Upgrading Axle Loads on Existing Bridges on Mixed Traffic

System: Experience of Indian Railway

P Funkwal, Sumeet Singhal, Pradip Kumar, Anil Kalra, V B Sood, H0 Narayan,

S K Singh, P P Singh & Sanjay Kumar
Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO),
Ministry of Railway, LucknoVl� India.

Summary: Indian Railway (IR) has assets of approximately 1,33,904 bridges, most of which were
designed for IR's erstwhile BGML-1926, RBG-1975 and MBG-1987 loadings. In order to meet ever
increasing transportation requirement of fast growing Indian economy, there has been continuous
thrust to increase axle loads on existing assets. This led to enhancements in permissible carrying
capacity of wagons by 8 tonnes universally and by 10 tonnes on selected routes from 2005 onwards.
Further, 25 tonne loading was introduced in year 2008. Such rapid enhancements in axle loads
in recent past required several inputs towards assessment of suitability of bridges on IR network
operating mixed traffic. This included standardization of loadings, revisiting large numbers of bridge
designs for their suitability for enhanced loading, redefine their use, if required and development of
guidelines for field assessment of bridges. The present paper describes various inputs for enabling
operation of higher axle loads on existing bridges. RDSO evolved standard loadings for adoption
in design and worked on an innovative approach for assessment of large number of standard bridge
designs. This approach, called Equivalent Uniformly Distributed Load (EUDL) approach enabled
a quick assessment and thus faster implementation of higher axle loads on IR. Only bridges not
clearing EUDL approach were considered for detailed analysis. Besides this, held trials carried out
by RDSO paved way for more rational approach towards ascertaining the suitability of bridges. IR's
approach of close monitoring of bridges through a well regimented inspection system which ensured
safe introduction of higher axle load on a mixed trafhc railway system is also described. Such an
approach can be effectively adopted on similar other railway systems aspiring to raise axle loads on
existing bridges.

1. INTRODUCTION to meet the ever increasing transportation need of growing

Indian economy, there is perennial need to improve the
IR is one of the oldest railway networks, the first train
having run on 16thApril, 1853[1]. The historical legacy of carrying capacity of existing assets. The running of higher
the railway system is reflected in its bridge inventory also. axle load on bridges in the scenario of mixed traffic on I R
Out of total 1, 33,904 bridges, approximately 24% bridges is a challenging task. Bridges are the most vital link on rail
network and can potentially affect the operation and safety
are more than 100 years old and 43% bridges are more than
of traffic, if their proper and logical assessment for running
60 years old [2]. The diversity of bridges on IR is reflected
in their types - triangulated steel girder, plate girder, higher axle loads is not undertaken.
composite girdel� reinforced cement concrete (RCC)/
2. EVOLUTION OF LOADINGS ON IR
prestressed concrete (PSC) slabs, PSC girder, arch, box
culvert, pipe etc., materials of construction -steel, concrete, Loading standards on IR have undergone major revisions
masonry and spans -varying from 0.61m to 158m. In order over a period of time leading to substantial increase in axle

302
10th International Heavy Haul Association Conference, 2013

Table 1: Evolution of BI�dge Loadings on IR

Maximum Value of Track Loading

Standard Loading Year of Introduction
Axle Load (t) Tractive Effort (t) Density (tim)

Broad Gauge Main Line (BGML) 1926 22.9 47.6 7.67

Revised Broad Gauge (RBG) 1975 22.9 75 7.67

Modified Broad Gauge (MBG) 1987 25 100 8.25
Heavy Mineral (HM) 2000 30 135 12.00
25 t Loading 2008 2008 25 126 9.33
Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC)+ 2008 32.5 126 12.13
+Operatiolls yet to start

