RDSO - Rail - Bridges - Jan 2014

भारत सरकार रे ल मं ालय
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
30 एवं 31 जनवर 2014 को

बगलोर म होने वाल
पल
ु एवं संरचना मानक स म त क
बया सवीं बैठक क कायसच
ू ी
Agenda Of
Eighty Second Meeting Of
Bridge & Structures Standards Committee
(30th & 31st January - 2014)
At Bangalore
अनुस धान अ भक प एवं मानक संगठन, लखनऊ-226011

RESEARCH DESIGNS AND STANDARDS ORGANISATION
LUCKNOW-226011
82nd MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(January, 2014)
SUBJECT INDEX
Item Title of the Item Page

No. No.
Use of Fe 500 or higher grade reinforcement in place of Fe
1039 1-17
415.
1040 Technical Guidelines for Box Pushing technique. 18-21
Incorporating minimum Dry Film Thickness in conventional

1041 22-32
Painting System mentioned in IRBM & IRS B-1:2001.
1042 Periodicity of changing of oil in oil bath for roller bearing. 33-34
1043 Reduction in height of Reduced Height Girders 35-39
1044 Life of Elastomeric Bearings. 40-51
Introduction of Higher spans and skew angles in ROB

1045 52-64
drawings
Frequency of Cleaning/ Oiling/ Greasing of Bearings of

1046 65-66
Girders.
1047 Formulae for the estimation of scour depth at bridge piers. 67-86
1048 Derailment provisions in IRS codes. 87-96
1049 Design of Bridge Sub structure for impact loads. 97-98
1050 Working of BCM through ballasted deck 99-104
Operation of Locomotives having Tractive Effort Limiting

1051 105-109
Device on Bridges over Indian Railways
1052 Review Items 110-146
**********
(January, 2014) Item No 1039
ITEM NO. 1039

Subject : Use of Fe 500 or higher grade reinforcement in place of Fe 415.
BSC Reference : New Item
RDSO File No. : CBS/RTB
Agenda : To make provisions regarding use of Fe 500 or higher grade
steel in place of Fe 415
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1. There is growing interest with in the reinforced concrete industry in using higher
strength reinforcing steel. This interest is primarily driven by truncated production
of good quality Fe 415 grade bars by the manufacturers and increasing
production of Fe 500/Fe 500D and higher grade bars(TMT bars). Various Zonal
Railways have been requesting RDSO for adoption of Fe 500 and higher grade
bars also in standard drawings of RCC bridge structures issued by RDSO.
2. Specification of HSD steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement are covered
in IS:1786.
3. Important codal provisions for use of higher grade HSD bars
Important codal provisions along with relevant clauses of IS, IRC & IRS CBC are
as below:
(a) IS:1786-2008 : High strength deformed steel bars and wires for
concrete reinforcement –Specification
Clauses which deals with chemical and physical properties have been
discussed below:-
Clause-4.2 Chemical Composition-

Constituent Percent, Maximum
Fe415 Fe415D Fe415S Fe500 Fe500D Fe500S Fe550 Fe550D Fe600
Carbon 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.30
Sulphur 0.060 0.045 0.045 0.055 0.040 0.040 0.055 0.040 0.040
Phosphorous 0.060 0.045 0.045 0.055 0.040 0.040 0.050 0.040 0.040
Sulphur and 0.110 0.085 0.085 0.105 0.075 0.075 0.100 0.075 0.075
Phosphorous
1
Clause-8.1 Mechanical Properties for all sizes of High strength deformed

bars/wires
S. Property Fe415 Fe415D Fe415S Fe500 Fe500D Fe500S Fe550 Fe550D Fe600
No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
i 0.2% proof 415 415 415 500 500 500 550 550 600
stress/yield
stresses, Min,
2
N/mm
ii 0.2% proof - - 540 - - 625 - - -

stress/yield
stresses,
2
Max, N/mm
iii TS/YS ratio, ≥1.10, ≥1.12, 1.25 ≥1.08, ≥1.10, 1.25 ≥1.06, ≥1.08, ≥1.06,
2
N/mm but TS but TS but TS but TS but TS but TS but TS
not less not less not less not less not less not less not less
than 485 than than 545 than than 585 than 600 than 660
2 2 2 2 2
N/mm 500 N/mm 565 N/mm N/mm N/mm
2 2
N/mm N/mm
iv Elongation, 14.5 18 20 12 16 18 10 14.5 10
percent, Min.
v Total -- 5 10 -- 5 8 -- 5 --
elongation at
max. force,
percent, Min.
(b) Clause 5.3 of IS:13920-1993,Ductile Detailing of Reinforced concrete

structures subjected to seismic force-Code of Practice
Steel reinforcement of grade Fe415 (See IS1786:1985) or less only shall
be used.
Amendment No.2, march-2002 in clause 5.3 indicates that high strength
deformed steel bars, produced by thermo-mechanical treatment process
of grades Fe500 and Fe550, having elongation more than 14.5 percent
and conforming to other requirement of IS1786:1985 may also be used for
the reinforcement.
(c) IS:456-2000, Plain and Reinforced concrete-Code of Practice
Clause 26.2 &38.1 indicates that with the increase in grade of rebars,
development length and ultimate moment resisting capacity will also
increase. However, Clause 40.4 indicates that characteristic strength of
the stirrup or bent-up reinforcement shall not be taken greater than 415
N/mm2. Similarly Clause 39.4 indicates that in case of compression
members with helical reinforcement, characteristic strength of helical
reinforcement has been restricted to 415 N/mm2.
2
(d) IRC: 18-2000, Design criteria for Pre-stressed Concrete Road Bridges
(Post Tensioned Concrete)
Clause 14.1.4 restricts the value of yield strength of shear bars to 415
N/mm2.
(e) IRS: CBC-1997, Indian Railway standard code of practice for Plain,
Reinforced & Prestressed concrete for general Bridge Construction
(i) Clause No. 15.4.3.2 specifies that characteristic strength of stirrup
reinforcement should not be greater than 415 N/mm2.Clause 15.4.4.4
specifies similar provision for torsional reinforcement.
(ii) Clause No. 15.9.4.1 and 15.9.4.2 specifies minimum areas of main and
secondary reinforcement in terms of cross-sectional area for Fe415
and Fe250 grade of steel.
(iii) Clause No. 15.9.9 specifies similar provisions for shrinkage and
temperature reinforcement.
(iv) However Clause No. 15.4.2.2 accounts for higher grade of steel for
calculation of ultimate moment of resistance.
(v) Clause No. 15.9.6.2 specifies ultimate anchorage bond stress for plain
bars in compression and tension. For deformed bars, it is increased by
40% than that of plain bars.
4. Implication of use of Fe 500 and higher grade HSD bars

(a) Amendment of IS:13920-1993 read in conjunction with IS:1786-2008
reveals that for seismic zones III, IV & V, rebar of Fe 500 and higher grade
having elongation of 14.5% or more only can be used.
(b) Higher the ratio of Ultimate tensile strength to yield strength, larger will be
the area under the stress-strain curve, which indicates higher shock
absorbing capacity of the rebar.
(c) Percentage of carbon, sulphur and phosphorous content is reduced in the
D & S grade steel rebars. D & S grade steel rebars have higher ductility
than normally steel rebars having similar 0.2% proof stress/yield stress.
(d) Clause No.40.4 of IS:456-2000 and Clause No. 15.4.3.2 of IRS:CBC
restricts the value of characteristic strength of shear stirrup or bent-up
reinforcement to 415 N/mm2.
(e) Minimum area of steel to be provided for secondary reinforcement and
also for temperature and shrinkage cracking requirement is normally
adopted as some minimum fixed percentage or cross-section area of the
member in codes of practice for concrete design.
3
5. Effects of use of Fe 500 and higher grade reinforcement on Certain RDSO

Standard Drawings:
(a) Some of the standard RDSO drawings RCC Slabs, PSC Slabs and RCC
Box culverts have been examined to verify the effects of use of Fe 500
and higher grade steel bar reinforcement and results are discussed below:
(i) Drawing No. RDSO/B-10272 for Post tensioned PSC Slab (2

units) of span9.15 m for 25tLoading-2008: There will not be any
change in design and drawing on account of use of higher grade of
rebar.
(ii) Drawing No. RDSO/B-10263R for Prestressed PSC Slab (3
units) of span 9.15m for 25t Loading-2008: There will not be any
rebar.
(iii) Drawing No. RDSO/B-10152 for Single Box Culvert for 25t
loading-2008 and Drawing No.-RDSO/B-10151 for Single Box
Culvert for DFC Loading: There will not be any change in design
and drawing on account of use of higher grade of rebar.
(iv) Drawing No. RDSO/BA-10063 for Precast RC Bridge slab of
standard spans 0.61m, 0.915m, 1.22m, 1.83m and 2.44m for 25t
Loading-2008: On using Fe 500D grade the ultimate moment
resisting capacity can be increased by 17% and the section will
continue to be under-reinforced. However, there will not be any
rebar.
(b) As discussed earlier in para 4.0 above minimum secondary reinforcement
and reinforcement required to control cracking due to temperature and
shrinkage of concrete remain same. Maximum characteristic strength of
steel rebars is limited to 415 N/mm2 for shear reinforcement and therefore
requirement of steel for shear reinforcement also remain unchanged. It is
seen in design that Serviceability Limit State (SLS) criteria normally
govern the design and therefore no reduction is achieved in the
requirement of main reinforcement as well.
6. Adoption of provisions in IRS Concrete Bridge Code for use of Fe 500 and
higher grade steel rebars
(a) It is noted that industry and manufactures are increasing production of Fe
500 and higher grade HSD bars and D & S grade rebars have increased
ductility to suit seismic design requirements. Further, IS & IRC codes have
already been modified/revised to incorporate provisions for use of higher
grade HSD steel rebars.
4
(b) Though, much advantage is not anticipated immediately by way of

reduction in quantity of steel reinforcement requirements by using higher
grade HSD bars. However, adoption of Fe 500 and higher grade HSD
bars in IRS Concrete Bridge Code is essential in view of following:-
(i) Shortage of Fe 415 grade and increased availability of Fe 500 and
higher grade HSD steel bars in the market.
(ii) Better ductile properties and shock absorbing capacity of D & S
grade rebars and thereby better suitability for seismic design
requirements.
(iii) Adoption by IS and IRC Codes for design of buildings and road
bridges.
(iv) To avoid ambiguity regarding designing of concrete structures with
Fe 500 and higher grade steel rebars by using provisions of IRS
Concrete Bridge Code.
(c) Modifications / Revisions required in IRS Concrete Bridge Code
Various clauses of IRS CBC dealing with use of HSD bars have been
examined and modifications/ revisions required are summarized in
Annexure below along with technical discussion against each clause.
7. Committee may deliberate and make recommendations. If BSC agree for
adoption of use of Fe 500 and higher grade steel bars as reinforcement in IRS
Concrete Bridge Code then proposed revisions to various clause of IRS CBC
discussed above in para 6.0 shall have to be made.
**********
5
(January, 2014) Item No 1039 (Annexure)
Annexure of Item No 1039
Existing Provisions of IRS Concrete Bridge Code affected by Grade of Steel and
Proposed Provisions
IRSCBC Exiting provision of IRS CBC Proposed provision of IRS CBC
Clause
No.
4.5.1 The reinforcement shall be any of The reinforcement shall be any of
the following : the following :
a) Grade-I mild steel and medium
a) Grade-I mild steel and medium
tensile steel bars conforming to
tensile steel bars conforming to
IS:432 (Part-I)
IS:432 (Part-I)
b) High strength deformed steel
b) High strength deformed steel bars conforming to IS: 1786.
bars conforming to IS:1786. c) Thermo-mechanically Treated
c) Thermo-mechanically Treated (TMT) Bars satisfying
(TMT) Bars satisfying requirements of IS: 1786.
requirements of IS:1786. d) Rolled steel made from structural
steel conforming to IS: 2062 Gr.
d) Rolled steel made from A and Gr. B.
structural steel conforming to Note: For seismic zones III, IV & V;
IS:2062 Gr.A and Gr. B. HYSD steel bars having minimum
elongation of 14.5 percent and
confirming to other requirements of
IS: 1786 shall be used.
Discussion:
 As per clause 5.3 of IS:13920-1993, ductile detailing of reinforced
concrete structures subjected to seismic force-Code of Practice
applicable for seismic zone III, IV and V, Steel reinforcements of grade
Fe 415 (see I S 1 7 8 6 : 1 9 8 5 ) o r l e s s o n l y s h a l l b e u s e d .
However, high strength deformed steel bars, produced by the thermo-
mechanical treatment process, of grades Fe500 and Fe550,
having elongation more than 14.5 percent and conforming to other
requirements of I S 1 7 8 6 : 1 9 8 5 m a y a l s o b e u s e d f o r t h e
reinforcement.
 As per Note to clause 18.2.3 of IRC 112: 2011
Notes: (1) Elongation on a gauge length of 5.65√A, where A is the cross
sectional area of the test piece, when tested in accordance with IS 1608-
1995.
(2) For seismic zones III, IV & V; HYSD steel bars having minimum
elongation of 14.5 percent and confirming to other requirements of IS
1786 shall be used.
6
14.9 Shrinkage and Temperature Shrinkage and Temperature

Reinforcement – For plain concrete Reinforcement – For plain concrete
members exceeding 2m in length members exceeding 2m in length
and cast in situ it is necessary to and cast in situ it is necessary to
control cracking arising from control cracking arising from
shrinkage and temperature effects, shrinkage and temperature effects,
including temperature rises caused including temperature rises caused
by the heat of hydration released by by the heat of hydration released by
the cement. Reinforcement shall be the cement. Reinforcement shall be
provided in the direction of any provided in the direction of any
restraint to such movement. restraint to such movement.
The area of reinforcement As parallel The area of reinforcement As parallel
to the direction of each restraint shall to the direction of each restraint shall
be such that. be such that.
As  Kr (Ac-0.5 Acor) As  Kr (Ac-0.5 Acor)
Where Where
Kr is 0.005 for Grade Fe 415 Kr is 0.005 for Grade Fe 415 and
reinforcement and 0.006 for Grade higher grade reinforcement and
Fe 250 reinforcement; 0.006 for Grade Fe 250
A is the area of the gross concrete reinforcement;
c
section at right-angles tothe Ac is the area of the gross concrete
direction of the restraint; section at right-angles to the
direction of the restraint;
Acor is the area of the core of the
concrete section, Ac i.e. that portion Acor is the area of the core of the
of the section more than 250mm concrete section, Ac i.e. that portion
from all concrete surfaces. of the section more than 250mm
from all concrete surfaces.
Discussion:
 As per Clark commentary on concrete bridge design to BS 5400 (page
138), In those parts of structure where cracking could occur due to
restraint to shrinkage or thermal movements, at least 0.3% of mild steel
or 0.25% of high yield steel should be provided.
Thus, categorization is for MS and HYSD steel bars.
 As per clause 7.12.2.2 of ACI 318-11, area of shrinkage and
temperature reinforcement shall provide at least the following ratios of
reinforcement area to the gross concrete area , but not less than
0.0014:
- Slab where grade 40 or 50 deformed bars are used … 0.0020
- Slab where grade 60 deformed bars or welded wire reinforcement
7
are used ... 0.0018

- Slabs where reinforcement with yield stress exceeding 60000 psi
measured at a yield strain of 0.35 percent is used …
0.0018x60000/fy
Commentary on this clause states that the amount specified for
deformed bars and welded wire reinforcement are empirical but have
been used satisfactorily for many years.
15.4.3.2 Shear Reinforcement –Shear No change.
reinforcement shall be provided as
given in Table 14.
TABLE 14:
FORM AND AREA OF SHEAR
REINFORCEMENT IN BEAMS
(CLAUSE 15.4.3.2.)
Value of v Area of Vertical
(N/mm2 ) shear Reinforcement to
be provided (mm2)
v svc Asv 0.4bsv/ 0.87 fyv
v  svc Asv bsv(v+0.4-svc)/0.87fyv
Note – In the above Table :
v is the shear stress
s is the depth factor (see table 16)
vc is the ultimate shear stress in
concrete
(see table 15)
Asv is the cross sectional area of all
the legs of the stirrups/links at a
particular cross section;
sv is the spacing of the stirrups
along the member
fyv is the characteristic strength of
stirrup reinforcement but not
greater than 415 N/mm2
8
Discussion:
 As per Clark’s commentary on concrete bridge design to BS 5400
(page 67), this value is restricted to 425 N/mm2. This is because the
data considered by the shear study group indicated that the yield stress
of shear reinforcement should not exceed about 480 N/mm2 in order
that it could be guaranteed that the shear reinforcement would yield at
collapse prior to crushing of concrete.
 As per Clause 39.4 of SP: 24-1983, the reasons for limiting fy value to
415 N/mm2 for shear reinforcement are as follows-
- The code is concerned with crack width limitations as crack width and
grade of steel is interrelated.
- It becomes difficult to bend higher strength steel bars and sharp edges
may get damaged during bending.
15.4.4.4 Treatment of various cross No change.
sections :
a) Box sections- The torsional
shear stress shall be calculated as :
T
vt  ……. (equation-9)
2hwo Ao
where,
hwo is the wall thickness where the
stress is determined;
Ao is the area enclosed by the
median wall line.
Torsion reinforcement shall be
provided such that:
A st T
 ……(equation 10)
Sv 2A o (0.87f yv )
A sL A st  f yv 
   ……(equation 11)
SL Sv  f yL 
where,
T is the torsional moment due to
the ultimate loads;
Ast is the area of one leg of a
closed stirrup of a section;
9
AsL is the area of one bar of

longitudinal reinforcement;
fyv is the characteristics strength of
stirrups.
fYL is the characteristic strength of
the longitudinal reinforcement;
Sv is the spacing of the stirrups
along the member;
SL is the spacing of the longitudinal
reinforcement ;
In equations 10 and 11, fyv and fyl
shall not taken as greater than 415
N/mm2.
Discussion:
As per Clark’s commentary on concrete bridge design to BS 5400 (page
78), the characteristic strength of all torsional reinforcement is limited to 425
N/mm2 primarily because such a restriction exists for shear reinforcement.
However it is justified by the fact that some beams, which were tested by
Swann and reinforced with steel having yield stresses in excess of 430
N/mm2, failed at ultimate torques slightly less than those predicted by the
code method of calculation. The reason for this was that the large concrete
strains necessary to mobilize the yield stress of such higher strength steel
resulted in a reduction in the efficiency factor.
15.5.4.2.4 In solid slabs at least 200mm thick, No change.
where V lies between Vc and the
maximum shear resistance based on
that allowed for a beam in 15.4.3.1,
an area of shear reinforcement shall
be provided on the critical perimeter
and a similar amount on a parallel
perimeter at a distance of 0.75d
inside it, such that ;
0.4 bd  Asv(0.87fyv)(V-Vc)
……..(equation 13)
where,
bd is the area of the critical
section
Asv is the area of shear
reinforcement
10

the shear reinforcement which
shall be taken as not greater
than 415N/mm2.
The overall ultimate shear resistance
shall be calculated on perimeters
progressively 0.75d out from the
critical perimeter and, if the
resistance continues to be
exceeded, further shear
reinforcement shall be provided on
each perimeter in accordance with
equation 13, substituting the
appropriate values for V and  bd.
Shear reinforcement shall be
considered effective only in those
places where the slab depth is
greater than or equal to 200mm.
Shear reinforcement may be in the
form of vertical or inclined stirrups
anchored at both ends passing
round the main reinforcement.
Stirrups shall be spaced no further
apart than 0.75d and, if inclined
stirrups are used, the area of shear
reinforcement shall be adjusted to
give the equivalent shear resistance.
Discussion:
Same as in 15.4.3.2 and 15.4.4.4 above.
15.9.4.1 Minimum area of main Minimum area of main
reinforcement - The area of reinforcement -The area of tension
tension reinforcement in a beam or reinforcement in a beam or slab shall
slab shall be not less than 0.2% of be not less than 0.2% of bad when
bad when using Grade Fe 415 using Grade Fe 415 and higher grade
reinforcement, or 0.35% of bad when reinforcement, or 0.35% of bad when
Grade Fe 250 reinforcement is used, Grade Fe 250 reinforcement is used,
where, where,
ba is the breadth of section, or ba is the breadth of section, or
average breadth excluding the average breadth excluding the
compression flange for compression flange for
nonrectangular sections ; nonrectangular sections ;
d is the effective depth to tension d is the effective depth to tension
11
reinforcement. reinforcement.
For a box, T or I section ba shall be For a box, T or I section ba shall be
taken as the average breadth of the taken as the average breadth of the
concrete below the upper flange. concrete below the upper flange.
The minimum number of longitudinal The minimum number of longitudinal
bars provided in a column shall be bars provided in a column shall be
four in rectangular columns and six four in rectangular columns and six in
in circular columns and their size circular columns and their size shall
shall not be less than 12mm. In a not be less than 12mm. In a helically
helically reinforced column, the reinforced column, the longitudinal
longitudinal bars shall be in contact bars shall be in contact with the helical
with the helical reinforcement and reinforcement and equidistant around
equidistant around its inner its inner circumference. Spacing of
circumference. Spacing of longitudinal bars measured along the
longitudinal bars measured along periphery of the columns shall not
the periphery of the columns shall exceed 300mm. The total cross
not exceed 300mm. The total cross sectional area of these bars shall not
sectional area of these bars shall not be less than 1 % of the cross sections
be less than 1 % of the cross of the column or 0.15P/fy, whichever is
sections of the column or 0.15P/fy, the lesser, where P is the ultimate
whichever is the lesser, where P is axial load and fy is the characteristic
the ultimate axial load and fy is the strength of the reinforcement.
characteristic strength of the
A wall cannot be considered as a
reinforcement.
reinforced concrete wall unless the
A wall cannot be considered as a percentage of vertical reinforcement
reinforced concrete wall unless the provided is at least 0.4%. This vertical
percentage of vertical reinforcement reinforcement may be in one or two
provided is at least 0.4%. This layers.
vertical reinforcement may be in one
or two layers.
Discussion:
 As per clause 26.5.1.1 of IS 456:2000 for beams. The minimum area
of tension reinforcement shall be not less than that given by the
following:
As/ bd =0.85/fy
Where,
AS = minimum area of tension reinforcement,
b = breadth of beam or the breadth of the web of T-beam,
d = effective depth, and
fy, =characteristic strength of reinforcement in N/mm2
12
(Values for Fe 250: 0.34% and for Fe 415: 0.20%)

 As per clause 26.5.2.1 of IS 456:2000, the mild steel reinforcement in
either direction in slabs shall not be less than 0.15 percent of the total
cross sectional area. However, this value can be reduced to 0.12
percent when high strength deformed bars or welded wire fabric are
used.
 As per clause 16.5.1.1 of IRC 112:2011, The effective cross sectional
area of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement should be not less than
that required to control cracking( section 12) , nor less than As,min
where, As,min = 0.26fctm/fykbtd, but not less than 0.0013btdwhere bt
denotes the mean width of the tension zone; foe a T-beam or L-beam
with the flanges in compression, only the width of the web is taken into
account in calculating the value of bt. Fctm should be determined with
respect to the relevant strength class.
For a maximum value of fck of 60 N/mm2, fctm is given as 4 N/mm2
in table 6.5(page 38). Therefore, required As,min is 0.208% and
0.251% for fyk of 500 and 415 N/mm2 respectively. Thus minimum
required percentage need not be changed.
 As per clause 16.6.1.1 of IRC 112:2011 for solid slabs, the minimum
and maximum steel percentages in the main direction should be as for
beam given in clause 16.5.1.1.
 As per Clark’s commentary (page 138), required minimum percentage
of tension reinforcement are 0.26 and 0.16 for fy=250N/mm2 and 415
N/mm2 respectively.
15.9.4.2 Minimum area of secondary Minimum area of secondary
reinforcement - In the reinforcement - In the predominantly
predominantly tensile area of a solid tensile area of a solid slab or wall the
slab or wall the minimum area of minimum area of secondary
secondary reinforcement shall be reinforcement shall be not less than
not less than 0.12% of btd when 0.12% of btd when using Grade Fe
using Grade Fe 415 reinforcement, 415 and higher grade reinforcement,
or 0.15% of btd when Grade Fe 250 or 0.15% of btd when Grade Fe 250
reinforcement is used. In a solid slab reinforcement is used. In a solid slab
or wall where the main or wall where the main reinforcement
reinforcement is used to resist is used to resist compression, the
compression, the area of secondary area of secondary reinforcement
reinforcement provided shall be at provided shall be at least 0.12% of btd
least 0.12% of btd in the case of in the case of Grade Fe 415and
Grade Fe 415 reinforcement and higher grade reinforcement and 0.15%
0.15% of btd in the case of Grade Fe of btd in the case of Grade Fe 250
250 reinforcement. The diameter reinforcement. The diameter shall be
shall be not less than one quarter of not less than one quarter of the size of
the size of the vertical bars with the vertical bars with horizontal
13
horizontal spacing not exceeding spacing not exceeding 300 mm.

