Government of India
Ministry of Railways
AGENDA
SEMINAR OF
CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEERS
16th & 17th May, 2013
Indian Railways Institute of Civil Engineering
Pune
AGENDA OF CBEs’ SEMINAR AT IRICEN/PUNE
16th & 17th May, 2013
INDEX
S.No.
Contents
Review of RDSO’s remarks on last year’s agenda items
Page No.
2–5
Agenda of CBEs’ Seminar – May 2013
1
Policy / Guidelines
6–9
2
Construction of PSC/Composite/Steel Bridges
9 – 10
3
Inspection / Maintenance of Bridges
10 – 11
4
Design / Drawings
12 – 13
5
ROBs / RUBs
13
6
SOD
14
7
Manpower Planning / Training / Cadre
14
1
AGENDA OF CBEs’ SEMINAR AT IRICEN ON
16TH & 17TH MAY, 2013
1.
Policy / Guidelines
SCR
(a)
Norms for 2 years for sanctioning of new works
At present the new works under different Plan Heads are sanctioned on IRPSM
Portal, which has imposed many restrictions for sanction of new works. As per the
present restriction on IRPSM portal, the norms of 2 years is considered, ie., the
cost of pending liabilities and the cost of new works should not exceed two times
the Budget Grant.
The Bridge works are different than the other works and require much larger time
to execute, due to involvement of planning and preparation of the construction
scheme, sanctioning of GADs at Divisional and Headquarters level, involvement of
CRS sanction, involvement of speed restrictions for long time and requirement of
long traffic blocks. Hence, construction of bridges within 2 years from the
sanctioning of the work becomes difficult. The norm provided till the year 2012 for
bridge work was 3 years, which has now been restricted to two years.
It is proposed that the norm for bridge works is restored to minimum 3 years.
It is felt that if the norm as proposed above is not revised for deciding the ceiling
limit, we may face a situation in next few years that adequate number of
sanctioned bridge works are not available for execution, even though the Budget
Grant may be available.
RDSO
(b)
Non adoption of Railway Affecting Works Manual by State Governments
Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Delhi, Haryana,
Himachal Pradesh being coordinated by Northern Railway, Orissa being
coordinated by East Coast Railway and Jharkhand being coordinated by South
Eastern Railway.
Railway Affecting Works is essential requirement of Safety of the Railway
Infrastructure as well as a part of the Flood Management under National
Disaster Management. Northern Railway, East Coast Railway and South
Eastern Railway is requested to expedite Government orders for adoption of
RAW Manual.
WCR
(c)
As per Railway Board’s letter No 2009/CE-1/BRO/194 (design)/WCR dated
03.04.2012 “Inspection of composite steel girder of ROB can be done by
Railways, as RDSO inspection is mandatory for welded bridge girders for
carrying rail or rail cum road traffic and not for ROB, which is for road
traffic.”
2
Vide this letter several questions remained unanswered:Inspection of welded girder fabrication is being carried out under strict
supervision by RDSO. For ROB’s, RDSO approved firms are permitted for
fabrication, but inspection of girder fabrication at different stages is not done by
RDSO. Also bearing required for ROBs are not being inspected by RDSO.
Railway does not have expertise for inspection of fabrication of welded girder
and bearings therefore policy direction needs to be put in place.
SCR
(d)
Construction of ROBs on National Highways on cost sharing basis
As per Railway Board letter No. 98/CE-1/BRO/171 dated:22/01/2013, cost
sharing arrangement is considered for two lane arrangement, if TVUs exceeds
1.0 lakh and for four lane arrangement, if TVUs exceed 3.0 lakh, comprising
not less than 6000 road vehicles.
Cost sharing arrangement will be on 50:50 basis, for the entire grade separator
excluding the cost of land and compensation to structures there on.
In case of Grade Separators on National Highway crossings, the cost sharing
pattern has been revised vide Railway Board letter No.2001/CEI/Misc/NH/4
Pt.III dated:18.03.2009. It states that the cost of bridge proper over Railway
tracks will be fully borne by Railway and the cost of approaches will be fully
borne by the Road authority.
In three recent cases, for construction of ROBs on National Highways Railway
received proposals for construction of ROBs with four lanes even though the
TVUs on these level crossings were less than 3.0 lakh. As per the extant rules,
the proposals in these cases, ROBs could have been considered for two lane
arrangement only on cost sharing basis. Hence, State Government was
insisted to come forward for construction of ROB for additional two lane
arrangement on deposit terms. However, State Government retracted their
decision and resorted for two lane arrangement only instead of four lane to
avoid the construction of additional two lanes on deposit terms.
As per latest trend, ROBs on NHs are being constructed for four lane / six lane
arrangement. Construction of ROB/RUB for four lane arrangement at the initial
stage itself gains the following benefits:
a.
b.
