

da
502  C K m (4)
dN

503 The material constants C and m for normal old steels can be taken from the

504 reference values if no further information is available. An integration of this equation

505 leads to a formula for the determination of the number of load cycles N in relation to

506 the crack length a:

i crit
ai 1  ai
N 
507
i 0 C   
  
ai 1Y (ai 1,T )  ai Y (ai ,T ) 

(5)

508 The maximum permissible number of load cycles N can be determined by subtracting

509 the number of load cycles N0 related to the initial crack length a0 from the number of

510 load cycles Ncrit related to the critical crack length acrit. To simplify the fracture

511 mechanics calculation, tabulated values derived from Hensen's analysis [14], are

512 proposed. For the number of load cycles N based on crack growth calculations and

513 material properties, three different geometric models (plates under cyclic tension

514 loads with through cracks on each side, with a through crack only on one side and

515 with a through crack in the middle of the plate) are introduced. These models are

516 linked to a catalogue of typical riveted connections in old structures (for instance

517 Figure 7) for the assessment of angles. Similar catalogues also exist for web plates,

518 bottom flanges and U-profiles. Nine different cyclic stress level  (10, 15, 20, 25,

519 30, 40, 50, 60, 80 N/mm²) are used and a modified geometrical correction function

520 Y (a,T ) derived from a function according to handbooks of stress intensity factors, is

521 considered. The initial crack size a0 underneath a rivet head is (if not measured

522 differently) assumed with a0 = radius of the rivet head + 5mm. The critical crack
523 length is the relevant result of both a fracture mechanical assessment, and of a

524 resistance assessment given by the residual cross section capacity of the damaged

525 component.

526 For the determination of the maximum permissible number of load cycles Nper on the

527 basis of tabulated values the following principally approach can be used:

528 1. Determination of the relevant crack configuration in relation to the relevant

529 structural detail. Annex I in Hensen [13] can be used.

530 2. Determination of the relevant cyclic stress level  for the component.

531 3. Perform a crack growth calculation with equation (7) or chose of the relevant

532 table (annex A4 to A6 in [13]) related to the results of 1. and 2.

533 4. Estimation of the plate width of the geometric model in relation to the

534 relevant structural detail using annex I in [13].

535 5. Definition of the initial crack length a0 by either measurement or

536 assumption.

537 6. Determination of the critical crack length acrit using by performing a fracture

538 mechanical assessment (criterion KI  KIC , where KIC can be derived from

539 reference values JC ) or by using tabulated values (e.g. annex A1 to A3 in

540 [3]) related to:

541 o the fracture toughness expressed as Jc at low temperatures,

542 o the relevant crack configuration, see also point 1.

543 o the ratio of the maximum stress  taken out of static calculation to

544 the yield strength f y of the material

545 o the dimension of the geometrical model, see also point 4.

546 7. Determination of the number of load cycles N0 related to the initial crack

547 length a0 and the number of load cycles Ncrit related to the critical crack

548 length acrit using the relevant table, see also point 3.

549 8. The subtraction of the number of load cycles N0 from the number of load

550 cycles Ncrit leads to the maximum permissible number of load cycles Nper :

551 Nper  Ncrit (acrit )  N0 (a0 ) (6)

552 For advanced assessment analysis, a probabilistic analysis of fatigue damage can

553 be performed. To do so, it is necessary to introduce statistical distributions and

554 statistical parameters for performing the reliability analysis, that is not always

555 straightforward. A probabilistic approach provides the sensitivity of the element

556 lifetime according to the parameters variability. It is recalled that a fracture mechanics

557 model is required for this advanced assessment, the probabilistic calculations being

558 only introduced to handle parameters variability, but not model errors.

559 6. IMPROVEMENT OF STRUCTURAL MODELS

560 Stringer-to-floor beam connections (double angle connections) are designed to carry

561 shear forces alone. Nevertheless, they are subjected to secondary bending

562 moments, and the usual assumption is that they provide sufficient rotational flexibility

563 (without developing appreciable moment). Such an assumption is justifiable for

564 Ultimate Limit State, but moments have to be considered for fatigue assessment. It

565 requires Finite Element calculations in order to assess these secondary bending

566 moments [14]. Such an analysis is recommended for advanced assessment. This

567 improved assessment model can be also be pertinent when repairs have to be taken

568 into consideration. For advanced assessment, finite element calculations and

569 reliability analysis can be jointly performed.