loads and longitudinal forces. The chronology and salient 4. DESIGN OF BRIDGES ON IR
features of important loading standards are enumerated in
4.1 On IR, certain span lengths have been designated
Table 1 [3].
as standard spans based on frequent usage. RDSO
Presently, new bridges on IR are required to be built for is engaged in development of design of bridges for
25t loading except in case of feeder routes to DFC on standard spans. The standard designs facilitate mass
which bridge substructure is required to be built for DFC adoption, validation through field performance
loading. F ew corridors on selected iron ore circuit of IR and avoidance of duplicity of design besides other
were built with HM loading. obvious benefits, most important of which is
theoretical analysis of limited numbeI' of designs
3. EVOLVING STANDARD LOADINGS FOR while enhancing loading. Approximately 80% of the
DESIGN OF BRIDGES bridges on IR have been constructed using RDSO's
3.1 F or standardization of a loading for design of standard designs/spans.
bridges, all possible combinations of locomotives 4.2 RDSO generally undertakes work of design of
and rolling stocks for a particular loading likely to superstructure of standard spans. The superstructure
operate are selected. Using characteristic parameter of non-standard spans and substructure are designed
of locomotives and rolling stocks like axle load, axle by Zonal Railways being site specific. Initially RDSO
spacing, tI'active effort ( TE), braking force (BF) etc, designs are issued as provisional and designated as
maximum value of bending moment (BM), shear 'B'. Once adequate field experience is gathered and
force (SF), TE, BF for various spans are calculated the design/performance is validated the designs are
for each combination using software developed in issued for regular use with designation as 'BA'.
RDSO.
4.3 Bridge Rules contains EUDL for calculation of BM!
3.2 The combinations which have maXImum value SF besides TE and BF corresponding to various spans
for BM!SF/TE/BF for any span are retained and for different loading standards. EDUL is that load
others are ignored. Such retained combinations which induces equal BM!SF on bridge components as
of locomotives and rolling stocks form a particular induced due to worst combination of axles of moving
loading envelope, which are contained in Bridge rolling stock. Various parameters for design are
Rules and used for design. evaluated based on criteria indicated in Table 2 [3].

Table 2: Criteria for Evaluation of Various Design Parameters

SN Item Criteria

i) For spans upto 10m - UDL which produce the BM at the centre of the span equal to the absolute BM
developed under the standard loads.
1. EUDL for BM
ii) For spans above 10m UDL which produces the BM at one sixth of the span equal to the BM
-

developed at that section under the standard loads.

2. EUDL for SF UDL which produce SF at the end of the span equal to the maximum SF developed under the standard
loads at that section.
3. TE The T E for Diesel and AC or DC locomotives i s specified for different loading and distributed equally
amongst the driving axles.
4. BF The BF for Diesel and AC or D C locomotives is specified and distributed equally amongst the braked
axles. The BF for trailing load is taken as 10% of axle load for vacuum brakes and 13.4% for air brakes.

303
10th International Heavy Haul Association Conference, 2013

4.3.1 The comparative position of EUOL for BM and SF inventOIY of bridges constructed in different eras
for 25t loading with respect to BGML, RBG and for different loadings, the detailed design check is
MEG loadings for bending and shear for standard quite cumbersome, time/resource intensive. This
spans is depicted in Table 3 [3]. Clearly, the increase problem led to evolution and implementation of
in EUOL for bending and shear for 25t loading with EUOL concept on IR. With this, only the bridges
respect to older loadings is more pronounced in case which are not found suitable in EUOL approach
of longer spans. are required to be checked in detail. The process of
checking suitability of bridge for HAL is depicted
4.3.2 The comparative position of 25t loading with
in Figure 1.
respect to BGML, RBG and MEG loadings for
TE and BF for standard spans is depicted in Table 5.2 ROSO undertook checking of the suitability of
4 [3]. The increase in TE and BF for 25t loading superstructures of standard spans for HAL while
with respect to BGML, RBG and MBG loadings is the suitability checking of superstructures of non­
noteworthy. standard spans and substructures was undertaken
by various Zonal Railways based on guidelines
5. SUITABILITY OF EXISTING BRIDGES issued by ROSO on the subject. The approach
FOR HIGHER AXLE LOADS (HAL) adopted in checking is discussed hereinafter.

