Robustness assessment of a truss railway

bridge
By

Nicholas (Nick) Jones

URN: 6257758

Supervisor:
Boulent Imam

Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirement for the Degree of

Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences
University of Surrey

08 May 2018
Word count: 8318
© Nicholas (Nick) Jones 2018
Executive Summary
Network Rail infrastructure is susceptible to bridge strikes on its structures with limited
clearance. The railway network experiences multiple strikes per day across the country,
leading to line closures and delays. The ageing infrastructure network includes many truss
bridge structures, of which some are at risk of bridge strike. Network Rail has made a large
effort to prevent further bridge strikes, however the problem persists. By determining the
robustness of truss bridge structures, the consequences of bridge strikes can be mitigated as
the implications of continuing to run services over the structure are better understood.

Robustness is a structural property which dictates the resistance against progressive collapse,
i.e. the capability of a structure to withstand a damaging scenario without the damage
propagating throughout. The study of this topic has come to light following catastrophic
events over the past half century, such as at Ronan Point and the World Trade Centre. The
international engineering community has not determined a conclusive quantitative metric for
calculating robustness, however many researchers have proposed methods to do this.

This project explores some of the robustness metrics that have been proposed, and
implements one metric to determine the robustness of a case study structure which has
experienced a number of theoretical damaging scenarios.

Damage scenarios, modelling the load applied due to the strike of an HGV, have been imposed
on the Pratt Truss case study structure by applying a point load at different nodes along the
truss. The displacement of the structure due to impact has been compared to the
displacement of the structure in its intact, undamaged state, to determine a robustness index
in line with the metric for measuring robustness proposed by Biondini, Frangopol and Restelli
(2008).

The localised increase in force applied to truss elements has been compared to the robustness
indices for each scenario so that the degree of robustness, the index, can be validated in terms
of the damage that has been inflicted.

An objective of this project was to determine a threshold for the robustness index, as
proposed by the metric, for which a quantitative value can differentiate between a robust
structure and a non-robust structure. The results of the limited analysis established the
structure as being robust against all scenarios considered, however a relationship between

1
the robustness index and the localised damaged was found, which allows for a relative
comparison of robustness against different damage scenarios.

The method used in this project can be repeated on similar structures for the purpose of
finding the critical damaging scenarios for railway bridges. This information can be used by
first-responders when making the decision of what action needs to be taken in the event of a
bridge strike.

The validity of the metric proposed by Biondini and Restelli is also explored in this project, as
the analysis conducted in their study is based on a theoretical model, whereas the modelling
in this project uses a real structure.

2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Boulent, for his support throughout this project.
Whenever I have had doubts or encountered problems with this project, he has offered new
ideas or advice that has steered me in the direction of completing this work.

I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues at WSP for their support and guidance,
and for providing me with the technical information necessary to carry out this assessment.

3
Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................. 3
Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 4
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5
2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 History of truss bridges ................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Robustness metric......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Bridge Strikes .............................................................................................................................. 12
3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Geometry .................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Loading ........................................................................................................................................ 16
4 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Analysis output ........................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 29
5 Conclusions and future work ............................................................................................................. 31
References ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................
Case study model geometry .................................................................................................................
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................
Dynamic shear factor ............................................................................................................................

4
1 Introduction
Network Rail operates the railway network in the UK. It owns, runs and maintains its assets,
including the majority of the bridge structures which allow the railway to cross rivers, roads
and ravines. As the Victorian era railway has developed over the years, there is now a plexus
of railway structures which span both under and over the road network. Since the turn of the
20th century, the vehicles using the road network have increased in size, causing an
unforeseen issue with vehicular clearance on underline bridges to the Victorian engineers.
The issue of limited clearance is now an everyday problem for Network Rail, who typically
deal with 5 bridge strikes every day (Network Rail, 2017a). In a four-week period, an average
of 130 bridge strikes will occur. 9 of these will inflict structural damage to the asset, 2 of which
will render the parapet unsafe. 5 of these 130 instances will cause additional service
disruption, with 2.5 resulting in the introduction of a speed restriction (Network Rail, 2017b).
With approximately 95% of reported bridge strikes coming from underline structures for the
period 2016-2017 (Network Rail, 2017a), it is clearly a prominent issue for Network Rail.

In the event of a strike, Network Rail protocol is to assess the bridges robustness, and to
proceed with different actions, depending on the output of this analysis. Immediately after a
strike has been reported, the bridge will be closed until it has been determined, based on the
assessment, that it is safe to reopen. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the implications
of damage due to impact to truss railway bridges, and the effect of the placement of the
damage. This will be done through reviewing the current literature on the topic of structural
robustness, exploring different metrics for measuring robustness, and carrying out a
robustness assessment on a case study structure.

2 Literature Review
2.1 History of truss bridges
The truss bridge structure has roots in patents, filed in the early 19th century, by engineers
such as Theodore Burr and Ithiel Town. Theodore Burr of Connecticut is credited for building
a bridge over the Hudson River in 1804 (Theodore Burr Covered Bridge Society of PA
(TBCBSPA), 2018), his timber structured design incorporated a standard arch, with the
introduction of straight members, shown in fig 1, able to take compressive loading, and hence
increase the strength of the bridge.

5
 Fig 1 Burr Truss bridge (TBSBSPA, 2018)

The first lattice truss bridges were built in timber by an unknown carpenter in Vermont in
1813 (Edwards, 1959), which inspired fellow Connecticut engineer Ithiel Town to construct
several lattice truss bridges, for which he was awarded a patent in 1820, fig 2. The lattice truss
uses only diagonal members, closely linked together to carry the stresses of the structure.

Fig 2 Town Truss bridge (Town, 1820)

Whilst bridge construction in the USA favoured timber as a construction material due to its
abundance, in Europe, timber fell in favour of iron. Increases in international trade and
demand for growth in consumer goods during the industrial revolution led to significant
growth in the iron industry, particularly in Britain. Iron structures were the only option for the
growing railway network as timber structures were not suitable for the heavy loads that
needed to be carried (Calvert, 2004).