570 7. LOAD MEASUREMENTS AND FIELD TESTS

571 Load history analysis and load measurements can enhance the assessment

572 procedure. For intermediate analysis, load field measurements can be performed.

573 These measurements will help to identify precisely the traffic nature (freight,

574 passengers) and the loads. The provided data can be used for refining the structural

575 analysis and the fatigue assessment as far as they are representative of the

576 operating conditions over the bridge life (which is rarely the case, but it is the best

577 estimation of load spectra of the actual traffic). SB3.4 [8] provides further technical

578 details for measuring variable loads.

579 If the remaining fatigue life from conventional calculations or insufficient strength

580 reserve have been obtained, field strain measurements should be performed.

581 Considerations include physical conditions of the critical members, reports from

582 previous inspections, and the cost of replacing or retrofitting the structure of the

583 critical members. The field measurement plan is developed if further evaluation is

584 considered to be beneficial and necessary for intermediate assessment. The plan

585 lists members selected to be instrumented, strain gages locations, sampling rates for

586 data collection and processing, and time length for measurement. The strain gages

587 must record the maximum cyclic loading effects at the concerned details, including

588 secondary stresses such as bending in axial members (for advanced assessment).

589 The test period should be sufficient for producing stress range histograms to

590 represent the loading effect for an extended time. A calibration test with vehicles of

591 known weight help to establish relationships between strain responses and vehicle

592 weight and location for all the gages. From the data, the effective stress range from a

593 truncated histogram (by eliminating truncation stress range) can be used for a

594 initial/intermediate assessment procedure.

595 SB3.4 [8] provides further technical details for stress measurements. Field tests can

596 only provide information regarding the weak parts of the bridge. In particular,

597 dynamic testing will help to redefine support conditions and structural stiffness,

598 especially if a model updating is performed (Figure 8).

599 8. CONCLUSIONS

600 This paper is a result of the research and development project "Sustainable Bridges -

601 Assessment for Future Traffic Demands and Longer Lives" funded by the European

602 Commission (EC) within the Six Framework programme. It presents the general

603 recommendations and advices prescribed in the “Guidelines for Load and Resistance

604 Assessment of Existing European Railway Bridges” [1] of the “Sustainable bridges”

605 project, related to metallic bridges. More details can be downloaded from the project

606 website and can be found in the general guidelines and in SB3.4 [8] where

607 calculation procedures for necessary replacing rivets and strengthening measures

608 are detailed and explained.

609 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

610 Authors would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the European

611 Commission during the four years of project duration. Furthermore, authors would

612 like to acknowledge all the partners involved in the project for the fruitful collaboration

613 and the engagement in making the step forward in the operation management of

614 existing railway infrastructure in Europe.

615
616 REFERENCES

617 [1] SB-LRA, 2007. Guideline for Load and Resistance Assessment of European

618 Railway Bridges - advices on the use of advanced methods. Prepared by

619 Sustainable Bridges - a project within EU FP6. Available from:

620 www.sustainablebridges.net.

621 [2] BRIME, 2001: Guidelines for assessing load carrying capacity - Deliverable D10,

622 Bridge Management in Europe - IV Framework program, Brussels. Available from:

623 www.trl.co.uk/brime.

624 [3] COST345, 2004: Procedures required for assessing highway structures –

625 Numerical techniques for safety and serviceability assessment, European

626 Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research – Action 345,

627 Brussels. Available from: http://cost345.zag.si.

628 [4] JCSS, 2001: Probabilistic assessment of existing structures. Joint Committee of

629 Structural Safety, RILEM Publications S.A.R.L..

630 [5] Schneider, J., 1997: Introduction to Safety and Reliability of Structures. IABSE,

631 Zurich.

632 [6] SB4.6, 2007: Improved Assessment Methods for Static and Fatigue Resistance of

633 Old Steel Railway Bridges. Background document D4.6. Prepared by Sustainable

634 Bridges - a project within EU FP6. Available from: www.sustainablebridges.net.

635 [7] EN 10025, 2005, Hot rolled products of structural steels, European Commission,

636 DI 89/106/CE 21/12/1988.

637 [8] SB3.4, 2007. Condition assessment and inspection of steel railway bridges,

638 including stress measurements in riveted, bolted and welded structures.

