Hkkjr ljdkj & jsy ea=ky;

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

21 ,oa 22 Qjojh & 2012 esa

tcyiqj esa gksus okyh
iqy ,oa lajpuk ekud lfefr dh
bD;klhoha cSBd dh
iwjd dk;Zlwph

Supplementary Agenda
Of

Eighty First Meeting

Of
Bridge & Structures Standards Committee
(21st & 22nd February - 2012)
At
Jabalpur

vuqla/kku vfHkdYi vkSj ekud laxBu

y[kuÅ&226011
RESEARCH DESIGNS AND STANDARDS ORGANISATION
LUCKNOW-226011
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

SUBJECT INDEX

Item No. Title of the Item Page

No.

1034 Anomalies in provisions of IRBM and IRS Substructure 1-6

and Foundation Code regarding Vertical Clearance and
Free Board.

1035 Approach Slabs. 7-12

1036 Minimum headroom/span for railway bridges. 13-14

1037 Replacement of 5mm thick elastomeric pad by 25mm 15

thick pad in steel channel sleeper.

Amendment to Original Agenda Item 1033 (Item No. 999/78th BSC) 16-18

**********

ii
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

ITEM NO. 1034

Subject: Anomalies in provisions of IRBM and IRS Substructure and

Foundation Code regarding Vertical Clearance and Free Board.
BSC Reference: Extra Ordinary BSC held in November 1977, December 1978 &
January/February 1980.
RDSO file No.: RBF/EDFP
Agenda: To remove anomalies in provisions of Clause No. 4.8 and 4.9 of
IRS Bridge Substructure and Foundation Code and Para 312
and 313 of IRBM regarding Vertical Clearance and Free Board.

NOTES BY SECRETARY

1. The subject matter was referred by ECR vide their letter No. Nil dated
02.11.10 indicating anomaly in IRBM and IRS Substructure and Foundation
Code regarding reduced clearance. On a correction slip proposed by RDSO
on the subject, Railway Board pointed out that there are certain other
anomalies also in Para 4.8.3 of IRS Substructure Code and Para 312(4) of
IRBM and advised RDSO to examine the issue.

2. The provisions of IRS Substructure and Foundation Code and IRBM have
been examined by RDSO. The table below highlights the discrepancies in the
provisions in the two documents:

IRBM 1998 IRS Substructures Code 1985 Remarks.

312.Vertical Clearance 4.8Clearance (C)
1. The minimum clearance for 4.8.1 The minimum clearance for
bridges excluding arch bridges excluding arch bridges,
bridges, siphons, pipe syphons, pipe culverts and box
culverts and box culverts culverts from the water level of
from the water level of design discharge (Q) shall be in
design discharge( Q) accordance with Table below:
including afflux shall be as
under: Discharge in Vertical
Cumecs clearance(mm)
Discharge Vertical 0-30 600.
in Cumecs clearance 31-300 600-1200( pro-
in mm rata)
0-30 600 301-3000 1500
31-300 600-1200 Above 3000 1800
(pro-rata)
301-3000 1500
Above 3000 1800

1
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

2. In the case of arch bridges, 4.8.2 In the case of arch bridges,

minimum clearance minimum clearance measured to
measured to the crown of the crown of the intrados of the
the arch shall be as under. arch shall be as under:
Span of Clearance Span of Clearance
arch arch
Less Rise or 1200mm Less than Rise or 1200mm
than 4m whichever is 4m whichever is more.
more. 4.0m to 2/3 rise or
4.0m to 2/3 rise or 7.0m 1500mm which-
7.0m 1500mm ever is more.
whichever is 7.1m to 2/3 rise or
7.1m to more. 20.0m 1800mm which-
20.0m 2/3 rise or ever is more.
1800mm Above 2/3 rise
Above whichever is 20.0m
20.0m more.