Not long after the erection of Town’s timber truss bridges, George Smart, a member of the
Institute of Civil Engineers, patented his design for a wrought iron lattice truss bridge. It was
similar in design to Town’s design, formed from wrought iron bars and bolts, of uniform size,
oriented at 18 degrees. A scale model of Smart’s structure was assembled, and upon testing,

6
Smart observed that a heavy man jumping on the structure made “no apparent vibration”
(Register of the Arts and Sciences, 1825, p. 51).

Fig 3 Smart trussed girder (Society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures and
commerce, 1827)

Later, in 1926, George Smart submitted his design for a ‘trussed girder of wrought iron’, fig 3,
for which he was awarded the Silver Vulcan Medal (Society for the encouragement of arts,
manufactures and commerce, 1827).

William Howe, an architect from Massachusetts was commissioned to build a railway bridge
over the Connecticut River at Springfield in 1840. He convinced his peers that he had come
up with a superior design to previously built structures (Griggs, 2014) and used his own truss
design, shown in fig 4, of timber members oriented diagonally, with the introduction of
vertical wrought iron rods, which could be tightened to alleviate the problem of sagging in
timber structures. His design was patented in 1842, and was used to build hundreds of bridges
(History of Bridges, 2018), leading to the rise in popularity of truss bridges.

Fig 4 Howe Truss Bridge (Howe, 1840)

7
Father and son duo Thomas and Caleb Pratt produced a similar design to Howe’s truss in 1844.
A key difference between the Pratt truss, fig 5, and the Howe truss is that the Pratt truss
diagonal elements are in tension, making them more efficient (Gasparini, 1997). They are
more efficient than the Howe truss diagonal elements, which are in compression, as timber
can achieve a higher strength when used in tension rather than compression. It took around
30 years for the Pratt truss to become dominant, by which point the construction convention
had switched to the Pratt truss commonly known today, with diagonals tending away from
the centre of the bottom chord. Vose (1878) pointed out the problems with Pratt trusses,
which included ‘crushing of the top chord between the washer and post’. These ‘prominent
defects’ made themselves apparent in timber trusses, meaning that the rise in popularity
could have been as a result of the change from timber to wrought iron structures at that time.

Fig 5 Pratt Truss Bridge (Pratt and Pratt, 1844)

James Warren and Willoughby Monzani, two English engineers, patented what is commonly
known today as the Warren truss, in 1848. Their design did not use any vertical members,
instead diagonal members alternate along the structure as tension or compression members.
The design, shown in fig 6, allowed for the bridge to be used as a deck or as a through-bridge
structure (Griggs, 2015), with the top chord members in cast iron to take to compressive
stresses, and the bottom chord members in wrought iron to take the tensile stresses.

8
 Fig 6 Warren and Monzani Truss bridge (Griggs, 2015)

The first Warren truss railway bridge built in the UK was the Newark Dyke Bridge in 1852
(Hayward, 2014), which comprised compression members of cast iron, with the remainder in
wrought iron. Following many early on failures in the lifetime of the railway, the Board of
Trade moved to ban cast iron for new construction in 1883, and progressively moved to
wrought iron and then on to steel over the remainder of the 19th century.

Truss bridge structures have been common for the majority of the life of the UK railway
network. From their rise in prominence in the 1840’s until the modern day, metallic trusses
of different construction types have fallen in and out of favour; few have passed the test of
time, but the Pratt truss is an example of a truss type which can still be found in many places
in the UK. One of the only truss types recommended for modern construction is the Warren
truss (Iles, 2004), however the majority of the truss bridges in the UK railway network are
aging structures built in older truss formats.

2.2 Robustness metric

Structural robustness is a term shrouded in ambiguity. In the aftermath of the Ronan Point
tower block partial collapse in 1968, a progressive failure caused by a localised gas explosion
which propagated through the structure, many researchers have attempted to define
robustness in order to incorporate it into the future design of structures. Perhaps the best

9
qualitative definition of structural robustness comes from Eurocode BS EN 1991-1-7 (British
Standards Institution, 2006, p. 12), which states that “Robustness is the ability of a structure
to withstand events like fire, explosions, impact or the consequences of human error, without
being damaged to an extent disproportionate to the original cause.” However, a wholly
accepted quantitative definition has not yet been found.

Many different metrics for measuring robustness have been proposed, a selection of metrics
proposed by researchers in relation to structural robustness are given below, in equations 1-
5.

An expression for the probability of progressive collapse is given by Ellingwood and

Dusenberry (2005), such that:

𝑃(𝐹) = 𝑃(𝐹|𝐷𝐻 )𝑃(𝐷|𝐻 )𝑃(𝐻 ) (1)

The probability of failure is the probability, based on the parameters D, and Hi, that the event
of structural collapse will occur; wherein D and Hi represent local damage and the hazard of
the event respectively. Hence P(Hi) is the probability of the hazard event Hi, P(D|Hi) is the
probability of local damage given that the hazard event occurs, and P(F|DHi) is the probability
of collapse, given that both hazard and local damage occur. It is however pointed out by the
author that the acceptable limits of the probability of failure, P(F), are not within the scope of
the paper, as it is not possible to give a rate for which structural failure can be considered
allowable. Furthermore, it is not within the scope of this paper to give a rate of failure for
railway structures for which Network Rail deems acceptable.

A robustness index is proposed by Baker et al (2008) for which the robustness of a system, I,
is defined by the relationship:

𝑅
𝐼 = (2)
𝑅 +𝑅
IRobustness is a value for the fraction of total risk to the system as a consequence of failure,
wherein I=1 represents no risk and a fully robust system, and I=0 represents a risk which is
wholly due to indirect consequences. In this metric, direct consequences are representative
of the events given in the Eurocode definition such as fire, explosion and impact; and the
indirect consequences are the progressive/disproportionate repercussions that occur
subsequently.