300 mm.
In beams where the depth of the side
In beams where the depth of the face exceeds 600mm, longitudinal
side face exceeds 600mm, reinforcement shall be provided
longitudinal reinforcement shall be having an area of at least 0.05% of btd
provided having an area of at least on each face with a spacing not
0.05% of btd on each face with a exceeding 300 mm.
spacing not exceeding 300 mm. where,
where,
bt is the breadth of the section ;
bt is the breadth of the section ; d is the effective depth to tension
d is the effective depth to tension reinforcement.
reinforcement.
In a voided slab the amount of
In a voided slab the amount of transverse reinforcement shall exceed
transverse reinforcement shall the lesser of the following: -
exceed the lesser of the following: - a) In the bottom, or predominantly
a) In the bottom, or tensile, flange either 1500
predominantly tensile, flange mm2/m or 1% of the minimum
either 1500 mm2/m or 1% of flange section;
the minimum flange section;
b) In the top, or predominantly
b) In the top, or predominantly compressive flange either 1000
compressive flange either mm2/m or 0.7% of the minimum
1000 mm2/m or 0.7% of the flange section.
minimum flange section. Additional reinforcement may be
Additional reinforcement may be required in beams slabs and walls to
required in beams slabs and walls to control early shrinkage and thermal
control early shrinkage and thermal cracking (see also 15.9.9).
cracking (see also 15.9.9).
Discussion:
 As per clause 26.5.2.1 of IS 456:2000,the mild steel reinforcement in either
direction in slabs shall not be less than 0.15 percent of the total cross
sectional area. However, this value can be reduced to 0.12 percent when
high strength deformed bars or welded wire fabric are used.
15.9.9 Shrinkage and temperature Shrinkage and temperature
reinforcement - To prevent reinforcement - To prevent excessive
excessive cracking due to shrinkage cracking due to shrinkage and thermal
and thermal movement, movement, reinforcement shall be
reinforcement shall be provided in provided in the direction of any
the direction of any restraint to such restraint to such movements. In the
movements. In the absence of any absence of any more accurate
more accurate determination, the determination, the area of
14
area of reinforcement, As, parallel to reinforcement, As, parallel to the

the direction of each restraint, shall direction of each restraint, shall be
be such that : such that :
As  Kr ( Ac - 0.5 Acor) As  Kr ( Ac - 0.5 Acor)
where where
Kr is 0.005 for Grade Fe 415 Kr is 0.005 for Grade Fe 415 and
reinforcement and 0.006 for higher grade reinforcement
Grade Fe 250 reinforcement; and 0.006 for Grade Fe 250
Ac is the area of the gross reinforcement;
concrete section at right Ac is the area of the gross
angles to the direction of the concrete section at right angles
restraint; to the direction of the restraint;
Acor is the area of the core of the Acor is the area of the core of the
concrete section, Ac i.e. that concrete section, Ac i.e. that
portion of the section more portion of the section more than
than 250 mm away from all 250 mm away from all concrete
concrete surfaces. surfaces.
Shrinkage & temperature Shrinkage & temperature
reinforcement shall be distributed reinforcement shall be distributed
uniformly around the perimeter of uniformly around the perimeter of the
the concrete section and spaced at concrete section and spaced at not
not more than 150 mm. more than 150 mm.
Reinforcement that is present for Reinforcement that is present for
other purposes may be taken into other purposes may be taken into
account for the purpose of this account for the purpose of this clause.
clause.
Discussion:
Same as in clause 14.9 above.
16.4.4.4 Shear Reinforcement
16.4.4.4.1 Minimum shear No change
reinforcement shall be provided in
the form of stirrups/links such that:
Asv 0.4b

Sv 0.87fyv
where
the stirrup/link reinforcement
but not greater than 415
N/mm 2
15
Asv is the total cross sectional

area of the legs of the
stirrups/links
Sv is the stirrup/link spacing
along the length or the beam.
Minimum shear reinforcement
shall also not be less than 0.20% of
web area in plan in the case of mild
steel reinforcement and 0.12% of
web area in plan in the case of HSD
bars.
Discussion:
 As per clause 16.5.2 of IRC: 112-2011, the minimum value for shear
reinforcement ratio is given by pw.min=(0.072 √fck)/fyk.
Keeping the maximum value of fck of 60 N/mm2 and, the required
ratio comes out to 0.13% and 0.11% for fyk of 415 and 500 N/mm2
respectively. Since it has been taken as 0.12% for HYSD bars in IRS
CBC, it need not be changed.
 As per clause R11.4.6.3 of commentary on ACI 318-11, previous versions
of the code have requirements of minimum area of transverse
reinforcement that is independent of concrete strength. Tests have
indicated the need to increase the minimum area of shear reinforcement as
the strength of concrete increases to prevent sudden shear failure when
inclined cracking occurs.
16.4.4.4.3 Where stirrups/links are used, the No change
area of longitudinal steel in the
tensile zone shall be such that :-
V
As 
2(0.87fy )
where,
As is the area of effectively
anchored longitudinal tensile
reinforcement (see 15.9.7)
and prestressing tendons
(excluding debonded
tendons);
fy is the characteristic strength
of the longitudinal
reinforcement and
16
prestressing tendons but not

greater than 415N/mm2
Discussion:
Same as in clause 15.4.3.3 and 15.4.4.4 above.
16.4.5.2 Stresses and Reinforcement – No change
Calculations for torsion are only
required for the ultimate limit state
and the torsional shear stresses
shall be calculated assuming a
plastic shear distribution.
Calculations for torsion shall be in
accordance with 15.4.4 with the
following modifications. When
prestressing steel is used as
transverse torsional steel, in
accordance with equations 10 and
10(a) or as longitudinal steel, in
accordance with equation 11, the
stress assumed in design shall be
the lesser of 415 N/mm2 or (0.87fpu –
fpe).
The compressive stress in the
concrete due to prestress shall be
taken into account separately in
accordance with 15.4.4.5
In calculating (v +vt), for comparison
with vtu in Table 17, v shall be
calculated from equation 8,
regardless of whether 16.4.4.2 or
16.4.4.3 is critical in shear.
For concrete grades above M40 the
values of vtu given in Table 17 may
be increased to 0.75 fck but not
more than 5.8 N/mm2.
Discussion:
Same as in clause 15.4.3.3 and 15.4.4.4 above.
********
17
ITEM No. 1040

Subject : Technical Guidelines for Box Pushing technique.
BSC Reference : Nil
RDSO File No. : CBS/DBC
Agenda : Technical Guidelines for Box Pushing technique.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1. Central Railway vide their letter No. W.133.BR.109 dated 28.01.2013 have raised
the issue of standardization of box pushing technique for construction of Road
Under Bridges (RUBs). It is stated that there is lot of emphasis on closure of level
crossings gates by construction of RUB/ROB and diversion. Generally following
methods are adopted for construction of RUBs:
i) Box Pushing
ii) Cut and cover
iii) In-situ construction by insertion of RH Girders.
Now a days in-situ construction by insertion of RH Girders is not generally
preferred as it involves multiple traffic blocks as well as speed restriction for
longer durations. Tightening of fixtures is also required to be carried out daily in
this method. Cut and Cover method is faster and effective but requires traffic
block of 4 to 7 hours depending on bank height and size of the box. At several
locations, it is very difficult to provide such long duration traffic blocks and in such
cases Box Pushing method comes as a rescue.
The Box Pushing method is very effective as in this method no traffic blocks are
required. Even though the method is used very commonly in Indian Railways but
no clear cut technical guidelines are available to field engineers regarding
minimum cushion, suitable soil type, jacking equipment, cutter shield and design
stresses etc. As such technical guidelines for Box Pushing method are required
to be framed. Draft technical guidelines proposed by Central Railway are
enclosed as Annexure-1.
2. RDSO has issued the standard drawings of RCC boxes for in-situ as well as
segmental construction (using cut and cover method) for various spans/heights
and earth fill depths to facilitate construction of RUB/Limited Height Subway
(LHS).The Box Pushing method is site specific and entire scheme has to be
designed and developed on case to case basis depending on site conditions e.g.
bank height, size of the box, type of the soil etc. cutter shield, thrust bed and
jacking requirements have to be suitably designed. RDSO has not been involved
18
in the design/execution of RUBs by using Box Pushing Technique as every case

is site specific and standardization is not possible.
3. Construction of RUBs by Box Pushing Technique is adopted on Indian Railways

since last 10-12 years and number of Railways have already executed the works
in consultation with outside agencies/design consultants and gained adequate
experience. Therefore, it is suggested that a sub-committee comprising of three
Railways, which have already executed such works, be constituted to frame the
technical guidelines for Box Pushing Technique. RDSO may also be associated
with the sub-committee.
4. The committee may deliberate on this issue
**********
19
Annexure of Item No 1040

Draft Technical Guidelines for Box Pushing
1.0 Pre-requisites -
1.1 Soil investigation should be done in advance to ascertain the type of strata
to minimize the problem/difficulty during execution.
1.2 Box pushing should be done in good soil and soft/weathered rock only.
1.3 Pushing in hard rock or clay strata should be avoided.
1.4 Thrust bed and jacking pocket should be properly designed to withstand
the pressure.
1.5 There should be minimum 1.5 m. earth cushion available above top
surface of box.
1.6 There should be proper arrangement/detailing for provision of drag sheet
for smooth operation without snapping/tearing of sheet during operation.
2.0 Safety precaution –
2.1 Before execution –
2.1.1 CRS sanction and proper DCN should be in place.
2.1.2 All the temporary caution boards should be provided and protection
arrangement should be done.
2.1.3 Necessary protection equipment should be in place and in working order.
2.1.4 Adequate lighting and communication arrangement should be ensured.
2.1.5 Sufficient sand bag/filling material should be ready for emergency.
2.1.6 Availability of sufficient number of manpower and supervision should be
ensured.
2.2 During execution –
2.2.1 Pushing should be done under traffic block with proper block protection.
2.2.2 Cutting edge should always be buried in the earth.
2.2.3 Alignment and level should be checked before and after every operation of
jacking and necessary corrections should be applied.
2.2.4 Smooth operation and rolling of drag sheet should be ensured.
2.2.5 Sufficient No. and capacity of jack should be available so that jacking
should be done with 50% of rated capacity of jack.
2.2.6 Track parameters should always be kept under watch and necessary
corrective action should be taken, throughout during operation.
20
2.3 After box pushing operation –

2.3.1 Proper sealing and grouting of joint.
2.3.2 Concreting of jacketing slot/pocket in box.
2.3.3 Construction of other boxes on both approaches.
2.3.4 Construction of wing wall/return wall and barrel protection wall.
2.3.5 Provision of height gauge etc.
**********
21
ITEM NO. 1041

Subject : Incorporating minimum Dry Film Thickness in conventional
Painting System mentioned in IRBM & IRS B-I:2001.
BSC Reference : New Item.
RDSO File No. : CBS/MPP & CBS/IRBM.
Agenda : To consider amendment in Para No. 39 of IRS: BI- 2001 and
Para No. 217,218,615 of IRBM (Indian Railway Bridge Manual)
by incorporating Dry Film Thickness (DFT) in conventional
system of painting.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
E.C. Railway has raised the issue of Mechanization of Painting of Bridge Girders
and for including painting by airless spray method in Para 217 sub Para 4 (h) of IRBM
vide their letter no. W-3/365/09/Br.SSC/P-II/1828 dated 24/31-12-2013. The issue was
examined and deliberated in RDSO. Painting over Bridges is normally done in three
coats i.e. Initial Coat, Inter-mediate Coat & Final Coat as per the conventional painting
system. As painting was done departmentally and work ethics was high, system went
smoothly for decades in which quality of coats was judged subjectively. However with
advent of spray method and getting painting on contract basis, quality issues have
become important. Minimum DFT is best objective criteria to judge conventional
painting system, whether same is done manually or by spray method. DFT criteria is
already prescribed for epoxy based, metalizing etc. but is not provided in the
conventional Painting System. Hence there is need to provide DFT criteria in
Conventional Painting System so as to replace the old subjective criteria. Therefore,
Minimum DFT (Dry Film Thickness) have been proposed to be incorporated in Para No.
39 of IRS: BI-2001 and Para No. 217,218,615 of IRBM (Indian Railway Bridge Manual).
There proposed changes have been vetted by M&C Directorate.
Proposed Amendment in Para No. 39 of IRS: BI-2001 are as under:

S. Existing Para Proposed Revised Para Remarks
No.
1. 39.0 Oiling, Painting & 39.0 Oiling, Painting & No Change
Metalizing. Metalizing.
2. 39.1 No part of the work shall be 39.1 No part of the work shall be No Change
painted or coated, packed or painted or coated, packed or
dispatched, until it has been dispatched, until it has been
finally inspected and approved finally inspected and approved
by the Inspecting Officer. Dry by the Inspecting Officer. Dry
22

No.
Film Thickness shall be Film Thickness shall be
measured by elcometer or any measured by elcometer or any
other approved method. other approved method.
3. 39.2 When so specified by the 39.2 When so specified by the No Change
Purchaser, the whole of the work Purchaser, the whole of the
except machined surfaces shall work except machined surfaces
be given protective coating using shall be given protective coating
one of the systems of painting or using one of the systems of
metalizing given in clauses painting or metalizing given in
39.2.1 to 39.2.4. Prior to the clauses 39.2.1 to 39.2.4. Prior to
application of protective coating , the application of protective
the surface of work shall be coating , the surface of work
carefully prepared removing mill- shall be carefully prepared
scale, rust, etc. using wire removing mill-scale, rust, etc.
brushes, sand or grit blasting as using wire brushes, sand or grit
stipulated and approved by the blasting as stipulated and
Purchaser. approved by the Purchaser.
4. 39.2.1 For locations where the 39.2.1 For locations where the
girders are subjected to salt girders are subjected to salt
spray such as in close vicinity of spray such as in close vicinity of
the sea and/or over creeks etc. the sea and/or over creeks etc.
the protective coating by the protective coating by
metalising with sprayed metalising with sprayed
aluminium as given in the aluminium as given in the
Appendix VII followed by Appendix VII followed by
painting as per painting schedule painting as per painting
given below may be applied: schedule given below may be with 8-10 μ
minimum dry
applied:
(i) One coat of etch primer to IS: film thickness
5666. (i) One coat of etch primer to IS: (DFT) added.
5666 with 8-10 μ minimum dry
(ii) One coat of zinc chrome
film thickness (DFT). With 20 μ
primer to IS: 104 with the
additional proviso that zinc (ii) One coat of zinc chrome minimum dry
film thickness
chrome to be used in the primer to IS: 104 with 20 μ (DFT)
manufacture of primer shall minimum dry film thickness
conform to type 2 of IS: 51. (DFT) with the additional proviso
that zinc chrome to be used in
iii) Two coats of aluminium paint
the manufacture of primer shall
to IS: 2339 brushing or spraying
conform to type 2 of IS: 51.
as required. One coat shall be with 20 μ
applied before the fabricated iii) Two coats of aluminium paint minimum dry
steel work leaves the shop. After to IS: 2339 brushing or spraying film thickness
(DFT) each coat
the steel work is erected at site, as required with 20 μ minimum
23

No.
the second finishing coat shall be dry film thickness (DFT) each added.
applied after touching up the coat. One coat shall be applied
primer and the finishing coat if before the fabricated steel work
damaged in transit. leaves the shop. After the steel
work is erected at site, the
second finishing coat shall be
applied after touching up the
primer and the finishing coat if
damaged in transit.
5. 39.2.2 For locations where 39.2.2 For locations where No Change
girders are exposed to corrosive girders are exposed to corrosive
environment i.e. flooring system environment i.e. flooring system
of open web girders in all cases, of open web girders in all cases,
girders in industrial, suburban or girders in industrial, suburban or

coastal areas etc., protective coastal areas etc., protective
coating by metalising followed by coating by metallising followed
painting as mentioned in clause by painting as mentioned in
39.2.1 or by painting using epoxy clause 39.2.1 or by painting
based paints as per the following using epoxy based paints as per
painting schedule may be the following painting schedule
applied: may be applied:
i) Surface Preparation i) Surface Preparation
a) Remove oil/grease from the a) Remove oil/grease from the
metal surface by using petroleum metal surface by using
hydrocarbon solvent to IS: 1745. petroleum hydrocarbon solvent
b) Prepare the surface by sand to IS: 1745.
or grit blasting to Sa 2-1/2 to IS: b) Prepare the surface by sand
9954 i.e. near white metallic or grit blasting to Sa 2-1/2 to IS:
surface. 9954 i.e. near white metallic
surface.
(ii) Painting
(a) Primer Coat (ii) Painting
(a) Primer Coat
Apply by brush/airless spray two
coats of Epoxy Zinc Phosphate Apply by brush/airless spray two
primer to RDSO Specification coats of Epoxy Zinc Phosphate
No. M&C/PCN/102/86 to 60 primer to RDSO Specification
microns min, dry film thickness( No. M&C/PCN/102/86 to 60
DFT) giving sufficient time gap microns min, dry film thickness(
between two coats to enable the DFT) giving sufficient time gap
24

No.
first coat of primer to hard dry. between two coats to enable the
first coat of primer to hard dry.
(b) Intermediate Coat
Apply by brush/ airless spray one (b) Intermediate Coat
coat of Epoxy Micaceous Iron Apply by brush/ airless spray
Oxide paint to RDSO one coat of Epoxy Micaceous
Specification No. M&C/PCN/ Iron Oxide paint to RDSO
103/86 to 100 microns minimum Specification No. M&C/PCN/
DFT of 100 and allow it to hard 103/86 to 100 microns minimum
dry. DFT of 100 and allow it to hard
dry.
(c) Finishing Coat
(c) Finishing Coat
Apply by brush/airless spray two
coats of polyurethane aluminium Apply by brush/airless spray two
finishing to RDSO Specification coats of polyurethane aluminium
No. M&C/PCN-110/88 for coastal finishing to RDSO Specification
locations or polyurethane red No. M&C/PCN-110/88 for
oxide (red oxide to ISO 446 as coastal locations or
per IS:5) to RDSO Specification polyurethane red oxide (red
M&C/PCN-109/88 for other oxide to ISO 446 as per IS:5) to
locations to 40 microns minimum RDSO Specification M&C/PCN-
DFT giving sufficient time gap 109/88 for other locations to 40
between two coats to enable the microns minimum DFT giving
first coat to hard dry. The sufficient time gap between two
finishing coats to be applied in coats to enable the first coat to
shop and touched after erection hard dry. The finishing coats to
if necessary. be applied in shop and touched
after erection if necessary.
6. 39.2.3 For other locations, 39.2.3 For other locations,
protective coating by painting as protective coating by painting as
per painting schedule given per painting schedule given
below may be applied: below may be applied:
a) Primer coat a) Primer coat
One coat of ready mixed paint One coat of ready mixed paint
zinc chrome priming to IS:104 zinc chrome priming to IS:104 with 20 μ
minimum dry
followed by one coat of ready with 20 μ minimum dry film film thickness
mixed paint red oxide zinc thickness (DFT) followed by (DFT) added
chrome priming to IS:2074. one coat of ready mixed paint
with 20 μ
red oxide zinc chrome priming to minimum dry
or
IS:2074 with 20 μ DFT min or film thickness
Two coats of zinc chromate red (DFT) added
oxide primer to IRS: P-31.
25

No.
b) Finishing coat Two coats of zinc chromate red
oxide primer to IRS: P-31 with with 20 μ
Two finishing coats of red oxide
20 μ minimum dry film minimum dry
paint to IS: 13607 with colour film thickness
thickness (DFT) in each coat.
/shade to be specified by Zonal (DFT) in each
Railway or of any other approved b) Finishing coat coat added
paint shall be applied over the
Two finishing coats of red oxide with 20 μ
primer coats. One coat shall be minimum dry
paint to IS: 13607 with 20 μ
applied before the fabricated film thickness
minimum dry film thickness (DFT) in each
steel work leaves the shop. After
(DFT) in each coat with colour coat added
the steel work is erected at site
/shade to be specified by Zonal
the second finishing coat shall be
Railway or of any other
applied after touching up the
approved paint shall be applied
primer and the finishing coat if
over the primer coats. One coat
damaged in transit.
shall be applied before the
NOTE: (i) The colour/shade of fabricated steel work leaves the
finishing coat should be generally shop. After the steel work is
matching with the Smoke Grey erected at site the second
colour/shade No. ISC 692 finishing coat shall be applied
mentioned in IS: 5-2004. after touching up the primer and
the finishing coat if damaged in
(ii) The colour/shade can be
transit.
changed by CBE as per the local
requirements. NOTE: (i) The colour/shade of
finishing coat should be
generally matching with the
Smoke Grey colour/shade No.
ISC 692 mentioned in IS: 5-
2004.
changed by CBE as per the
local requirements.
7. 39.2.4 Where the life of 39.2.4 Where the life of
protective coating is required to protective coating is required to
be longer to avoid frequent be longer to avoid frequent
paintings, the problem of paintings, the problem of
accessibility of locations and for accessibility of locations and for
other locations where metallising other locations where
or epoxy based painting is metallising or epoxy based
recommended vide Clause painting is recommended vide
39.2.2 but there are no facilities Clause 39.2.2 but there are no
available for the same, protective facilities available for the same,
coating by painting as per protective coating by painting as
26

No.
following painting schedule may per following painting schedule
be applied with the approval of may be applied with the
the Purchaser: approval of the Purchaser:
a) Primer coat a) Primer coat
One coat of ready mixed zinc One coat of ready mixed zinc with 20 μ
chrome priming to IS:104 chrome priming to IS:104 with minimum dry
followed by one coat of zinc 20 μ minimum dry film film thickness
(DFT) added
chrome red oxide priming to thickness (DFT) followed by
IS:2074. one coat of zinc chrome red
oxide priming to IS:2074 with 20 with 20 μ
b) Finishing Coat
μ minimum dry film thickness minimum dry
Two coats of aluminium paint to (DFT) film thickness
IS: 2339 shall be applied over (DFT) added
b) Finishing Coat
the primer coats. One coat shall
be applied before the fabricated Two coats of aluminium paint to with 20 μ
steel work leaves the shop. After IS: 2339 with 20 μ minimum minimum dry
the steel work is erected at site, dry film thickness (DFT) in film thickness
the second coat shall be applied each coat shall be applied over (DFT) added
after touching up the primer and the primer coats. One coat shall
the finishing coat if damaged in be applied before the fabricated
transit. steel work leaves the shop. After
the steel work is erected at site,
the second coat shall be applied
after touching up the primer and
the finishing coat if damaged in
transit.
8. 39.3 Surfaces which are 39.3 Surfaces which are
inaccessible for cleaning and inaccessible for cleaning and
painting after fabrication shall be painting after fabrication shall be
applied one heavy coat of zinc applied one heavy coat of zinc
chrome red oxide priming to IS: chrome red oxide priming to IS:
2074 before being assembled for 2074 with 30 μ minimum dry With 30 μ
riveting/welding. film thickness (DFT) before minimum dry
film thickness
being assembled for
(DFT) added
riveting/welding.
9. 39.4 All rivets, bolts, nuts, 39.4 All rivets, bolts, nuts, No Change
washers etc. are to be thoroughly washers etc. are to be
cleaned and dipped into boiled thoroughly cleaned and dipped
linseed oil to IS:77 into boiled linseed oil to IS:77
10. 39.5 All machined surfaces are 39.5 All machined surfaces are No Change
to be well coated with a mixture to be well coated with a mixture
27

No.
of white lead to IS: 34 and of white lead to IS: 34 and
Mutton tallow to IS: 887. Mutton tallow to IS: 887.
11. 39.6 For site painting the whole 39.6 For site painting the whole No Change
of the steel work shall be given of the steel work shall be given
the second finishing coat after the second finishing coat after
finally passing and after touching finally passing and after
up the primer and finishing coats touching up the primer and
if damaged in transit. finishing coats if damaged in
transit.
Proposed Amendment in Para No. 217,218,615 of IRBM (Indian Railway Bridge

Manual) are as under:

No.
1. Para 217.2 The following system Para 217.2 The following
of paints may be adopted for system of paints may be
painting of Bridge girders: adopted for painting of Bridge
girders:
a) In areas where there is no
severe corrosion a) In areas where there is no
severe corrosion
i) “Priming coat: One coat of
ready mixed paint zinc chromate i) “Priming coat: One coat of
with 20 μ
priming to IS:104, followed by ready mixed paint zinc chromate minimum dry
one coat of ready mixed paint red priming to IS:104 with 20 μ film thickness
oxide zinc chrome priming paint minimum dry film thickness (DFT) added
to IS:2074. (DFT), followed by one coat of
ready mixed paint red oxide zinc
OR
chrome priming paint to IS:2074
Two coats of zinc chromate red with 20 μ minimum dry film with 20 μ
oxide primer to IRS: P-31. thickness (DFT). minimum dry
film thickness
ii) Finishing Coat: Two cover OR (DFT) added
coats of paint to IS: 13607 with
Two coats of zinc chromate red
colour/shade to be specified by
oxide primer to IRS: P-31 with with 20 μ
Zonal Railway or any other
20 μ minimum dry film minimum dry
approved paint applied over the film thickness
primer coats. (DFT) in each
Note: (i) The colour/shade of ii) Finishing Coat: Two cover
coat added
finishing coat should be generally coats of paint to IS: 13607 with with 20 μ
matching with the Smoke Grey 20 μ minimum dry film minimum dry
thickness (DFT) in each coat film thickness
colour/Shade No. ISC 692 (DFT) in each
with colour/shade to be
28
mentioned in IS: 5-2004. specified by Zonal Railway or coat added

any other approved paint
applied over the primer coats.
requirements. Note: (i) The colour/shade of
finishing coat should be
generally
matching with the Smoke Grey
colour/Shade No. ISC 692
mentioned in IS: 5-2004.
local requirements.
2. 217.2 (b) In areas where 217.2 (b) In areas where
corrosion is severe corrosion is severe
(i) “Priming Coat: One coat of (i) “Priming Coat: One coat of
ready mixed paint zinc chromateready mixed paint zinc chromate with 20 μ
priming to IS: 104, followed bypriming to IS: 104 with 20 μ minimum dry
one coat of zinc chrome red minimum dry film thickness film thickness
oxide priming to IS: 2074.” (DFT), followed by one coat of (DFT) added
zinc chrome red oxide priming to with 20 μ
(ii) Finishing Coat: Two coats minimum dry
IS: 2074 with 20 μ minimum
of aluminum paint to IS: 2339. film thickness
dry film thickness (DFT) coat”
(DFT)
(ii) Finishing Coat: Two coats with 20 μ
of aluminum paint to IS: 2339 minimum dry
with 20 μ minimum dry film film thickness
thickness (DFT) in each coat. (DFT) in each
coat added.
3. Para 217.2 (C) in case where the Para 217.2 (C) in case where
priming coat is in good condition the priming coat is in good
the steel work is painted with two condition the steel work is
coats of paint to IS: 13607 with painted with two coats of paint
colour/shade to be specified by to IS: 13607 with 20 μ with 20 μ
minimum dry
Zonal Railway or paint aluminium minimum dry film thickness film thickness
to IS: 2339 depending on the (DFT) in each coat with (DFT) in each
severity of corrosion. colour/shade to be specified by coat added.
Note: (i) The colour/shade of Zonal Railway or two coats of with 20 μ

finishing coat should be generally paint aluminium with 20 μ minimum dry
minimum dry film thickness film thickness
matching with the Smoke Grey (DFT) in each
(DFT) in each coat to IS: 2339
colour/shade No. ISC 692 coat added.
depending on the severity of
mentioned in IS: 5-2004.
corrosion.
Note: (i) The colour/shade of
29
requirements. finishing coat should be

generally matching with the
Smoke Grey colour/shade No.
ISC 692 mentioned in IS: 5-
2004.
local requirements.
4. Para 217.4 (d) While painting Para 217.4 (d) While painting No change
with IS: 13607, a little quantity of with IS: 13607, a little quantity of
same paint of other shade shall same paint of other shade shall
be added be added
to the paint while doing the first to the paint while doing the first
coat to distinguish it from the coat to distinguish it from the
second coat. Similarly, in the second coat. Similarly, in the
case of aluminium paint a little case of aluminium paint a little
blue paint can be added for 1st blue paint can be added for 1st
coat. coat.
5. Para 217.4 (e) Paint should be Para 217.4 (e) Paint should be No change
used within the prescribed shelf used within the prescribed shelf
life from the date of manufacture. life from the date of
The quantity of paint procured manufacture. The quantity of
should be such that it is fully paint procured should be such
utilized before the period that it is fully utilized before the
prescribed for it use. The shelf period prescribed for it use. The
life of various paints used in the shelf life of various paints used
railways are as follows: in the railways are as follows:
(i) Paint Ready mixed Zinc (i) Paint Ready mixed Zinc
Chrome Primer (IS: 104): 1 year. Chrome Primer (IS: 104): 1
(ii) Paint to IS: 13607 with year.
colour/shade to be specified by (ii) Paint to IS: 13607 with
Zonal Railway. 1 year colour/shade to be specified by
Zonal Railway. 1 year
(iii) Paint aluminium
When paste and oil are not (iii) Paint aluminium
mixed: 1 year. When paste and oil are not
mixed: 1 year.
When paste and oil are
mixed: 4 months When paste and oil are
(iv) Oil linseed boiled : 2 years mixed: 4 months
(iv) Oil linseed boiled : 2 years
(v) Paint ready mixed Red Oxide
Zinc Chrome (IS:2074) 1 year (v) Paint ready mixed Red Oxide
30
(vi) Red Oxide Zinc Chromate Zinc Chrome (IS:2074) 1 year

Primer (IRS:P-31) 1 year
(vi) Red Oxide Zinc Chromate
Primer (IRS:P-31) 1 year
Para 217.4 h) When the paint is Para 217.4 h) When the paint is The paint can
applied by brush, the brush shall applied by brush, the brush shall also be applied
be held at 450 to the surface and be held at 450 to the surface and by Airless
paint applied with several light paint applied with several light spray ensuring
vertical/ lateral strokes turning vertical/ lateral strokes turning that minimum
the brush frequently and the brush frequently and DFT (Dry Film
transferring the paint and transferring the paint and Thickness) is
covering the whole surface. After covering the whole surface. achieved.
this, the brush shall be used After this, the brush shall be
crosswise for complete coverage used crosswise for complete
and finally finished with vertical/ coverage and finally finished
lateral strokes to achieve uniform with vertical/ lateral strokes to
and even surface. achieve uniform and even
surface.
The paint can also be applied by
Airless spray ensuring that
minimum DFT (Dry Film
Thickness) is achieved.
6. Para 217.4 (i) Para 217.4 (i) No change
Each coat of paint shall be left to Each coat of paint shall be left to
dry till it sufficiently hardens dry till it sufficiently hardens
before the subsequent coat is before the subsequent coat is
applied. applied.
7. Para 218.1 (iv) (a) After the Para 218.1 (iv) (a) After the
metallising, any oil, grease etc. metallising, any oil, grease etc.
should be removed by thorough should be removed by thorough
wash with a suitable thinner and wash with a suitable thinner and
allowed to dry for 15 minutes. allowed to dry for 15 minutes.
The painting may be applied by The painting may be applied by
brush or by spray. The first coat brush or by airless spray. The airless added
shall be wash primer to first coat shall be wash primer to
with 8-10 μ
SSPCPT-353T or Etch primer to SSPCPT-353T or Etch primer to minimum dry
IS: 5666. IS: 5666 with 8-10 μ minimum film thickness
Para 218.1 (iv) (b) The second dry film thickness (DFT).
(DFT) added
coat shall be zinc chromate Para 218.1 (iv) (b) The second
primer to IS : 104. The zinc coat shall be zinc chromate with 20 μ
chrome should confirm to type 2 primer to IS : 104 with 20 μ minimum dry
of IS : 51. The 3rd and 4th coats minimum dry film thickness film thickness
(DFT) added
shall be aluminium paint to IS : (DFT). The zinc chrome should
31
2339. confirm to type 2 of IS : 51. The with 20 μ

3rd and 4th coats shall be minimum dry
film thickness
aluminium paint to IS : 2339 (DFT) in each
with 20 μ minimum dry film coat added
8. Para 615 Para 615
Preparation of Surface: The Preparation of Surface: The
surface of steel work should be surface of steel work should be
carefully prepared by removing carefully prepared by removing
mill scales, rust, grease etc. mill scales, rust, grease etc.
using wire brushes, sand or grit using wire brushes, sand or grit
blasting as required. blasting as required.
The surfaces and locations which The surfaces and locations
will be in permanent contact after which will be in permanent
assembly by riveting should be contact after assembly by
given a heavy coat of red oxide riveting should be given a heavy with 30μ
zinc chrome priming to IS: 2074. coat of red oxide zinc chrome minimum dry
priming to IS: 2074 with 30μ film thickness
minimum dry film thickness (DFT).
(DFT).
*********
32
ITEM NO. 1042

Subject : Periodicity of changing of oil in oil bath for roller bearing.
BSC Reference : Nil
RDSO File No. : CBS/ Bearing
Agenda : To examine the frequency of oil replacement in oil bath.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1. CBE/ECR vide his letter no W-3/365/C9/Br.SSC/P-II/1882 dated

31/12/2012 has raised an issue of periodicity of Oil replacement in the
Oil bath. He mentions that while IRBM Para 222 provides for dust covers
to keep the oil dirt free, it does not specify any periodicity of changing of
Oil. In this matter BS report 102 recommends that Oil of oil bath bearing
be replaced at a frequency of five years. However, this is not being
followed in the field due to difficulties in opening and inspection of oil.
Many discussions on IRICEN forum has revealed that very dirty and
degraded oil is in use because clear cut replacement frequency has not
been specified in Bridge Manual. It is also felt that if simple oil filtration
can enhance the life of oil then replacements need not be done every five
years as recommended in BS 102 report. However, the Oil cannot be
used indefinitely based upon conditions only because we are not
specifying the passing criteria of Oil in Oil bath.
2. A discussion with officials of M&C lab of RDSO revealed that periodicity
of changing of oil in oil bath bearing depends upon many parameters
such as type of oil used, traffic density, span of the bridge etc apart from
the actual maintenance quality such as sealing of the oil bath with dust
covers to prevent dust and water contamination and periodic inspection
and cleaning. It has been observed that due to difficulties in opening of
oil bath, inspection and cleaning of oil is delayed for many years leading
to highly contaminated oil in the oil bath. The oil should be clean and
viscous during its service life. The oil may breakdown and deteriorate
due to contamination, oxidation, emulsification, polymerization, sludge
formation etc and may lose its viscosity and become watery needing
complete replacement. In case of blackening of oil alone due to dust
contamination, the oil shall be cleaned using oil filters of maximum 30
micron size and reused. The oil for the oil bath bearing has been
recommended by M&C lab vide letter no M&C/Lub/VI/4/A dated
17/18.03.05 that oil shall be Industrial gear oil of ISO-Viscosity Grade
320 such as, Bharat Amocam 320, Parthan EP 320, Protomac SP ISO VG
320 or Servomesh SP 320, Shell Omala Oil 320 or equivalent. It is
33
recommended that the oil shall be invariably replaced after a service life
of 20 years. (Even if Oil appears to be usable)
3. Committee may deliberate on the Maximum service life of oil in oil

bearing and its replacement frequency irrespective of its condition after a
certain year. RDSO BS report recommends it to be 5 years, but we may
enhance it to 20 years considering the good quality of Gear oils available.
**********
34
ITEM NO. 1043

Subject : Reduction in height of Reduced Height Girders
RDSO File No. : CBS/DPG/1
Agenda : Reduction in height of Reduced Height Girders or relieving
girders.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
CBE, North Central Railway vide letter No. 136-W/Br/BSC Pt-III dated
17.12.2013 has raised the following issue:
At present RDSO has issued drawing no. B-11040 for 20.4m RH girder with total
girder height of 940mm. Standard design of RH girder may further be reviewed for
lesser height. Total height including rail & sleeper should be ideally limited to 700mm.
For this an arrangement may be designed, probably with coupled girders where rail can
directly be laid on the girder without use of sleepers. With reduced height RH girders,
RCC Box can be laid without removing the RH girder and hence will help in reducing the
block time.
RDSO has studied the issue and the following is brought out:-
1) Steel Reduced Height girders also called RH girders are used as temporary
girders for restoration of traffic in the event of washouts etc. or for passing trains
over temporary works for bridge construction, crossings, etc. RDSO has issued
drawings for three spans, details of which are given below:
Overall Length RDSO Drawing Rail Level to Weight of the

Series Bottom of Girder Girder
14400 mm RDSO/B-11038 1097 mm 16.005 t
20400 mm RDSO/B-11040 1345 mm 24.947 t
26800 mm RDSO/B-11039 1709 mm 37.727 t
2) All the above drawings are for two single leaves so that sleepers are provided
across the girders as shown below:
35
3) CBE, NC Railway vide his letter no. 136-W/Br/BSC Pt-III dated 17.12.2013
has asked for reduction of height of 20.4m RH girder including rails and sleepers
to 700mm and has suggested use of “couple” (Duplicated) girders where rail can
directly be laid on girder without use of sleepers. The benefit of this arrangement
is that the RCC box can be laid without removing the RH girder and hence will
help in reducing the block time. The general arrangement of such girders is
shown in sketch below:
DUPLICATED RELIEVING GIRDER
36
4) The matter has been examined at RDSO and the following points require
consideration:
a) The proposed arrangement has been provided in Bangalore yard with

duplicated girders as can be as seen in the photos below:
Salient Features of girders in SBC yard:

i. Span: 9.15 m.
ii. Depth RL to bottom of girder: 670 mm.
iii. Spacing between girders: 820 mm.
iv. The inner girders are raised as compared to outer girders so as
to eliminate the guard rail.
b) The comparison of the single girder arrangement chosen by RDSO for standard
RH girder drawings and the duplicated girder suggested on various considerations
is as follows:
(i) Speed potential: The temporary arrangement drawings have been revised
with higher speed potentials as per mandate given to RDSO. The girders are
all fit for 50 KMPH and the sub structure for 20/30 KMPH. In the proposed
arrangement, due to the rails fixed longitudinally directly on girders, it is
slightly difficult to maintain the gauge and alignment. As a result, the speed
potential for the girders may be a bit lower. With wooden sleepers, a speed of
10 KMPH only was permitted on this type of girders on W Rly.
(ii) Depth: Deflection control is a major factor which governs the depth of
girders. The RDSO drawing girders are all having deflection more than the
limits given in Steel Bridge Code (this has been permitted to reduce depth to
maximum extent possible, looking at the fact that the girders are not for
regular use). If duplicated girders are designed with reduced depth, the
weight will have to be increased disproportionately to limit deflection.
37
(iii) Weight: The weight of girders in standard drawings issued by RDSO is

quite less, which will help in early completion of blocks if girders are handled
manually and reduce the capacity of crane required to handle the girders.
Rough computations for designs of reduced depth duplicated girders indicate the
following weights (and depths):
Overall Depth Def- Weight Depth Rail Def- Weight
Length Rail lection (Existing) Level to lection (Proposed)
Level to Bottom of
Bottom girder
of girder (Proposed)
(Existing)
14400 725 mm Minimum
1097mm L/383 16.005t L/497
mm (-372 mm) 32 T
Can’t be
725 mm - designed at
20400 this height.
1345mm L/351 24.947 t
mm
985 mm Minimum
L/443
(-360 mm) 51 T
Old RDSO drawing for 26.8m
overall length (RDSO/B-1503) had
duplicated girders.
The weight of this girder was
26800 57.80t, with RL to bottom of girder
1709mm L/468 37.727 t
mm of 1605 mm (-104 mm).
Despite this, the girder was not
found fit for new loading/speeds
and this type of girders was
abandoned.
(iv) Maintenance of Track: The track on existing RH girder shall be just like
any other bridge and standard sleepers like steel channel sleepers,
composite sleepers, wooden sleepers, etc. with standard fittings can be
used. The adjustment of gauge/alignment etc. can be done conveniently. For
duplicated girders, canted bearing plate of steel channel sleepers will have to
be incorporated in the girders. The space available for tightening of fittings is
less and the adjustment of gauge/ alignment/ cross levels is not easily
possible.
(v)Fabrication of Girders: Proper welding/riveting of the brackets for rail seat
is not possible because of less space available. Extra care required to ensure
that the final track parameters like gauge and alignment are achieved.
38
(vi) Performance of girders: Due to rails fixed directly on to the girders on

brackets, the brackets and their connections are highly fatigue prone and can
crack easily (As experienced at many locations including at BZA yard, SC
Rly). Due to presence of rail, inspection of the brackets and their repairs both
become very tedious. Painting on the inside of the girders is also difficult.
5) Committee may deliberate if the RH girders with duplicated arrangement shall be
standardized by RDSO or not.
**********
39
ITEM NO. 1044

Subject : Life of Elastomeric Bearings.
BSC Reference : ED/B&S/RDSO suggestion.
RDSO File No. : CBS/G/PBEJ.
Agenda : As Codal life of Elastomeric Bearings is not defined/ mentioned,
hence there is need to define same based on experience over
Indian Railways so as to take informed decision for Preventive
maintenance.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1. Elastomeric Bearings are design based on UIC 772-2R. Elastomeric Bearings for
ROB are designed as per IRC-83 Part-II Code. For reference purpose BS 5400: Sec.
9.2 is also used in the design. These bearings are in use over Indian Railway since last
more than 2 decades.
2. For design of bearings following data is required:-

(i) Maximum and minimum loads.
(ii) Maximum positive and negative movements in longitudinal and transverse
directions.
(iii) Longitudinal and transverse Horizontal Loads.
(iv) Angular Rotations in longitudinal and transverse directions.
(v) Available plan dimension.
3. The important properties of elastomer (minimum chloroprene content should be

60%) are:-
S.No. Property Unit Value

(i) Shore Hardness IRHD 60 + 5
(ii) Tensile Strength Minimum MPa 17
(iii) Minimum Elongation at break % 400
(iv) Compression Set Maximum (22 to 24 hrs. at 100 + 10C) % 35
(v) Accelerated Ageing (70 hrs. at 100 + 10C)
 Maximum change in hardness IRHD +15
40
S.No. Property Unit Value

 Maximum change in tensile strength % - 15
 Maximum change in elongation % - 40
(vi) Ozone Resistance at Strain(20%), Temperature No
(40+10C), Duration (96Hrs.) and Ozone Concentration cracking
(50pphm)
(vii) Shear Modulus MPa 0.8 – 1.2

(viii) Elastic Modulus MPa 1/(0.2/S2
+ 0.005)
(ix) Adhesion Strength of Elastomer to Steel Plates kN/m. 7
(x) Ash Content % 5%
(xi) Specific Gravity + 0.2
Note:- For Elastomeric Bearings, there has to be minimum vertical stress which shall be
not less than 2 MPa, whereas mean vertical stress is from 10 to 12 MPa.
Therefore where contribution of Dead Load is less, these bearings are not used
as same may lead to slip condition.
4. Life of Elastomeric Bearings is not defined in any of the Codes and Manuals.
However life of Elastomeric Bearings depends upon following factors:-
(i) Stress Range & Stress Cycles.
(ii) Shear Stress & Cycles.
(iii) Shape Factor.
(iv) Translational & Rotational Movements.
(v) Temperature Variations. (Ideal operating temperature is 20 + 50C)
(vi) Moisture Variations.
(vii) Other Environmental Condition like severe, Extreme Environment,
Exposure to chloride.
(viii) Exposure to Ozone.
(ix) Exposure to Ultraviolet Rays.
(x) Exposure to Dirt, Debris.
(xi) Physical Damage, if any during service period.
(xii) Damage to cover & exposure of Steel Plates to corrosion.
(xiii) Vulcanizing Conditions (Uniform or Non Uniform). Age from date of
Vulcanization (Age Hardening).
41
(xiv) Homogeneity of Elastomer through the surface & body of the bearings.
(xv) Variation by 20% more than in stiffness of bearings w.r.t. mean value of
lot.
5. Preliminary Literature Survey was done by RDSO and following important points
were noted:-
 Outer Rubber/Elastomer Cover of 6 – 12 mm is kept for environmental
protection.
 The skin of Oxidized Rubber/Elastomer forms as a result of aging can act

as a protective layer to inhibit further ingress of Oxygen to
Rubber/Elastomer deep inside a thick block.
 Surface degradation of rubber as cracked, crazed or weathered can
normally be attributed to attack by atmospheric Ozone, Oxygen &
Sunlight. This is particularly in rubber/elastomer not protected by
antioxidants and antiozonants. This phenomenon affects only relatively
thin outer layer of elastomer (2-3mm) and is only a surface defect.
 Aging tests on thin strips of rubber can be misleading & give pessimistic
view of longevity of rubber pads.
 Laminated Elastomeric Pads have been in documented service for more
than 30 years in the U.S.A. & U.K. with no reports of serious distortion.
(Book on Engineering with Rubbers edited by Alan Gent Chapter-7 –
Durability by Andrew Stevenson and Robert Campion) [Annexure-A]
 At many places, Elastomeric Bearing are in continual service for more
than 30 years with no need of maintenance or replacement. [Annexure-B]
 In case the bearings are not functioning there is likelihood of cracks in
girder and/or substructure. Replacement of bearing in time is important
otherwise costly repairs/replacement may be required on above account.
6. In absence of provisions in related Codes & Manuals, only method left is to

determine life of Elastomeric Bearings based on the experience/ performance
over Indian Railways. For this RDSO letter No. CBS/Insp./ PBEJ dated
22/11/2013 was written to all Zonal Railways to furnish experience/performance
of Elastomeric Bearings (copy enclosed as Annexure-C).
7. Another option can be that bearings of different ages be taken out from the
bridge and tested for their properties vis-a-vis original properties.
8. Committee may deliberate and make recommendations.
**********
42
(January, 2014) Item No 1044 (Annexure A)
Annexure-A of Item No 1044
43
44
45
(January, 2014) Item No 1044 (Annexure B)
Annexure-B of Item No 1044
46
47
48
49
(January, 2014) Item No 1044 (Annexure C)
Annexure-C of Item No 1044
50
(January, 2014) Item No 1044 (Annexure C)
51
ITEM NO. 1045

Subject : Introduction of Higher spans and skew angles in ROB drawings
RDSO File No. : CBS/DRO/Skew
Agenda : Introduction of Higher spans and skew angles in ROB drawings.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
CBE, South Western Railway vide letter No. SWR/W.81/BSC Meeting dated 26th
Dec., 2013 has raised the following issue:
RDSO standard drawings for ROB are available for the spans of 18m, 24m, 30m
and 36m only. Many of the proposed ROBs crossing the yards and multiple lines are
proposed with spans more than 36m. Also many times due to the constraints in altering
alignment of roads, ROBs are proposed with skew angle as high as 45 degrees.
Proposals for construction of ROBs in lieu of level crossings are coming up. In view of
this, RDSO can introduce spans larger than 36.0m and also standardize the already
existing spans with different skew angles.
RDSO has studied the issue and the following is brought out:-
LONGER SPAN ROBs:
RDSO has undertaken the design of 50 m span BOW string arch girder road over
bridges and the drawings are expected to be issued shortly.
DESIGN OF HIGHER SKEW ANGLE GIRDERS:
1. The issue of “Skew effect on bridges and their implications” was previously
discussed as Item no. 900 in 75th and 76th meetings of Bridge and Structures Standards
Committee. In 75th meeting, analysis and design of concrete skew slabs was
discussed and the analysis procedure/ detailing etc were discussed. It was bought out
that:
a. The skew spans experience maximum deflection towards obtuse angled

corners and the reaction is also thrown towards the obtuse angled corner.
b. Correspondingly, the deflection and the reaction is reduced towards the acute
angled corner.
c. This requires special arrangement of reinforcement to cater to the uplift at acute

corners and extra moments at the obtuse corners.
52
d. Care is also required to be taken to cater to the torsion effects.
e. The discussion also brought out that for spans upto 200, the design is done as
spanning along center line of the traffic. The reinforcement thus obtained is
multiplied by secant of the skew angle.
f. For skew angles between 200 and 500, the slab is designed perpendicular to
support and the reinforcement thus obtained is multiplied by secant of the skew
angle.
g. The reinforcement is provided with reinforcement in both directions parallel to

edges for skew angles upto 300.
h. For skew angles upto 300, the main reinforcement shall be parallel and
perpendicular to supports.
i. Further stiffening of edges and provision of torsional reinforcement is required.
j. Railway Board Orders on 75th BSC: The guidelines developed by IRICEN be

circulated in advance to Rlys & discussed in next BSC. IRICEN may take help of
Bridge Chair of IIT/Roorkee.
k. Railway Board Orders on 76th BSC: The item may be closed. (It is mentioned
that specialized software for carrying out the analysis is not available)
2. The Road Over Bridge spans designed by RDSO are having longitudinal girders
which support the deck slab. When the design was undertaken in 2010-11, the issue of
effect of skew was taken into consideration. From the literature survey conducted at the
time, the following was noted:
(a) IRC-24-2001 para 507.9 mentions that for skew bridges the detailed
analysis of forces shall be required. However, if the angle of skew is within
150, such detailed analysis may not be necessary. (Annexure 1)
(b) From the paper “Effect of bending moment and torsion in T-beam skew
bridge decks” by Trilok Gupta, Anurag Mishra and Ravi K Sharma, the
effect of skew is considerable for skew angles beyond 200.The paper also
mentions that the effect of skew on bending moment gets pronounced
beyond 400 and for spans beyond 24 m. On the other hand, the torsion
starts increasing to considerable levels at skew angles as low as 100.
(Annexure 2)
(c) Documents guiding design of skew bridges as per AASHTO LFRD bridge
design specifications were studied and it was found that these provide for
special reinforcement to be provided beyond skew angle of 250.
(d) Drawings collected from internet showing reinforcement details of bridges
designed as per New York Department of Transportation show
53
reinforcement provided in the skew direction for spans with skew angle
less than 300, and in square direction for higher skew angles.
3. Based on above literature survey, it was decided that girders with skew angles
upto 200, can be designed by rule of thumb and the standard square designs can be
adopted with some modifications. Based on this reasoning, earlier drawing no RDSO/B-
11759 was issued in 2011.
4. At the time of review of the design in 2012-13, the matter was examined afresh in
view of item taken up during CBE’s conference held in IRICEN on 20th/21st September
2012 and computerized grillage analysis was got done again. The analysis gave some
variations in bending moments, however, the torsional moment mentioned in the
literature was not observed. Efforts were made to seek guidance from designers in
zonal railways and outside, but satisfactory guidance was not received, so the revised
drawing no RDSO/B-11759/R was issued for skew angles upto 200 only.
5. The following issues are expected if we go in for design of girders with higher
skew angles:
(a) The standard girders cannot be used as the extra bending moment at the
obtuse corners will require fresh design.
(b) Multiple Designs: It might not be possible to use same configuration for a
wide range of skew angles as the torsion and bending moment both increase
substantially for small change in skew angles.
(c) Seismic performance of the skew spans is not as good as the square spans.
(d) For torsional loads, the design of shear connectors has to be reviewed.
(e) The effect of torsion on the slabs is not clear. The shear reinforcement may
have to be provided in slabs, which is not the normal practice.
6. RDSO is of the opinion that the higher skew angles are not a satisfactory
arrangement. The analysis as well as fabrication are quite difficult for such girders.
Efforts shall be made to provide girders square or with low skew angles as far as
possible. Some measures which can be taken to reduce the skew angle are
enumerated at Annexure-3.
**********
54
(January, 2014) Item No 1045 (Annexure 2)
Annexure-1 of Item No 1045
55
Annexure 2 of Item No 1045
56
57
Annexure 3 of Item No 1045
Providing ROBs where road crosses at skew angle to the railway alignment:
Methods for reducing the skew angle of girders.
1. Introduction: Lots of demands for design of skew girder Road Over Bridges are
faced by the railways, especially for national highways where owing to higher speeds,
road authorities are reluctant to introduce any curves in the road alignment. Demands
for skew angles as high as 700 have been provided. Skew girders have the supports
quite away from the natural line of transfer of loads and as a result the girders are
subjected to high torsional loads as well as extra bending moments on the obtuse
corner. The acute corners are subjected to uplift as a result of the asymmetry of the
load due to the skew girders.
Railway
C.L. of Land
road boundary
ROB
Girder
Figure 1 Normal method of providing skew spans

2. Advantages of reducing skew angles:
 It is easier to provide the square alignment girders and chances of mistakes in
fabrication as well as assembly are less.
 The behavior of square spans and skew girders with less than 200 skew angle is
more logical and easily understood. Errors of design are likely to be lesser.
 Standard RDSO spans are available, so the design process is slightly simplified,
if the skew angle can be managed within 200 skew.
3. Methods for reducing skew angles (Providing square girders, if feasible)in
Road Over Bridges:
Various strategies can be tried individually or in combinations to reduce the skew angle
as much as possible. Choice of strategy/ combination thereof will depend on site
conditions. The strategies and constraints in adopting the same are discussed below:
3.1 Providing longer spans: If space constraint is not there, providing longer span
can help in reducing or eliminating skew angle. In such a case, the sub structure is
skew to railway alignment but the ROB girders are square or at lesser skew angle.
58
Annexure-3 of Item No 1045 (Contd…)
Railway
C.L. of Land
road boundary
ROB
Girder
Figure 2 Skew alignment made square by providing longer span.