639 Background document D3.4. Prepared by Sustainable Bridges - a project within

640 EU FP6. Available from: www.sustainablebridges.net.

641 [9] EC3-1-1, 1993, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures: Part 1.1 General rules and

642 rules for buildings, EN 1993-1-1.

643 [10] EC3-1-5, 1993, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures: Part 1.5 Plated Structural

644 Elements, EN 1993-1-5.

645 [11] EC 4-1, 1994, Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel concrete structures: Part 1

646 General rules and rules for buildings, EN 1994-1.

647 [12] EC 4-2, 1994, Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel concrete structures: Part 2

648 Bridges, EN 1994-2.

649 [13] Hensen W. (1992). Grundlagen für die Beurteilung der Weiterverwendung alter

650 Stahlbrücken, PhD Dissertation, RWTH Aachen.

651 [14] Al-Emrani M., 2005. Fatigue performance of stringer-to-floor-beam connections

652 in riveted railway bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering 10(2) : 179-185

Table
Click here to download Table: JBE12-3(SB)_tables_v1.doc

LIST OF TABLES

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3

Transverse to the outstand flange: ≈10 t  14 t  20 t 
direction of compressive interior flange: ≈40 t  45 t  50 t 
stress
In the direction of outstand & interior flange: ≈12 t  22 t  25 t 
compressive stress
Table 1. Upper limits to spacing of rivets in plates subject
to compression supported by web and angles.
Figure
Click here to download Figure: JBE12-3(SB)_figures_v1.doc

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Flow diagram for reassessment of existing bridges [1]

1000
net in N/mm²

100
m=3
c=71
52
m=5

29

10
6
1,0E+05 1,0E+06 2x10 5x106 1,0E+07 1,0E+08 1,0E+09
N [cycles]

Figure 2. Recommended S-N curve for wrought iron and old steel
 1. Bore core  60mm

2. Fragmentation
in test specimens
Rest for
• chemical analysis
• microstructure
• hardness

3. Determination
Modified ½ CT- Charpy-V-notch Cylindrical tension
of material
test specimen test specimen specimen B 3x15
parameters

Fracture Charpy energy ReL, ReH, Rm, A, Z

toughness toughness
JC, Ji KV(T)

Figure 3. Possibilities of segmenting bore cores for test specimens

Risk level

Figure 4. Risk level of riveted cross-sections

bi

bf bf bi
bw

bw
bw

I-girder or
I-girder Truss chord
truss diagonal

Figure 5. Examples of riveted cross sections and definition of width

for calculating plate slenderness.
 M
M ref
1,0
M
 1  kθ (   0 )
M ref

0 
Figure 6. Bending moment in a plastic hinge as function of plastic rotation of the
hinge

a T
a
T
Initial crack size a0 = (D+10)/2
Plate width T = C/2
D: diameter of rivet head

T
a
a
T

Initial crack size a0 = (D+10)/2

Plate width T = 1.1 C/2
D: diameter of rivet head

Figure 7. Examples for riveted connections

and corresponding ageometric cracked models
T

a T
Initial crack size a0 = (D+10)/2
Plate width T = (C+B)/2
D: diameter of rivet head

A priori Test A posteriori

model model model
Figure 8. Finite element updating from dynamic tests
*Sizing worksheet (.xls)
Click here to download Sizing worksheet (.xls): MSizingWebExcel.xls

***Please complete and save this form then email it with each manuscript submission.***
Note: The worksheet is designed to automatically calculate the total number of printed pages when published in ASCE two-column
format.
Journal Name: Journal of Bridge Engineering Manuscript # (if known):
Author Full Name: C. CREMONA Author Email: christian.cremona@developpement-durab

The maximum length of a technical paper is 10,000 words and word-equivalents or 8 printed pages. A technical note should not exceed 3,500 words and
word-equivalents in length or 4 printed pages. Approximate the length by using the form below to calculate the total number of words in the text and adding
it to the total number of word-equivalents of the figures and tables to obtain a grand total of words for the paper/note to fit ASCE format. Overlength papers
must be approved by the editor; however, valuable overlength contributions are not intended to be discouraged by this procedure.