10
The robustness index proposed by Biondini, Frangopol and Restelli (2008) is defined by the
relationship:

𝑠
𝜌= (3)
𝑠
The robustness index ρ is calculated as the proportion of displacement in the undamaged
state, s0, in comparison to the damaged state, sd.

Starossek and Haberland (2008) have proposed many metrics to quantify robustness, based
on stiffness, energy and damage. A proposed damaged based measure calculates Rd, the
damage-based measure of robustness based on the maximum total damage, d(i):

𝑅 = 1−2 [𝑑(𝑖) − 𝑖] 𝑑𝑖 (4)

Both d(i) and i are dimensionless variables between 0 and 1, calculated by dividing their
reference value by the corresponding value of the undamaged structure.

Cavaco et al (2013) have refined the metric proposed by Biondini, Frangopol and Restelli, and
of Starossek and Haberland (2008) to propose a robustness index IR,D which is an integral of
the normalised structural performance, f(D), with respect to the normalised damage, D, such
that:

𝐼 , = 𝑓(𝐷)𝑑𝐷 (5)

Nafday’s paper on “Black Swan” events (2011) relates to unforeseen events, in particular, the
aforementioned Ronan Point collapse, as well as incidents such as the 2001 terrorist attack
on the World Trade Centre which resulted in structural collapse. The paper highlights the
emphasis towards structural integrity, as it is infeasible to predict hazards which may lead
towards disproportionate collapse. As such a member consequence factor has been
proposed, Cf, dependent on the normalized stiffness matrix of the ith member in a system,
KiN:

The parameter |KN| is the volume of the shape spanned by the vectors of the matrix KN in the
undamaged state, similarly |KiN| is the volume in the damaged state.

11
It is plain to see that there are many methods that can be used to determine the robustness
of a system, but for the purpose of carrying out a robustness assessment on a railway
structure to determine whether or not it can be reopened following a damage scenario, a
simple metric is required so that the robustness can be determined quickly. In light of this,
the robustness index proposed by Biondini, Frangopol and Restelli (2008) will be implemented
due to its simplicity as the displacements of the structure due to impact loading can be
modelled and analysed quickly to ascertain the robustness index. For this project, s0 will be
determined as the deflection of the structure under live loading, and sd will be calculated as
the deflection that occurs, under live loading, to the deformed structure, where the deformed
structure is dictated by the horizontal load due to vehicle collision.

2.3 Bridge Strikes

Bridge strikes are a significant risk to railway safety (Network Rail, 2017a). A bridge strike
occurs when a motor vehicle, typically an oversized vehicle such as an HGV, crashes into a
railway bridge, either road over rail, or rail over road. The average bridge strike costs £13,500
and a two-hour delay to train services, this adds up to an annual cost of £23 million (Network
Rail, 2017a), which comes at a cost to the users of the rail network. The worst structure for
bridge strikes is a plate girder structure with a signed clearance of 2.7 m, the A142 Stutney
Road in Ely, Cambridgeshire, which in the 2016/2017 tax year endured 18 reported bridge
strikes, with a total of 113 since 2009 (Network Rail, 2017a).

The ten most struck bridges in the UK are all of plate girder construction. A reason for this is
that truss bridges have been employed for large span structures (Iles, 2004), which tend to
have a greater head room than short spans. However, it is not the case that truss bridges are
not susceptible to bridge strikes; the truss structure that has been considered in the case
study as part of this project had reported bridge strikes in 2017.

A more significant case of a bridge strike to a truss structure is the I-5 Skagit River Bridge in
Washington, USA. In 2013, an oversized vehicle struck a member of the overhead bracing,
causing a full collapse of one span of the bridge. Of the bridges 12 spans, the centre 4 spans
are of Warren truss formation with additional vertical members, with overhead bracing, in
through format, shown in fig 7. The HGV, carrying an oversized load struck the truss bracing
member, which caused progressive failure and led to the full collapse of the span. Analysis of
the incident determined that strike to the overhead bracing member, shown in fig 8, caused

12
deformation of an adjacent vertical member, leading to the top chord being deformed, and
hence buckling. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that as the bridge
was a non-load-path-redundant structure, the buckling of the top chord caused catastrophic
failure of the truss girder, followed by collapse (NTSB, 2013).

Fig 7 Elevation of Skagit River Bridge, direction of travel of HGV indicated by arrow (NTSB,
2013)

Fig 8 Cross section of Skagit River Bridge, indicating position of overhead bracing member
‘Sway Brace’ (NTSB, 2013)

Washington State Department of Transportation records (2012, cited in NTSB, 2013)

indicated that the Skagit River Bridge had 8 bridge strikes in the previous 10 years. Whilst
none of these had resulted in collapse, structural damage was reported in 2012 and was
subsequently repaired. This final bridge in 2013 displays the Skagit River Bridge’s lack of

13
robustness, in accordance with the definition as prescribed by Eurocodes; as the damage
caused by the HGV immediately caused deformation to a truss member, the structure is not
robust. The damage caused, i.e. failure of the structure, is disproportionate to the
deformation of the bracing member, hence the structure failed to withstand impact without
being damaged to an extent disproportionate to the original cause.

Metallic truss bridge structures have been employed in the UK railway network since their
inception. They have become at risk, since their construction, to the possibility of bridge
strikes, with the development of road transport. This project will evaluate one of the
proposed metrics for measuring robustness, by conducting a bridge strike analysis of a truss
railway bridge, and implementing the metric proposed by Biondini, Frangopol and Restellli
(2008) for determining the robust index of the structure. The aims of this project are to
quantitatively determine the degree of robustness of the structure; to verify the application
of this metric; and to ascertain the threshold value of the robustness index for this structure,
for which values above the threshold are defined as robust.

