The image part with relationship ID rId5 was not found in the file.

Email : me@rb.railnet.gov.in
D.O.No.2005/CE-I/BR-II/8 8th June,2005.

My dear Shiv Kumar,

Sub.: Key Design Parameters for Rail Bridges.

…….

During my visit to various Zonal Railways and interaction with Open Line &
Construction Engineers, it has been found that some design parameters being adopted for
construction of important bridges are not in consonance with Railway’s own codes. Pile
foundations have been provided at places where well foundations would have not only been
suitable but also cost effective. These aspects are having great financial implications.

In order to set the things right, a note on Key Design Parameters for Rail Bridges is
enclosed herewith for adoption and further action. These guidelines should be followed
henceforth.

The receipt of the letter may be acknowledged.

With best wishes,

Yours Sincerely,
The image part with relationship ID rId6 was not found in the file.

Encl: 1
 
( R.R.Jaruhar )

Shri Shiv Kumar,

Director,
Indian Rly. Inst. Of Civil Engg.,
PUNE.
 Key Design Parameters for Rail Bridges

During the course of interaction with various Railways, I have come across some design
parameters adopted for construction of important bridges like one over Ganga at Mungheyr, Kosi
and Brahmaputra at Boghibeel, which are not at all in consonance with Railway’s own codes.
Indian Railways have been pioneers in design and construction of important bridges and have the
unique distinction of bridging all the important rivers of the country for over 150 years. The
design of well foundation is so well known and construction methodology is so well established
that it should have been possible to design and construct them with much more confidence.
They have proved themselves and therefore I am totally surprised to find various changes being
introduced, which are being adopted in supercession of provisions in IRS Code of Practices.
These so called modern practices have to be established but there is apparently no case to totally
alter the old ones which are proven ones. I have also noted that costly pile foundations have
been constructed where well foundations would have been more suitable besides being more cost
effective. Example is Sone bridge on East Central Railway, where all the three existing bridges
are already on well foundations.

In view of above, following may be adopted henceforth:

(1) Founding level of wells below HFL:

(a) Under normal conditions:

Normal depth of Scour(D) below HFL should be maximum of:

 Using Lacey’s formula for Design discharge Q (Cumecs) {DL=0.47

(Q/f)⅓}

f is silt factor = 1.76 m (m being diameter of bed material in mm over

scourable depth).

The value is generally taken as 1.00 which is in itself quite conservative.

 For design discharge intensity in cumecs due to constriction of waterway on

account of pier width, as per provisions of IRS Substructure Code
DL=1.34(q2)⅓
  Increase in depth of scour for design of foundation due to local scour around nose
of piers = 2DL.

This, however, needs to be checked from observed scour around piers as per
hydraulic model study. Scour depth reported by model study need not be doubled
as in case of calculations done for normal scour.

 Grip length = one third of 2DL. However adequacy of grip length should be
checked for stability of well pressure including safe bearing capacity of soil with
all vertical and horizontal loads as applicable under normal conditions.

(b) Under Seismic conditions:

Procedure same as above under normal conditions, but with design parameters
like discharge, intensity of discharge, HFL etc. should be for seismic conditions
as per provisions of IRS Substructure Code. Adequacy of grip length under this
condition shall be checked with values of loads and moments for seismic forces as
per dynamic analysis carried out by approved methods like one done by
IIT/Kanpur or Roorkee etc.

(2) Thickness of Well Steining:

Thickness of well steining is always designed in consideration of sinking effort required

to sink the well without taking recourse to use of kentledge or dewatering.

The sinking effort available may be calculated by simple calculation based on following,
taking due account of buyoncy.

f= Axw H1 + (w-) X H2 + (w-)

P H3 w H3 w
Where f = Average Sinking Effort in t/m2
A = Cross sectional area of well steining in (m2)
w = Unit weight of plain concrete in t/m3
 = Unit weight of water in 1 t/m3
P = Perimeter of well in (m)
H1
Values of H1, H2, H3 are as shown in the figure ___________ ___________
H1 = height of well above water
H2 = height of well below water H2
level and upto bed level
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
H3 = depth of well below bed _____
level, where skin friction H3
applies.