5.1 Most of the bridges on IR had been designed 5.3 Equivalent Uniformly Distributed Load (EUDL)
for erstwhile BGML, RBG & MBG loadings. Approach
Successive introduction of higher loadings
5.3.1 As per EUOL approach bridge is suitable for higher
necessitated evolution of a simplified approach
loading if combination of EUOL and impact load
for theoretical assessment of large number of
(IL) induced due to the train formation is within
bridges in a time bound manner. With a large

Table 3: Comparative Position of EUDL - BM & SF for Standa rd Spans

Clear Bending (t) Shear (t)

Span(m) BGML RBG MBG 25t BGML RBG MEG 25t

3.05 55.26 53.36 56.04 56.91 76.93 71.92 77.72 79.08

6.10 94.14 85.42 92.25 96.41 116.03 101.39 109.69 111.38

9.15 121.00 103.60 1 12.30 113.00 142.14 126.28 142.76 142.76

12.20 147.75 130.33 151.25 151.22 166.19 147.04 172.43 172.45

18.30 197.42 172.60 195.56 205.22 219.50 196.02 2 17.95 228.37

24.40 246.10 2 18.56 244.82 258.71 271.11 243.45 272.52 288.18

30.50 294.16 264.35 292.26 3 10.97 323.94 293.74 326.16 347.95

45.70 418.00 377.29 411.78 440.84 453.66 410.53 454.26 491.71

61.00 532.32 493.34 538.62 587.79 581.51 532.04 585.64 639.63

76.20 657.64 612.73 663.94 735.20 707.79 654.77 717.10 788.01

Table 4: Comparative Position of Longitudinal Forces (LF) for Standard Spans

Clear Tractive Effort (t) Braking Force (t)

Span (m) BGML RBG MEG 25t BGML RBG MEG 25t

3.05 17.98 20.85 25.00 30.07 13.57 13.04 18.38 18.38

6.10 27.13 22.50 33.30 33.32 21.38 18.30 22.50 22.50

9.15 31.96 28.50 50.00 49.98 26.14 22.70 33.80 33.80

12.20 35.62 37.50 50.00 63.00 29.98 25.61 34.91 34.91

18.30 41.22 48.25 72.10 72.05 36.9 1 36.60 48.64 48.64

24.40 45.52 60.00 83.30 84.53 42.73 45.80 56.46 57.17

30.50 47.60 71.13 100.00 99.96 47.54 55.97 70.51 70.66

45.70 47.60 75.00 100.00 126.00 58.40 77.88 88.04 89.81

61.00 47.60 75.00 100.00 126.00 66.32 102.93 105.57 109.59

76.20 47.60 75.00 100.00 126.00 73.22 127.47 123.16 129.50

304
10th International Heavy Haul Association Conference, 2013

Adopt relaxation in provision as per IRS

Existing bridge
codes for existing bridges

Is the bridge suitable

Is the bridge suitable
No in detailed design
by EUDL approach
check for desired
for desired speed?
speed?

Yes

Is the bridge suitable

with redefined
No Yes
parameters e.g.
Reduced speed

Restricted TE

Permit enhanced Loading

Figul'e 1: Process Flow Chart for Checlcing Suitability of Bridge for HAL

the combination of same loads considered in design. loads will not have appreciable vanatlOn. Lastly,
For higher loading there is appreciable increase in physical condition of bridge is assumed to be sound.
live load (LL) only. The effect of increase in LL is
5.3.3 EUOL approach is applicable only when it is
compensated by reducing dynamic component so
confirmed that bridge designed for a particular
that total load coming on bridge is maintained the
loading has performed satisfactorily under that
same for which it was designed.
loading. In case of ROSO standard span drawings
5.3.2 EUOL approach assumes that design criteria various cases that emerge during suitability checking
adopted for design of bridge is still valid. Further and applicability of EUOL approach are mentioned
LL, IL and LF are considered for suitability as other in Table 5.