14
3 Methodology
In order to undertake a thorough robustness review for a truss bridge structure, many
damaging scenarios will have to be compared. This project will entail the comparison of many
impact load case scenarios on a truss bridge structure, to emulate the damage caused due to
a bridge strike from an oversized vehicle.

The case study bridge is a single span steel Pratt Truss structure, carrying two lines of the
Victoria to Brighton line over the A23 Brighton Road. It is signed with a clear headroom of
4.6 m, and has a history of bridge strikes. The most recent noted strike was in 2014 (WSP,
2017). The record drawings showing the geometry used in modelling this structure, including
plan, elevation, and cross sections is included in Appendix A.

3.1 Geometry
The bridge will be modelled in Midas Civil analysis software, as a linear elastic model. The
element length and node positioning, as well as the sectional dimensions are in accordance
with the record drawings, included in Appendix A.

Fig 9 3D rendering of structure

Fig 9 shows the structure modelled in Midas Civil, with the X axis parallel to the truss
girders, and Y axis parallel to the cross girders. The truss with impact loads applied is the
truss towards the top right of the figure.

Due to the age of the structure, built circa 1896, the steel material strength to be used is σy =
205 N/mm2 (Network Rail, 2006, p. 146). The end supports are restrained in DX, DY, DZ, RX
and RZ for one end of the truss girders, as well as the cross girders that bear directly on to the
abutment. For the other end of the truss girders the end supports are restrained in DY, DZ,
RX, and RZ as the bridge is built with bearing plates with sliders at one end. Moment releases
on the cross girders will be modelled at the interface with the truss girders, to prevent any
carry over of moment that can cause out of plane rotation of the truss. The truss girder
elements will be modelled as tension/compression members only, hence the axial force will

15
be considered and any bending on the members will be disregarded. The rail bearers will be
modelled as simply supported between cross girders.

3.2 Loading
The bridge will be modelled for 20 units of Type RA1 live loading, in accordance with Network
Rail document, The Structural Assessment of Underbridges NR/GN/CIV/025 (Network Rail,
2006). The Type RA1 loading will be represented by a maximum end shear force, which for a
2.641 m span between cross girders, is 308 kN (Network Rail, 2006, p. 51). Consideration of
shear force only is all that is necessary as this shear force will be transferred via the cross
girders to the trusses to represent live loading. This static shear force of 308 kN will be
2
multiplied by a dynamic increment φ for shear, which is 3 x φ for bending (Network Rail, 2006,

pp. 53-54). The dynamic increment φ for bending is calculated using equations 6-11.

𝜑 = 𝜑 +𝜑 (6)

𝑘
𝜑 = (7)
(1 − 𝑘 + 𝑘 )

𝑣
𝑘= (8)
4.47𝐿 𝑛

𝐿𝑛
𝜑 = 𝛼 56𝑒 + 50 −1 𝑒 (9)
80

𝛼 = 0.002𝑣 (10)

17.75
𝑛 = (11)
√𝛿

For equations 6-11, φII is not to be less than zero, and α is not to be greater than 0.01. Lφ is
the determinant length of the member, L is the span of the member, n0 is the fundamental
natural frequency in Hertz of the member under dead and super imposed load together with

16
a 10 kN concentrated load, and v is the speed in mph (Network Rail, 2006, p. 54). The natural
frequency is calculated using equation 11, wherein delta is calculated from first principles.

The calculated dynamic factor for shear is 1.48, full calculation is included in Appendix B. As
the track load of 455.73 kN (308 kN x 1.48) is split between two rail bearers, 227.87 kN will
be applied as point loads at the outermost ends of the rail bearers, with 455.73 kN applied at
each interface of cross girders and rail bearers to represent the 227.87 kN from the rail bearer
spans on either side of the cross girders. The live loading will be considered in three loading
cases, relative to the analysis truss: load applied to near side track (LL1), load applied to far
side track (LL2), and load applied to both tracks (LL3), as shown by figs 10-12.

Fig 10 Live load 1 (LL1)

Fig 11 Live load 2 (LL2)

Fig 12 Live load 3 (LL3)

Impact loading will be applied to the structure in the form of a 500 kN load, applied parallel
to the carriageway, as well as a separate 250 kN load, applied vertically upwards, in
accordance with BD 60/04 (Highways Agency, 2004). The impact loading will be considered in
various loading scenarios, acting at different points along the bottom chord of the truss. The

17
scenarios considered will be point loads acting at the following nodes: 8-16, as shown on
fig 13.

Fig 13 Node numbers of truss girder

Node Load applied

Impact 1 16 500 kN
Impact 2 14 500 kN
Impact 3 11 500 kN
Impact 4 9 500 kN
Impact 5 15 500 kN
Impact 6 12 500 kN
Impact 7 10 500 kN
Impact 8 8 500 kN
Impact 9 16 250 kN
Impact 10 15 250 kN
Impact 11 14 250 kN
Impact 12 12 250 kN
Impact 13 11 250 kN
Impact 14 10 250 kN
Impact 15 9 250 kN
Impact 16 8 250 kN
Table 1 Location of impact loads

18
 Live load 1 Live load 2 Live load 3
No impact 1 2 3
Impact 1 4 5 6
Impact 2 7 8 9
Impact 3 10 11 12
Impact 4 13 14 15
Impact 5 16 17 18
Impact 6 19 20 21
Impact 7 22 23 24
Impact 8 25 26 27
Impact 9 28 29 30
Impact 10 31 32 33
Impact 11 34 35 36
Impact 12 37 38 39
Impact 13 40 41 42
Impact 14 43 44 45
Impact 15 46 47 48
Impact 16 49 50 51
Table 2 Loading scenarios

Nodal point loads representing the impacts will be applied in accordance with Table 1.

51 loading scenarios will be analysed by applying various combinations of live loading and
impact loading, as shown in Table 2.