Constraints:
 The span is longer, so the depth of girder might go up theoretically. (Does not
happen practically as some margin is kept to take care of the extra bending
moments and torsion due to skew).
 The piers are not parallel to railway land boundary. So if the piers are being built
in railway land, the width of land rendered unusable for future is increased.
 Standard design of longer span required shall be available. If it is not available,
the design will have to be done afresh.
3.2 Constructing sub structure in skew to railway land boundary: It is not
mandatory that the sub structure shall be parallel to railway land boundary even though
it is desirable to reduce the railway land permanently rendered unusable. If the space
constraint is not there, the sub structure can be constructed in skew to the railway land
boundary, thus reducing the skew angle of the girders to within 20 degrees.
59
Railway Railway
C.L. of Land Land
road boundary boundary
ROB
ROB
Girder
Girder
Skew angle is more if piers made Skew angle reduced by making

parallel to track alignment piers skew to track alignment
Figure 3 On left: Normally provided skew girder; On right: Skew sub structure
constructed to reduce skew angle (without change in span)
Constraints:
 The piers are not parallel to railway land boundary. So if the piers are being built
in railway land, the width of land rendered unusable for future is increased.
 The skew piers can violate the Schedule of Dimensions of existing or future
tracks. This needs to be checked.
3.3 Constructing Skew bed block: Land is a precious resource and at lots of
locations, railways might require the entire railway land boundary for its current and
future operations and the land on approaches might also not be available. In this
situation, both the options a) and b) discussed above will not be feasible. Option b)
might not be desirable if the standard girder design is not available for the longer length
contemplated. In such situations, an option can be to construct the foundation and the
sub structure parallel to railway land boundary occupying minimum width, but to reduce
the skew angle of the girder, the bed block can be made in skew. In this approach, the
land is not wasted and the extra width in bed block is provided above the Schedule of
Dimensions so that maximum space is useable, without affecting the train operations.
60
Railway
Land
boundary
ROB
Girder
Pier Cap
Pier and
foundation
Figure 4 Arrangement with pier cap in skew

Constraints:
 The cantilever length of pier cap is increased. The depth of pier cap can
increase.
 The skew piers can violate the Schedule of Dimensions of existing or future
tracks. This needs to be checked.
3.4 Altering shape of Pier Cap: The lateral clearance requirement as per Schedule
Of Dimensions is lesser at greater heights above the rail level compared to lesser
heights. Therefore, the pier wall/columns can be built at lesser distance from center line
of track as compared to the bed block. In order to reduce the lateral distance, and
through this method the skew angle also, few steps can be taken. The most obvious
step is to construct a tapered pier cap, to suit the requirement of the section modulus as
per shape of bending moment diagram. The tapered pier cap can be closer to the
running line than a rectangular one. One innovation suggested by Northern Railway
construction organization is to construct the pier cap at a level higher than the
conventional height without changing the road level. This innovation includes
providing the girders in pockets made in the pier cap. At location of each girder, instead
of providing a pier cap, pockets can be made in the pier cap. The bearings can be
provided in this pocket and thus the height from rail level to the bottom of the pier cap
can be more than that in conventional pier caps without changing the clearance below
the girders or the road level. The height of the end diaphragms shall be reduced so that
jacking can be done from outside the pockets. The schematic arrangement is shown
below:
61
Section View of the pier Plan View of the pier cap

cap with pockets with pockets
Figure 5 Arrangement with pockets to accommodate girders

3.5 Providing portal across the track: A very good method to reduce the skew
angle is to rest the girders on portal provided across the track rather than on the piers
directly. This method is used by Metros to cross the roads and other obstructions.
Casting the beam of the portal over running track is very difficult and shall be avoided.
To solve this issue and also to ensure that the road level is not increased un-
necessarily, beam of the portal can be a steel beam and the girders of the road over
bridge shall be connected to the web of this beam. This arrangement can utilize the
standard RDSO girders by eliminating the bearing stiffener and the bearings under the
girders. The bearings in this case shall be provided under the cross girder of the portal.
The arrangement of the piers for the portal shall be as shown in figure 6 below:
62
Railway
Land
boundary
Pier and
foundation
Figure 6 Layout of piers for the portal construction

The portal beam shall be provided over the piers such that the beam is normal to the
road alignment. Bearings (POT-PTFE) shall be provided under the portal beam as
shown in figure 7 below.
Railway
Land
boundary
Bearing
Portal
Beam
Pier and
foundation
GL
Figure 7 Beams for portal

The beams for the ROB shall be supported on bearing stiffener in the web of the portal
beam. The layout is as shown in figure 8 below:
63
Railway
Land
boundary
View of girders
Piers for
supported on web of
other
girders Girder over
portal beam
railway
line
oo Girder
oo
oo
oo
oo
Cross section view of girder

connection with portal beam
Figure 8 Provision of girders on the portal

This arrangement can be used as per site conditions and if the skew angle is too much,
then multiple spans can be provided over the railway track, with suitably designed portal
beams/ piers.
**********
64
ITEM NO. 1046

Subject : Frequency of Cleaning/ Oiling/ Greasing of Bearings of Girders.
RDSO File No. : CBS/Bearing.
Agenda : Removing anomaly in frequency of Cleaning/ Oiling/ Greasing of
bearings of Girders in LWR manual and Bridge Manual.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
CBE/ E. C. Railway vide letter No. W-3/365/09/Br.SSC/P-II/1828 dated

24/31.12.2012 has raised the following issue:
Frequency of Cleaning/ Oiling/ Greasing of Bearings of Girders has been defined

in IRBM Para no. 222, sub Para 2(a) as once in three years. In addition, Manual Of
Instructions On Long Welded Rails 1996 (LWR Manual) vide Para no. 4.5.7.1 (ii) (e),
frequency of Cleaning/ Oiling/ Greasing of Sliding Bearings of Girders for LWR section
has been mentioned as once in two years. This is generally overlooked by BRI, due to
non-inclusion of this in IRBM. So it should be included in IRBM.
The provision of Para 222 sub para 2(a) of Indian Railways Bridge Manual 1998
is as follows:
“2. Maintenance of sliding and roller & rocker bearings:
a) All bearings should be generally cleaned and greased once in three years.”
The provision of Para 4.5.7.1 (ii) (e) of Manual Of Instructions On Long Welded
Rails 1996 (LWR Manual) is as follows:
“4.5.7.1 ii) Bridges provided with rail-free fastenings and partly box-anchored
(with single span not exceeding 30.5 metre and having sliding bearings at both
ends)
Overall length of the bridge should not exceed the maximum as provided in
Table-1 with following stipulations:-
e) The sliding bearings shall be inspected during the months of March and
October each year and cleared of all foreign materials. Lubrication of the
bearings shall be done once in two years.”
The provisions in the two manuals are different and in case the LWR is continued
on the bridge with sliding bearings, the frequency of oiling and greasing shall be two
years instead of once in three years as mentioned in IRBM.
Track dte of RDSO was approached regarding the background of para 4.5.7.1 (ii)
(e) of Manual Of Instructions On Long Welded Rails 1996 (LWR Manual) and vide letter
65
no CT/IM/LWR Dated 08.01.2014, they have indicated that the provisions of LWR
Manual were introduced with the following background:
1. Manual for instructions on long welded rails (Provisional)-1970 was framed as per
order of Railway Board on item no. 649 of 46th TSC held in 1970.
2. As per order of Railway Board on item no. 727 of 54th TSC held in 1978, a sub
committee consisting of the Chief Engineers of Northern, South Eastern and
Southern Railway, CTE of Central Railway, Principal, IRIATT Pune and Director
STDs.(Civil). RDSO as convener was formed to study various aspects of revision
of LWR Manual (provisional)-1970 and make recommendations for approval by
Board.
3. Accordingly the letters to various Railways were sent and suggestions of the
Railways were invited on the provisions of Manual for instructions on long welded
rails (Provisional)-1970.
4. In response to RDSO letter no. CT/IM/LWR dated 27.11.1978, Central Railway
vide their letter no. 1.735.T67/54.TSC dated 15/20.12.1978 had suggested some
connections in Annexure VIII of LWR Manual (Provisional)-1970. In para II(e) of
the suggestion it was recommended that “The sliding bearings shall be inspected
during the months of March and October each year and cleared of all foreign
material. Lubrication of the bearings shall be done once in two years”.
5. Accordingly the above suggestions were incorporated in the Manual of instructions

on long welded rails-1979.
Committee may deliberate if the provisions of LWR manual need to be

incorporated in the IRBM also.
**********
66
ITEM NO. 1047

Subject : Formulae for the estimation of scour depth at bridge
piers.
BSC Reference : Nil
RDSO File No. : RBF/BSC/82
Agenda : To examine the need of amendment in “Code of practice
for the design of Sub-structures and foundation of
bridges” for calculating the depth of scour at bridge piers
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1. B&S Directorate, RDSO is working on a research project on “Bridge scour

estimation, measurement and protection and use of real time monitoring
systems” with IIT/Kharagpur. This project was undertaken as per the guidelines
and policy reflected in the Indian Railway Corporate safety plan 2003-13 and
commitment made in the integrated Railway Modernization plan 2005-10. Prof.
Subhashish Dey, IIT/Kharagpur is the Principal Investigator (PI) of the project.
Developing formulae for estimation of scour depth at bridge piers for different bed
conditions is one of the objectives of this project. PI has finalized the Report on
“Estimation of scour depth at bridge piers” and report has already been circulated
to all CBEs & CAO/Cs of Zonal Railways for their comments and suggestions
vide RDSO letter No. RBF/SB (Part-II) dated 05.12.2013.
2. Indian Railway (IR) uses Lacey’s equation for estimation of scour depth at bridge
piers, developed about seven decades ago for alluvial river beds, in IRS Bridge
Substructure and Foundation Code. Lacey’s equation uses two parameters i.e.
discharge and silt factor only in estimating the scour depth.
3. An accurate prediction of scour depth at bridge piers is essential for the safe
design of the foundation because underestimation may lead to bridge failure and
over estimation will lead to unnecessary construction cost. Numerous formulae
for estimating maximum local scour at pier site have been developed by many
researchers. The use of these formulae in design is uncertain because of the
difference between site and laboratory conditions. Validation of the various
formulae using both the laboratory as well as the field data is very necessary in
order to improve the prediction of maximum local scour depth at bridge piers.
The report prepared by IIT/KGP documents and compares measurements of
pier-scour depth with pier-scour predicted by use of nine equations. The logic of
67
selecting these equations is to take care of most of the significant parameters

into account.
4. Rivers in Indian plains have normally alluvial soil beds. However, river beds in
hilly terrains are commonly composed of a mixture of different sizes of sands and
gravels. Under the varied stream flow velocities, a process of armoring on the
riverbed commences, resulting in an exposure of coarser particles due to
washing out of the finer fraction. The armor layers of concern to estimate scour
depth at bridge piers are those where the pier is embedded in sand –bed overlain
by a layer of gravel. A larger scour depth develops at a pier embedded in an
armored bed than if the pier were embedded in a bed of uniform sediments. In
the absence of a rational formula, the present tendency is to apply the same
formula as applicable for alluvial bed with a judicious choice.
5. Mechanism of local Scour at Bridge Pier

5.1 The flowing pattern of a normal flow comes to sudden change when it encounters
a pier on its path. Large-scale eddy structures or the system of vortices develop
at the base of the pier. The vortex system as a basic mechanism of local
scouring around bridge pier is recognized by most of the research engineers.
The eddy structure is normally composed of following two components:
 The horseshoe vortex
 The wake vortex system
Surface
Roller
Down-
flow
Wake
Vortices
Horseshoe
Vortex
68
5.2 Flow running at a particular velocity, when approaches the pier comes to
complete rest which results in increase of pressure at the water surface near
pier. The velocity of the flow gradually decreases from top to bottom and
consequently the pressure also decreases from top to bottom. This creates a
downward pressure gradient that forces the flow to move downward like a
vertical jet of water. This vertical jet when strikes the bed makes a hole in the
immediate vicinity of the pier base. The strength of the down flow reaches
maximum just below the bed level. The down flow rolls up as it continuous to
create a hole and through the interaction with incoming flow converts into a
complex vortex system of horseshoe shape and hence called horseshoe
vortex. The horseshoe vortex is very effective at transporting the dislodged
particles away past the pier.
5.3 The separation of flow at the pier sides produces wake vortex. These vortices are
not stable and shed alternatively from one side of pier and then other. As
shown in the figure, wake vortices rotate about vertical axis. Wake vortices also
erode sediment from pier base. The wake vortex system somewhat acts like a
vacuum cleaner that sucks the material and carries away. The intensity of wake
vortices drastically reduces with distance in downstream direction, such that
sediment deposition generally takes place immediately downstream of pier. The
horseshoe and wake vortices both work at the same time to scour around pier.
6. Factors affecting the local scour

6.1 The factors that influence the local scour at bridge piers are dependent on flood
flow parameters, bed sediment parameters, bridge pier geometry and time and
most of these parameters are inter-related. Additional factors such as sediment
cohesion, layered strata and bedrock also affect the local scour.
Flow parameters are ρ, υ, V, D, G, g

Where; ρ is Fluid density
υ is Fluid kinematic viscosity
V is mean approach velocity
D is approaching flow depth
G is cross sectional shape of approach channel
g is the acceleration due to gravity
Bed sediment parameters are d50, σg, ρs, Vc

Where; d50 is median sediment size
σg is geometric standard deviation of sediment particle
size
69
ρs is sediment density
Vc is critical mean approach velocity
Bridge pier geometry parameters are B, S, θ

Where; B is pier width
S is shape parameter
θ is alignment of pier flow
6.2 The functional relationship between the depth of local scour ds and its dependent
parameters is -
Ds = f (ρ, υ, V, D, G, g, d50, σg, ρs, vc, B, S, θ)
6.3 Non-dimensionally functional relationship between the depth of local scour ds and
its dependent parameters is -
ds V D B Vt V
=f [ , , ,σg,S, θ,G, , ]
B Vc B d 50 B gB
Effect of these various parameters (e.g. flow intensity; flow shallowness; size,
shape and orientation of pier; relative sediment size etc.) on local scour has
been discussed in the report of IIT/KGP.
7. Estimation of Maximum Scour Depth and Recommendations

7.1 Based on the validation results from various experimental and field data,
considering the number of parameters involved in the equation and his
experience in the field of scour, PI, IIT/KGP has recommended Melville formula
for predicting the scour depth around bridge piers.
The recommended formula based on Melville (1997) is:

d s  K DB K I K d K s K θ
Where; KDB, is flow depth-pier size factor.

KI, is flow intensity factor.
Kd is sediment size factor.
Ks is pier shape factor.
Kθ is pier alignment factor.
70
7.1.1 Estimation of various parameters
7.1.1.1 Estimation of various factors/parameters of Melville (1997) formulae given in

para 7.1 shall be estimated as given below:
Parameter/ Method of Estimation

Factor
B - pier width
K DB  2.4 B, B/D < 0.7
KDB D – approaching flow
depth
K DB  2 DB , 0.7 < B/D < 5
K DB  4.5 D , B/D > 5
V  (Va  Vc ) V - average upstream

K1  [V – (Va – Vc)]/Vc < 1
KI Vc flow velocity
Vc – critical/threshold
velocity for bed
K I  1, [V – (Va – Vc)]/Vc ≥ 1
sediments
Va - flow velocity for
armour peaks
 B 
K d  0.57 log  2.24 , B/d50  25 B – pier width
 d 50 
Kd d50 – median diameter
of sediment particles
K d  1.0, B/d50 > 25
0.65
l 
K θ   sin θ  cosθ  , non-circular piers. l – length of pier
KѲ B  B – pier width
K  1.0 , circular piers
Shape Ks ----
Ks Circular 1.0
Round Nosed 1.0
Square Nosed 1.1
Sharp Nosed 0.9
71
7.1.1.2 Critical/threshold velocity Vc and armour peak velocity Va shall be estimated

as following:
(i) Critical/Threshold Velocity, Vc
(a) Calculate critical shear velocity, u*c from equation-

0.5
   
uc   c  s  1 gd 50 
    
Where,
Θc is critical Shields parameter
ρs/ρ = s is relative density of sediment particles
(b) Θc is given by van Rijn (1984) as -
c  d*  4   0.24 d*
c (4  d*  10)  0.14 d*0.64
c (10  d*  20)  0.04 d*0.4

0.29
Θc(20<d*≤150) = 0.013d 
c (d*  150)  0.055
1
where d*  d50  s  1 g /  2  3 is particle density parameter and
ν is kinematic viscosity of water
(c) Calculate critical velocity, Vc from logarithmic velocity distribution i.e.

Vc  5.53D 
 5.75 log 
u c  d 50 
(ii) Armour peak velocity Va
(a) Find d50a from –

d50a = dmax/1.8
where, dmax may be taken as d90
(b) Find critical velocity for armour peak, Vca as per procedure given in para
2.1 above by using d50a in place of d50
(c) Armour peak velocity, Va = 0.8Vca
72
For uniform sediments Va=Vc
7.1.1.3 Approach flow velocity V may be calculated from design foundation discharge
Qf
Qf i.e. V 
WD
Where, W is approach channel width
7.2 Based on the validation results from experimental data and his experience in the
field of scour, IIT/KGP has suggested the following best suitable equation for
predicting the equilibrium scour depth at bridge piers when a layer of gravels
exists above sand bed:
d s  dˆ sa B
0 . 78 ~ 1 . 07 ˆ 0 . 6 ~  . 0 . 95
Where, dˆ sa  0 . 16 K s F ca b h d
7.2.1 Estimation of various parameters
Parameters/ Method of Estimation

Factors
Ks
Shape Ks
Circular 1.0 ----
Round Nosed 1.0
Square Nosed 1.1
Sharp Nosed 0.9
Fca Vca/(gB)0.5 Fca - excess pier Froude

number
~ B/dg dg – median size of gravel
b
~ dg/d50 d50 – median diameter of
d
sediment particles (sand)
ĥ D/B ---
Where, Fca is excess pier Froude number

Vca is critical velocity for armoring gravel which may be estimated by
procedure given in para 7.1.1.2 by using dg in place of d50
Δ = s-1 where, s is the relative density of armoring gravel i.e. ρs/ρ
7.3 Scour in cohesive material revealed that depending upon antecedent soil
moisture and drainage conditions prevailing in cohesive soils, the scour in them
can be less, equal or even more than that in cohesionless material under
similar flow and pier conditions. The results showed that although the rates of
73
scour were much slower in clay than in sand, equilibrium scour in clay was
about the same as in sand.
7.4 Formulae given in para 7.1 above may be adopted for calculating the scour
depth for design of foundations of abutments also.
7.5 Contraction scour cannot be estimated by Melville’s formula. Maximum

contraction scour may be estimated from Gill’s formula given below:
0.857
  B1  
d s  h1 1.58    1
  B2  
Notations in the equations are explained in the figure below:
B x B2
L
(a)
1 2
z
h1
h2
x
ds Bed sediment
1 2
(b)
In contracted bridge sites –
Total scour depth = Pier scour depth (Melville formula) + Contraction scour depth
(Gill formula)
8. Non-uniform Piers and Equivalent Uniform Width, Be
The four cases of local scour at non-uniform piers, where the pier is founded on a
wider element (caissons, slab footings and pile caps), are shown in figure below.
For Case- I, the local scour is estimated using the pier width B.
For Case- II, a procedure given by Melville and Raudkivi (1996) to estimate the
size of an equivalent uniform pier can be applied. The equivalent uniform pier
induces (at least) the same scour as the non-uniform pier. The procedure is
therefore conservative. Melville and Raudkivi (1996), who measured scour
74
depths at a circular pier founded on a larger concentric circular caisson, gave the
following relation:
*
 D Y  * B  Y 
Be  B   B  
 D  B*   B*  D 
 
Where Be = width of an equivalent uniform pier; and B* = caisson width.
The above equation is restricted to the range defined by Y  B* and –Y  D.
The relation for Be can be used for Case-II non-uniform piers that are
geometrically similar to the caisson foundation shown in Figure below, including
piers founded on slab footings and piled foundation, unless the footing or the pile
cap is undermined by the scour.
B B
B B D B D
-Y B
ds Y *
d
B B B*
* * B
Slab *
Footing Caisson Piled
Foundation Foundation
Caisson Piled
CASE III
Foundatio Foundation
CASE I
B B
D
B -Y B
B D B *
Y ds
ds B
*
B B Caisson Piled
B * *
Slab Foundatio Foundation
*
Footing
Caisson Piled
Foundation Foundation CASE IV
CASE II
75
ds/B (ds/B*)uniform
Typical curve for

caisson
(ds/B)uniform
Case IV III II I
:
-D/B 0 ds/B Y/B
Y/B  0.5
(varies)
For Case-III, above equation also applies to Case-III caisson foundations and
may be used to give conservative scour estimates for Case-III piled foundations.
For Case IV, for caisson foundations, the local scour is estimated using the
caisson width B*. This approach would also give a conservative estimate of
Case-IV local scour at a piled foundation.
9. Validation and Applicability of Melville’s Formula for Indian condition

9.1 Scour data of 3 bridges of Northern Railway (Bridge No. 93 in SIR–NDLS
section, 19 in MB–GZB section and 294 in SRE–UMB section) available with
RDSO and utilized in preparation of report no RBF-17 (to validate Lacey’s
formula) was shared with IIT/KGP for validation in Indian condition. The result of
validation is presented below:
76
(Note: it is noted from RDSO report No. RBF-17 of December’1991 (Table-3b)

that in case of data set of one year for bridge No. 93, maximum observed scour
depth/calculated depth ratio as per Lacey formula varied from 2.21 to 2.53.)
9.2 Scour Depth Estimation of New Bridge No. 531 on Sone River in EC
Railway
9.2.1 East Central Railway is constructing a new Railway Bridge No. 531 across
river Sone between Sone Nagar and Dehri-on-Sone stations. The bridge
consists of 91 spans of 32.926m and 2 spans of 32.266m. The foundation of
bridge consists of 1.25m diameter bored cast in situ RCC piles. The
substructure consists of RCC piers of 1.40 m thickness. The super structure
consists of pre cast PSC box girders.
9.2.2 TAG in 2001 had originally fixed a scour level of 77.274 m RL based on
calculations as per Lacey’s formula prescribed in IRS Bridge Substructure
and Foundation Code. When analyzing for seismic forces, a scour level of
81.254 m RL was mandated.
9.2.3 Subsequently, the issue was taken up by TAG again in September 2004,
when bridge construction had already begun and some abutment/pier piles
had been casted. It was decided to adopt scour estimation formula suggested
by Melville & Coleman on account of heterogeneous nature of soil strata at
bridge site. Based on calculations using Melville & Coleman formula, the
design scour level was revised from 77.274m to 82.75 m RL (scour depth
reduced by 5.476m). This scour level was finalized for normal as well as
seismic design scenario.
10. Draft Revisions proposed to IRS Bridge Substructures and Foundation Code
are given in Annexure-I.
11. BSC may kindly deliberate and make recommendations.
************
77
Annexure-1
Proposed Draft Amendments to IRS Bridge Substructures and
Foundation Code
Clause Existing provision Proposed Draft provision
No.
4.6 Depth Of Scour
4.6.1 The probable maximum depth of scour No change.
for design of foundations and training
and protection works shall be estimated
considering local conditions.
4.6.2 Wherever possible and especially for No change.
flashy rivers and those with beds of
gravel or boulders, soundings for
purpose of determining the depth of
scour shall be taken in the vicinity of the
site proposed for the bridge. Such
soundings are best taken during or
immediately after a flood before the
scour holes have had time to silt up
appreciably. In calculating design depth
of scour, allowance shall be made in the
observed depth for increased scour
resulting from:
(i) The design discharge being greater
than the flood discharge observed.
(ii) The increase in velocity due to the
constriction of waterway caused by
construction of the bridge.
(iii) The increase in scour in the
proximity of piers and abutments.
4.6.3 In the case of natural channels flowing in No change.
alluvial beds where the width of
waterway provided is not less than
Lacey’s regime width, the normal depth
or Scour (D) below the foundation design
discharge (Qf) level may be estimated
from Lacey’s formula as indicated below
1/3
Q 
D = 0.473  f 
 f 
where D is depth in metres, Qf is in
cumecs and ‘f‘ is Lacey’s silt factor for
representative sample of bed material
obtained from scour zone.
4.6.4 Where due to constriction of waterway, No change.
the width is less than Lacey’s regime
78