Table 5: Applicability of EUDL Approach

Type of Standard Drawing Parameter Governing Applicability of EUDL

SN
S uitab ility Approach
1. Bridges built using BA drawings Span of bridge Applicable.
2. Bridges built using 'B' drawing but the drawing has been converted to 'BA: subsequently.
(i) No change from B to BA drawing Span of bridge Applicable.
(ii) Changes from B to BA affecting only durability parameters Span of bridge Applicable.
(iii) Conversion from B dra",,ring to BA drawing affecting structural
strength parameters.
(a) Structural strength of B drawing is equal to or more than BA Span of bridge. Applicable.
drawing
(b) Structural strength of B drawing is not adequate and improvements Depend on other Not Applicable.
have been done before issuing BA drawing. parameter besides span.
3. Bridges Built using B drawing which has not been converted to BA - Not Applicable.

305
10th International Heavy Haul Association Conference, 2013

5.3.4 The suitability of bridges is affected by increase in calculated vide Step 4 is valid only if CDA available is
vertical load and longitudinal force. The vertical equal to or more than 0.1, otherwise the stock cannot be
load governs the suitability of superstructure and the permitted at all on that particular span.
longitudinal forces govern the suitability of bearings
(ii) Longitudinal Force Consideration
and substructure. In case of open web girders (OWG)
suitability of bottom chord and bottom lateral bracing Step 1 - Obtain design value of TE and BF from Bridge
is also affected by longitudinal forces. The process of Rules corresponding to span.
EUDL approach is described hereinafter [4].
Step 2 - Obtain induced TE with or without dispersion
(i) Vertical Load Consideration and BF without dispersion from Bridge Rules
corresponding to span for the loading for which
Step 1 - EUDL for BM and SF (LLD (BM) & LLD
suitability is to be checked.
(SF)) of loading for which bridge has been
designed is computed using the EUDL versus Step 3 - Compare longitudinal forces ( TE and BF)
span tables given in Bridge Rules. obtained in Step 1 and Step 2. If induced TE
with dispersion and BF without dispersion
Step 2- The impact factor (ID) which is equal to
exceed the design LF, the train cannot be
coefficient of dynamic augment (CDA) fOI'
allowed on such span. If induced TE with
125 kmph corresponding to span is taken
dispersion and BF without dispersion are
from Bridge Rules for particular loading.
within design LF wher'eas tractive force without
Step 3 - EUDL for BM and SF (LLT (BM) & LLT dispersion was exceeding the limit, train can be
(SF)) of loading for which suitability is to be allowed with the stipulation that the track on
checked is computed using EUDL versus span bridges and approaches shall be strengthened
table given in Bridge Rules. to allow dispersion. If the induced LF without
dispersion are within designed LF, the bridge is
Step 4 - Speed is calculated from the consideration of
suitable.
BM and SF (Vm(BM) & Vm(SF)} using the
expression given below ;- 5.4 Results of EUDL Approach for 25t Loading 2008

l..LD + (LLOxl D) - LLT 5.4.1 The suitability check of standard superstructure

Vm = VO drawings of BGML, RBG, and MBG loading fOI'
LLTxlD
25t loading was undertaken using EUDL approach.
The speed obtained is further reduced by 10% or 10 Although var'ious designs may be suitable at varying
kmlh whichever' is less. The maximum allowable speed is speeds, considering that maximum speed of operation
taken as minimum of speed obtained from BM and SF of 25t axle load trains is not likely to exceed 75 kmph,
(V",(BM) & Vm (SF)) criteria. the checking was undertaken for 75 kmph. For non­
standard spans and substructures guidelines for
Step 5 - CDA available is calculated using the expression
checking were issued to field units.
considering EUDL for BM and SF.
5.4. 2 Majority of designs were found suitable for speed of
LLD + (LLDxlD) - LLT 75 kmph. Designs of owe of spans equal to and
CDA = more than 30.5 m were not found suitable for 75
LLT
kmph. The details of some of the designs found fit
The CDA available is taken as minimum of CDA from for 75 kmph as pel' EUDL approach are contained
consider·ation of EUDL fOI' BM and SF. The speed in Table 6.

Table 6: Results of EUDL Approach on Standard Superstructure Designs

SN Clear Span (m) Type Loading RDSO Drawing No.