To determine the robustness indices, ρ, the maximum displacement in the intact state, s0, will
be compared to the maximum displacement in the damaged state, sd, in the relationship 𝜌 =

. The displacements of nodes 1-36 will be considered. For each scenario, the

displacements of nodes local to the impact, within one truss bay, will be compared to the
displacements of the undamaged structure, shown in fig 14. Robustness indices for the X, Y,
and Z planes will be considered, and the lowest index of all of the nodes local to the impact
node will be taken as the index for that scenario.

Fig 14 Displacements to be considered at impact node (red) as well as nodes local to impact
(blue)

19
In order to make a quantifiable comparison between robustness indices, the distribution of
forces local to the impact will also be considered. This will be executed by measuring the axial
and shear forces in the elements immediately adjacent to the impact node, shown in fig 15.
The axial and shear forces as a result of impact will be compared to the axial and shear forces
in the undamaged state to determine the increase, which will be reviewed in light of the
robustness indices for each scenario.

Fig 15 Axial forces to be considered along elements (blue) local to impact node (red)

20
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Analysis output
For the first impact scenario, scenario 4, where impact has been applied at node 16, the
following displacements have been collected for nodes 14-18 & 32-35:

Node dx (mm) dy (mm) dz (mm)

14 14.83 0.06 -54.19
15 13.33 2.84 -35.56
16 11.84 -0.21 -21.21
17 12.25 -4.01 -15.96
18 13.21 -3.19 -7.80
32 6.39 5.47 -61.89
33 6.27 5.18 -50.03
34 6.01 4.31 -28.96
35 5.85 2.10 -9.05
Table 3 Scenario 4 displacements
These intact state displacements values from scenario 1, Table 4, have then been divided by
the scenario 4 values to calculate the robustness indices, Table 5.

Node dx (mm) dy (mm) dz (mm)

14 16.15 0.09 -55.13
15 15.00 3.43 -36.41
16 13.85 -0.07 -21.93
17 14.21 -4.52 -16.59
18 15.04 -3.68 -8.23
32 7.35 5.35 -62.87
33 7.23 5.07 -50.92
34 6.99 4.21 -29.63
35 6.85 2.03 -9.35
Table 4 Scenario 1 displacements

Node ρx ρy ρz
14 1.09 1.40 1.02
15 1.13 1.21 1.02
16 1.17 0.33 1.03
17 1.16 1.13 1.04
18 1.14 1.15 1.06
32 1.15 0.98 1.02
33 1.15 0.98 1.02
34 1.16 0.98 1.02
35 1.17 0.97 1.03
Table 5 Scenario 4 robustness indices

21
By taking the minimum values of the ρx, ρy, and ρz columns, and then eliminating the two
greater values, the robustness index for scenario 4 is calculated. For scenario 4, these
minimum values are ρx: 1.09 (Node 14); ρy: 0.33 (Node 16); ρz: 1.02 (Node 32). As it is the
lowest value, ρy: 0.33 is taken as the robustness index for scenario 4.

By repeating the process, using scenario 1 for the intact state of damaging scenarios 4, 7, 10,
13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46 & 49; scenario 2 for scenarios 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20,
23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50; and scenario 3 for scenarios 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27,
30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, the following robustness indices have been determined. Full
results of displacement analysis are included in Appendix C.

Scenario ρx ρy ρz ρ
4 1.09 0.33 1.02 0.33
7 1.09 0.58 1.01 0.58
10 1.09 0.87 1.00 0.87
13 1.09 0.98 1.00 0.98
16 1.14 0.46 1.02 0.46
19 1.10 0.21 1.01 0.21
22 1.11 0.32 1.01 0.32
25 1.25 0.42 1.01 0.42
28 0.99 1.04 1.04 0.99
31 1.00 1.05 1.06 1.00
34 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00
37 1.02 1.06 1.08 1.02
40 1.01 1.06 1.07 1.01
43 1.03 1.08 1.09 1.03
46 0.96 1.09 1.08 0.96
49 0.99 1.08 1.10 0.99
Table 6 Robustness indices against scenario 1

22
 Scenario ρx ρy ρz ρ
5 1.28 0.15 1.05 0.15
8 1.25 0.17 1.02 0.17
11 1.29 0.05 1.01 0.05
14 1.28 0.01 0.96 0.01
17 1.51 0.23 1.06 0.23
20 1.32 0.08 1.02 0.08
23 1.68 0.02 1.05 0.02
26 1.40 0.01 1.01 0.01
29 0.97 1.12 1.11 0.97
32 1.00 1.17 1.19 1.00
35 1.02 1.15 1.16 1.02
38 1.07 1.20 1.23 1.07
41 1.04 0.17 1.21 0.17
44 1.08 0.14 1.27 0.14
47 0.90 0.12 1.24 0.12
50 0.98 0.10 1.29 0.10
Table 7 Robustness indices against scenario 2

Scenario ρx ρy ρz ρ
6 1.07 0.38 1.01 0.38
9 1.06 0.93 1.01 0.93
12 1.07 0.89 1.00 0.89
15 1.07 0.35 1.00 0.35
18 1.11 0.52 1.01 0.52
21 1.08 0.25 1.01 0.25
24 1.08 0.38 1.01 0.38
27 1.09 0.21 1.00 0.21
30 0.99 1.03 1.03 0.99
33 1.00 1.04 1.05 1.00
36 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00
39 1.02 1.05 1.06 1.02
42 1.01 1.05 1.06 1.01
45 1.02 1.07 1.07 1.02
48 0.97 1.07 1.06 0.97
51 0.99 1.06 1.07 0.99
Table 8 Robustness indices against scenario 3
Plotting these robustness indices as three data sets allows for the comparison of robustness
of an impact, relative to the live loading scenario.

23
 Robustness indices
1.2

0.8

ρ 0.6 Live Load 1

Live Load 2
0.4
Live Load 3
0.2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Impact case

Fig 16 Robustness indices for each impact case

The robustness indices obtained from Tables 6, 7 and 8 have been plotted against the impact
cases in fig 16.