It matches with configuration of approaches without any safety hazard
at later date ( Road width less than approaches is potential source of
accidents - MORTH letter / circular no: RW/NH/33044/23/2007-S&R(R)
dated: 31.10.2008).
It avoids provision of redundant additional foot path arrangement of
ROB while converting from two lane arrangement to four lane
arrangement.
3
c.
d.
e.
At a subsequent stage, when TVUs exceed 5.0 lakh, it will be required
to construct additional two lanes of ROB also for Railway proper at
Railways cost. Generally, on National Highways, the growth of road
traffic is very high and the TVU may exceed 5.0 lakh with in few years. It
has actually been noticed that in some cases, this situation has arisen
within next 5 to 6 years only. The provision at additional 2 lanes at that
later stage has resulted into serious constraints and problems.
Construction of ROB with 4 lane at initial stage itself would have
reduced the total cost of ROB as the four lane arrangement is
preplanned and would have resulted into lesser cost for safety
precautions & additional land width etc., and also the execution of the
work would have become very easier.
Considering the cost sharing pattern of ROB in NH cases, the cost of
construction on account of Railways is much lesser, since Railway is
not required to share the cost of approaches.
In view of the above, it is proposed that on National Highways, construction of
ROB with four lanes is agreed by Railways, irrespective of TVUs. Suitable
modifications in the rules are proposed.
SCR
(e)
Land lease charges for Railway land occupied for piers etc., in case of
construction of ROB on Deposit Terms
Generally, the piers and abutments are not permitted to be constructed within
the Railway boundary. However, in many cases due to very large width of
Railway boundary, it becomes inevitable to permit construction of viaduct/pier
inside the Railway land.
The extant rules stipulate only levy of way leave charges for provision of ROBs
on deposit terms (probably presuming that no Railway land will get occupied
by viaduct/pier etc). The extant instructions do not clearly stipulate that what
land lease charges should be levied in case of permanent occupation of
Railway land by viaduct/piers in case of ROBs on Deposit terms.
It is proposed that in such cases, the Railway land occupied by viaduct/pier
etc., should be charged with land lease charges (as applicable in other cases
of land leasing) and PCE should be permitted to sanction such land leasing,
because such land leasing is required specifically for construction of ROB and
hence it will have to be treated differently than usual land leasing involved in
other cases of widening of road etc.
NFR
(f)
ROB / RUB is constructed by Railway bearing entire cost.
State Governments (Bengal, Assam etc.) are generally not agreeing for cost
sharing of ROB / RUB due to fund constraint.
The policy needs to be re-examined. When construction of a ROB is to be
4
finally decided by the Railway, decision can be made on merit and need based
on importance of the level xings and advantages.
2.
CONSTRUCTION OF PSC / COMPOSITE / STEEL / ARCH BRIDGES
SCR
(a)
PSC pre-tensioned slabs for 12.2 slabs
There are number of bridges having 12.2m span steel girder. For the
replacement of these girders, it is desired to have PSC slabs/girders (pre
tensioned), so that same can be replaced, to eliminate the problems
associated with the maintenance of these steel girder bridges.
NFR
(b)
Using benefit of arch effect
Guidelines for using benefit of arch effect for high over burden (more than 3m)
to be issued for considering in case of stabilized bank over hume pipe
structure. For gauge conversion work, this benefit may be helpful to avoid
replacement of hume pipe, in turn to avoid destabilizing bank over it.
NFR
(c)
Vide Clause No. 16.8.1 of IRS Concrete Bridge Code, maximum Jacking force may be
increased to 80% of UTS of the cables during stressing, whereas in case of IRC – 18
2000 vide Clause No. 8, maximum jacking force is restricted to 76.5% of UTS. RDSO
Drg. No. RDSO/B-10242/1 (Details of cable profile for 30.5mt span PSC), initial jacking
force is restricted to 75% of UTS.
In view of above, it is necessary to lay down a uniformity optimal percentage of
initial prestresing force.
NFR
(d)
Detailed updated Guidelines on Pile foundations
Now-a-days, most of the bridges are constructed on Pile foundations. Detailed
updated guidelines are required to be issued from RDSO covering all the
aspects, viz.





CR
(e)
Load Carrying Capacity
Suitability of Pile foundations at different situations
Bearing Capacity of Pile foundations
At what soil strata ideally Piles are to be founded
Situations where Pile foundations are not to be adopted.
Strengthening / rehabilitation of old arch bridges by providing RCC arch
top box inside existing arch bridges
Strengthening / rehabilitation of old arch bridges, where adequate waterway is
available were being done in the past, by providing RCC arch top boxes within
the opening of existing arch bridges. This method is instrumental to increase
5
the capacity of the bridge by adopting design of higher loading standard. In
new proposals, CRS has raised some observations/issues regarding adoption
of these measures, which are as under:
(i) Residual life of arch bridges
(ii) Cyclic loading on green concrete during construction
(iii) Load transfer mechanism between existing bridge and new arch top boxes.