2/3 rise
3. Syphons, pipe and
boxculverts are designed as
pressure conduits therefore
no clearances are
considered necessary for
these structures.
4. While rebuilding bridges on 4.8.3 When rebuilding bridges Italic part in
existing lines or building on existing lines or building new Para 312(4)
new bridges on parallel bridges on these or new lines, and 312(4) (b)
doublings, the clearance the clearance can be relaxed to of IRBM is
stipulated above can be the limits shown below provided: added based
relaxed by Principal Chief on the A&C
(i) adoption of the prescribed
Engineer/Chief Bridge slip No.14 to
values would otherwise
Engineer with the IRBM dated
result in heavy expenditure
consideration to the past 20.03.08.
and/or serious difficulties in
history, to the extent shown construction, and
below provided:
the clearance can be safely
a) adoption of the reduced, from those stipulated
prescribed values of under clause 4.8.1.
clearance would result in
Discharge Clearance
heavy expenditure
(cumecs) (mm)
and/or serious difficulties
in construction, and Less than 3 300
b) the clearance can be 3 to 30 300-400 (Pro-
safely reduced from rata)
those stipulated under
31 to 300 400-1200 (Pro-
sub para 1 above.
rata)

2
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

Discharge Reduced
(cumecs) Clearance The powers to relax prescribed
(mm) clearance in special
circumstances as indicated above
Less than 3 300 shall be personally exercised by
3 to 30 300-400 (Pro- the Principal Chief Italic part in
rata) Engineer/Chief Bridge Engineer, Clause
due consideration being given to 4.8.3(ii) of IRS
31 to 300 400-1200 past history of the bridge while Bridge
(Pro-rata) doing so. substructure
code is added
based on the
This is in accordance with A&C slip no.
para 4.8.3 of IRS Bridge 27 dated
Substructure and 24.03.08
Foundation Code.
5. While executing works other 4.8.4 While executing works other
than rebuilding a bridge, the than rebuilding a bridge, the
existing clearance may be existing clearance may be
retained. retained.
6. Where a tendency has been 4.8.5 Where a tendency has been
observed for the bed-level observed for the bed level of the
to rise, a clearance shall be stream to rise, a clearance shall
provided taking this factor be provided taking this factor into
into account. account.
313. Free board (F) 4.9 FREE BOARD (F)
1. The free board from the 4.9.1 The free board from the
water level of the design water level of the design
discharge (Q) to the discharge (Q) to the formation
formation level of the level of the Railway embankment
Railway embankment or the or the top of the guide bund shall
top of guide bund including not be less than 1m. In cases
afflux shall not be less than where heavy wave action is
1m. In cases where heavy expected, the free board shall be
wave action is expected, increased suitably.
free board shall be
increased suitably.

3
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

2. In special circumstances, 4.9.2 In special circumstances, Italic word in

where the free board can be where the free board can be Para 313(2)
safely reduced and where safely reduced and where and Para
adoption of the prescribed adoption of the prescribed values 313(3) of
values would result in heavy would result in heavy expenditure IRBM are
expenditure and/or serious and/or serious difficulties in added based
difficulties in construction, construction, the free board may on the A&C
the free board may be be relaxed at the discretion of the slip no. 14 to
relaxed at the discretion of Principal Chief Engineer/Chief IRMB dated
the Principal Chief Bridge Engineer as indicated 20.03.08.
Engineer/Chief Bridge below:
Engineer as indicated Italic part of
below: Clause 4.9.2
Discharge Minimum free- of IRS Bridge
Discharge Minimum (Cumecs) board(mm) substructures
(Cumecs) free Less than 3 600 code is added
board(mm) 3-30 750 based on A&C
Less than 3 600 More than 30 No relaxation is slip No. 27
3-30 750 permissible dated 24-
More than 30 No relaxation 03.08
is permissible
3. While executing works other 4.9.3 # while executing works # Italic part of
than rebuilding a bridge or other than rebuilding a bridge or Clause 4.9.3
extending it for doubling extending it for doubling of IRS bridge
purpose, the existing free purposes, the existing free board substructures
board may be retained after may be retained after taking code is added
taking measures for safety measures for safety as based on the
as considered necessary by considered necessary by Chief A&C slip No. 6
Principle Chief Engineers. dated 22/9/93
Engineer/Chief Bridge
Engineer.  However, in case of syphon  Italic part of
bridges, the provision for free clause
board as per Clause 4.9.1 4.9.3 of
need not be considered where IRS bridge
a spillway is provided on one substructur
bank of the channel at a e code is
suitable point upstream within added
or outside the Railway based on
Boundary so that as and when A&C slip
the channel raises over the no. 15
danger mark, the water from dated
the channel will flow out. A 24/07/02
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 overflow
from the spillway.