The impact scenarios are in two groups; the first 8 represent a 500 kN force applied
horizontally, and the latter 8 represent a 250 kN applied vertically. For all three live loading
scenarios, it is evident that the structure has a higher degree of robustness, and hence a
greater resistance to disproportionate failure against loads applied vertically.

The Live Load 2 scenarios indicate that the lowest robustness is exhibited when loading is
applied to the far side track to the analysis truss. This is to be expected for a displacement
analysis as the displacements caused by impact to the bottom chord of the truss cause a
relieving action on the nodal displacement. Collision with the bottom member causes the
truss to deform and rotate, both in plane and out of plane, with nodal displacement tending
towards the Z+ direction, shown in fig 17.

Fig 17 Displacements due to impact load 3

24
The action of the dead loads and live load cause nodal displacement in the Z- direction, shown
in fig 18.

Fig 18 Displacements due to dead loads and live load 1

The displacement exhibited as a result of dead and live loads has a greater magnitude than
the isolated displacement of the impact loads, resulting in a net displacement due to impact
which is less than the undamaged displacement, shown in fig 19, hence it is a relieving action.

Fig 19 Displacements due to scenario 7

The Live Load 2 scenarios have the majority of the live load carried by the non-analysis truss,
which is also redistributing the displacement to this side. As such, the Z- displacement on the
analysis truss which is an increasing factor on the robustness indices is reduced causing the
robustness indices to be reduced.

The high robustness indices for impact cases 9-12 indicate that a strike at quarter span is less
critical than a strike at midspan. When considering the actions of Live Load 2, the average
robustness is low, apart from the impact case 2, 5, and the spike between 9 and 12. These
impact cases all model a strike around the quarter span point, which compared with strikes
around the mid span point, are far more robust. This could be due to the arrangement of the
structure, as due to the skew, there are far less members local to the impact of a strike at mid
span, meaning that the damage is localised, rather than being allowed to propagate through
the structure and cause progressive collapse.

In order to make a relative comparison between robustness indices, the element forces have
been also been calculated. For scenario 4, elements 14, 15, 37, and 38 have been considered.
The axial forces in these members as a result of the loading in scenario 4 is shown in Table 9.

25
 Element Axial Force (kN) Shear Force (y) (kN) Shear Force (z) (kN)
14 -510.5 104.97 -26.45
15 229.19 54.79 -10.35
37 -1063.26 -14.51 -32.59
38 446.35 7.01 -1.34
Table 9 Scenario 4 element forces
By dividing the force values obtained from the analysis of scenario 4 by the forces in the
equivalent members under the conditions of scenario 1, Table 10, the percentage increase
of member forces can be calculated, Table 11.

Element Axial Force (kN) Shear Force (y) (kN) Shear Force (z) (kN)
14 -393.72 124.26 -26.12
15 199.36 62.88 -11.02
37 -1056.26 -13.82 -34.57
38 387.26 6.65 -4.41
Table 10 Scenario 1 element forces

Element Axial Force (%) Shear Force (y) (%) Shear Force (z) (%)
14 29.66 -15.52 1.26
15 14.96 -12.87 -6.08
37 0.66 4.99 -5.73
38 15.26 5.41 -69.61
Table 11 Scenario 4 force increases
The process is repeated for scenarios 5-51 to calculate the maximum increase in element
forces, shown in Table 12. Full results of element force analysis is included in Appendix D.

Scenario Axial Force (%) Shear Force (y) (%) Shear Force (z) (%) Max Increase (%)
4 29.66 5.41 1.26 29.66
5 64.03 18.00 4.14 64.03
6 21.21 4.33 1.01 21.21
7 90.92 2.72 19.69 90.92
8 108.03 6.31 62.50 108.03
9 51.04 1.90 16.19 51.04
10 2.64 1.46 1.74 2.64
11 5.87 1414.29 5.48 1414.29
12 1.92 1.18 1.31 1.92
13 11.62 396.61 954.55 954.55
14 28.65 47.13 21.43 47.13
15 8.42 459.48 3.61 459.48
16 51.01 156.13 -0.31 156.13
17 110.11 432.21 -1.03 432.21
18 36.47 121.28 -0.25 121.28

26
 19 128.58 637.85 0.76 637.85
20 152.78 1657.39 1.43 1657.39
21 72.18 486.99 0.51 486.99
22 16.84 10807.34 1.67 10807.34
23 33.60 133285.70 2.58 133285.70
24 12.86 12502.61 1.33 12502.61
25 8.94 10243.72 2.41 10243.72
26 26.98 6882.91 28.57 6882.91
27 8.20 21510.23 5.12 21510.23
28 16.86 0.65 47.39 47.39
29 36.39 1.86 97.66 97.66
30 12.05 0.57 32.76 32.76
31 11.49 -5.00 475.90 475.90
32 24.81 -13.83 1629.60 1629.60
33 8.21 -3.88 388.86 388.86
34 65.26 -1.57 21.22 65.26
35 77.54 -3.79 41.51 77.54
36 36.63 -1.19 14.80 36.63
37 52.94 -6.13 517.86 517.86
38 62.91 -16.01 1005.71 1005.71
39 29.72 -4.70 358.47 358.47
40 23.42 63.69 40.59 63.69
41 31.97 428.00 128.39 428.00
42 13.14 59.44 32.38 59.44
43 -13.14 -6.21 1304.71 1304.71
44 -34.11 78.57 4330.90 4330.90
45 -10.03 -7.19 1036.83 1036.83
46 29.42 130.63 159.45 159.45
47 54.42 436.37 828.57 828.57
48 20.11 105.88 139.76 139.76
49 -11.51 -12.02 4627.14 4627.14
50 -28.48 8.36 22226.79 22226.79
51 -8.65 26.14 3749.10 3749.10
Table 12 Increase in element forces
Whilst there are significant increases in both the axial and shear forces of the elements local
to impact, for the impact loading previously specified, no failure of members has been found.
In the case of scenario 23, the shear force in the bottom chord is increased by 133286%,
however the maximum shear force that is experienced by this member is 186.74 kN, whilst in
its undamaged state, the same member experiences 0.14 kN in shear. This increase is a
substantially large increment in shear stress exhibited on the member, however the
maximum utilisation is only in the order of 0.05, due to the high capacity of the member.