No.
width for Qf or where it is narrow and
deep as in the case of incised rivers and
has sandy bed, the normal depth of
scour may be estimated by the following
formula:
1/ 3
Q 2 
D = 1.338  f 
 f 
 
Where ‘ Q f ’ is the discharge intensity in
cubic metre per second per metre width
and f is silt factor as defined in para
4.6.3.
Graph relating Qf and D for different
values of ‘ f ’ are also given at Fig.1 for
ease of reference.
4.6.5 The silt factor ‘f’ shall be determined for No change.
representative samples of bed material
collected from the scour zone using the
formula :
f = 1.76 m where m is weighted

mean diameter of the bed material
particles in mm.
Values of ‘f’ for different types of bed
material commonly met with are given
below :
Type of bed Weighted mean Val
material dia of particle ue
(mm) of ‘f’
(i)Coarse silt 0.04 0.35
(ii) Fine sand 0.08 0.50
0.15 0.68
(iii) Medium 0.3 0.96
sand
0.5 1.24
(iv) Coarse 0.7 1.47
sand
1.0 1.76
2.0 2.49
79

No.
4.6.6 The depth calculated (vide clause 4.6.3 The depth calculated (vide clause
and 4.6.4 above) shall be increased as 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 above) shall be
indicated below, to obtain maximum increased as indicated below, to
depth of scour for design of foundations, obtain maximum depth of scour for
protection works and training works :- design of foundations, protection
works and training works :-
Nature of the river Depth of

scour Nature of the river Depth of
scour
In a straight reach 1.25D
In a straight reach 1.25D
At the moderate bend 1.5D
conditions e.g. along At the moderate bend 1.5D
apron of guide bund. conditions e.g. along
apron of guide bund.
At a severe bend 1.75D
At a severe bend 1.75D
At a right angle bend or at 2.0D
nose of piers. At a right angle bend 2.0D
or at nose of piers.
In severe swirls e.g. 2.5 to
against mole head of a 2.75D In severe swirls e.g. 2.5 to
guide bund. against mole head of a 2.75D
guide bund.
4.6.7 In case of clayey beds, wherever Replace the clause 4.6.7 as

possible, maximum depth of scour following: #
shall be assessed from actual
observations.
4.6.8 - $
4.6.9 - Scour in cohesive material
depends upon antecedent soil
moisture and drainage conditions
prevailing in cohesive soils; the
scour in them can be less, equal
or even more than that in
cohesion less material under
similar flow and pier conditions.
Though the rates of scour is much
slower in clay than in sand,
however equilibrium scour in clay
is about the same as in sand and
may be estimated by using
formula given in clause 4.6.7. In
case of clayey beds, wherever
80

No.
possible, maximum depth of scour
may also be assessed from actual
observations.
4.6.10 Formulae given in clause 4.6.7
may be adopted for calculating
the scour depth for design of
foundations of abutments also.
4.6.11 $$
# 4.6.7 Scour depth at bridge piers

Scour depth for design of foundations at bridge piers in alluvial and non-cohesive bed
material may be estimated from Melville (1997) formulae as given below:
d s  K DB K I K d K s K θ
Where,
KDB, is flow depth- pier size factor.
KI, is flow intensity factor.
Kd is sediment size factor.
Ks is pier shape factor.
Kθ is pier alignment factor.
4.6.7.1 Various factors/parameters of equation given in clause 4.6.7 shall be estimated

as given in Appendix-VI.
$ 4.6.8 Scour depth for design of foundations at bridge piers, when a layer of gravels
exists above sand bed, may be estimated by following equation:
d s  dˆ sa B
0 . 78 ~ 1 . 07 ˆ 0 . 6 ~  . 0 . 95
Where, dˆ sa  0 . 16 K s F ca b h d
Ks is pier shape factor (as given in para 1 of Appendix-VI)
Vca
Fca (excess pier Froude number) =
gB
Vca is critical velocity for armoring gravel which may be estimated by procedure
given in para 2 of Appendix-VI by using dg in place d50.
dg is median size of gravel
81
Δ = s-1 where, s is the relative density of armoring gravel i.e. ρs/ρ
b = B/dg
D
hˆ 
B
d =dg/d50
$$ 4.6.11Contraction scour cannot be estimated by Melville’s formula. Maximum

contraction scour may be estimated from Gill’s formula given below:
0.857
  B1  
d s  h1 1.58    1
  B2  
Where, B1 is approach channel width

B2 is constricted channel width at bridge site
h1 is approach flow depth
Total scour depth should be estimated by adding Pier scour depth (Melville formula) and
Contraction scour depth (Gill formula).
***********
82
Appendix-VI
(Clause 4.6.7 & 4.6.8)
1. Estimation of various factors/parameters of Melville (1997) formulae given in clause
4.6.7 shall be estimated as given below:
Parameter/ Method of Estimation

Factor
B - pier width
K DB  2.4 B, B/D < 0.7
KDB D – approaching flow
depth
K DB  2 DB , 0.7 < B/D < 5
K DB  4.5 D , B/D > 5
V  (Va  Vc ) V - average upstream

K1  [V – (Va – Vc)]/Vc <
KI Vc flow velocity
1 Vc – critical/threshold
velocity for bed
sediments
K I  1, [V – (Va – Vc)]/Vc ≥
Va - flow velocity for
1 armour peaks
 B 
K d  0.57 log  2.24 , B/d50  25 B – pier width
 d 50 
Kd d50 – median diameter
of sediment particles
K d  1.0, B/d50 > 25
0.65
l 
K θ   sin θ  cosθ  , non-circular piers. l – length of pier
KѲ B  B – pier width
K  1.0 , circular piers
Shape Ks ----
Ks Circular 1.0
Round Nosed 1.0
Square Nosed 1.1
Sharp Nosed 0.9
2. Critical/threshold velocity Vc and armour peak velocity Va shall be estimated as

following:
83
(iii) Critical/Threshold Velocity, Vc

(a) Calculate critical shear velocity, u*c from equation-
0.5
   
uc   c  s  1 gd 50 
    
Where,
Θc is critical Shields parameter
ρs/ρ = s is relative density of sediment particles
(b) Θc is given by van Rijn (1984) as -
c  d*  4   0.24 d*
c (4  d*  10)  0.14 d*0.64
c (10  d*  20)  0.04 d*0.4

0.29
Θc(20<d*≤150) = 0.013d 
c (d*  150)  0.055
1
where d*  d50  s  1 g /  2  3 is particle density parameter and ν is kinematic
viscosity of water
(c) Calculate critical velocity, Vc from logarithmic velocity distribution i.e.
Vc  5.53D 
 5.75 log 
u c  d 50 
(iv) Armour peak velocity Va
(a) Find d50a from –
d50a = dmax/1.8
where, dmax may be taken as d90
(b) Find critical velocity for armour peak, Vca as per procedure given in para 2.1
above by using d50a in place of d50
(c) Armour peak velocity, Va = 0.8Vca
For uniform sediments Va=Vc
3. Approach flow velocity V may be calculated from design foundation discharge Qf
Qf
i.e. V 
WD
Where, W is approach channel width
4. Non-uniform Piers and Equivalent Uniform Width, Be

The four cases of local scour at non-uniform piers, where the pier is founded on a
wider element (caissons, slab footings and pile caps), are shown in figure below.
84
B B
B B D B
D
-Y B
ds Y *
d
B B
B *
*
*
B
Slab *
Footing
Caisson Piled
Caisson Piled
Foundation Foundation CASE III
CASE I
B
B
D
-Y B
B B B *
D
Y d
s
ds B
*
B B Caisson Piled
* *
B Foundation Foundation
* Slab
Footing
Caisson Piled
CASE IV
CASE II
85
ds/B (ds/B*)uniform
form
Typical curve for
caisson foundation
(ds/B)uniform
Case: IV III II I
-D/B 0 ds/B Y/B

Y/B  0.5
(varies)
For Case- I, the local scour is estimated using the pier width B.
For Case- II, a procedure given by Melville and Raudkivi (1996) to estimate the size
of an equivalent uniform pier can be applied. The equivalent uniform pier induces (at
least) the same scour as the non-uniform pier. The procedure is therefore
conservative. Melville and Raudkivi (1996), who measured scour depths at a circular
pier founded on a larger concentric circular caisson, gave the following relation:
*
 D Y  * B  Y 
Be  B   B  
 D  B*   B*  D 
 
Where Be = width of an equivalent uniform pier; and B* = caisson width.
The above equation is restricted to the range defined by Y  B* and –Y  D.
The relation for Be can be used for Case-II non-uniform piers that are geometrically
similar to the caisson foundation shown in the Figure, including piers founded on
slab footings and piled foundation, unless the footing or the pile cap is undermined
by the scour.
For Case-III, above equation also applies to Case-III caisson foundations and may
be used to give conservative scour estimates for Case-III piled foundations.
For Case IV, for caisson foundations, the local scour is estimated using the caisson
width B*. This approach would also give a conservative estimate of Case-IV local
scour at a piled foundation.
*********
86
ITEM NO. 1048

Subject : Derailment loads in IRS codes.
BSC Reference : Nil
RDSO File No. : CBS/PBR
Agenda : To examine the provisions of IRS Bridge Rules regarding
derailment loads.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
Railway Board (ME), vide letter no 2010/Proj./Bangalore/Misc. dated 05.09.2013

has asked RDSO to explore the need for revision in Bridge rules regarding “Vertical
derailment Load”. This issue has arisen during the approval of DBRs of Jaipur Metro
and Bangalore Metro.
The provisions for derailment loads were included in IRS Bridge Rules vide
discussions held against item no 767 in 64th BSC (For BG loading) in April 1988 and
item no 860, discussed in Extraordinary BSC held in year 2000 (For HM loading).
The derailment loads for 25T loading 2008 and DFC loading were included in bridge
rules in 2008. The basis for including the derailment loads in the Bridge Rules was
circulated to all railways vide RDSO letter no CBS/PBR Dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure
1). The current derailment provisions in IRS Bridge Rules given in various annexures
for different loadings are discussed as follows (The text is same except for the
highlighted part which is changing for the different loadings):
1. CHECK IN SERVICEABILITY CONDITION:

Sl. Condition and BG Bridges HM Loading 25 T loading 2008 DFC Loading
No. approach Appendix IX Appendix XIV Appendix XXVIII Appendix XXIX
Max. Axle Load: 22.9 T, 7.67 t/m Max. Axle Load: 30 T, Max. Axle Load: 25 Max. Axle Load: 32.5
12 t/m T, 9.33 t/m T, 12.13 t/m
Bridges with Bridges without Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges
guard rails guard rails with without with without with without
guard guard guard guard guard guard
rails rails rails rails rails rails
1. Serviceabili a) Two vertical a) Two vertical a) …15 a) …15 a) a) …15 a) …15 a) …15
ty - There line loads of 15 line loads of kN/m kN/m …15 kN/m kN/m kN/m
should be no kN/m (1.5 t/m) 15 kN/m(1.5 (1.5 (1.5 kN/m (1.5 (1.5 (1.5
permanent each 1.6m t/m) each t/m) t/m) (1.5 t/m) t/m) t/m)
damage i.e. apart parallel 1.6m apart each… each… t/m) each… each… each…
the stresses to the track in parallel to the each
shall be most track in most …
within the unfavourable unfavourable
working position inside position inside
permissible an area of an area of
stress. 1.3m on either 2.25m on
side of track either side of
centre line. track centre
line.
b) A single b) A single b) b) b) b) b) b)
load of 100 kN load of 100 kN …100 …100 …100 …100 …100 …100
(10t) acting in (10t) acting in kN kN kN kN kN kN
an area of an area of (10t) (10t) (10t) (10t) (10t) (10t)
1.3m on either 2.25m on … … … … … …
side of the either side of
track centre the track
line in the most centre line in
87
Sl. Condition and BG Bridges HM Loading 25 T loading 2008 DFC Loading

No. approach Appendix IX Appendix XIV Appendix XXVIII Appendix XXIX
Max. Axle Load: 22.9 T, 7.67 t/m Max. Axle Load: 30 T, Max. Axle Load: 25 Max. Axle Load: 32.5
12 t/m T, 9.33 t/m T, 12.13 t/m
unfavourable the most
position. unfavourable
position.
From the above table, the following can be stated:

 It is same for all loadings even though axle loads have increased significantly
from 22.9t in BGML to 32.5t in DFC.
 There is no rational basis as to why the serviceability check shall be
performed with same loadings even though the axle loads have changed
significantly.
 The UDL (1.5t/m) for checking serviceability is way below (39.11%) of the
trailing load intensity (3.835t/m) per wheel of BGML and even lower for other
loadings.
 The single concentrated load (10T), though, is 87% of the individual wheel
load of 11.45t in BGML. This load is 67% of the individual wheel load for HM
loading, 80% of the individual wheel load for 25 T loading and 61% of the
individual wheel load for DFC loading.
 These percentages do not include the dynamic impact component, which
would work out close to 1 for an individual wheel. If we consider this, the load
specified for checking is only 43.5% for BGML and even lower for other
loadings.
 Discussions:
o The serviceability criteria for the HM, 25T and DFC loadings appears to
be on lower side to the loads specified earlier.
o In case of ballastless track, with no ballast to distribute the load, the
slab design will be very difficult to meet the crack width and other
serviceability criteria.
o Derailment load is a rare load and shall be considered as an ultimate
load case rather than a serviceability load case. There shall be no
need to design the structure in serviceability aspects for this load.
Checking in ultimate load condition and stability conditions shall
suffice.
o If it is considered that serviceability is to be checked, the loads
specified for checking shall be commensurate with the probability of
the vehicle load which is going to derail on the bridge along with the
probability of damage it is going to cause.
o If it is considered that serviceability check is not required to be done,
the implicit assumption will be that in the event of derailment on
bridge, the slab/ girder must be inspected for damage and trains
88
allowed only after necessary repairs etc are done to ensure the safe
operations of trains.
2. CHECK IN ULTIMATE CONDITION:
BG Bridges HM Loading 25 T loading 2008 DFC Loading
Appendix IX Appendix XIV Appendix XXVIII Appendix XXIX
Max. Axle Load: 22.9 T, 7.67 T/m Max. Axle Load: 30 T, Max. Axle Load: 25 Max. Axle Load: 32.5
12 T/m T, 9.33 T/m T, 12.13 T/m
Sl. Condition and Bridges with Bridges without Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges
No. approach guard rails guard rails with without with without with without
2. Ultimate – a) Two vertical a) Two vertical a) … a) … a) … a) … a) … a) …
The load at line loads of 50 line loads of 100 100 75 75 100 100
which a kN/m (5t/m) 50 kN/m (5 kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
derailed each 1.6m t/m) each (10 (10 (7.5 (7.5 (10 (10
vehicle shall apart parallel 1.6m apart t/m) t/m) t/m) t/m) t/m) t/m)
not cause to the track in parallel to the each… each… each each… each… each…
collapse of the most track in the …
any major unfavourable most
element. position inside unfavourable
an area of position inside
1.3m on either an area of
side of track 2.25m on
centre line. either side of
track centre
line.
b) A single b) A single b) … b) … b) … b) … b) … b) …
load of 200 kN load of 200 kN 240 kN 240 kN 200 200 kN 260 kN 260 kN
(20t) acting on (20t) acting on (24t) (24t) kN (20t) (26t) (26t)
an area of an area of … … (20t) … … …
1.3m on either 2.25m on …
side of track either side of
centre line in track centre
the most line in the
unfavourable most
position. unfavourable
position.

 For HM loading, the ultimate derailment line load is double that of BGML while
the trailing load has gone up by 56.4%. For 25 T loading 2008, the line load is
25% lower than that for HM loading, as against 22.2% lower trailing loads is
and for DFC loading, the line load value is the same as in HM loading, as
against 1.1% higher trailing loads.
 Compared with trailing load intensity, the ultimate load condition is BGML:
34.8% lower, HM: 16.7% lower, 25 T loading 2008: 19.1% lower and DFC:
17.6% lower.
 For HM loading, the single load of 24t is 20% higher than 20t in BGML while
the maximum axle load has increased by 31%. For 25 T loading, the single
load is 20t (No increase vs 9.2% increase in axle loads vs BGML) and for
DFC loading, the same is 26t (30% increase vs 41.9% increase in axle loads
vs BGML).
 Compared with maximum axle load, the ultimate load condition is BGML:
91.4% higher, HM loading, 25 T loading 2008 and DFC loading: 60% higher.
89
 Discussions:
o The line load was increased substantially for HM loading which is
logical as the axle load has gone up from 22.9t for loco only in BGML
to 30t for locos as well as wagons in HM Loading. Subsequently, the
load has slightly been reduced slightly as a proportion to trailing load
intensity in 25T loading 2008 and DFC loading.
o For smaller spans, the actual load intensity is much higher than the
trailing load. But in this case, the individual axle loads becomes
critical.
o The provisions for ultimate check in current loadings provide for 80% of
the actual loads.
o The impact is likely to be very high for first bogie and then reduce.
3. CHECK FOR STABILITY:

BG Bridges HM Loading 25 T loading 2008 DFC Loading
Appendix IX Appendix XIV Appendix XXVIII Appendix XXIX
Max. Axle Load: 22.9 T, 7.67 T/m Max. Axle Load: 30 T, Max. Axle Load: 25 Max. Axle Load: 32.5
12 T/m T, 9.33 T/m T, 12.13 T/m
Sl. Condition and Bridges with Bridges without Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges Bridges
No. approach guard rails guard rails with without with without with without
3. Stability – A vertical line A vertical line …120 …120 …94 …94 …122 …122
The load of 80 load of 80 kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
structure kN/m (8 t/m) kN/m (8 t/m) (12t/m) (12t/m) (9.4 (9.4 (12.2 (12.2
shall not with a total with a total … … t/m) t/m) … t/m) … t/m) …
overturn. length of 20m length of 20m …
acting on the acting on the
edge of the edge of the
structure under structure
consideration. under
consideration.

 For HM loading, the line load for stability check is 50% more than that of
BGML while the maximum axle load has gone up by 31%. For 25 T loading
2008, the line load is 21.7% lower than that for HM loading, as against 16.7%
lower (25t vs 30t) maximum axle loads is and for DFC loading, the line load
value is 1.7% higher, as against 8.3% higher (30t vs 32.5t) maximum axle
loads.
 Compared with trailing load intensity, the stability check is BGML: 4.3%
higher, HM: same as trailing load intensity, 25 T loading 2008: 0.8% higher
and DFC: 0.6% higher.
 Discussions:
o The length of line load is 20m only. This means that only one/two
vehicles are considered derailed on a span.
o The stability check is being done for the trailing load intensity in
HM/25T loading 2008 and DFC loadings.
90
o For smaller spans, the actual load intensity is much higher than the
trailing load, as given in table below:
SPAN LOAD INTENSITY (SHEAR) LOAD INTENSITY (SHEAR)
25 T LOADING 2008 DFC LOADING
TLD: 9.33 t/m TLD: 12.13 t/m
5m 18.9 t/m 22.9 t/m
10 m 14 t/m 17.95 t/m
15 m 12.3 t/m 15.7 t/m
20 m 11.6 t/m 15.0 t/m
25 m 11.1 t/m 14.3 t/m
30 m 10.8 t/m 14.03 t/m
o The condition for stability check is for line load placed at the edge of
the slab. In practice, the situations are likely to be different:
 There are two line loads and the other load will also cause
contribute to overturning of the structure if the slab width inside
parapets is more than 3.5 m.
 Parapet width (min 200 mm) is neglected in these computations,
so the load is considered at more distance than actual derailed
vehicle.
 The actual derailed train is likely to be zig-zag/ oblique to the
structure, especially if the number of vehicles derailed is more.
 On bridge in curve, the entire train is likely to come to rest on
one side after derailment.
4. General: The provisions are in line with UIC code. The other details are in
order, only the load intensity and length need to address the reasonable
probability of occurrence during the life of bridge and the damage railway is
prepared to accept in such a case.
5. The committee is requested to deliberate and decide.
*********
91
(January, 2014) Item No 1048 (Appendix 1)
Appendix 1 of Item No
1048
92
93
94
95
96
ITEM NO. 1049

Subject : Design of Bridge Sub structure for impact loads.
BSC Reference : Nil
RDSO File No. : CBS/PBR
Agenda : To examine the provisions for design of bridge
substructure for impact loads from vehicles underneath.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
EDCE/B & S Railway Board has raised the issue that there is no provision in the
Indian Railway manuals for provision of guard rails in track under the bridges
spanning across track such as Foot Over Bridges and Road Over Bridges.
This issue has been studied by RDSO and the following is brought out:
1. The IRS Bridge Rules is silent in this matter.
2. The wider issue involved in the matter raised is that the bridges are subject to
impact from various sources:
a. In Foot Over Bridges/ Road Over Bridges/ flyovers, the sub structure can
be hit by derailed train vehicles.
b. In Road Under Bridges, the sub structure can be hit by road vehicles.
c. In bridges across rivers which are used for navigation can be hit by barges/
ships.
3. This is an important issue as the impact of vehicles can cause the pier to
collapse, or cause the girder to topple over and can lead to derailment/ falling
off of the vehicles on the bridge at that moment. This can cause the bridge to
fall on the vehicles underneath and cause damage there also.
4. The loads for such impact are shall be covered by provisions laid down by
IRC/ MOST for roads and the authorities controlling navigational channels.
But the loads for derailed railway vehicle shall be specified by the IRS codes
only.
5. Instructions for provision of guard rails under the FOBs and ROBs are there is
some old Railway Board circular, but the same could not be located. This
issue was discussed a number of times in IRICEN discussion forum including
under topic id 3758. The instructions for the provision of guard rail exist as
engineering standing order no 9 dated 03.09.1999 of SC Rly and instructions
also exist on other railways. This is also mentioned at item no 11 of check list
for application for obtaining CRS sanction.
97
6. However, there are some questions left unanswered in the existing guidelines:
7. The following issues are required to be addressed in this respect for the
derailed railway vehicle:
a. Upto what distance shall the bridge sub structure be considered
vulnerable to impact from the derailed train.
b. What measures (such as guard rails, sacrificial columns etc) can be
taken to safeguard the structures from impact of derailed trains.
c. Detailed specifications of measures to be taken.
d. What load shall be considered in design of the structure if other
methods of protection are not possible (due to presence of points and
crossings/ space constraints etc).
8. The design methodology to be followed for design of the structures for any
accidental impact load whether from derailed trains, impact from road vehicles
or water-borne vehicles need to be specified, including:
a. Factor of safety against damage and over turning of the bridge.
b. Other loads like train loads, water current forces, etc occurring
simultaneously with the impact load.
9. The committee may deliberate and decide further course of action.
98
*********
ITEM NO. 1050
Subject : Working of BCM through ballasted deck