1. 0.61,0.915, 1.22, 1.83 & 2.44 RCC Slabs REG BA- 10029, BA- 10031 , BA-10033, BA- 10035
& BA-10037
2. 0.61 , 0.91 5, 1.22, 1.83 & 2.44 RCC Slabs MEG BA- 10051, BA- 10052
3. 3.05, 3.6 6, 4.57, 6.1, 9.15 P SC Slabs (Pre tensioned) MBG BA -10235, BA-10236 BA-10237, BA-I 0221 /R,
BA-10240
4. 9.15 P SC Slab (P ost tensioned) M BG BA- 10241
5. 12.2, 18.3, 24.4 P late Girder BGML BA-II 003, BA-l1004, BA-IIOO 5
6. 12.2, 18.3, 24.4 P late Girder RBG BA-l1073, BA-l1074, BA-lI 075
7. 1 8.3 P SC 21 Girder MEG BA-10247
8. 24.4 P SC Box Girder MEG BA-I 0243

306
10th International Heavy Haul Association Conference, 2013

5.5 Detailed Checking of Bridges for Suitability permitted subject to good condition and
close observation [5].
5.5.1 Requirement of Detailed Design Check fOt· Suitability
(v) Simultaneous occurrence of forces such as
Detailed design checking of bridges for suitability may
hydrodynamic with water current and wind
be called for when bridge is not found suitable by EUDL
with maximum scour is not to be considered
approach, while exploring increase in speed permitted
for well foundation [5].
by EUDL approach to optimally utilize bridge strength,
dealing with major revisions in the provision of codes (vi) Passive earth pressure and surcharge
affecting load carrying capacity of bridge or when shall be considered for checking stability
performance of bridge over a period is unsatisfactory. of buried abutments with consolidated
formations [5].
5.5.2 Appmach for Detailed Design Check for Suitability
(vii) Suitability of arch bridge for HAL may be
The approach for checking the bridges for giving
based on physical condition and load test
suitability for higher loading is different from approach
provided the crown deflection and spread
in designing as specific and detailed analysis is done for
do not exceed 1.25 and OAmm respectively
checking suitability instead of generalized analysis done
in load test [6].
for designing. F urther, conservatism taken at the time of
design is avoided while checking for suitability. Often (viii) Overstressing upto 5% in OWG and upto
actual properties of materials are used instead of standard 11 % in plate girder may be permitted subject
properties and actual loads, environmental condition and to bridge being kept under observation [7].
site conditions are adopted, instead of worst combination
5.6 Detailed Checking for Superstructure
adopted genel'ally at the time of designing.
5.5.3 Relaxations Available in Codes fOI' Detailed Design Check
The detailed checking of superstl"Uctures which were
not found suitable by EUDL approach was undertaken.
IR Standard (IRS) Codes prescribe certain relaxations During the checking of suitabilit,y by EUDL approach,
for checking suitability of existing bridges which are it was observed that the superstructure of OWG bridges
given as the actual performance of bridge under loads and of span 30.5, 45.7, 61 & 76.2m were not suitable for 75
actual fIeld conditions is known. These are enumerated kmph. So detailed checking was undertaken and results
hereinafter. are summarized in Table 7.
(i) CDA upto 20% can be diminished from 5.7 Detailed Checking for Substructure
calculated value in case of rail joint
elimination for bridges upto 7.5 m spans [3]. 5.7.1 This is based on checking of theoretical stress level
and physical condition of substructul·e. The criteria
(ii) Dispersion of LF upto 25% may be allowed adopted for certification of suitability of masolllY
which can be increased upto 35% in case of abutment/pier in lime/cement mortar is given In
elastomeric bearing [3]. Table 8 [5].
(iii) No LL to be considel'ed for checking 5.7.2 In case of mass concrete abutment/pier upto 50%
suitability when wind load exceeds 100 kg/ ovel'stress in compressive stI'ess is allowed subject
m2 as against 150 kg/m2 in case of new of good condition of concrete and close observation,
design [3]. beyond which substructure is required to be
(iv) Overstressing In compressive zone upto strengthened/rebuilt. Based on the stipulations given
200% and 50% for masonry and mass above, profile of abutment and piers for higher loading
concrete substructures respectively IS can be easily developed for use as ready reckoner. If

Table 7: Results of Detailed Checking of Standard Superstructure Designs

RDSO Drawing No.