27
 Axial force increase
200 0

150 0.2
Live Load 1
0.4 Live Load 2
% increase

100
0.6 ρ Live Load 3
50 Live Load 1
0.8
Live Load 2
0
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Live Load 3
-50 1.2
Impact case

Fig 20 Comparison of axial force increase against robustness indices

The axial values obtained from table 12 have been plotted against the impact cases in fig 20.
By comparing the axial force increases, shown by intact lines, against the robustness indices,
shown by dashed lines, determined earlier, some correlation can be drawn. It can be expected
that a significant increase in axial force to a member would correlate with low robustness,
hence lower robustness indices should result in a greater axial force increase. This trend can
be observed for many scenarios; impact 3 exhibits a fall in axial force increase, as well as an
increase in robustness for Live Load cases 1 and 3. Similarly, the large increase in axial force
exhibited for impact case 6 is also reflected by the fall in robustness indices for this case.
However, this correlation, albeit loose correlation, is only apparent for impact cases 1-8.

Shear force increase

1000000

100000

10000 Live Load 1

Live Load 2
% increase

1000
Live Load 3
100 Live Load 1

10 Live Load 2
Live Load 3
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
0.1
Impact case

Fig 21 Logarithmic increase in shear force in y plane (dashed) and in z plane (dotted)

28
The shear values obtained from table 12 have been plotted against the impact cases in fig 21.
The shear values have been plotted logarithmically, due to the vast increases in shear force
experience by scenarios such as 20-25 wherein the increase in shear force exceeds 10,000%.

When comparing the shear forces, it is apparent that particular load cases cause the increase
in shear force to spike. The greatest shear force increases are experienced at the nodes where
a force is applied at the members mid-point, rather than at the intersection between
members. This is reflected by the data as there are peaks for impact cases 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and
16, which are all cases where the force has been applied to a member mid-point. These
members experience a greater increase in shear force as they have load applied to them out
of plane. For impact cases 10, 12, 14, 16 the shear spike is to be wholly anticipated as the load
applied is aligned with the bottom chord shear plane. It is plausible that the vast increase in
shear force applied may coincide with an increase in bending moment of the bottom chord
of the truss, however it has been shown previously that there are also significant axial forces
in the same members which provide a relieving action against member bending; analysis of
bending within a truss is outside the scope of this project, so further analysis would be needed
to confirm this.

4.2 Discussion
From the data obtained, it is inconclusive to say whether or not the structure is robust, based
on the robustness indices. No quantitative threshold has been found for the robustness index,
for which a value above or below defines the structure as being robust or non-robust,
however the robustness indices for the study scenarios allow for comparison of relative
robustness. There is no evidence to prove that the structure is not robust, however when
compared to the other live loading scenarios, the structure has been found to be less robust
when loaded on the far side track to the analysis truss. This information does hold merit as in
the event of a bridge strike, the decision may be made to keep open the track running
adjacent to the struck truss, and close only the far side track, potentially reducing delays and
any other costs incurred associated with closing a track. The robustness with regards to strike
location has also been explored, and found to be more robust when moving away from the
centre of the span. This information may be implemented when determining the best course
of action post bridge strike, if the location of the impact is known by the overseeing engineer.

29
For some scenarios, it was found that the robustness index fell outside of the range of 0 to 1.
The metric defined by Biondini, Frangopol and Restelli (2008) sets this range for the
robustness index, so for these cases the metric is not applicable. This was particularly
apparent when considering the displacements in the z plane. The reason why this may have
happened is the difference in methodology for modelling damage. In their paper, damage is
modelled by a reduction in cross section, as opposed to an external load. As such, the Biondini,
Frangopol and Restelli metric has not been implemented strictly, meaning that a deviance in
results can be expected. This is not to say that the data is incorrect, however, as although the
robustness indices may fall outside the range of 0 to 1, it has been shown that the scenarios
for which the index is greater than 1, have a higher relative robustness.

The metric that has been used is not definitive. It is a proposed metric that works theoretically
with the aforementioned cross-sectional reduction model. One objective of this project was
to find the threshold of the robustness index for the structure, for which indices above the
threshold are considered robust, and indices below the threshold, non-robust. This has not
been achieved, as a broad spectrum of robustness indices were found for the studied
scenarios, all of which were found, by the limited analysis, to be robust, i.e. above the
threshold. For this structure there is no apparent threshold for the robustness index, however
this may be due to the low force applied; whilst 500 kN is not a small or negligible force, it
was unable to cause failure, hence it is relatively low. A similar test with larger forces applied
may find a threshold to the index, however these scenarios would be highly implausible as
the loading applied is the current recommendation from the highways agency (Highways
Agency, 2004).

The selection of structure may also be a reason for the threshold index not being found. The
truss bridge that has been analysed can be considered as robust, as per the results of the
analysis, as no evidence supporting the eventuality of progressive collapse was found. It may
be that the case study structure is more robust than other railway truss structures, it is very
unlikely to find two railway structures of this scale built to the same design, and further study
of a different truss structure may result in a threshold index being found for that structure.

30
5 Conclusions and future work
It is the opinion of the assessor that the structure in question is robust. The Biondini,
Frangopol and Restelli (2008) metric can be used to determine the relative robustness of a
truss bridge structure against a host of damaging scenarios; the most critical damaging
scenario can be determined by the lowest robustness index. The metric has not been proven
to define the structure as robust, or non-robust, and should not be considered as an
applicable metric to undertake this task for railway structures, however further work could
be done to either prove or disprove this.