In limiting conditions, H1 = 0, H2 < of H3, hence H2/H3 is neglected.

Hence f = A x w  w - 
P w
Taking weight of concrete as 2.3 t/m3

f = 1.3 x weight of steining per meter length of well (w)

2.3 Perimeter (P)

This is nearly taken as 4 x w

7 P
The skin friction of soil varies at different level and is dependent upon type of soil also.
This can be calculated by using following formula:-

F = ½ ka. (Z – 2C ka) tan (2)

3
Where F = Skin friction in t/m2

Ka = Active earth pressure coefficient

 = Angle of shearing resistance of soil (degrees)

C = Half of unconfined compressive strength.

Z = Depth of foundation below Scour level (m)

 =Density of soil in t/m3

This is calculated below LWL. But empirical values are also safely used with fair degree of
confidence.

Stiff and soft = 0.73 to 2.93 t/m2

Clay = 4.88 to 19.53 t/m2

Very soft clay = 1.23 to 3.42 t/m2

Dense sand = 3.42 to 6.84 t/m2

 Dense gravel = 4.88 to 9.76 t/m2

For alluvium deposits, minimum sinking effort required is of the order of 5t/m2.

Thus using the Formula available, sinking effort can be verified from (f = 4/7 W/P).

3. Design of Steining:

The normal Railway practice is to provide plain cement concrete. The reinforcement
provided in such cases is very nominal in the form of bond rods and lateral ties. Bond
reinforcement of about 0.12% of sectional area and ties of about 0.04% of the volume per unit
length is found to be adequate and should be adopted. Check against tensile stresses in steining
causing cracking should be made using following formula both for seismic and non-seismic
conditions.

Soil Pressure = 2 q (B-Sin B Sin2x – sin B cos2x)


F= M - P
Z A
F = tensile stress in t/m2

M = Moment in t – m

A = Cross Section area in sq.m

Z = Sectional modules of well in m3

q = Density of soil = 1.5 t/m3

P = Total lateral pressure in t/m2

The above was used in checking stresses in Mokamah bridge over River Ganga. Details
in Technical Paper No.336 ‘Ganga Bridge at Mokamah’ by Shri H.K.L.Sethi.

Check for Bearing Capacity:

Most of deep foundations are on sandy beds at foundation level. The allowable
bearing capacity can be calculated by

q = 5.4 N2B + 16 (100 + N2 ) D

q = Allowable soil pressure in kg/sq.m.

N = SPT value.
 B = Smaller dimension of well cross section in metre.

D = Depth of foundation level below scour level in metre.

For calculating Bending moment both active and passive soil pressures around the
well should be considered.

A factor of safety usually of ‘3’ is taken.

4. Low Water Level:

Depth of foundation is always measured below LWL. It is customary to place the bottom
of the well cap at LWL. This is done in order to enable inspection of the well cap.

Low water level is determined from gauge levels of the river for as large period as possible
particularly from consideration of as long working period as possible. From the available charts,
LWL adopted should give ideally 150/180 days for working. Of course in river like
Bramhaputra this is not available where maximum time available is 130/140 days. Thus LWL is
not necessarily the lowest gauge level. This is also important so that the well cap can be cast
without use of coffer dams etc.

5. Well Curb:

Most important element of well curb is the cutting edge. This is designed from
consideration of following.

 It should be able to cut through hard strata.

 It should be able to stand on a single point in case of a sloping rock/large boulder,

tree trunk etc. without getting damaged.

 It should be able to withstand additional forces caused by occasional blasting.

There is no known methodology for the design. More common is to use a design which has
proved itself for various important Railway bridges under very difficult conditions. For a typical
circular and Double ‘D’ well for large well foundations, known design is available as per the
enclosed sketch.