BSC Reference : NIL
RDSO File No. : CBS /BCM machine
Agenda : Working of BCM through ballasted deck
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1.0 CBE/SCR proposed this item in CBE seminar held on 8th & 9th November
2011 at IRICEN, Pune and wanted it to be adopted in long term interest of
track maintenance. The proposal was supported by all CBEs. ED/B&S/RDSO
also appreciated the point raised and asked for time to study the proposal.
The issue was further discussed in CBE seminar held on 20th & 21st
September 2012 as item no -3(c). Issues in the agenda were as below:
“There are no clear instructions about permitting deep screening over

ballasted bridges by Ballast Cleaning Machine. RDSO approved drawing for
PSC slabs/ girders/box culverts show a barrel length of 4500mm which is not
sufficient for BCM cutter bar and its associated parts to pass through in
working condition. Moreover, many existing ballasted bridges are having
barrel length less than 4500mm. The outer to outer dimension of excavating
troughs of BCM while working is 4300mm.There are other invisible
obstructions like lifting hooks in upward projected condition, cables, wearing
course etc. The possibility of maintaining a precision while operating the
machine over a bridge in such a way that it will not hit/damage the super
structure/dirt wall while working is doubtful.
Following improvements are needed if BCM is to be operated on PSC

slabs/girders /box culvert.
a) All minor bridges barrel length has to be increased to minimum 4300mm +

space for movement of the person on either side i.e. 600mm on each side.
b) All new bridges have to be planned with a minimum barrel length of
5500mm.
c) The minimum ballast cushion or cushion including surcharge, if any has to
be 350mm (minimum depth of cutter bar and clearance below sleeper is
99
300mm).
d) Foldable lifting hooks with an arrangement that after placing the slabs in
position shall be folded and kept that no part is projected above the top
surface of the slab.
e) Definite policy of passing the cables through the bridge, provision of duct
beyond minimum specified width for BCM working
Detailed instructions may be issued by RDSO”.
1.1 Recommendation of CBEs Seminar 2012:
The issue may be referred to BSC by RDSO.
1.2 Railway Board’s order on recommendations of CBE Seminar 2012

communicated vide letter No. 2013/CE-III/BR/Seminar dated 24.05.2013.
The issue should be deliberated in next BSC. RDSO to prepare detailed note
for deliberation in next BSC.
2.0 83rd TSC:- This item was also deliberated as item no. 1222 in 83rd TSC
meeting (held at Bhubaneswar on 17th to 19th December,2012) as per the item
proposed by South Eastern Railway(Ref-RDSO FILE: TM/GL/70).
In TSC, it was proposed that width of deck slab for BCM working should be
5800mm (5400mm between inside face of ballast retainer).
The basis of proposing 5800mm slab width By TSC is as following:-
i. The outer width of chain guide = 4280mm(for cutter size 2150)
(2150+531x2+58x2+476x2=4280mm)
 2150mm=Size of cutter bar
 531mm=Size of elbow
 58mm=Wall thickness of trough
 476mm= Size of trough
ii. Additional clearance required to close/start the work by BCM

=500x2=1000mm
iii. Additional width required for Ballast Retainer etc.=200x2=400mm

Total width= (i) + (ii) +(iii) =4280+1000+400=5680 i.e. 5800mm
100
200 mm approx.
4280+1000=5280mm
5280+200+200=5680mm
2.1 COMMITTEE’s OBSERVATIONS (83rd TSC MEETING):
1. Committee observed that present width of RCC slab of 4.2m puts

limitations in working of various machine such as BCM. Thus, there is need to
increase the width of slab for allowing machine working.
2. The 100mm clearance on each side for movement of staff etc. is not
considered adequate and it shall be kept as 200mm. Thus the width of slab be
5.8m.
2.2 COMMITTEE’s RECOMMENDATIONS(83rd TSC MEETING):

1. Committee recommends to increase the slab width to 5.8m.
2. B&S Directorate shall be advised for adoption of revised width for standard
design.
2.3 RAILWAY BOARD ORDER on 83rd TSC recommendation

communicated vide letter no.2012/CE-II/TSC/I dated10.10.2013:
1. Approved.
2. B&S Directorate of RDSO should issue the revised standard design within
03 months.
3.0 RDSO (B&S Dte) remarks:
a. Deck width:- (i) RDSO approved drawing for PSC slabs/girders /box culvert
have a deck width between inside faces of the ballast retainer/barrel length of
4500 mm as per A&C No. 5 (dated 19.11.2001) of IRS: CBC-1997(clause
16.9.6.4).
101
Provision in A&C No. 5 is reproduced below:

“Deck Width- The minimum deck width between inside faces of ballast
retainer shall be 4500mm”
Minimum Deck width between inside faces of ballast retainer from 4265 mm
to 4500 mm was approved based on the recommendation made in 62nd BSC
vide Item N0. 748(subsequently Review Item 757 of 63rd BSC).In the present
case, the Deck width between inside faces of ballast retainer from 4500mm to
5400mm has been approved without any discussion /recommendation of
BSC.
(ii) The increase in the Deck width /barrel length will only be for running of
BCM machine as there is no structural requirement.
(iii) The following dimensions were measured during the operation of the
BCM,
Sl. WITH CUTTER SIZE (mm)

no
The size of 1900 2150
i)
cutter
The size of 1050x2=2100 1050x2=210
connecting 0
ii) flange &
elbow and
trough
iii) Extra 100x2=200 100x2=200
protection
iv) (i) + (ii) +(iii) 1900+2100+200 2150+2100+
200
Hence total =4200 =4450
width required
It can be seen from above that on normal track BCM operation

require 4200 mm width (with 1900mm cutter bar) and 4450 mm width (with
2150mm cutter bar). This is available without any obstruction in the present
RDSO drawings.
b. Ballast cushion:-Bridges on BG are designed for cushion of 400 mm and
checked for 300 mm. So maintaining a cushion of 350mm will not cause any
change in design of bridges.
c. Lifting hook:- As per RDSO drawing lifting hooks should be cut after placing
of slabs/girder/box culverts so that there is no projected part above the top
surface. If construction discipline is ensured in field there should not be any
problem in working of BCM on this account. So, foldable lifting hooks are not
required.
d. Service Cable:-RDSO has issued schematic sketches for passing of service
cable through bridges in parallel to track. As per these schematic sketches,
no extra width is required.
102
4. Repercussions
i. There will be substantial increase in cost due to increase in width of
substructure & superstructure
ii. There will be encouragement to trespassing, if more width is provided than
the required for ballast. Hence, the safety aspect may be compromised.
iii. The Drawings (45 no’s approximately at Annexure-I), designed recently shall
need to be revised. Further it is to be noted that with limited resources in
design unit of RDSO it shall take considerable time to revise these
design/drawings.
5. Issue to be deliberated:-
i. The working load of BCM & other associated machines need to be verified
that they are coming within the loading envelope of the corresponding design
loads of IRS: Bridge Rules for respective spans .The effect of vibration load
(For Machines like DTS) need also to be studied especially the bridges resting
on bearings.
ii.Length of BCM machines over buffers is 31.8m approx. Hence, working of
BCM, on bridges upto 12.2m, may be managed with width of 4500mm inside
of ballast retainer.
iii.For bridges more 12.2 m a space of 300mm on both side is sufficient for
movement & observations during working of BCM. So, required Width of
Deck slab is 4900mm (4280+300+300=4880) between inside face of ballast
retainer or Work on Bridges having length more than 12.2m should be done
with cutter bar of 1900mm.
iv.Bridges provided with footpath on one side, the footpath may be utilized for
the purpose of movement / observation during working of BCM. Therefore,
avoiding the need for increasing the deck width.
v. Disposal of muck should be taken care of to avoid detrimental effect on
waterway, while running the BCM.
Therefore the requirement of 5800mm deck width (5400mm between

inside faces of ballast retainer) and other item mentioned above need to
be deliberated.
The committee may now deliberate and make recommendation.
**************
103
Annexure-I
List of Drawings
A. For 25t loading-2008
S.N Type No.

1 RCC Slabs 3
2 Composite Girder/DECK 4
3 Pier/Abutments 12
4 PSC Slabs 7
5 PSC 2I Girders 3+1
6 PSC 4I Girders 1+1*
7 PSC Box Girders 1+1*
*under revision for seismic Zone-V (4500mm between inside of ballast

retainer)
B. For DFC loading
S.N Type No.

1 RCC Slabs 2
2 Pier/Abutments 4
3 PSC Slabs 5
104
ITEM NO. 1051

Subject : Operation of Locomotives having Tractive Effort Limiting
Device on Bridges over Indian Railways.
BSC Reference : Nil.
RDSO File No. : CBS/SC/GMC.
Agenda : Operation of locomotives on bridges with tractive effort
limiting device.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1. Prior to 1998 the speed certificate were being issued by RDSO with banning
all those standard spans which were not clearing the criteria of Tractive Effort
even after considering dispersion of longitudinal forces as per clause 2.8.3.1
of IRS Bridge Rule. For the first time Speed Certificate of 2WAG7 (double
headed) locomotive was issued on 26/30-03-1998 as amendment to the
Speed Certificate issued on 25-11-1992 which was having tractive effort
limiting device. The clauses under bridge were as under:-
Bridge Clauses:-
“2.2.5 The double-headed operation shall not be permitted on BGML spans of

24.4m, 30.5m, 45.7m and 76.2m spans (all clear spans) in general.
However, as a temporary measure, till the guidelines as given in
RDSO’s letter No. CBS/WAG/5&6 dated 13-04-1988 “Guidelines for
checking and strengthening of bridges for running coupled WAG6 locos
with trailing load of 7.67 t/m” are followed, operation of double headed
WAG7 locomotives with trailing load of 7.67 t/m can be permitted, for a
period of one year from the date of issue of this letter, with the following
stipulations.
“a) The maximum tractive effort of the coupled locos shall be limited
to 60t (i.e. traction motor current in each locomotive will be
limited to 970 amps) while running over the bridges with spans
(clear) of 24.4m and above. List of such bridges where drivers of
coupled WAG7 locomotives will be required to limit the tractive
effort to 60t (for coupled locos) should be notified by Railway
and incorporated in the working time table so that all operating
staff are aware of this instruction.”
b) The maximum braking force of wagon axles shall not exceed

10% of the axle load.
2. After passage of time and development in day to day working at present the
Speed Certificate for locomotive having tractive effort limiting device has been
105
modified and clauses under bridges and general are modified. The clauses
under bridge of Speed Certificate for WDG4D (twin cab) issued vide RDSO’s
letter No. SD.WDG4D.11 dated 23-08-2013 having tractive effort limiting
device are as under:-
 Clause 3.2.3 The clearance is subject to the following parameters of

WDG4D locomotive:
(i) Maximum axle load = 21.7t
(ii) Maximum tractive effort = 54.0t
(iii) Maximum dynamic braking force at rail level = 27.0t
(iv) Maximum CG height from rail level = Not exceeding
1830mm
 Clause 3.2.3.2 In case of Double headed operation (With TE of
30tonne/Loco,)
a. Double headed operation of only those WDG4D locomotives
will be permitted which are equipped with tractive effort
limiting switch along with push button visual indication
system as mentioned above and shall be in fully working
order .In case any of these features is not working, the
locomotive in double headed operation will not be
permitted to operate over the bridge of BGML span of
13.1m, 25.6m, 31.9m, 47.3m, 63.0m, 78.8m and RBG span of
13.1m and 47.3m (all effective).
b. Track on bridges and approaches of BGML spans 2.5m,3.0m,
3.7m, 4.3m,5.3m,6.9m,10.0m,13.1m,19.4m,25.6m, 31.9m,
47.3m, 63.0m, 78.8m RBG spans of 1.0m,1.5m,2.5m, 3.0m,
4.3m, 5.3m, 6.9m, 10.0m,
13.1m,19.4m,25.6m,31.9m,47.3m,63.m and MBG spans
1.0m,1.5m, 2.5m, 3.0m ,4.3m,5.3m 13.1m,47.3m and 63.0m (all
effective) shall be strengthened or modified in such a way so as
to allow for dispersion of longitudinal force as per clause 2.8.3.2
of IRS Bridge Rules. In cases where dispersion cannot be
allowed as per clause 2.8.3.2 such as due to provision of SEJ in
bridges etc., the bridge superstructure including bearings and
sub-structure shall be checked for longitudinal force without
dispersion and certified safe by the Chief Bridge Engineer
concerned.
c. The maximum tractive effort for the double headed
(WDG4D) locomotives shall be limited to 60t (i.e. by
operation of switch provided on the driver’s desk in WDG4D
locomotives for limiting tractive effort to 30t for each locomotive)
while running over the bridges of BGML span 13.1m, 25.6m,
31.9m, 47.3m, 63.0m, 78.8m and RBG span of 13.1m and
47.3m (all effective).
106
d. Bridges conforming to BGML spans 13.1m, 25.6m, 31.9m,

47.3m, 63.0m, 78.8m and RBG span of 13.1m and 47.3m (all
effective) standard should be kept under close watch during
operation of double headed operation of WDG4D
locomotives for its condition monitoring by Zonal Railways.
e. In order to limit the tractive effort of double headed operation of
WDG4D locomotives to 30t each over bridge of BGML span
13.1m and 47.3m (all effective). (60t for double headed
WDG4D), the driver shall operate the tractive effort limiting
switch provided on the locomotives while approaching the
bridges. This instruction along with detail of BGML span of
13.1m and 47.3m (all effective). should be indicated in the
working timetable of the Zonal Railway.
f. For BGML span 13.1m, 25.6m, 31.9m, 47.3m, 63.0m, 78.8m
and RBG span of 13.1m and 47.3m (all effective). If train gets
stuck upon the bridges and requires tractive effort of more
than 30t each in WDG4D locomotive (it means that the
requirement of tractive effort is more than 60t in doubled headed
operation), the driver should ask for assisting engine for
banking the train in rear. These instructions should be
incorporated in the working timetable so that all operating
staff is aware of the instructions.
 Clause 3.2.3.3 The substructures of bridges mentioned in clause
2.2.3.2(a) shall be kept under close observation, particularly in the
following cases: -
i) Bridges located in such section where the train may be
applying brakes or may be starting such as approaches to
stations, heavily graded sections etc.
ii) Bridges with signs of distress.
iii) Bridges with piers and abutments of strength lower than
BGML/RBG. In general such bridges may be the bridges
constructed prior to 1926.
 Clause 3.2.4 Location of bridges on which speed restrictions are
imposed shall be notified by the Railways and incorporated in the
working timetable.
 Clause 3.2.5 The above clause have been arrived considering bridges
are in physically sound condition. In case the bridges are not in
satisfactory physical condition, necessary speed restriction to be
imposed by concern Chief Bridge Engineer of Zonal Railway.
107
3. All together around 16 numbers of Speed Certificate for different types of

locomotives having tractive effort limiting device has already been issued by
RDSO to Zonal Railways of operation (details at Annexure-A).
4. It is learnt that different Railways are following different practices for

implementation of limiting of tractive effort on bridges.
a. On one of the bridges of SCR, the board for tractive effort limiting
switch has been provided like.
LIMIT TE TO
30T PER LOCO
b. Some Railways have put an indicator board near such bridges where
tractive effort for the locomotive is to be limited to 30t per loco
indicating:-
DRIVER NOT TO STOP

DOUBLE/TRIPLE
HEADED LOCOMOTIVE,
IF STOPPED ASK FOR
BANKER TO START.
5. Members are requested to share the practices being followed on their

Railway.
6. There is a need for uniform practice to be adopted over Indian Railways.
********
108
109
ITEM NO. 1052

Review of action taken on pending items.
1. Item No. 884/73rd/2001/CBS/PSBC

Depth of scour in clayey soil.
COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS:
(i) Committee recommends use of provision of IRC:78 for computation of
scour in case of bridges on clayey bed.
(ii) RDSO should propose correction slip to IRS Bridge Substructure and
Foundation Code accordingly. Item may be closed after issue of
correction slip.
RAILWAY BOARD ORDERS:
SER and SCR have submitted data for one bridge each. CR should also
quickly identify bridges on clayey bed and submit information to RDSO in
prescribed format early. As already directed earlier vide Board’s letter No.
2009/CE-I/BR/Seminar(BSC)/I dated 10-11-2010, RDSO should study few
real cases on Indian Railways for firming up correction slip.
PRESENT STATUS:
1. SER and SCR had submitted data for one bridge each in 2012. Scour
data of SER was not complete and values of c and ϕ of the clayey soil
bed were not provided. Scour data collected by SCR was only for one
or two days. Further, data provided by SCR was not coherent for
analysis e.g. RL of Rail level was indicated below the RL of Founding
level.
2. Therefore, as per Railway Board’s Orders on 81st BSC
recommendations, letters to SCR (RBF/FO/SCR/2013 dated
14.03.2013), CR (RBF/FO/CR/2013 dated 14.03.2013) and SER
(RBF/FO/SER/2013 dated 11.03.2013) were sent for collection of scour
data in the prescribed format for identified bridges on clayey bed.
3. So far no additional data is provided by 3 nominated Zonal Railways.
4. Due to non-availability of the long term and proper scour data, it may
not be possible to validate the recommended formula for assessment
of scour depth in clayey bed.
110
2. Item No. 898/74th/2003/CBS/WRJ

Design of new bridges for LWR/CWR forces.
HAG committee to expedite finalization and submission of their report. Target
date of 30.04.2012 is suggested.
HAG committee to expedite finalization of report.
PRESENT STATUS:
HAG committee report was submitted to Railway Board vide ED/Track-
1/RDSO’s letter no CT/IM/LWR/Part Dated 08.07.2013. Railway Board has
issued orders accepting the report vide letter no. 2011/CE-II/TK/LWR dated
24/09/13 as follows:-
1. The recommendations made by HAG committee for continuation of
LWR on Ballasted Deck Bridges with the fulfillment of conditions as
mentioned in the report of the HAG Committee.
2. For laying of LWR on un-ballasted deck bridge with rail free fastenings
(on straight track) on trial basis, case will be processed separately for
consideration after arrangement for the same are designed/finalized by
RDSO.
3. For un-ballasted deck bridges without rail free fastenings, RDSO may
study the fastening systems being used in the other world railways to
identify the fastening system to be adopted by Indian Railways.
Based on this, the action taken so far by B & S dte (along with Track-1 dte) of
RDSO is as follows:
1. Correction slip no. 45 in Bridge Rules was issued vide letter no
CBS/PBR dated 04.10.2013 which covers provisions for checking of
Rail-structure interaction for ballasted deck girder bridges for straight
track. This correction slip provides:
a. Permissible additional stresses in rail on account of Rail-Structure
interaction.
b. The values of track resistance to be used.
c. Code to be used.
2. Further to this, instructions for permitting continuation of LWR on
ballasted deck bridges with length upto 110 m (individual span upto
24.4 m in case of fixed-free bearings and upto 45.7 m in case of
neoprene bearings) on trial basis have been submitted to Railway
Board vide ED/Track-1/RDSO’s letter no CT/IM/LWR (Part) dated
06/07.01.2014. The instructions stipulate the following:
a. The length of bridge/ spans and other conditions for which laying of
LWR on trial basis is allowed.
111
b. The bridge has to be checked as per Correction slip no 45 to IRS

Bridge Rules and UIC 774-3R. Simplified rules (based on graphs
given in UIC 774-3R) can be used or detailed computer modelling is
to be done.
c. An instrumentation scheme has been given in Annexure A. Initial
one/ two bridges on each railway have to be instrumented to
validate the stresses as per UIC 774-3R so that the trial can be
permitted on regular basis and LWR can be permitted to be laid on
other bridges/ conditions such as longer bridges, skew/curved
bridges etc also.
d. For ballast less track, the drawing for anchor arrangement is being
developed by B & S dte along with Track dte of RDSO and likely to
be sent to Railway Board for issue shortly. This arrangement is
being developed on the basis of LWR laid on trial basis on Moola
bridge (2 x 41.2 m + 2 x 43.5 m steel underslung girders) in
Sholapur division of Central Railway since July 2006.
3. Detailed guidelines on this subject are under preparation and RDSO
proposes to give training to design engineers from zonal railways
through outside experts and in-house.
4. The committee is requested to deliberate and decide.
3. Item No. 905/75th/2004/CBS/PSBC

Passing of service cables through bridges in parallel to track.
COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS:
(i) Committee observed that for steel girders, SWR has sent details of
arrangement being followed.
(ii) For concrete bridges, no input has been received from any Zonal
Railway.
(iii) Committee noted that Electrical and S&T Directorates of RDSO have
not indicated requirement of space for cables in view of wide variation
in requirement from one location to other.
(i) Committee recommends that RDSO should work out possible
standard/indicative arrangements and circulate the same to Zonal
Railways for comments.
(ii) Results shall be deliberated in the next BSC meeting.
(i) Approved. Views of Electrical and S&T Directorate of RDSO should
also be taken.
(ii) Approved.
112
PRESENT STATUS:
(i) Schematic sketch for indicative arrangements on PSC Slab & PSC
Girders has been issued vide letter no CBS/Service Cable dated
23/25.07.13, for plate/composite girders vide letter no. CBS/Service
Cable dated 15.01.2014, for open web girder vide letter no. CBS/WBG
dated 15.01.2014.
(ii) These Sketches have been uploaded on rail net site 10.100.2.19 for
Comments and suggestion. Feedback is awaited.
(iii) Note has been sent to Electrical and S&T directorate and feedback is
awaited.
(iv) Members are requested to send feedback to RDSO.
(v) Committee may deliberate and decide.
4. Item No. 934/76th/2007/CBS/DAB

Criteria for safe load on arch bridge.
(vi) Committee noted that formulation of guidelines on assessment and
retrofitting of arches is in progress.
(vii) NWR has identified one arch bridge only. Additional abandoned arch
bridges are required to be identified for testing up to ultimate load to
gain experience on Indian arches.
(viii) Zonal Railways have not advised feedback on performance of
retrofitting of arches.
(ix) Performance report of arches certified using adhoc criteria circulated
by RDSO for span less than 4.5m is awaited from NWR and WR.
(i) Committee to expedite finalization of guidelines. Zonal Railways to
expedite submission of information on load test and retrofitment
performance.
(ii) The modus operandi and parameters to be measured for destructive
testing of abandoned arch bridges by NWR shall be finalized by
30.03.2012 and efforts should be made by NWR to compete testing by
May 2012. Additional abandoned arch bridges shall also be identified
by NWR.
(iii) Zonal Railways to give feedback on effect of retrofitment of arch
bridges using technique like helifix, cintec etc. at the earliest.
(iv) WR and NWR to provide feedback to RDSO on arch bridges for spans
less than 4.5m using adhoc criteria circulated by RDSO at the earliest.
(i) Approved.
(ii) Approved.
113
(iii) Approved. Zonal Railways should expedite the feedback to RDSO.

(iv) Approved. WR and NW Railways should expedite the feedback to
RDSO.
PRESENT STATUS:
(i) Draft guideline on assessment of arch bridges prepared by the
convener of committee Shri Ajay Goyal has been received on
05.09.2011 through e-mail. The comments of RDSO on draft guideline
has been sent on 24.10.2011 through e-mail. The last meeting of
committee held on 09.09.2013 at CAO office NWR, Jaipur and the
various aspect of the subject has been discussed. The work on draft
guidelines for assessment and retrofitment of arch bridges is under
progress.
(ii) The modus operandi & parameters to be measured, for destructive
testing of abandoned arch bridges by NWR has been finalized by
RDSO and sent to NWR vide letter No. CBS/DAB dated 13/16.04.2012
for conducting destructive test on abandoned arch bridges. NWR has
also been requested to provide the detail of abandoned arch bridges
proposed for destructive test as per the format provide. Lists of 10 Nos.
of abandoned arch bridges has been submitted by NWR vide letter No.
HQ/W/65/1/1(arch Bridge) dated 29.03.12, without detailed data as
required. Reminder letters vide CBS/DAB dated 26.03.13, 21.05.13,
26.06.13 and 22.10.2013 has been sent so far but test results from
NWR is awaited. In the meantime other railways have been requested
to identify abandoned arch bridge for destructive testing. Six railways
(ER, ECoR, NER, SR, SECR& SER) had replied so far as per which 42
Nos. of abandoned arch bridges is available in different railways.
(iii) Feedback from Zonal Railways on effect of retrofitment of arch bridges
using techniques like Helifix, Centac etc are awaited. Only SWR, SER,
SECR, ER, NER and ECoR reported that these techniques have not
been used in these railways. Reminders vide letter No. CBS/DAB
dated 27.12.11, 28.02.13, 21.05.13, 16.07.13 & 13.11.13 have been
sent to railways and feedback from other railways is awaited.
(iv) The adhoc criterion for span less than 4.5m has been circulated by
RDSO during gauge conversion work between Mehsana – Khodiyar
section. WR and NWR has to provide feedback on this issue.
Subsequently reminders vide letter No. CBS/DAB dated 27.12.11,
28.02.13, 21.05.13, 04.07.13 & 31.10.13 have been sent to NWR and
WR but the reply is awaited.
5. Item No. 995/78th/2009/ CBS/PSB

Revision of fatigue provisions in IRS Steel Bridge Code.
The necessary clarification to Board’s query has been given by RDSO in
January 2012 for consideration.
114
Railway Board is requested to communicate a decision.