4
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

3. It is observed that provisions regarding relaxation of clearance by CE/CBE

were introduced in Code of Practice for the Design of Sub-structures and
Foundations of Bridges of 1963 vide correction slip No. 10 dated 23.05.77
based on Railway Board‟s decision communicated vide letter No.
76/WI/DMF/40 dated 09.03.1977. The provisions in current form as mentioned
above regarding relaxation of clearance in Clause 4.8.3 of Code of Practice
for the Design of Sub-structures and Foundations of Bridges were introduced
by modifying the language in 1985 while revising the Code based on the
recommendations of Extra Ordinary BSC Meetings held from year 1977 to
1980. The provisions of IRBM which was issued in year 1998 are essentially
drawn from Code of Practice for the Design of Sub-structures and
Foundations of Bridges (as mentioned in the preface of IRBM).

4. It can be seen from the comparative position of provisions of IRBM and IRS
Substructure & Foundation Code given above, that the provisions of
Substructure Code introduced after detailed deliberations in BSC Meetings
and Board‟s approval are more liberal and IRBM provisions are derived from
these. However, the provisions of IRBM do not permit relaxation in vertical
clearance for building new bridges on existing lines and new lines on
independent alignment. As such, there is a need to bring provisions of Para
312(4) of IRBM in line with the provisions of Clause 4.8.3 of Code of Practice
for the Design of Substructures and Foundations of Bridges 1985.

5. Following minor corrections may also be considered in provisions of IRS

Substructure and Foundation Code:

(i) In Clause 4.8.1 the word „including afflux‟ can be included after the
word „design discharge‟.

(ii) In Clause 4.9.3 the word „Chief Engineers‟ may be replaced by

„Principal Chief Engineer‟.

(iii) Later part of the Clause 4.9.3 may be numbered 4.9.4.

(iv) The paragraph below table in clause 4.8.3 (ii) be rephrased as under:
The power to relax prescribed clearance in special circumstances as
indicated above shall be personally exercised by the Principal Chief
Engineer/Chief Bridge Engineer, due consideration being given to past
history while doing so.

6. It is also noted that Para 236(ii) of Engineering Code contains instructions

regarding vertical clearance while determining alignment for additional lines.
These provisions are reproduced below:-

“Adequate vertical clearance for bridges should be provided in terms of the

recommendation of Khosla Committee and that contained in “IRS Code of
Practice for the Design of Substructure of Bridges” should be followed,
irrespective of whether specified free-board is available or not under the

5
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

existing bridges. On trunk line sections where the raising of track to obtain the
required routes and main clearance is impracticable or is otherwise prohibitive
in cost, Railway Board‟s prior approval is required to be obtained for waiving
the clearance requirements. On branch lines of both broad gauge and metre
gauge, where provision of such clearances would involve considerable cost,
clearances may be restricted after duly considering any past history of bridge
concerned with prior approval of the Chief Engineer.”

It may be seen from above that separate provisions for trunk lines and branch
lines have been mentioned for relaxation in the clearances. Considering IRS
Substructure and Foundation Code as the mother document for the subject, it
is considered that Para 236(ii) should also be amended.

7. In view of above, it is proposed that either IRBM/Engineering Code should

only mention the respective clauses of IRS Substructure and Foundation
Code or provisions of IRBM/Engineering Code be brought in line with IRS
Substructure and Foundation Code to remove the anomaly.

8. Committee may deliberate and make recommendations.

***********

6
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

ITEM NO. 1035

Subject : Approach Slabs.

BSC Reference : Item No. 827 of 69th BSC (For MBG Loading)
RDSO file No. : CBS/DCS
Agenda : To discuss provision of approach slabs on bridge
approaches.