Double D type is more prone to tilt and shift due to unsymmetrical shape and possible
unequal dredging. Thus it is essential that the well is heavy in deep foundation.
 Only part of the well curb should be armoured, may be 1 to 1.5 metres level from the
cutting edge level, as shown in the sketch.

On above considerations, as mentioned, for bridge over River Ganga, Mungher, the
maximum depth of foundation below HFL should not be more than 59.10 metres. The thickness
of steining could be between 2.8/3.0 metres, which will give the sinking effort of over 5t/m3.

Steining concrete could be of M20 (200 kg/cm2) to be treated as plain concrete although
ordinary M15 (1:2:4) concrete has served very well in the past.

The well curb is usually of M25 (250 kg/cm2)

6. Pier Shaft:

The pier is designed as column subjected to vertical forces and moments for both seismic
and non-seismic conditions.

7. Calculation of lateral earth pressure for soils with cohesion:

It is seen that in many case of back fill of soil having c and , only  is considered and
active earth pressure coefficient for Rankien’s forumula is calculated accordingly. This is totally
incorrect.

In such cases, the earth pressure may be calculated using Bell’s equation obtained from
Mohr’s failure stress circle.

Principle shear stresses 1 and 2 will be:

1 = 2 tan2 (45 + /2) + 2 c tan (45 + /2)

3 = 1 tan2 (45 - /2) + 2 c tan (45 - /2)

Using Coulumb’s and Rankien’s k factors to calculate Earth pressures at depth Z.

Pa =  z ka – 2 c ka where Z = 2c .
.ka

Resultant R and its location y can be calculated by either neglecting tension zone or
altering pressure diagram for overall depth of soil.

(i) R = Pa (H-Z)/2 at y = (H-Z)/3 above base

 Or

(ii) R = Pa H/2 at y = H/3 above base

Where ka = coefficient of active earth pressure for Rankien = 1 – sin 

1 + sin 

 = Angle of Shearing Resistance in degrees.

 = Density of soil.

c = Cohesion of soil generally obtained from unconfined

comprehensive test.

By neglecting tension crack(Z), the lateral pressure obtained is generally higher and is
considered more conservative.

8. Use of concrete blocks Vs. crated boulders for launching apron as well as for side
slopes of guide bunds and approach embankments:
The subject has been well debated. But general experience, which has served
successfully for over 100 years, is to use crated boulders in alluvium deposits for launching
aprons. The size of crate is determined on the basis of water velocity to prevent it being swept
and lifted away. The basic principle of the launching apron is best described as the one of a
carpet which takes the shape of the scoured bed. The bottom of the apron is normally placed at
LWL. It is not possible to lay the apron below knee deep water because of difficult manual
working. In such cases, it is best to fill the area, if necessary by using suction dredgers.

Because of these considerations, concrete blocks are not suitable in such cases, unless the
strata is bouldery or non erodible. In such cases also, it is customary to secure these blocks by
proper methods(chains anchored in the shore). They are very costly and may be impossible to
execute, if quantities are large both from the point of view of casting and handling of concrete
blocks. Crated boulders launch smoothly and being flexible, easily take the shape of the scoured
beds and are not lost as in case of concrete blocks.

For pitching guide bunds, slopes also, boulders in the form of grids are used. For
upstream and Down stream side in guide bunds and upstream of approach bank, suitable inverted
filters are used with provision of suitable weep holes above the ponding levels. The usual
designs are available and have been found to be very successful. Approach banks must however
be provided with proper longitudinal and cross drains so that side slope erosions can be
prevented.

The aforesaid directions may be brought to the notice of all concerned and suitable action
must be taken, wherever needed. Ganga Bridge at Patna & Mungher and one at Kosi must
particularly be checked and corrective action taken accordingly.
The image part with relationship ID rId7 was not found in the file.

( R.R.Jaruhar )
Member Engineering
06.06.2005.