Addendum and Corrigendum slip No. 18 dated 07-06-2012 to IRS Steel
Bridge Code issued. Item is closed.
PRESENT STATUS:
A&C Slip No. 18 dated 07-06-2012 to IRS Steel Bridge Code has been
incorporated after approval of Railway Board.
CBE W C Rly, vide their letter no W-65/BSC/Meeting Dated 02.01.2014

has raised the following issue:
“As per correction slip no 18 of IRS Steel Bridge Code, permissible stress
in fatigue are to be calculated based on certain factors λ1, λ2, λ3 and λ4
which cover train loads, traffic density, design life of bridge, no of tracks on
a bridge. Considering above factors, section required for different
components of bridges are coming out to much higher as compared to the
old criteria. Earlier as per Steel Bridge Code, Appendix G, actual fatigue
stresses permitted were between 11 to 12 kg/mm2, whereas now this
permitted stress as per correction slip no 18 comes out to be much less,
justifying higher section especially in members subjected to tension and
bending. Sample calculations for through girder bridges span 33.53 m in
Jabalpur division of WCR is enclosed. This needs to be addresses
because for new construction, taking higher sections is not a problem but if
adequacy of old bridge girders is to be checked then most of the girders
will fail in fatigue criteria. Therefore, it is felt necessary to review the
criteria. Alternatively, instructions should be issued not to implement these
instructions for checking the adequacy of old bridges.”
In view of this, the correction slip no 18 has been examined again and
following comments are offered:
1. The old fatigue provisions were based on stress ratio concept and had
several limitations as far as fatigue design was concerned. As a result
of this, there were so many failures in fatigue critical members like
small spans, stringers etc. Therefore, the method was taken up for
review and replaced by more rational new method which is based on
stress range concept.
2. RDSO has designed a 30.5 m underslung girder for 25T loading and it
was seen that the weight of girder has increased from 43T in MBG to
70 T. The reason for the increase in weight is the new fatigue
provisions. The comparative chart of Girder members for MBG loading
with old fatigue provisions and 25 Ton loading with new fatigue
provisions is enclosed as Annexure 1.
3. On close analysis of the design, it was seen that the increase in weight
is not only in members which are identified as fatigue critical but also in
115
bottom chord (~110% increase). The experience with the old girders
indicates that this increase is not warranted. Further, the percentage
increase in Diagonal Members is 147% which is also not desirable.
4. It is seen that the new fatigue provisions require reexamination from

two points, viz, impact factor and provisions for members where stress
reversal takes place (diagonals of open web girders).
5. A problem has been reported by DFC that the design for 100 years and
50 GMT might not suffice for heavy density route like DFC.
6. Further it has been represented to RDSO from several sources that the
new provisions are difficult to understand.
In view of above, RDSO is of the view that the following shall be done:
1. Restructuring of the correction slip to make it easily comprehensible.
2. Review of provisions for design of members like diagonals which

experience stress reversal during part of the loading cycle.
3. Review of provisions regarding impact to be included in design

computations.
4. Review of fatigue life for which structures shall be designed.
The committee may deliberate and decide.

th
Annexure 1 of Item no 995/78 /2009/ CBS/PSB
MBG
RIVETED 25T WELDED
with new fatigue
Members LENGTH AREA WEIGHT AREA WEIGHT NATURE %INCREASE
(CM) (CM^2) (TON) (CM^2) %INCREASE
B.C
U0-U1 319 209.86 0.5258 216 0.5412 COMPR. 2.926
U1-U2 319 209.86 0.5258 216 0.5412 COMPR. 2.926
U2-U3 319 209.86 0.5258 292 0.7316 COMPR. 39.140
U3-U4 319 209.86 0.5258 292 0.7316 COMPR. 39.140
U4-U5 319 209.86 0.5258 292 0.7316 COMPR. 39.140
T.C 0.0000
L1-L2 319 109.69 0.2748 230.4 0.5773 TENSION 110.046
L2-L3 319 109.69 0.2748 230.4 0.5773 TENSION 110.046
L3-L4 319 156.89 0.3931 338.92 0.8491 TENSION 116.024
L4-L5 319 156.89 0.3931 338.92 0.8491 TENSION 116.024
116
E.R 0.0000
U0-L1 559.79 109.69 0.4823 242.4 1.0657 TENSION 120.986
DIAGONAL 0.0000
L1-U2 559.79 91.28 0.4013 125.86 0.5534 COMPR. 37.883
U2-L3 559.79 76.99 0.3385 182.01 0.8002 TENSION 136.407
0.0000 0.0000 COMPR.
L3-U4 559.79 77.34 0.3400 166.11 0.7303 COMPR. 114.779
U4-L5 559.79 67.34 0.2961 166.11 0.7303 T/C 146.674

vertical
U1-L1 460 80.08 0.2893 73.2 0.2645 COMPR. -8.591
U3-L3 460 80.08 0.2893 73.2 0.2645 COMPR. -8.591
U5-L5 460 80.08 0.2893 73.2 0.2645 COMPR. -8.591
6.6909 10.8032
6. Item No. 999/78th/2009/ CBS/DPG-1

Design of 12.2m span Welded Plate Girder for “25t Loading-2008” (10 Million
Cycle).
1. Cracks are occurring due to quality of welds. CO2 welds shall be done.
2. RDSO shall review the design of bearing stiffener and examine if the
connection can be improved by the welding additional angles on either
side of bearing stiffener.
3. Articulation may be provided in the bearing lug to improve load
distribution.
Drawing may be appropriately altered and item closed.
Railway Board’s orders are not required in terms of Board’s letter No.
2005/CE-I/BR-II/8 dated 04-08-2009. RDSO should review and issue
necessary alteration expeditiously.
PRESENT STATUS:
The drawing has been revised and new drawing series RDSO/B-16014/R has
been issued. The salient features of this drawing series include:
1. The design has been done as per new fatigue provisions for 50 GMT,
100 years life.
2. The design eliminates the bevel butt weld which was provided in earlier
drawing by increasing the web thickness.
3. Lifting arrangement has been provided in end diaphragm itself.
117
4. Sliding bearing as well as elastomeric bearing option is available.

This item may be dropped and fresh item will be prepared after experience
has been gained by railways with the new drawings. The committee may
deliberate and decide.
7. Item No. 1000/78th/2009/ CBS/DPG-1

Cycle).
No further feedback has been received.
Drawing may be reviewed in light of discussion on item no. 999 and item
closed.
PRESENT STATUS:
The drawing has been revised and new drawing series RDSO/B-16015/R has
been issued. The salient features of this drawing series include:
1. The design has been done as per new fatigue provisions for 50 GMT,
100 years life.
2. The design eliminates the bevel butt weld which was provided in earlier
drawing by increasing the web thickness.
3. Lifting arrangement has been provided in end diaphragm itself.
4. Sliding bearing as well as elastomeric bearing option is available.
This item may be dropped and fresh item will be prepared after experience
has been gained by railways with the new drawings.
The committee may deliberate and decide.
8. Item No. 1001/78th/2009/ CBS/DPG-1

Cycle).
No feedback is received.
Standard drawing may be issued after review of design in view of discussion
on item no. 999. Zonal Railway may give feedback on the drawings to RDSO.
118
PRESENT STATUS:
No problem has been reported in 24.4m span welded plate girders. The
drawing has been reviewed, including checking with the new fatigue
provisions and the girders have been found fit. Hence no changes are
required from design point of view.
No feedback on the drawing has been received. The drawing may be
approved. The committee may deliberate and decide.
9. Item No. 1003/78th/2009/ CBS/DWF

Socket Resistance of Piles anchored in Rock.
(i) Committee observed that detailed provisions for assessing the load
carrying capacity of piles founded on rocks have been recently
modified in IRC and IS Codes namely IRC-78 and IS-2911 (Part-I).
(ii) Committee noted that provisions of IRC-78 and IS 2911 are being used
by Zonal Railways.
(i) In view of availability of detailed provisions for assessing the load
carrying capacity of piles founded on rocks in IRC-78 and IS-2911
(Part-I), Committee recommends that there is no need of any change in
provisions of “Manual on the Design and Construction of Well and Pile
Foundations” as of now.
(ii) Item is closed.
As directed earlier, Zonal Railways should expedite submission of design
details and parameters adopted in design for bridges provided with pile
foundations on rocks to RDSO.
PRESENT STATUS:
(i) BRIEF BACKGROUND:
(a) This item was discussed in the 78th BSC/2009 based on the reference of
Southern Railway and as per recommendations on item No. 5(c) of CBEs
seminar 2008. Southern Railway had proposed that since provisions are
not available in IRS codes as well as in IS-2911. However, provisions are
available in IRC:78-2000 which can be adopted for IRS codes.
(b) Literature study and provisions of IRC:78-2000 were discussed in 79th
BSC and It was decided that provisions of IRC:78-2000 can be followed
and new para 2.4.3.3 in ‘Manual on Design of Well and Pile Foundations’
as recommended should be added.
119
(c) Accordingly, draft A&C Slip No. 3 to ‘Manual on Design of Well and Pile
Foundations’ was prepared and send to Railway Board for approval in
July’2010. Railway Board in November’2010 directed RDSO that-
 RDSO should incorporate the factors to be considered for deciding
the values of Ksp. RDSO should also incorporate, how the value of qc
has to be adopted.
 RDSO should also study certain real cases involving rocks on Indian
Railways to firm up Correction Slip No.3.
(d) Accordingly, CAOs & CBEs of Zonal Railways were requested to provide
the design details and parameters adopted in design for bridges provided
with pile foundations on rocks in their Railways.
(e) Meanwhile, provisions in IRC:78-2000 for assessing the load carrying
capacity of piles founded on rocks were modified and comprehensive
provisions were incorporated in the code by Notification No. 68 dated
28.02.2011. It was also noted that IS-2911 (Part-1) was revised in 2010
and provisions for piles founded on rocks were incorporated in the code.
Guidelines for deriving load carrying capacity of piles socketed in rocks are
also available in IS:14593-1998 (reaffirmed-2003) which have referencing
to clauses of IS-2911 part-1 & part-4. Modified provisions of IRC:78-2000
and IS-2911 were deliberated in 81st BSC meeting.
(f) In view of availability of detailed provisions for assessing the load carrying
capacity of piles founded on rocks in IRC:78 and IS-2911 (Part-1), 81st
BSC recommended that there is no need of any change in provisions of
IRS codes. Since the experience of recently introduced provisions of IRC
and IS codes was not available, it was not considered appropriate at that
stage to revise IRS code based on provisions of IRC code. Therefore, the
item was recommended for closure by 81st BSC.
(ii) In view of Railway Board’s Orders on 81st BSC recommendations, Zonal
Railways (CBE & CAO offices) were requested again to submit design
details and parameters adopted in design for socket resistance of piles
anchored in rocks vide RDSO’s letter No. CBS/DWF dated 15/20.11.2012
and reminder dated 7/11.06.2013.
(iii) No additional input/information has been provided by Zonal Railways.
(iv) Earlier information provided by CR, ER, NR, SR, SER, SECR and NFR
has already been deliberated in 81st BSC Meeting and same is reproduced
below for appreciation:
Railway Description Railway’s Remark
CR Pile capacity through socket IS:14593 along with IS:2911 may be
resistance referred.
ER (i) Minimum depth of (i) As per Table-1 of IS : 14593 – 1998
socketing (ii) As per Appendix V, Section– 9 of
(ii) Load carrying capacity of IRC – 78- 2000
piles (iii) As per IS – 2911 Pt.4
(iii) Load testing (iv) iv) Clause No. 9.2 and 9.3 of IS –
(iv) iv) Limiting values of 14593 - 1998
120
Railway Description Railway’s Remark

vertical settlement and
horizontal displacement
NR - No arrangement having socket
resistance pile anchored in Rock has
been used
SR - (i) In SR, only end bearing is
considered for Railway bridges. No
socket resistance is considered.
(ii) For ROB, socket resistance is
considered as per IRC-78- 2000.
SER - No pile foundation with anchorage in
rocks has been executed by open line
organization of this Railway.
SECR (i) Capacity of pile in rock (i) Appendix – 5 of IRC- 78 - 2000
(ii) Socketing length (ii) Table – 1 of IS : 14593 – 1998
NFR - No such work executed by open line
organization
(v) It can be seen from above that Zonal Railways were using provisions of
IRC-78:2000 and Guidelines given in IS:14593-1998 for deriving load
carrying capacity of piles socketed in rocks.
BSC may deliberate on relevance of continuing this item.
10. Item No. 1006/79th/2010/CBS/Project Seismic/I&P

Guidelines on Seismic Design of Railway Bridges .
The provisions related to design like seating width, ductile detailing etc. are
acceptable and should be included in IRS Bridge Rules.
The provisions for post-earthquake action are not directly related to design.
Hence should be proposed for inclusion in IRBM.
The provisions for post-earth quake action should be reviewed by RDSO.
More training courses are required to be organized for assimilation of new
seismic design guidelines.
RDSO to propose correction slip to IRS Bridge Rule for additional design
provisions.
The provisions for post-earthquake action should be reviewed and proposed
for inclusion in IRBM.
RDSO to arrange more training courses for assimilation of new seismic
design guidelines.
RAILWAY BOARDS ORDERS:
121
(i) Approved. For provisions regarding ductile detailing, RDSO to propose

correction slip to Concrete Bridge Code.
(ii) Approved.
(iii) Approved.
PRESENT STATUS:
The Guidelines on seismic design of Railway Bridges issued by RDSO on

29TH April -2011 vide letter no. CBS/Project/Seismic/I&P. The existing
provisions of the Bridge Rule for calculating the design seismic forces are
based upon obsolete and discarded provision of IS1893-1984 and against the
design methods of all other National (IRC etc) and International codes. The
design philosophy, methods and procedures of the IITK- RDSO guidelines are
totally different from those existing in the Bridge Rules and other Railway
codes like concrete bridge code. The Seismic guidelines with contradictory
provisions to Bridge rules are in circulation for almost two years now and it is
creating a lot of confusion in the design offices (Compatibility issues raised by
CE/CON1/SCR vide letter no CON/77/A/D/Vol3 (B) dated 11.5.11). We were
expecting to gain sufficient insight on the subject matter through actual design
experience and then adopt the new design methods discarding old and
obsolete methods of bridge rule through issue of correction slips to the bridge
rules. However, no such design came from any of the Railways except one
design from Central Railways (vide letter no. EW/641/BRN-1/CAO/XII dated
15-04-13) and as such no study has been carried out on the implication of
new guidelines on design of Railway bridges.
The correction slips prepared till date on the existing codes are very few and
quite insignificant as far as Design of bridges are concerned. It is mostly
covering “post-earthquake measures” and “Anti-dislodging devices” etc which
do not affect the design of the bridge at all. The correction slip on the ductile
detailing cannot be issued in isolation because it involves calculation of ductile
reinforcements based upon the plastic moment capacities and on Response
reduction factor R of the new method.
The piecemeal approach of adopting the Seismic guidelines is not possible

because the new guidelines on seismic design is one consolidated design
philosophy incorporating the new international standards and Revised IS
codes.
As such it is proposed that all the correction slips to the Bridge Rules and
Concrete bridge codes etc be approved by the BSC at once only. The Seismic
guidelines needs correction itself because there are many clauses which
needs rephrasing or replacement altogether. The adoption of new seismic
guidelines needs to be done through recommendations of an Expert
Committee specifically formed for this purpose only. It is proposed that the
122
Committee be constituted comprising of ED Bridges/RDSO, ED

Structures/RDSO, Two CBE’s and Shri R.K Goel (presently working as
CE/C/North/C.Rly, who prepared the Guidelines at RDSO) for study of design
implications through sample design of Railway bridges and substructures of
various types and recommend the suitable correction slips for all the Railway
design codes.
11. Item No. 1011/79th/2010/CBS/DPA

Design of substructure i.e. Pier and Abutment suitable for span 6.1m precast
PSC slab (2 units) conforming to 25t Loading-2008.
(i) Superstructure drawing of precast PSC Slab for 6.10m span (RDSO/B-
10257) is under revision as per recommendations of 79th BSC on item
No.1016.
(ii) RDSO advised that revision of substructure drawing for mass concrete
pier and abutment for seismic zones II & III and new design for RCC
pier and abutment for seismic zone-V as recommended by 80th BSC
will be taken up in 2012-13.
RDSO should issue following drawings for pier and abutment for 6.10m span
for 25t Loading-2008 after issue of revised superstructure drawing for precast
PSC slab:
(i) Mass concrete pier and abutment for seismic zones II & III.
(ii) Reinforcement cement concrete pier and abutment for seismic zone-V
taking open foundation and extreme soil conditions etc.
2005/CE-I/BR-II/8 dated 04-08-2009. RDSO should issue drawing
expeditiously.
PRESENT STATUS:
(i) Existing RDSO drawings Nos. RDSO/B-10337 & RDSO/B-10338 of
mass concrete substructure for seismic zone-II & III have been
checked for their suitability for revised superstructure drawing i.e.
RDSO/B-10257 and found safe. Accordingly, Alteration-1 to existing
drawings on mass concrete Pier and Abutment has been issued in
August’2012.
(ii) The work of design of RCC pier and abutment for seismic zone-V with
open foundation and extreme soil condition is in progress. The
provisional drawings are likely to be issued to Zonal Railways by
March’2014.
123
12. Item No. 1012/79th/2010/CBS/DPA

Design of substructure i.e. Pier and Abutment suitable for span 9.15m precast
pre-tensioned PSC slab (3 units) conforming to 25t Loading-2008.
(i) Superstructure drawing of precast PSC Slab (3 units) for 9.15m span
has been revised (RDSO/B-10263/R) in September 2011 as per
recommendations of 79th BSC on item No.1017.
(ii) Revision of substructure drawing for mass concrete pier and abutment
for seismic zones II & III is completed and revised provisional drawings
No. RDSO/B-10339/R and RDSO/B-10340/R have been issued in
December 2011.
(iii) RDSO advised that new design for RCC pier and abutment for seismic
zone-V as recommended by 80th BSC will be taken up in 2012-13.
(i) Feedback, if any, on drawing No. RDSO/B-10263/R, RDSO/B-10339/R
and RDSO/B-10340/R should be sent to RDSO by Zonal Railways.
(ii) RDSO should issue drawings for reinforcement concrete pier and
abutment for seismic zone-V taking open foundation and extreme soil
conditions etc. for 9.15m span precast PSC slab (3 Units) for 25t
Loading-2008.
expeditiously.
PRESENT STATUS:
The work of design of RCC pier and abutment for seismic zone-V with open
foundation and extreme soil condition is in progress and provisional drawings
are likely to be issued shortly.
13. Item No. 1016/79th/2010/CBS/DPS

Standard drawing of 6.1m PSC Pre-tensioned slab (2 unit) for 25t Loading-
2008.
Committee noted that design work for 6.1m PSC Pre-tensioned slab for 25t
loading-2008 is in progress.
RDSO to issue Revised Drawing at the earliest.
expeditiously.
124
PRESENT STATUS:
(i) Drawing issued vide letter no CBS/DPS dated 21/03/12.
(ii) Drawing has been uploaded on rail net web site
www.rdso.railnet.gov.in for trial adoption and comments.
(i) Feedback has been received from East Coast Railway (Vide letter no.
DCE/C/II/VSKP/JDB-KRDL doubling/370 dated 24/25-06-3013) where
it was requested to examine the possibility of altering the ordinate of
the Ist row of strands in the latest standard drawing(RDSO/B-10257/R)
for 6.1m PSC slab from 105mm to 95mm at the end so as to facilitate
manufacturing all the four types (i.e 3.05, 3.66, 4.57, and 6.1m) of PSC
slabs with single pre-stressing arrangement.
The possibility of altering the ordinate of the Ist row of strands in the
latest drawing no. RDSO/B-10257/R for 6.1m PSC slab from 105mm to
95mm (at the end section) was examined and it was observed that it is
possible to make alteration by changing the camber provided at the
mid. However this will lead to revision in drawing, RDSO will take up
the revision of drawing in 2014-15.
14. Item No. 1021/80th/2011/ CBS/DCP/1

Provision of Shut-off valves for pipe line crossings under railway track
conveying inflammable substances like petroleum oil and gases etc.
(i) Para 5.5 of RDSO report No. BS-105 for ‘Guidelines on Pipeline
Crossings under Railway Track’ should be modified as under:
5.5 Accessible emergency shut off valves shall be installed within
effective distance each side of the railway as mutually agreed to
by the engineer and the pipeline company in accordance with
latest provisions given in relevant ASME codes (i.e. ASME
B31.4-2009: Pipeline Transportation System for liquid
Hydrocarbons and other Liquids; and ASME B31.8-2010: Gas
Transmission and Distribution Piping System).
5.5.1 In case of main pipelines carrying gas, Railway operations
should be considered as Location Class 4 and minimum spacing
should be kept as 8km. In case of city gas pipelines maximum
spacing should be kept to 3km (steel distribution mains) and
1km (plastic distribution mains).
5.5.2 Mainline block valves should be installed prior to crossing on the
upstream side along with block or check after pipeline crossing
carrying liquid hydrocarbons and other inflammable liquids.
5.5.3 These valves should be marked with sign for identification.
Where pipelines are provided with automatic control stations at
locations and within distances approved by the engineer, no
additional valves shall be required.
5.5.4 Valves shall not be located within the railway boundary.
125
(ii) Item to be closed after issue of correction slip by RDSO.

Approved. However, in proposed para 5.5.1, 8 km should be maximum
spacing in case main pipe line carrying gas and not the minimum spacing.
In proposed para 5.5.2 also, it should be ‘block or check valve’ and not ‘block
or check’.
PRESENT STATUS:
1. In compliance to BSC recommendations and Railway BOARD Orders, A&C
Slip No.2 dated 07.11.2012 to BS-105 report has been issued by RDSO.
2. Chairperson, Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board, New Delhi vide his
letter No. M(I)/Railways/T4S/NGPL/1/2013 dated 07.08.2013 represented to
Chairman, Railway Board that A&C Slip No.2 to BS-105 mandates Location
Class-4 wall thickness at every crossing and also isolation valves at every
8km for natural gas transmission pipeline crossing under railway track. He
also mentioned that aforesaid Addendum and Corrigendum will not only result
in substantial design changes, huge construction cost and time escalation in
ongoing natural gas pipeline projects due to the requirement of additional land
for SV stations and higher wall thickness of line pipes, but also delay the
commissioning of pipeline projects.
The issue had also been represented by M/s GSPL India Gasnet
Limited (GIGL) and M/s GSPL India Transco Limited (GITL) to RDSO and
Railway Board in June and July’2013.
3. Railway Board vide Director/CE/B&S letter No. 2013/CE-III/BR/RDSO/Misc.
dated 13.09.2013 advised Chairperson, PNGRB that decision to consider
railway operations under Location Class-4 which corresponds to highest
safety category for providing pipeline crossing under railway track is taken by
Bridge and Structures Standards Committee (BSC) after detailed
deliberations. It is logical and prudent that railway passengers and assets are
kept in highest safety category i.e. Location Class-4. The amended provisions
of BS-105 are in accordance with ASME and do not have any conflict with the
provisions contained in PNGRB’s Notification of November’2009. It was also
advised by Railway Board that pipeline systems being laid by GAIL, IGL etc.
on Northern Railway are in conformity with amended provisions of BS-105.
Railway BOARD reply dated 13.09.2013 is placed at Annexure-I.
4. Issue was discussed in the review meeting of Project Monitoring Group of
Cabinet Committee of Investments (CCI) held on 16.11.2013 wherein GITL
was asked to prepare a note to highlight technical inconsistencies in BS-105
and to request PNGRB to convene a meeting with Railways. Joint meeting
was convened by Member, PNGRB on 18.12.2013 in PNGRB Office, New
126
Delhi. In the joint meeting the issues were deliberated and it was suggested
by the representative of Railways that PNGRB should provide their
suggestions to ED/Structures, RDSO so that the matter can be included for
discussion in the agenda of upcoming 82nd BSC meeting which is scheduled
at Bangalore towards the end of January’2014. It was also requested that
PNGRB and other concerned stakeholders may also make presentation
before BSC.
5. The proposal/suggestions of PNGRB T4S Technical Committee for Natural
Gas Pipeline submitted by PNGRB vide their letter No. M(I)/Railways/T4S/
NGPI/NGPL/1/2013 dated 23.12.2013 are placed at Annexure-II. It can be
seen that main issue is regarding consideration of Railway operations as
Location Class-4 in BS-105 where pipelines carrying gas crosses railway line
and therefore limiting the maximum spacing of shut off valves as 8km.
6. Provisions of ASME 31.8 – 2012 regarding provision of shut off valves in
transmission lines are reiterated below:
Clause 846 VALVES
Clause 846.1 Required spacing of Valves
Clause 846.1.1 Transmission Lines
Onshore block valves shall be installed in new transmission pipelines at the
time of construction for the purpose of isolating the pipelines for maintenance
and for response to operating emergencies. When determining the placement
of such valves for sectionalizing the pipelines, primary consideration shall be
given to locations that provide continuous accessibility to the valves:
(a) In determining the number and spacing of valves to be installed, the
operator shall perform an assessment that gives consideration to factors
such as
(1) the amount of gas released due to repair and maintenance blow
downs, leaks, or ruptures
(2) the time to blow down an isolated section
(3) the impact in the area of gas release (e.g., nuisance and any hazard
resulting from prolonged blow downs)
(4) continuity of service
(5) operating and maintenance flexibility of the system
(6) future development in the vicinity of the pipeline
(7) significant conditions that may adversely affect the operation and
security of the line
(b) In lieu of (a) above, the following maximum spacing between valves shall be
used:-
(1) 20 miles (32 km) in areas of predominantly Location Class 1
127