 There is no credible technique available for calculating residual life of arch
bridges.
 Deflection of existing arch bridges during passage of traffic at restricted
speed will be negligible and chances of getting green concrete loaded is
very remote.
 New bridge is designed for full loading standard. Strength of old existing
bridge is not taken into account while designing the new bridge. There is no
specific load transfer mechanism between old bridge and new bridge. Old
bridge will be considered as over burdened dead load only.
ECR
(f)
Railway Board / RDSO may issue suitable guidelines for uniform adoption.
ECR has got number of old major bridges with superstructure of non standard
girder fabricated in pre 1930 period up to span of 45.7m and these girders now
require strengthening/replacement on condition basis even for normal loading
of CC+6+2 for goods train.
GM wants to make these bridges fit for running of “CC+8+2” to meet the
operational requirement through strengthening / replacement of individual
members of girder as per its physical condition with the help of consultants to
design and develop scheme for strengthening of these girders. Replacement
of complete girder is likely to take much time.
Points of discussion:
(a) In such circumstances what is being done by other Railways?
(b) View and experiences of participants on the issue.
(c) List of some reputed consultants for such work, engaged by other Railways
for similar work.
3.
INSPECTION / MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGES
NFR
(a)
Frequency of painting of truss portion of through girder bridges.
It is observed that corrosion affect is on floor members whereas in some
bridges painting condition of truss members remains good after 5 years.
Whether painting of truss be done on condition basis? Say frequency of
painting is done in 8/10 year or on condition basis. Experience of other Zone
may be discussed.
6
NER
(b)
Inspection of roof trusses
(i) As per IR Bridge Manual, Para 901.4 (iii),during inspection of steel works in
various structures, the condition of steel work in stanchions, wind girders, roof
trusses/ girders, purlins, eaves girders and wind bracings, etc should be
examined by Bridge inspector.
(ii) As per IR Works Manual, Para 228 (iii), Sectional Engineer (Works) will
inspect in detail, Structures with roof trusses, once a year during the prescribed
month.


Since the inspection of roof trusses is mentioned in duties of both, SE/Works and
SE/Bridge, there is always confusion between both the inspectors regarding their
work distribution on the roof truss issue.
Necessary instruction may be issued on subject matter.
ECoR
(c)
Painting of PSC and RCC Superstructure
As per IRBM para- 210 (3) under Periodical maintenance of PSC and RCC girders
it is mentioned that “Protective surface coat, where provided, shall be maintained.”
In ECoR the PSC girders are have been constructed quite for some years.
It is to be discussed whether the girder surface is being repainted in other
Railways. If so, what is the periodicity? What type of painting is being used?
ECoR
(d)
Measurement of Camber in PSC Girders
(A)
As per IRBM annexure- 11/14, Piano wire method has been
prescribed for measuring camber.
In this method, 19SWG stainless steel wire is used for camber recording.
The piano wire is stretched by hanging 10Kg weight at either end supports
over pulley. Reading are taken by measurement with scale where required.
This method can be used only at bottom of girder.
Access is required at all points where reading is to be taken. This makes this
method difficult.
(B)
Alternately, camber can be measured by Leveling Instruments or
Theodolite.
In this case, readings are taken by using leveling staff kept erect or inverted
at panel points or required locations with the help of a dumpy level.
The practice being followed in other Railways may be discussed.
7
4.
DESIGN / DRAWINGS
NCR
(a)
Issue of RDSO Standard RCC Double Box drawing from 25t loading
standard
RDSO has issued Standard Drawing No.RDSO/B-10154 of RCC Double Box
Culvert for DFC loading standard. However, Standard Drawing for RCC
Double Box Culvert for 25t loading standard has not been issued so far. It is
requested to clarify whether RDSO/B-10154 can be referred for 25t loading
standard also till separate drawing for 25t loading standard is issued.
NCR
(b)
Provision of Inspection Ladder and Inspection Platforms in ROBs
Inspection ladder from road to pier top and inspection platforms in the piers
shall be incorporated in the structural drawing to ensure proper inspection
accessibility. There shall be minimum specified distance between girders over
pier and minimum distance between bearing pedestal and pier edge shall be
500 mm to facilitate the inspection.
SCR
(c)
Standardization of RDSO Drawings for ROBs upto 50m exceeding 36.0m
At present, standard designs of RDSO are available upto 36 m spans. In
many cases, spans are required to be provided with much larger spans,
especially to avoid the design of skew girders in case of crossings with steep
skew angles.
Hence it is proposed that RDSO should issue standard drawings for higher
spans upto 50 m.