It has been shown that the increase in forces of analysed members would not cause failure,
either local or progressive catastrophic. It was found that some impact scenarios would
implicate the structure as not being robust; similar analysis of other structures may find that
a non-robust structure has low robustness indices for all impact scenarios. More analysis,
comparing different structures could be carried out to confirm this.

Analysis of the same structure, comparing the displacement as a result of a reduced cross
section of the truss bottom chord may find that the structure is in fact not robust. Further
analysis could also be carried out on the same model to explore the effects on non-truss
members, i.e. the bending inflicted on the cross girders. This may require the implementation
of a non-linear model to explore how the deformation of the bottom chord of the truss effects
the global stability of the structure.

The analysis has shown which locations on the bridge are most critical to bridge strikes, and
has shown that the effects of running rail traffic over the damaged structure are not the same
for both tracks. The most damaging impact scenarios occur towards the centre of the span,
when applied directly at a truss member nodal interchange. The live loading applied to the
near side track to the damaged truss has a relieving action on the displacement experienced
by the structure, and depending on the degree of damage caused, may allow for the safe
continuity of traffic running over the structure.

31
References
Baker, J. W. et al (2008) ‘On the assessment of robustness’ Structural Safety, 30, pp. 253-
267.

Biondini, F., Frangopol, D. M., and Restelli, S. (2008) ‘On Structural Robustness, Redundancy
and Static Indeterminancy’, Structures 2008: Crossing Borders.

British Standards Institution. (2006) BS EN 1991-1-7:2006 Actions on structures. General

actions - Accidental actions. London: British Standards Institution.

Calvert, J. B. (2004) Early Evolution of Trusses. Available at:

https://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/truss.htm (Accessed: 18 April 2018).

Cavaco, E. S. et al (2013) ‘Robustness of corroded reinforced concrete structures – a

structural performance approach’, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(1), pp. 42-58.
doi: 10.1080/15732479.2010.515597.

Edwards, L.N. (1959) A Record of History and Evolution of Early American Bridges. Orono,
Maine: University Press.

Ellingwood, B. R. and Dusenberry, D. O. (2005) ‘Building Design for Abnormal Loads and
Progressive Collapse’, Computer-Aided Civil an Infrastructure Engineering, 20, pp. 194-205.

Gasparini, D. (1997) ‘American Truss Bridge Connections in the 19th Century’, Journal of
performance of constructed facilities, 11(3), pp. 119-129.

Griggs, F. (2014) ‘Springfield Bridge for Western Railroad’, STRUCTURE Magazine,

November, pp. 23-24.

Griggs, F. (2015) ‘The Warren Truss’, STRUCTURE Magazine, July, pp. 44-48.

Hayward, A. C. G. (2014) ‘The Construction of Railway Bridges Then and Now’, The
International Journal for the History of Engineering & Technology, 84(1), pp. 59-87. doi:
10.1179/1758120613Z.00000000037.

Highways Agency (2004) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 1: Section 3: Part 5
BD 60/04 The Design of Highway Bridges for Vehicle Collision Loads. London: The Stationery
Office.

32
History of Bridges (2018) Howe Truss Bridge Design. Available at:
http://www.historyofbridges.com/facts-about-bridges/howe-truss/ (Accessed: 18 April
2018).

Howe, W. (1840) Manner of Constructing the Truss-Frames of Bridges and other Structures.
United States Patent Office Patent no. 1711. Available at:
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=00001711&IDKey=93106285D81D%0D%
0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
(Accessed: 4 May 2018).

Iles, D. C. (2004) Design Guide for Steel Railway Bridges. Ascot: The Steel Construction
Institute.

Nafday, A. M. (2011) ‘Consequence-based structural design approach for black swan

events’, Structural Safety, 33, pp. 108-114.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (2013) Collapse of the Interstate 5 Skagit River
Bridge Following a Strike by an Oversize Combination Vehicle. Available at:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1401.pdf (Accessed: 18
April 2018).

Network Rail (2017) The risk of bridge strike. Available at:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/looking-after-the-railway/bridges-
tunnels-viaducts/risk-bridge-strikes/ (Accessed: 18 April 2018).

Network Rail (2017b) Preventing, mitigating and assessing bridge strikes. Available at:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Challenge-statement-bridges-
preventing-bridge-strikes.pdf (Accessed: 4 May 2018).

Network Rail (2006) The Structural Assessment of Underbridges NR/GN/CIV/025. London:

Network Rail.

Pratt, T. and Pratt, C. (1844) Truss-Frame of Bridges. United States Patent Office Patent no.
3523. Available at:
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=00003523&IDKey=AFB0EF213BED%0D%0
A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
(Accessed: 4 May 2018).

33
Register of the Arts and Sciences (1825) London: G. Herbert. Volume 2

Society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures and commerce (1827) Transactions of
the society instituted at London for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and
commerce, London: Society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures and commerce.
Volume 45.

Starossek, U. and Haberland, M. (2008) ‘Approaches to measures of structural robustness’,

Paper presented at the fourth international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and
management (IABMAS’08), 13-17 July 2008, Seoul, Korea.

The Theodore Burr Covered Bridge Society of PA (TBCBSPA) (2018) Truss Types. Available at:
http://www.tbcbspa.com/trusses.htm (Accessed: 18 April 2018).

Town, I. (1820) Ithiel Town Letters Patent. United States Patent Office Patent no. 3169X.
Available at:
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=X0003169&IDKey=43B3AFF1C534%0D%0
A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
(Accessed: 4 May 2018).

Vose, G. L. (1878) Manual for Railroad Engineers and Engineering Students. Boston: Lee and
Shepard.

WSP (2017) Brighton Road No. 1 Assessment Report. Internal Network Rail Report.
Unpublished.

34
 Appendix A

Case study model geometry

 Appendix B

Dynamic shear factor

Appendix C

Displacements
Appendix D

Element forces