SN Clear Span (m) Loading RDSO Drawing No.
Speed (lunph) Remarks

BA- 1l122, BA-l1102, •

Members in which
1. 30.5,45.7, 61, 30.5 (UlS)' BGML 75
BA-l1172, BA-1l232 stresses have been
2. 76.2 BGML & MBG BA- l1152 75 found 95% to 105% of
permissible value to be
BA-1l342, BA-11362, kept under observation.
3. 30.5, 45.7, 61, 30.5(UlS) RBG & MBG 75
BA-1l322, BA-11402
• Bearing of these spans to
4. 76.2 RBG BA-1l382 50 be strengthened.
+ VIS - Ullderslullg Girder

307
10th International Heavy Haul Association Conference, 2013

Table 8: Criteria for Certification of Masonry Abutment/P ier

Factor of Safety
Maximum Compressive Condition Prescribed for
SN
Stress 'Without Occasional Load \\'ith Occasional Load Operation

1. I n permissible range ;;,:6 ;;,:4.5 -

2. Upto 100% overstress ;;,:3 ",2.25 Good condition of masonry

Good condition of masonry and
3. Upto 200% overstress ;;,:2 "' l.5
close observation
4. > 200% overstress < 2 < l.5 Should be strengthened /rebuilt
Note: When maximum tensile stress exceeds by more than 100% of the permissible stress, tensile zone is neglected and equivalent
compressive stress is worked out.

Table 9: Suitability of 24.4m P SC Box Girder from Vertical Load Consideration

Steps Description BM Consideration SF Consideration

Step 1 EUDL for MBG loarung (t) 233.27 273.44

Step 2 ID for lVl BG/25t loading (300mm cushion) 0.347 0.333
ID for lVl BG/ 25t loarung (400mm cushion) 0.324 0.310
Step 3 EUDL for 25 t loading (t) 246.03 289.20
Step 4 Speed (lmlph) (300mml400mm cushion) 96/94 93/92
Maximum allowable speed (lunph) 82
Step 5 CDA (300mm/400mm cushion) 0.277/0.255 0.260/0.239
CDA available 0.239

the dimension of existing structul'e is smaller than the permissible value and close monitoring of the members
dimension of these profIles, the substructure needs of steel bridges cl'itical from fatigue consideration.
to be strengthened/rebuilt. When theoretical analysis
is not possible or where results of analysis are 6. CASE STUDIES FOR CHECIUNG
inconsistent with actual physical condition of bridge, SUITABILITY FOR 25T LOADING 2008
stock with higher TE/BF can be permitted subject to
6.1 Case 1: 24.4m PSC Box Girder Designed for
sound physical condition and keeping bridge in close
MBG Loading (Drawing no. BA-I0243)
observation and limiting the extent of increase up to
20% over the level ofTE/BF running over the bridge 6.1. 1 Suitability from vertical load consideration in EUDL
for past one year. Approach is given in Table 9. The bridge is suitable
for 82 kmph. TE/BF do not affect suitability of PSC
5.8 Guidelines for Field Engineers
Superstructure.
The guidelines to field units covered methods for judging
6.2. Case 2: 76.2m O\\TG Designed for RBG Loading
suitability (e.g. EUDL charts for BM, SF etc.). Val·ious
(Drawing No.BA-1l382)
precautions included checking of physical condition
of bridges before operation, one time inspection of all 6.2. 1 Suitability from vertical load consideration by
bearings for their proper functioning and bed blocks for EUDL approach is described in Table 10. As CDA
their soundness, keeping under observation those members available for BM or SF is less than 0. 1, OWG is not
of OWG which are having stresses from 95% to 105% of suitable.