SCR
(d)
Design of PSC slabs for the existing RUBs having duplex girders
(Shallow depth slabs are required for replacement of Steel duplex girders
with ballast less track)
There are number of RUBs having spans of 6.10m and 9.15m duplex girders.
In these RUBs night soil, dirty water from the carriage is dropping on the
girders and also on the road users. There are many maintenance related
problems also. To avoid this, it is proposed that design may be provided for
shallow depth PSC slabs to replace the duplex girders having ballasted or
ballast less track.
NFR
(e)
As per Clause No. 16.9.13 of IRS Concrete Bridge Code, elastomeric bearing
can be used upto 30.5m PSC girder whereas RDSO’s drawing BA-10232, for
45.7m PSC girder, provision has been made for elastomeric bearing.
8
NER
(f)
Spacing of Steel Channel Sleepers
(i) As per Note No. 4 of RDSO Drg. No. BA-1636/R2, maximum spacing of
Steel Channel Sleepers for BG shall be 740 mm and that for MG, 530
mm centre to centre.
(ii) As per IRPWM A/C slip No. 128 dated 05.03.12 Para (3), the maximum
centre to centre sleeper spacing should be 600mm. The clear distance
between two sleepers should not be more than 450mm.

Maximum centre to centre spacing mentioned in above para (i) (740mm)
& para (ii) (600mms) is different.

Since the width of steel channel sleepers is 230mm, the clear spacing
between two channel sleepers as per para (i) for BG will be 740-230 =
510mm which is not matching with clear spacing of 450mm mentioned in
para (ii).

As per para (ii), clear spacing of channel sleepers is 450mm, where as
width of channel sleepers is 230 mm, Thus, centre to centre spacing of
Channel sleeper will be 450+230 = 680 mm which is not matching with
600 mm mentioned in the same para.
The above anomaly should be sorted out.
WCR
(g)
In standard drawing of Ramp of Foot over bridge slope is to be kept 1:12 and
landing are to be provided @ 9 m as per Railway boards letter no 96/LM
(B)/2/404 dated 30-12-1998. Due to space constraint it is not possible to
accommodate it in most of stations. Slope may therefore be reviewed.
5.
ROBs / RUBs
NFR
(a)
Retaining the formation of the level crossing for some time even after
commissioning of a RUB
To construct a RUB for replacement of a level crossing, permission of civil
authorities is required. Some time taking permission takes long time. It is
suggested that after commissioning of a RUB existing formation of the level
crossing may be retained by erecting barrier across the level crossing. Once
the RUB in use and there is no problem faced formation of level crossing may
be cut. This can be helpful in expediting works.
9
6.
SOD
WCR
(a)
As per clause no 7 (a) of SOD
“Minimum horizontal distance of any building on platform from Centre line
of track to
(ii) From 305mm from above rail level to 3430 mm above rail level is 5330 mm.”
In existing station platform width are limited to 8 to 10 m .Therefore compliance of
SOD cl no 7 (a)(ii) cannot be ensured therefore site specific relaxation power
to be given to PCE /CBE.
7.
MANPOWER PLANNING / TRAINING / CADRE
ER
(a)
Yardsticks for Staff / BRIs of Bridge Organisation
In recent past, good numbers of bridges in the form of welded girder bridges,
composite, PSC bridges and other structures have been constructed in connection
with construction of new lines, doublings, gauge conversions etc. and inducted in
the railway system for maintenance. During this period lot of workshops for
Mechanical & Electrical department have been constructed or extension of
existing workshops have taken place, which has increased length of EOT crane
tracks in all the workshops. For example work shop at Dankuni newly cropped up
and where the work shop authority have requested for inspection of crane tracks
by BRIs. Appox. 60 nos (span-200 nos) of bridges above 40’-00” spans, EOT
crane track of appx. 2000m length and huge numbers of FOBs have been
inducted. These have been added with the old system in last 9-10 years very
slowly. But now it is felt that the workload for inspection and maintenance added
with the special works have become very high and has become non-manageable
with the existing strength of BRIs (SSE/JE) and staff. But the additional posts of
BRIs and staff cannot be decided due to non-availability of yardstick of BRIs for
different category/type of bridges and structures. The category/type of
bridges/structures for which yardsticks are required are:1)
2)
3)
4)
Riveted, Welded, Composite, PSC girder bridges – span wise
EOT crane track,
Flood light tower,
Foot Over Bridges
On an average 30 bridges are to be inspected and overhauled every year in this
railway by each divn. Though greasing is not required in modern days’ bearings
but cleaning to be continued and frequency of inspections have been reduced
which has increased work load of BRIs. Strength of staff has also to be increased
for these additional assets.
Therefore, a discussion on yardstick of staff and BRIs (SSE/Brs and JE/Brs) is
required for deriving additional strength of BRIs and Staff for these additional
assets. CBEs’ are requested to deliberate on this issue.
10
11