Manual On The Design and Construction of Well and Pile Foundations

भारत सरकार रे ल मं ालय
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
10 एवं 11 नव बर 2016 को
गोवा म होने वाल
पल
ु एवं संरचना मानक स म त क
चौरासीवीं
चौरासीवीं बैठक क काय"सूची
Agenda of
Eighty Fourth Meeting of
Bridge & Structures Standards Committee
(10th& 11th November - 2016)
At Goa
अनुस%धान अ भक'प एवं मानक संगठन,

ठन लखनऊ-226011
लखनऊ
RESEARCH DESIGNS AND STANDARDS ORGANISATION
LUCKNOW-226011
SUBJECT INDEX
Contents
I. ITEM No. 1060: Use of Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement. ........................................... 3
II. ITEM No. 1061: Provision of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Method for
pipeline crossing under railway track. .............................................................................. 7
III. ITEM No. 1062: Policy on maintaining of road and allied systems for Limited Height
subways/ Road Under Bridges. ..................................................................................... 11
IV. ITEM No. 1063: Reduction in water way of bridges. ...................................................... 13
V. ITEM No. 1064: Consideration of Future Tracks during Finalization of GAD of
ROB’s. ........................................................................................................................... 15
VI. ITEM No. 1065: Load Test for steel girders. .................................................................. 17
VII. ITEM No. 1066: Standardization of drawing for modification of 18.3m plate girder
to drawing no RDSO/B-1529 for MBG loading 1987. ..................................................... 23
VIII. ITEM No. 1067: Inspection proforma for PSC Girders. .................................................. 28
IX. Item No. 934/84th: Criteria for safe load on arch bridge. ................................................. 34
X. Item No. 995/84th: Revision of fatigue provisions in IRS Steel Bridge Code. .................. 37
XI. Item No. 1006/84th: Guidelines on Seismic Design of Railway Bridges. ......................... 62
XII. Item No. 1024/84th: Inclusion of provision of HSFG Bolt in IRS Steel Bridge Code. ....... 64
XIII. Item No. 1025/84th: Standard Drawings for FOB’s. ........................................................ 67
XIV. Item No. 1038/8th: Yardsticks for Bridge Organisation. .................................................. 68
XV. Item No. 1040/84th: Technical guidelines for Box Pushing technique. ............................ 69
XVI. Item No. 1042/84th: Periodicity of changing of oil in oil bath for roller bearing. ............... 70
XVII. Item No. 1045/84th: Introduction of Higher spans and skew angles in ROB
drawings. ....................................................................................................................... 72
XVIII. Item No. 1047/84th: Formulae for the estimation of scour depth at bridge piers. ............ 73
XIX. Item No. 1050/84th: Working of BCM through ballasted deck. ........................................ 74
XX. Item No. 1053/84th: Buoyancy Effect for Design of Foundation and Substructures. ....... 75
XXI. Item No. 1054/84th: Standard Inspection Arrangement for Bridges. ............................... 76
XXII. Item No. 1055/84th: Revision of Standard list of tools and equipment for inspection
of bridges. ..................................................................................................................... 79
XXIII. Item No. 1057/84th: Percentage of passive earth pressure to be taken in design
and analysis of well foundation. ..................................................................................... 80
XXIV. Item No. 1059/84th: Provision of Shrinkage and Temperature reinforcement in
Concrete Structures....................................................................................................... 81
84thMEETING OF BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(November 2016)
ITEM No. 1060: Use of Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement.
BSC Reference : Nil

RDSO File No. : CBS/CODES/REVEIW
Agenda : To make provisions regarding use of Corrosion Resistant
ReinforcementinIndian Railway StandardCode of Practice
For Plain, Reinforced & Prestressed Concrete For General
Bridge Construction (Concrete Bridge Code).
NOTES BY SECRETARY
As per Railway Board’s instruction vide letter no. 2015/CE-III/BR/RDSO/Misc.

dated 21.04.2016, this subject is to be deliberated in the BSC.
A. Brief History-
1.0 Prevention of corrosion in reinforcement (within the codal life) is essential for
overall durability of RCC/PSC structures. The chronological development in this
regard is as below.
2.0 Initial provision- Relevant part of Clause 7.1.4.6 in IRS: CBC-1997 as existed
initially regarding prevention of corrosion in reinforcement is reproduced as
under:-
“Special precaution like coating of reinforcement may be required in very severe

exposure condition. Specialist literature may be referred to in such cases. Such
coatings should be applied after removing any rust or loose material from
reinforcement.”
At that time four exposure conditions were envisaged namely Mild, Moderate,
Severe and Very Severe.
3.0 BS-14 (Durability of Concrete structures) - After detailed deliberations, A&C-1

to IRS-CBC (1997) was issued on 26.04.2000 in which Clause7.1.4.6 was
replaced by new clause 7.1.5 as under.
“7.1.5 Protective Coatings: - In order to offer adequate resistance against

corrosion, reinforcement bars shall be provided with suitable protective coating
depending upon the environmental conditions. The recommended coatings are
as under:
Item No 1060 Page 3