NOTES BY SECRETARY

1. The issue of approach slab on bridge approaches was discussed vide item
No. 5 in CBE seminar held at IRICEN, Pune on 18 th and 19th October 2010. It
was recommended that RDSO should issue drawing of approach slab for 25t
Loading 2008. Railway Board ordered vide letter No. 2006/CE-
I/BR/Seminar/3-Pt dated 10.10.2011 that the issue may be deliberated in the
next BSC Meeting and RDSO was directed to circulate the detailed note to all
members for deliberation in next BSC Meeting.

2. Further, East Coast Railway vide their letter No. W-3/Br./23.1/BSC/Part

1/7329 dated 27.12.2011 have proposed an agenda item requesting to issue
standard drawing for approach slab for 25t loading 2008 and DFC Loading.

3. The subject was examined at RDSO. Para 7.5.3 of IRS Substructure and
Foundation Code stipulates following:
“Approach Slabs: In order to reduce impact effect and to obtain improved
running, properly designed approach slabs may be provided on both the
approaches of non-ballasted deck bridges having spans 12.2m or more. One
end of the approach slab may be supported on the abutment and other end
on the formation. Length of the approach slab shall be minimum 4 meters.”
4. It can be seen that the approach slab has been stated to serve two purposes
namely reducing impact effect and obtaining improved running. Presently, BA-
10059 drawing issued by RDSO in year 2000 is available which is for MBG
Loading. Thus, presently RDSO standard design for approach slab for 25t
Loading 2008 and DFC loadings are not available.

5. The track stiffness undergoes a sudden change from conventional ballasted

track on concrete sleeper to track on non ballasted bridges with wooden/steel
channel sleepers. In case of ballasted deck also there is sudden change in
stiffness on account of change in track substructure from formation to
RCC/PSC deck. The sudden change in track stiffness gives rise to higher
acceleration and increased deterioration (settlements, disturbances in track
geometry) and maintenance efforts on bridge approaches. The ill effects
increases as speed and axle load increases. Needless to say that sudden
change in stiffness also results in bad riding. The provision of approach slab

7
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

on unballasted bridges of 12.2m span and more prescribed presently is aimed

to cater for following:-

(i) The sequential change of track substructure from formation to RCC slabs
to bridge deck provides some sort of transition in track stiffness.

(ii) The reduction in magnitude of impact at interfaces between track on

formation to track on approach slab and track on approach slab to track on
bridge.

6. The back fill material prescribed on Indian Railways behind abutments is

shown in the figure given below:-

Granular Materials of
GW, GP, SW as per
IS: 1498:1970.

The arrangement is aimed to reduce earth pressure in abutment and this is

not designed for providing transition.

7. The schematic arrangement of approach slab as per RDSO BA10059 is

shown below:

8
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

8. The RDSO standard drawing No. BA 10059 was issued in August 2000 and it
is presumed that approach slab to this design must have been provided by
Zonal Railways on various bridges. It is requested to share the experience of
Zonal Railways regarding the performance of these approach slabs with
regard to intended functions mentioned above.

9. Literature survey by RDSO on the subject indicated that globally various

railways are now using specially selected and compacted back fill material
behind abutment to provide gradual change in stiffness of track on account of
change in track substructure. Provision of drainage layer behind abutment is
also a must. The transition system adopted by various Railways such as
German Railways, Italian Railways, French National Railways, Swiss Federal
Railways, Hungarian State Railways are shown in figures:-

9
81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

10
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

10. Literature survey also indicates that back fill material are in number of layers
and are of varying length. It is also apparent that back fill material used are
superior to normal formation materials. Further, most of the World Railways
do not provide RCC slab for transition purpose except Railway system in USA
which are predominantly freight railways.

11. GE Directorate of RDSO undertook studies on transition system on

approaches of bridges in the year 2005 and issued Report No. GE:R-50 of
August 2005. This report suggests following arrangements behind abutments:

11
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

12. The GE-R:50 Report recommended use of proposed system in new

construction as well as gauge conversion works. On existing lines also where
maintenance problems are faced, its use was recommended. Feedback on
the performance of the system was also requested. Zonal Railways may
share their experience in use of the proposed arrangement and their
performance, if any.

13. The issue was discussed with Geo Tech. Directorate of RDSO again. It has
been indicated by Geo Tech Directorate that they are working further on the
subject to effect improvement in the system proposed.