1. Estimating Length of Text

A. Fill in the four numbers (highlighted in green) in the column to the right
Estimating Length of Text
to obtain the total length of text.
NOTE: Equations take up a lot of space. Most computer programs don’t count the Count # of words in 3 lines
amount of space around display equations. Plan on counting 3 lines of text for every of text: 36
simple equation (single line) and 5 lines for every complicated equation (numerator and Divided by 3 3
denominator). Average # of words per line 12
Count # of text
lines per page 22
2. Estimating Length of Tables # of words per page 264.00
A. First count the longest line in each column across adding two characters between Count # of pages (don't
each column and one character between each word to obtain total characters. add references & abstract)
24
1-column table = up to 60 characters wide 2-column table = 61 to 120 characters wide Title & Abstract 500
B. Then count the number of text lines (include footnote & titles) Total # refs
14 339
1-column table = up to 60 characters wide by: 2-column table = 61 to 120 characters wide by: Length of Text is 7175
17 lines (or less) = 158 word equiv. 17 lines (or less) = 315 word equiv. 498
up to 34 lines = 315 word equiv. up to 34 lines = 630 word equiv. 7673
up to 51 lines = 473 word equiv. up to 51 lines = 945 word equiv. 7
up to 68 text lines = 630 word equiv. up to 68 text lines = 1260 word equiv.

C. Total Characters wide by Total Text lines = word equiv. as shown in the table above. Add
word equivalents for each table in the column labeled "Word Equivalents." Estimating Length of Tables & Figures:
Word
Tables Figures
3. Estimating Length of Figures Equivalents
A. First reduce the figures to final size for publication. Table 1 158 Figure 1
2 2
Figure type size can't be smaller than 6 point (2mm).
3 3
B. Use ruler and measure figure to fit 1 or 2 column wide format. 4 4
1-column fig. = up to 3.5 in.(88.9mm) 2-col. fig. = 3.5 to 7 in.(88.9 to 177.8 mm) wide 5 5
C. Then use a ruler to check the height of each figure (including title & caption). 6 6
1-column fig. = up to 3.5 in.(88.9mm) wide 2-column fig. = 3.5 to 7 in.(88.9 to 177.8 mm) 7 7
by: wide by: 8 8
up to 2.5 in.(63.5mm) high = 158 word equiv. up to 2.5 in.(63.5mm) high = 315 word equiv. 9 9
up to 5 in.(127mm) high = 315 word equiv. up to 5 in.(127mm) high = 630 word equiv. 10 10
up to 7 in.(177.8mm) high = 473 word equiv. up to 7 in.(177.8mm) high = 945 word equiv. 11 11
up to 9 in.(228.6mm) high = 630 word equiv. up to 9 in.(228.6mm) high = 1260 word equiv. 12 12
13 13
D. Total Characters wide by Total Text lines = word equiv. as shown in the table above. Add 14 14
word equivalents for each table in the column labeled "Word Equivalents." 15 15
16
Please double-up
Total Tables/Figures: 2679 (word equivalents) 17
tables/figures if
Total Words of Text: 7673 18
additional space is
19
needed (ex. 20+21).
Total words and word equivalents: 10352 20 and 21
printed pages: 9

updated 1/16/03
rm then email it with each manuscript submission.***
ate the total number of printed pages when published in ASCE two-column

christian.cremona@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

rd-equivalents or 8 printed pages. A technical note should not exceed 3,500 words and
ngth by using the form below to calculate the total number of words in the text and adding
to obtain a grand total of words for the paper/note to fit ASCE format. Overlength papers
tributions are not intended to be discouraged by this procedure.

subtototal
plus headings
TOTAL words
printed pages

Estimating Length of Tables & Figures:

Word
Equivalents
630
315
315
158
315
158
315
315

updated 1/16/03