Table 10: Suitability of 76.2m OWG &om Vertical Load Consideration

Steps Descl'iption BM Consideration SF Consideration

Step 1 EUDL for RBG loading (t) 612.73 654.77

Step 2 ID for RBG loading 0.216 0.214
ID for 25t loading 0.244 0.243
Step 3 EUDL for 25 t loarung (t) 735.20 788.01
Step 4 Speed (kmph) 6.88 4.49
Maximum allowable speed (lunph) 4.04
Step 5 CDA 0.013 0.009
CDA available 0.009

308
10th International Heavy Haul Association Conference, 2013

Table 11: Suitability from Longitudinal Force Consideration

Steps Descl-iption TE TE with Dispersion BF

Step 1 RBG loading (t) 75 -
127.47
Step 2 25t loading (t) 126 94.5 129.50
Step 3 Comparison TE with dispersion for 25t loading 94.5t > TE for RBG loading i.e. 75t BF for 25t loading 29.50 t
> BF for RBG loading i.e. 127.47t

6.2.2 Suitability from longitudinal force consideration by (iv) On the basis of detailed checking theoretical
EUDL approach is described in Table 1 1, indicating suitability of 76.2m OWG for 50 kmph was
OWG's non suitability. given and guidelines issued to field for keeping
overstressed members under observation.
6.2.3 Detailed Checking

(i) As 76.2m OWG of RBG loading was not suitable 7. STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGES NOT
by EUDL approach so detailed checking was FOUND SUITABLE FOR HAL AT
carried out. Design of OWG for RBG loading was DESIRED SPEED
done for 125 kmph. For checking the suitability
For the bridges which are not found suitable for HAL
for 25t loading-2008 trials were done by reducing
after detailed checking, following course of action have
speed and it was observed that 76.2m O\VG of
been adopted:-
RBG loading is suitable fOl' 25t loading at speed of
50 kmph. (i) Imposing Speed Restriction is the obvious choice
to reduce the dynamic component of LL, subjected
(ii) Loads due to live load and longitudinal force
to minimum allowed value of CDA i.e. 0.1.
changed due to revision in loading, dynamic
component of live load changed due to reduction in
speed, while dead load is same being independent
(ii) When excessive TE is the cause of unsuitability,
of loading and speed. Wind pressure has been
use of Tractive Effort Limiting Switches have
taken as 100 kg/m2 as against 150 kg/m2 in case of
been prescribed in locomotives to limit TE to a
new design [3].
predefined value.
(iii) Stresses in the various members i.e. bottom chord,
top chord, diagonals, verticals etc. were worked
out considering the changes in loading mentioned (iii) \Vhen above options are not effective, bridge
above. The comparison of stresses for some of should be taken up for Retrofitting/Strengthening
typical members is depicted in Table 12. It is using various options available lil�e jacketing of
seen that some of the members are over stressed substructure, external prestressing, additional piles
but over stressing upto 5% is permitted in OWG around well fowl dation, interning of arches, epoxy
subject to bridge kept under observation (7). Floor grouting etc. During last 5 years IR undertook
system i.e. stringer and cross girder were found retrofitting/sh'engthening of more than 6000
safe because of reduction in d.)mamic component bridges at the approximate cost of INR 189 billion.
of live load. Bottom lateral and top lateral bracings
(iv) Rebuilding is the last resort, if all of the above
were found safe because of reduced wind pressure
steps are not effective.
of 100 kg/m2•

Table 12: Comparison of Stresses

Membel' Stl'ess as per RBG Loading 25t Loading-2008

(kg/mm2) Stress at 50 kmph P ermissible Stress Overstress %
(kg/mm2 ) (lcg/mm2)
Lo -LJ 16.58 15.58 17.97 -

LJ-L2 17.02 1 5.45 17.97 -

L2-L3 17.11 16.43 17.97 -

L,-L4 16.69 15.95 17.97 -

UJ-LJ 9.10 8.50 15.40

UJ-L2 14.82 15.59 15.40 1.23
U3-U4 13.78 14.73 14.30 3.01

309
10th International Heavy Haul Association Conference, 2013

8. INSPECTION AND MONITORING OF rationalization of the eXlstll1g provIsions of codes

BRIDGES ON IR leading to optimum utilization of bridges.