14. In view of foregoing, it is considered that developing standard back fill

arrangement for providing transition to track stiffness at bridge approaches for
ballasted as well as un-ballasted bridges is required to be taken up on priority.
B&S Directorate can work on design of approach slab for 25t Loading 2008
and 32.5t loading if the same is considered necessary, however, these are not
likely to provide lasting solution to the problem. Provisions of IRS
Substructure and Foundation Code can be modified, based on satisfactory
performance, if any, of existing recommendations as per GE R: 50.

*********

12
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

ITEM NO. 1036

Subject : Minimum headroom/span for railway bridges.

BSC Reference : Item No. 762 of 64th BSC.
RDSO file No. : CBS/IRBM
Agenda : To examine issue of minimum span and minimum headroom
of Railway Bridges.

NOTES BY SECRETARY

1. E.C.Railway has proposed an item for discussion in BSC as under:

“Presently for the inspection & cleaning point of view the minimum headroom
of the new bridges should be kept as 1.2m as per extent instruction. However,
in case of many old bridges headroom has been found up to 0.45m or even
less. In case of rebuilding of such bridges if headroom is increased up to
1.2m, heqvy regrading including major raising of rail level will be required
which may not be possible due to site constraints such as existing bank height
being less or presence of existing level crossings etc.

Thus the issue of keeping minimum headroom as 1.2m during construction of

new bridges/rebuilding of existing bridges requires to be reviewed &
discussed.”

2. It is seen that there are no instructions prescribing minimum headroom of new

bridges as 1.2m. However, it appears that the issue of minimum headroom is
being raised by Commissioner of Railway Safety while opening the section for
public carriage of passengers. The intention of ensuring minimum headroom
is primarily on account of ease of inspection and cleaning of the bridge.

3. It is noted that the issue of minimum span of railway bridge was discussed in
64th BSC vide Item No. 762. Railway Board orders on recommendation of
BSC on item No. 762 were as under:-

“Minimum clear span for new bridges shall be 1m for proper inspection and
maintenance."

4. Subsequently, these orders of Railway Board were communicated to Zonal

Railways vide RDSO letter No. CBS/C-64 dated 30.01.89 and reiterated vide
letter No. CBS/DCS dated 6/7.07.89. However, these provisions have not
been incorporated in any Code/Manual. Therefore, the issue keeps coming for
discussion in various forums.

13
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

5. The issue of minimum size of RCC box was also discussed vide Item No. 1(c)
of CBE Seminar held in 2007. The minutes of the same issued vide IRICEN‟s
letter No. 151/838 dated 27.11.2008 are reproduced below:

“Item 1(c) Minimum size of RCC box girders

CRS/SE Circle has raised the issue of adopting 1.8 m as the minimum vertical
opening generally even in case of minor bridges like RCC boxes for enabling
inspection and repairs to slab in future. He has also held that in no case
vertical opening should be less than 1.2 m even if the existing bank height
restricts the same. It is proposed that this may be adopted as a policy for all
bridges except in case of Hume pipes where the minimum diameter should be
1.2 m.

Board’s Orders

Accepted

Decision

Minimum dimensions should be followed as per codes. In case of any

violation, Railway Board‟s exemption to be taken. Where CRS is insisting
upon minimum dimensions which are not prescribed in codes/manuals,
discussions should be held with CRS and matter sorted out. GMs can be
requested to help in the matter.”

6. It is considered that prescribing minimum headroom for bridges would entails

problem in case of rebuilding of bridges having existing low headroom and
call for heavy regrading etc. However, in case of bridges on new lines
minimum headroom can be prescribed. As regards minimum span of the
bridge, it is considered that Railway Board‟s orders issued earlier can be
incorporated in IRBM for uniform use over Indian Railways. The minimum
height can also be kept as 1m/1.2m for bridges on new lines. On existing lines
only minimum span requirement can be kept to offer ease of cleaning etc. As
ensuring minimum headroom may not be feasible in all cases, dispensation
from Principal Chief Engineer/Chief Bridge Engineer can be considered.