The spacing defined above may be adjusted to permit a valve to be installed
in a location that is more accessible.
{Clause 840.2.2 Location class for design and construction
(a) Location Class1. A Location Class1 is any 1-mile (1.6-km) section that has
10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. A Location class1 is
intended to reflect areas such as wasteland, deserts, mountains, grazing
land, farmland, and sparsely populated areas.
(b) Location Class2. A Location Class2 is any 1-mile (1.6-km) section that has
more than 10 but fewer than 46 buildings intended for human occupancy. A
Location class2 is intended to reflect area where the degree of population is
intermediate between Location Class1 and Location Class3, such as fringe
areas around cities and towns, industrial area, ranch or country estates, etc.
(c) Location Class3. A Location Class3 is any 1- mile (1.6-km) section that has
46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy except when a Location
Class4 prevails. A Location Class 3 is intended to reflect areas such as
suburban housing developments, shopping centers, residential areas,
industrial areas and other populated areas not meeting Location Class4
requirements.
(d) Location Class4. Location Class4 includes areas where multistory
buildings are prevalent, where traffic is heavy or dense, and where there
may be numerous other utilities underground. Multistory means four or more
floors above ground including the first or ground floor. The depth of
basements or number of basement floor is immaterial.}
7. PNGRB Technical Committee (T4S) has stated and proposed the following:
(a) PNGRB does not mention any requirement for installation of emergency
shut-off valves specific to railway crossing or any other utility crossings.
However, PNGRB Regulation specify that installation of Isolation Valves
shall be as per Class Location identified across entire length of natural
gas pipeline system. However, for road/ highway/ rail crossing, casing
pipe may be provided complying with API RP-1102.
(b) ASME B-31.8 also does not identify any specific requirement for railway
crossings expect that the crossing conditions like safety factor as
indicated in Table 841.1.6-2 of ASME B-31.8, which is also based on
Class Location and as per API RP-1102.
In order to give the additional factor of safety over and above PNGRB
Regulations/ ASME B31.8 at railway crossings, the following is proposed by
Technical committee:
128
i) The wall thickness of carrier pipe (natural gas) at railway crossings

shall be considered with design factor 0.5 (i.e. Class-3) as per
T4S/ASME B31.8 even when the pipeline predominant Class is
Class 1 and 2.
ii) Where natural gas pipeline of Class-3 is crossing railway track,

there the wall thickness of carrier pipe shall be treated as Class-4
with design factor 0.4.
With the above, the stress levels on carrier pipe at railway crossings shall be
only 50% of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) for Class-3 and 40%
SMYS for class 4.
Further, it was also proposed to extend the above higher wall thickness on
either side of railway crossing considering the risk radius length as per clause
no. 3.2 of ASME B-31.8 S 2010.
The pipeline system designs are based on overall aspects and good
engineering practices and further the Sectionalizing Valves shall be
provided for remote operation form control rooms- SCADA Master
Control Station/ Emergency Control Station (SMCS/ECS).
Considering all the above additional safety measures, it is suggested

that the pipeline sectionalizing valves spacing may be allowed as per
PNGRB T4S Regulations /ASME B-31.8.
8. PNGRB Technical Committee has also given some additional suggestions

pertaining to BS-105 which are summarized below:
Provisions in RDSO PNGRB Technical Committee RDSO Remarks
Report BS-105 (T4S) suggestions based on
18th Dec’13 Meeting
The depth of casing pipe can be The minimum
1.3.8 Cushion:
further increased to the requirement of cushion
For Pipeline crossings satisfaction of railway authority is given in BS-105.
under category A.4, the as may be desired at a particular
casing pipe has to be railway crossing.
minimum 1.2m below
the formation level and
0.9m below the natural
ground level.
(Para 1.3.5) The wall thickness of casing pipe Table-1 of BS-105

Table-1 of BS-105 can also be increased over and prescribes the minimum
above BS-105 (Table-1). wall thickness of casing
Minimum thickness of pipe. However, casing
steel casing pipes is pipe shall be designed
prescribed in Table-1. to the latest approved
Railway Loading
standard of IRS Bridge
129

Rules.
Or
In place of Boring method, Trenchless
Railway authorities may like to techniques like
allow other trenchless Horizontal Directional
techniques like Horizontal Drilling (HDD) should
Directional Drilling (HDD) be explained in detail
wherein carrier pipe can be along with its
placed at greater depth as advantages and
approved by railway authority disadvantages
without the requirement of casing covering
pipe. Trenchless technologies maintainability and
allow the pipeline companies to safety aspects by
go for greater depths and also PNGRB Technical
this is more feasible for Committee
crossings of length more than 80 representative.
meters.
5.6: Casing pipe The carrier pipe section under Specifications for pre
should be capable of railway crossing shall be pre- and post testing of
withstanding a tested for 4 hours (i.e. before carrier pipes should be
pressure equal to that installation), post-tested (i.e. as per ASME 31.8
of the main carrier after installation) for 24 hours at (already prescribed in
pipe, with a safety 1.5 times of the design pressure para 5.5 of BS-105).
factor of 3. However, a and also undergo hydrostatic test
safety factor of 3 may along with mainline.
not be required if the
pipe owning
organization agrees for
the following tests :
(i) All welds of carrier
pipes are 100%
tested by X-ray.
(ii) Carrier pipe hydro
tested pre and
post installation.
(iii) Carrier pipe is
again tested along
with rest of main
pipeline.
1.3.14: Route markers Permanent Warning Markers: _

for categories A(1) and Either side of the crossing
A(4) crossings are to location with radium stickers for
be provided within better visibility.
railway boundary at
130

railway boundary
locations and at toe of
the embankment and
at an interval of
maximum 10m.
5.9: Clause 4.7.1.5 to The casing pipe will be protected Provisions of BS-105
4.7.1.9 shall be with Temporary Cathodic should be followed.
followed for Protection wherever the casing is
supplementing the coated.
corrosion protection
system of carrier and
casing pipeline at
crossing location with
cathodic protection
system.
5.10: For provision of
steel casing pipes, two-
component epoxy
coating for internal
surface will be used.
5.8: For steel pipes The PNGRB Regulations refers Higher strength steel
(both carrier and to API 5L which is mainly used pipes shall also be
casing) the pipes for oil and gas applications permitted. PNGRB
should be of mild steel where as IS:3589 is for water Technical and Safety
fabricated as per IS: and sewerage application. The guidelines shall be
3589 from steel plates IS:3589 pipes are having three followed for gas
conforming to IS: 2062. grades namely Fe330, Fe410 carrying pipelines.
Where screwed or and Fe450 which are based on
coupled joints are tensile strength. The line pipes
used, the joints should used as per API 5L are having
be welded, to the pipes higher strength.
at both ends along the
circumference as a Hence, it is suggested that
seal to prevent leak Railway may allow higher grade
through the threads. CARRIER pipes as per API 5L
The field welds should provided in PNGRB T4S/ASME
be tested cent percent B-31.8.
radio graphically as per
IS: 1182.
5.11: Carrier pipe to Since poly-urethane coating is Clause 5.11 of BS-105

have external three- technically not feasible for may be modified as:
layer high performance coating line pipes and also 5.11 Carrier pipe to
poly-urethane coating. PNGRB Regulations (T4S) have external three-
131

Internal coating can be mention 3 layer Polyethylene layer polyethylene
solvent free epoxy Coating or FBE for line pipes (3LPE) or equivalent
coating. (Carrier), it is suggested that coating. Internal coating
Railway either may not of carrier pipe shall be
specifically mention about carrier Fusion Bonded Epoxy
pipe coating or may allow (FBE) coating or as per
various options which are PNGRB Technical and
acceptable worldwide for Natural Safety guidelines for
gas Pipelines e.g. FBE, Dual gas carrying pipelines.
Layer FBE, P.P. etc.
9. PNGRB in joint meeting with Ministry of Railways held on 18.12.2013 have

agreed that representatives from PNGRB and T4S Sub-committee shall
present the case to BSC for appropriate resolution of the issue.
10. BSC may kindly deliberate and make recommendations.
**********
132
133
134
135
136
137
15. Item No. 1024/80th/2011/ CBS/DFP

Inclusion of provision of HSFG Bolt in IRS Steel Bridge Code.
Committee observed that
(i) Rivetting technique is going away day by day. As an alternative, HSFG
bolts may be used for new construction.
(ii) Foreign code shall not be referred in IRS codes, instead the relevant
provisions shall be incorporated in IRS codes.
(iii) Detailed guidelines should be issued by RDSO for guidance of field
engineers regarding use of HSFG bolts on bridges.
(iv) Direct Tension Indicators are better for ensuring proper proof load in
HSFG bolts, hence these shall be preferred.
(v) As an anti-sabotage measure, welding tack may be made in bolts with
diameter less than or equal to 20mm.
(i) Provisions regarding design, fixing and maintenance of HSFG bolts
should be included in IRS Bridge Rules, IRS-B1 and IRBM.
(ii) RDSO should propose correction slips in view of above discussion.
Approved. Draft correction slip to IRS Bridge Rules, IRS-B1 and IRBM may be
circulated to all Railways for comments. Zonal Railways should give their
comments with in one month of receipt of draft.
PRESENT STATUS:
1. Correction slip no. 19 to IRS Steel Bridge Code has been issued vide
letter no. CBS/PSB dated 02-01-2014.
2. Correction slip no. 6 to IRS B1-2001 has been issued vide letter no.
CBS/GSP dated 02-01-2014.
3. Correction slip no. 27 to Indian Railways Bridge Manual was issued
vide Railway Board letter no. 2011/CE-I/BR/BSC/81/Seminar/Pt III
dated 03-01-2014.
In view of this, the item may be closed.
16. Item No. 1025/80th/2011/ CBS/DFOB

Standard Drawings for FOB’s.
(i) Use of composite spans for FOBs may also be explored.
138
(ii) The standard spans may be required for DFC and double stack
container routes also. The column height may be required to be
increased for the same.
RDSO may take further action on composite spans and columns for double
stack container routes.
RDSO to issue standard drawings of FOB for double stack container routes
by modifying column height.
PRESENT STATUS:
The matter was examined and it is observed that increase of column height
does not affect the design of FOB superstructure (main girder) as it is a simply
supported structure. The same superstructure can be adopted for the DFC
routes. However, increasing of column height changes the design parameters
for column and foundations (lateral load, moments etc.). As this is a very
specific requirement only for double stack container’s and foundation design
are based upon local soil condition, D.F.C. should design the substructure
part (Column + foundation) taking into account local conditions.
17. Item No. 1026/80th/2011/ CBS/C-Spl/99 & CBS/CODES/A&C

Coatings for Concrete structures.
Committee observed that feedback on performance of coating on concrete
structures is awaited from CR, WR & SR.
Committee recommends that CR, WR & SR should expedite feedback on
performance of coatings on concrete structures.
Approved. CR, WR & SR should expedite feedback to RDSO.
PRESENT STATUS:
(i) Regarding feedback on performance of coating on concrete structures
letter no. CBS/C-80/COATINGSdated 28.02.2013 was sent to CR, WR
& SR.
(ii) Feedback received from western Railway (Dy.CE/Bridge/Valsad vide
Letter no W65/1/BR dated 08.04.2013) is as below:
Location: PSC Bridge no 73 (Local line) span -28x48.5+1x20.0m & Bridge no

75 (Local line) span -11x48.5 in CCG-VR section, Bridge organization in 2007.
When the coating of concrete Epoxy coating of bridges is done in 2007.
bridge was done.
139
Reason of providing coating. To prevent concrete surface of girder from

atmospheric and costal breeze effects.
Type of coating provided Epoxy coats as approved by CECRI

(Central Electro Chemical Research
Institute) are as under.
(i) 1st coat- Epoxy polyamide iron oxide
primer coat.
(ii) 2nd coat- Epoxy polyamide Micaceous
iron oxide.
(iii) 3rd coat- Epoxy polyamide titanium
dioxide.
(iv) 4th coat- Aliphatic top coat.
Experience/performance of Performance of coating:- At present top
coating provided. coat (Aliphatic top coat) is weathered and
3rd coat (Epoxy polyamide titanium dioxide)
exposed at scattered places.
Study/trial done, if any to assess No specific study to assess the effect of
the effect of coating of concrete coating is done but no carbonation of
bridges on following parameters :- concrete, no corrosion of reinforcement
found or no deterioration of concrete due to
a) Carbonation of concrete
chloride, sulphate is occurred till date.
b) Corrosion of reinforcement
c) Deterioration of concrete due
to chloride, sulphate attack
etc.
d) Any other
(iii) The performance/condition of similar bridge of nearly same age in the

similar environmental condition without coating was also required for
meaningful comparison and decision regarding performance of coating.
Accordingly letter no even dated 20.05.2013 and 19.11.2013 were sent to
Western Railway and Feedback is awaited.
(iv) No Feedback has been received from Central and Southern Railway.
Accordingly reminder letter no even dated 20.05.2013and 19.11.2013
were sent to CR and SR and Feedback is awaited.
18. Item No. 1027/81st/2012/ CBS/MPP

Revision in Paints Specification for finishing coat due to withdrawal of Red
Oxide Paint to IS: 123.
1. There is no need of keeping provision for M&C PCN/22/06 in relevant
paras of IRBM & B-1 2001.
140
2. The color shade of finish coat need not be of Red Oxide as it is similar
to the colour of rust. .
3. Provision of painting should be deleted for hot dipped galvanising from
para 12.3 of BS-45 since it does not serve any major purpose and it is
almost impossible to paint the inner side.
1. Correction Slip to IRBM para 217 and para 39.1 of B-1 2001 should
make a mention of IS-13607 only. Parallel M&C specification may be
deleted.
2. The color shade for finish coat may be Smoke Grey to No. 692 to IS-5.
3. Provision of painting in para 12.3 of BS-45 should be deleted, as
galvanising by hot dipping is sufficient.
RAILWAY BOARD ORDERS
1. Recommendation of BSC approved. RDSO to propose necessary
correction slips.
2. Recommendation of BSC approved. However, based on usage of
proposed colour, zonal railways should give feedback which may be
further discussed in next BSC.
3. Recommendation of BSC approved. RDSO to process necessary
correction slip.
PRESENT STATUS:
1. Correction Slip No. 26 to IRBM to all concerned issued vide Railway
Board letter No. 2011/CE-I/BR/BSC/81/Seminar dated 23-08-2013.
2. Correction Slip No. 1 to BS-45 to all concerned has been issued vide
RDSO letter No. CBS/SCS dated 12-12-2012.
3. Feedback on usage of colour Smoke Grey to No. 692 of IS:5 has been
called vide Railway Board letter No. 2011/CE-I/BR/BSC/81/Seminar
dated 23-08-2013. RDSO has also issued Reminder to call feedback
from Railways vide letter No. CBS/IRBM dated 05-12-2013. However
as usage time is less, no feedback has been received. BSC may
deliberate.
19. Item No. 1028/81st/2012/ CBS/GSP

Amendment in para 8.1 to 8.4 of IRS B1-2001 due to amendment No. 1 in IS
2062:2006.
1. Plates should be of B0 quality.
2. The angles and channels etc. can be permitted of BR quality and in
case BR is also not available CBE/CAO(C) can permit use of Grade-A
steel also.
141
3. Provision of High Strength Steel to E-450 of BR quality may not be

used for riveted girders.
RDSO should redraft correction slip incorporating the above observations in
view.
Recommendation of BSC approved. RDSO to propose correction slip.
PRESENT STATUS:
Correction Slip No. 5 dated 30-08-2013 has been issued to all concerned vide
RDSO letter No. CBS/GSP dated 30-08-2013.
Item may be closed.
20. Item No. 1032/81st/2012/ CBS/PBR

Reduction in longitudinal load in case of bridges having more than two tracks.
The proposal of RDSO is largely acceptable, however provision should be
given for four categories only: 1 track, 2 track, 3 track & 4 or more tracks. A
note to be added that these provision shall be used only if the substructure is
common for multiple lines. The multiplying factor for one or two tracks shall be
1.0, for three tracks, the same shall be 0.9 and for four or more tracks, the
same shall be 0.75.
RDSO to amend correction slip to IRS Bridge Rules as per above
observations.
Approved. RDSO to propose necessary correction slip.
PRESENT STATUS:
The correction slip no. 43 to IRS Bridge Rules has been issued vide note no.
CBS/PBR dated 29.05.2013. Item may be closed.
21. Item No. 1034/81st/2012/ RBF/EDFP

Anomalies in provisions of IRBM and IRS Substructure and Foundation Code
regarding Vertical Clearance and Free Board.
1. Committee noted that there are differences in provisions regarding vertical
clearance and free board and authorities/situations for permitting
relaxation given in IR Bridge Manual, IRS Substructure Code and
Engineering Code.
2. Committee observed that there is a need to align provisions of three
documents.
142
3. Committee noted that provisions of IRS Substructures Code regarding

relaxation were based on recommendations of Extraordinary BSC
Meetings held from year 1977 to 1980 and provisions of IRBM are
essentially drawn from IRS Substructure Code.
1. Following corrections should be made in IRS Substructure Code:
(i) Word ‘including afflux’ should be included in clause 4.8.1 after
word ‘design discharge’.
(ii) In clause 4.9.3 the word ‘Chief Engineers’ should be replaced by
‘Principle Chief Engineer/Chief Bridge Engineer’.
(iii) Later part of the Clause 4.9.3 should be renumbered as 4.9.4.
2. Following correction should be made in IR Bridge Manual:
(i) “intrados of the” words should be added after word “crown of
the” in Para 312(2)
(ii) ‘on parallel doubling’ words should be deleted from para 312(4)
and ‘on these or new lines’ should be inserted in place.
(iii) Las sustenance of para 312(4) “This is in accordance with para
4.8.3 of IRS Bridge Substructure and Foundation Code” should
be deleted.
(iv) Following should be added as para 313(4)
“However, in case of syphon bridges the provision for free board
as per Clause 4.9.1 need not be considered where as spillway is
provided on one bank of the channel at a suitable point
upstream within or outside the railway boundary so that as and
when the channel rises over the danger mark, the water from
the channel will flow out. A small drain also has to be provided
from the point of spillway to the nearest bridge to lead the water
from the channel in case of over flow from the spillway.”
(v) Provisions of Para 313(3) should be brought in line with
proposed amended para 4.9.3 and 4.9.4 of IRS Substructure
Code.
3. Following correction should be made in Para 236 (ii) of Engineering
Code:
(i) words “should be provide in terms of the recommendation of the
Khosla Committee and that” should be deleted from 1st
sentence.
(ii) “on trunk line” should be deleted from 2nd sentence.
(iii) Third sentence “on branch lines of both Broad Gauge and meter
Gauge, where provision of such clearances would involve
considerable cost, clearance may be restricted after duly
considering any past history of bridge concern with prior
approval of the chief engineers” should be deleted.
143
4. RDSO should propose suitable correction slip in IRS Substructure

Code, IR Bridge Manual and Engineering Code. Item to be closed after
issue of Correction Slip.
Recommendations of BSC is approved. RDSO to propose suitable correction
slip in IRS Substructure Code, IR Bridge Manual and Engineering Code.
PRESENT STATUS:
In compliance to Railway Board Orders, following draft A&C Slips have been
sent to Railway Board for approval vide letter No. RBF/EDFP dated
22.01.2013:
(i) Draft A&C Slip No. 30 to IRS Bridge Substructure and Foundation
Code.
(ii) Draft A&C slip No.23 to Indian Railway Bridge Manual.
(iii) Draft A&C slip to Engineering Code.
Approval of Railway Board is awaited.
22. Item No. 1035/81st/2012/ CBS/DCS

Approach Slabs.
(i) Committee noted that Geotechnical Directorate has issued Report No.
GE: R-50 regarding transition system to be adopted on bridge
approaches.
(ii) RDSO is further working on improved transition system on bridge
approaches.
(iii) Committee noted use of proper transition system at bridge approaches
using engineered backfill over various global Railways and felt that
there is a need for similar system for new construction on IR.
(i) In case of new bridges proper bridge approach transition system using
engineered backfill as per RDSO Report No. GE: R-50 should be used
and use of approach slab should be done away with.
(ii) Geotechnical Engineering Directorate of RDSO should expedite and
finalise the improved Transition System on bridge approaches for both
non-ballasted and ballasted deck bridges for use on IR for new bridges
at the earliest.
(iii) Zonal Railways should send feedback to RDSO on performance of
existing approach slabs and their suggestion for system to be adopted
in case of existing railway bridges. Backfill of reduced depth and
shorter triangular cross-sections may be also considered.
144
(i) Zonal Railways should send feedback to RDSO on performance of

system recommended in Geotechnical Engineering Directorate/
RDSO’s Report no. GE:R-50, if use by them.
(ii) GE Directorate of RDSO should expedite and finalize the improved
transition system on bridge approaches for both non ballasted and
ballasted deck bridges for use on IR at the earliest.
(iii) Zonal Railways should send feedback on performance of existing
approach slabs and their suggestions for system to be adopted in case
of existing Railway Bridges.
PRESENT STATUS:
(i) Zonal Railways were requested to send the feedback and suggestions
on performance/ adoption of approach slab to B&S Directorate vide this
office letter Nos. CBS/Structures/BSC dated 12.11.2012, 05.04.2013 &
07.06.2013.
(ii) Zonal Railways were also requested vide GE Directorate’s letter No.
RS/G/91 dated 19.08.2013 for sending the feedback etc. on
performance of transition system as per GE:R-50 report and also on
use of approach slabs.
(iii) No feedback is received by B&S Directorate so far.
23. Item No. 1037/81st/2012/ CBS/ SCS

Replacement of 5mm thick elastomeric pad by 25mm thick pad in steel
channel sleeper.
1. Committee observed that 5mm thick pad is not functioning properly,
wears out fast and works out. Thus thickness of elastomeric pad
should be increased.
2. Committee also observed that width of pad should be limited to
300mm. RDSO should study this and revise the drawing.
1. The pad should be of uniform thickness of 25mm.
2. RDSO should revise the drawing for 25mm thick and 300mm wide
elastomeric pad.
Approved. RDSO should revise the drawing.
PRESENT STATUS:
Elastomeric pad 300mm wide & 25 thick has been incorporated and 5mm
thick pad has been replaced in Drg. No. BA-1636/1/R2 and RDSO/B-1636/5.
24. Item No. 1038/81st/2012/CBS/Admn.

Yardsticks for Bridge Organisation.
145
This is an important organizational issue. A subcommittee may be nominated
which can formulate yardstick for :-
(i) Supervisors and supporting staff to maintain bridge superstructure and
substructure including foundations.
(ii) Design staff in Bridge wing of HQ.
Board is requested to nominate a committee of CBEs to go into the matter.
Approved. Orders for the committee shall be issued separately.
PRESENT STATUS:
Railway Board has nominated a committee comprising of Senior
Professor/Bridges, IRICEN as convener and ED/B & S/ RDSO, CBE/ N Rly,
CBE/ WC Rly and CBE/ SC Rly as members vide letter no 2011/CE-
I/BR/BSC/81/Seminar Dated 09.01.2014 and given four months’ time for
submission of report. The further action can be taken after committee’s report
is received.
**********
146

RDSO - Rail - Bridges - Jan 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RDSO - Rail - Bridges - Jan 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

भारत सरकार रे ल मं ालय

30 एवं 31 जनवर 2014 को

अनुस धान अ भक प एवं मानक संगठन, लखनऊ-226011

Item Title of the Item Page

1040 Technical Guidelines for Box Pushing technique. 18-21

Incorporating minimum Dry Film Thickness in conventional

1043 Reduction in height of Reduced Height Girders 35-39

1044 Life of Elastomeric Bearings. 40-51

Introduction of Higher spans and skew angles in ROB

Frequency of Cleaning/ Oiling/ Greasing of Bearings of

1048 Derailment provisions in IRS codes. 87-96

1049 Design of Bridge Sub structure for impact loads. 97-98

1050 Working of BCM through ballasted deck 99-104

Operation of Locomotives having Tractive Effort Limiting

1052 Review Items 110-146

ITEM NO. 1039

3. Important codal provisions for use of higher grade HSD bars

Clause-4.2 Chemical Composition-

Fe415 Fe415D Fe415S Fe500 Fe500D Fe500S Fe550 Fe550D Fe600

Clause-8.1 Mechanical Properties for all sizes of High strength deformed

ii 0.2% proof - - 540 - - 625 - - -

(b) Clause 5.3 of IS:13920-1993,Ductile Detailing of Reinforced concrete

4. Implication of use of Fe 500 and higher grade HSD bars

5. Effects of use of Fe 500 and higher grade reinforcement on Certain RDSO

(i) Drawing No. RDSO/B-10272 for Post tensioned PSC Slab (2

(b) Though, much advantage is not anticipated immediately by way of

Annexure of Item No 1039

14.9 Shrinkage and Temperature Shrinkage and Temperature

are used ... 0.0018

AsL is the area of one bar of

fyv is the characteristic strength of

(Values for Fe 250: 0.34% and for Fe 415: 0.20%)

horizontal spacing not exceeding spacing not exceeding 300 mm.

area of reinforcement, As, parallel to reinforcement, As, parallel to the

Asv is the total cross sectional

prestressing tendons but not

ITEM No. 1040

in the design/execution of RUBs by using Box Pushing Technique as every case

3. Construction of RUBs by Box Pushing Technique is adopted on Indian Railways

4. The committee may deliberate on this issue

Annexure of Item No 1040

2.3 After box pushing operation –

ITEM NO. 1041

Proposed Amendment in Para No. 39 of IRS: BI-2001 are as under:

S. Existing Para Proposed Revised Para Remarks

S. Existing Para Proposed Revised Para Remarks

girders in industrial, suburban or girders in industrial, suburban or

S. Existing Para Proposed Revised Para Remarks

S. Existing Para Proposed Revised Para Remarks

S. Existing Para Proposed Revised Para Remarks

S. Existing Para Proposed Revised Para Remarks

Proposed Amendment in Para No. 217,218,615 of IRBM (Indian Railway Bridge

S. Existing Para Proposed Revised Para Remarks

mentioned in IS: 5-2004. specified by Zonal Railway or coat added

Note: (i) The colour/shade of Zonal Railway or two coats of with 20 μ

requirements. finishing coat should be

(vi) Red Oxide Zinc Chromate Zinc Chrome (IS:2074) 1 year

2339. confirm to type 2 of IS : 51. The with 20 μ

ITEM NO. 1042

1. CBE/ECR vide his letter no W-3/365/C9/Br.SSC/P-II/1882 dated

3. Committee may deliberate on the Maximum service life of oil in oil

ITEM NO. 1043

Overall Length RDSO Drawing Rail Level to Weight of the