8.1 The condition of bridges which are found suitable 10. CONCLUSIONS
for HAL theoretically either by EUDL approach or
detailed design check need to be assessed in field and IR has a vast network comprising of varied type of bridges
HAL is permitted on the bridge only if the condition with different vintage. The mixed traffic character of IR
is found to be sound. makes the decision to increase axle loads on existing routes
a highly sensitive one. In order to ensure safety while using
8.2 IR has a well regimented inspection and monitoring the bridges optimally to their strength requires cal"eful
system which has helped in detection of adverse planning, assessment and monitoring. IR has been able to
effect of running HAL at the incipient stage so that successfully raise axle load of its wagons from erstwhile
corrective action may be taken. The system includes 20.32t to 25t in a span of last 6-7 years using combination
visual & detail inspection at various levels and of various strategies. The EUDL approach employed by
monitoring of inspection results based on objective IR has resulted in quick assessment of strength of large
rating system. The frequency of inspection lany number of standard spans bridges. This has substantially
other action is based on results of these assessments. reduced need for detailed checking. A well regimented
inspection system of IR provided a strong backbone
9. IR'S EXPERIENCE IN RUNNING OF HAL
which led to successful implementation of HAL without
AND INITIATIVE TAKEN TO SUSTAIN compromising safety. The monitoring mechanism put in
OPERATION. place has provided valuable data for further refinement
9.1 The experience of introduction of HAL through of assessment methodologies. It is considered that the
CC+8+2 and 25t loading has been satisfactor:y till approach adopted by IR can be replicated gainfully by
now 'with isolated problems reported in bed blocks, railway systems carrying mixed traffic for enhancement of
bracing and other minor problems. However it axle loads on bridges.
is likely that the problems due to fatigue in steel
BIBLIOGRAPHY
structures and in mass sh"uctures might appeal" after
some time lag. To ensure long term safety several [ 1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR extracted on 30.08.20 12
initiatives have been taken for strengthening of
[2] Internal Document, M inishy of Railways, April
inspection and monitoring of bridges to sustain HAL
2012
operation. These include:
[3] Rules Specifying the Loads for Design of
(i) Instrumentation of 85 representative bridges has
Superstructure and Substructure of Bridges and
been resorted to measure actual stresses, stl"ains,
for Assessment of the Strength of Existing Bridges
deflections, longitudinal forces etc. and comparing
(Bridge Rules), RDSO, Lucknow, 2008
these with the theoretical and permissible values.
The results obtained so far have shown that actual [4] Guidelines for Clearance of Railway Stock on
values of strain, stress deflection and longitudinal Rail'way Bridges, RDSO, Lucknow, April 2000
force are by and large 'within permissible limits.
[5] IR Standard Code of Practice for the Design of
(ii) Deployment of Advanced NDT equipment, Under Substructures and Foundations of BI"idges (Bridge
'Vater Inspection (U"TI) of bridge substructures Sub-Structure and Foundation Code), RDSO,
(330 bridges have been identified so far), emphasis Luclmow,1988
on rehabilitation/rebuilding of bridges (more than
[6] IR Standard, Code of Practice for the Design and
1000 bridges annually) and elimination of early
Construction of Masonry and Plain Concrete Arch
steel girders has been taken up in a big way.
Bridges (Arch Bridge Code), RDSO, Luclmovv,
(iii) Further implementation of Bridge Management 2004
System (BMS) has been initiated.
[7] IR Standard Code of Practice for the Design of
9.2 The satisfactory performance of bridges over a large Steel or ,"\Trought Iron Bridges Canying Rail, Road
period of time and the results of instrumentation or Pedestrian Traffic (Steel Bridge Code), RDSO,
carried out on IR instill a confidence in approach Lucknow,1977
adopted for ascertaining suitability of bridges for
[8] Indian Railway Bridge M anual, RDSO,
highel" loading. The results of instrumentation
Luclmow, 1998
are being critically examined for possible further

3 10