7. Committee may deliberate and make recommendations.

*********

14
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

ITEM NO. 1037

Subject : Replacement of 5mm thick elastomeric pad by 25mm thick

pad in steel channel sleeper.
BSC Reference : Nil
RDSO File No. : CBS/ SCS
Agenda : To examine replacement of 5mm thick elastomeric pad by
25mm thick pad in steel channel sleeper and make
recommendations.

NOTES BY SECRETARY

CBE/NER has mentioned that Note No. 14 of RDSO drawing no. BA-
1636/1/R2 says that 5 mm thick elastomeric pad may be used where girder
stringer is not having any rivets to be housed at seating location of channel
sleeper.

By field experience, it has been found out that 5mm thick elastomeric pad
gets easily work out, causing damage to channel sleeper and girder, thus,
requiring early replacement of these pads. Whereas at bridges where 25mm
elastomeric pads have been used, its functioning is better. 25mm elastomeric
pad is designed with a central ridge to make inter lock between the channels
of channel sleepers, due to which this pad remains intact in its position.

Committee may deliberate and make recommendations.

**********

15
 81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

Amendment to the Original Agenda

Item No 1033 (8.): Review Item (Page No 51 of agenda)

8. Item No. 999/78th/2009/ CBS/DPG-1

Design of 12.2m span Welded Plate Girder for “25t Loading-2008” (10 Million
Cycle).
COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The design is approved.
RAILWAY BOARD ORDERS:
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 issued the drawing
expeditiously.
PRESENT STATUS:
Drawing no. BA-16014 issued by RDSO vide letter no. CBS/DPG/1 dated
06/08-09-2011. Subsequently, South Central Railway, have sent an item
through mail highlighting “Separation of welding of bearing stiffener in bottom
flange portion”. SC Rly has brought the following to attention:

1. It is noticed that the welding of bearing stiffeners has cracked along

the bottom flange in welded steel girders fabricated by Engineering
Workshop, Arakkonam as well as girders fabricated by Engineering
Workshop, Lallaguda. All other stiffeners in the plate girder are having
angles riveted to the web and snag fit (without gap) to flange without any
permanent jointing while the end stiffeners at bearing locations are with
MS plate which is welded to both web and flanges (bottom & top).

2. Such type of defects have been noticed at 22 locations in 17 spans of

four bridges as per the details given below:

No. of spans
No. of Manu- In
Bridge Drawing No. for where weld
Span cracks/ factured service Remarks
No. super-structure cracks
locations by since
noticed
S.C. Railway Drg.
No.GM(W)/SC/BR EWS/ Dec. First crack noticed
550 Dn 10 x 9.14m 9 spans 18 / 16
/568/91 (MBG AJJ 1997 during Nov.‟08.
loading)
RDSO Drg.No.
EWS/ Aug. First crack noticed
109 S/L 3 x 12.20m RDSO/B/16007 1 span 1/1
LKO 2010 during Jan. „12
(HM Loading)
RDSO Drg.No.
EWS/ Aug. First crack noticed
121 S/L 2 x 12.20m RDSO/B/16014 (25 1 span 1/1
LKO 2010 during Jan. „12
T Axle load)
RDSO Drg.No.
EWS/ Aug. First crack noticed
122 S/L 2 x 12.20m RDSO/B/16014 (25 2 spans 2/2
LKO 2010 during Jan. „12
T Axle load)

16
81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

17
81st MEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(February, 2012)

3. Majority of the cracks are outside i.e. at 12 locations while 6 cracks

are inside. At 2 locations, the cracks are both outside and inside. As the
defects are noticed in more than one span, in different bridges and in a
shorter service life, therefore, a doubt has aroused whether
i) The said welding is a structural requirement or it can be dispensed
with.
ii) The possibility of providing riveted connection to bearing stiffeners
also on the line with other stiffeners using counter sunk rivets. This
will need modification in the existing RDSO‟s approved drawing and
this job may not be practicable in the field as the modification is only
possible outside the running track.
iii) Whether any remedial measure is required at the locations where
such cracks have appeared or it can be allowed to continue keeping
the bridge under observation.
iv) Remedial measure which is feasible under running track.

Other railways may also bring out their experiences regarding cracks in the
welds of bearing stiffener and repairs done so that RDSO may issue
necessary corrections to the drawings/ issue necessary guidelines.

18