(November 2016)
Aggressive Environment Non aggressive environment

(Severe, Very severe and Extreme) (Mild and Moderate)
Important and major Minor bridges and All structures
bridges structures
Cement Polymer composite Cement Polymer Truncated inhibited cement slurry
coating composite coating coating
Or Or
Fusion bonded Epoxy Inhibited cement
Coating slurry coating
4.0 ME’s observation - In terms of the then ME’s observation on the provisions of
the coating vide Note No. 2005/M.E/Notes/29 dt 07.12.2005, the then provisions
of IRS-CBC were revised and A&C slip no. 8 to IRS CBC-1997 dated 15.02.2006
has been issued. The modified provisions of Clause 7.1.5 of IRS CBC are as
under,
7.1.5 Protective Coatings: - In order to offer adequate resistance against

corrosion, reinforcement bars may be provided with suitable protective coatings
depending upon the environmental conditions. In aggressive environments
(severe, very severe and extreme) application of cement slurry coating after
removal of rust and other loose material from the surface of the reinforcement
bar will generally be sufficient. However, specialist literature may be referred to
in extreme exposure condition.
5.0 Also vide A&C No. 2 to IRS CBC (Reprint Sept-2014) dated 14.01.2015
additional provision of concrete coating has been made vide Clause No 5.4.7 to
provide adequate protection against corrosion of embedded Steel/Material. The
frequency of coating shall depend upon the condition of existing coating.
6.0 Provisions in IRC: 112-2011 (Code of practice for Concrete Road Bridges) -
Provisions regarding products with improved corrosion resistance vide clause
6.2.3 of IRC: 112-2011 are as under.
6.2.3 Products with improved corrosion resistance
Reinforcing steel bars with improved corrosion resistance by any of the methods
described in section 18 can be used as reinforcement provided they meet the
minimum strength, proof stress and elongation characteristics as specified
in Table 18.1.
The design properties are considered to be the same as per Clause 6.2.2 except
as given in Clause 6.2.3.2 for epoxy coated reinforcement.
Item No 1060 Page 4

(November 2016)
6.2.3. Galvanized reinforcement
The strength as well as elongation and bond properties of galvanized

reinforcement are not adversely affected by galvanizing.
6.2.3.2 Epoxy-coated reinforcement
Reinforcing bars conforming to IS 1786 can be coated by fusion bonded epoxy

conforming to IS 13620-1993.
The bond of coated reinforcement is lowered by upto 20 percent of that of

uncoated reinforcement. In detailing of steel the lap length and anchorage
lengths given in Section 15 should be increased by 25 percent.
6.2.3.3 Stainless steel reinforcement
Properties of stainless steel reinforcement shall not be inferior to the carbon steel
reinforcement of corresponding strength class. For bond properties reference
should be made to the relevant code or established on basis of tests.
Note: The Indian Standard for stainless steel reinforcement is under

preparation. The British Standard BS: 6744:2001, which covers suitable
stainless steels for use as reinforcement may be referred.
7.0 RDSO Remarks:-
Existing provisions in IRS CBC seems to be adequate if proper cover (with

proper quality/impermeability) along with proper concrete coating (at required
frequency) is ensured and further coating of reinforcement is not warranted due
to reasons tabulated below.
Reinforcement Coating Concrete Coating

Pros 1. Is beneficial only if other 1. It will always be beneficial for
protection measures like cover cover & reinforcement both.
etc. fail within the codal life else 2. No reduction in Bond Strength
it will be redundant. 3. Relatively Cheap
4. Open
5. Accessible
6. Repairable/Replaceable
Cons 1. Relatively Costly Nil
2. It may reduce Bond Strength.
3. Hidden
4. Inaccessible
Item No 1060 Page 5

(November 2016)
5. Non-repairable/replaceable
However only in extreme exposure conditions based on specific technical
requirement provisions of IRC 112-2011 may be adopted based on techno
economic justification.
8. Committee may please deliberate.
**********
Item No 1060 Page 6

(November 2016)
ITEM No. 1061: Provision of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)

Method for pipeline crossing under railway track.
BSC Ref. : Item No. 863 of 72nd BSC & Item No. 1021 of 80th BSC
RDSO File No. : CBS/DCP-1
Agenda : To make provisions for Horizontal Directional Drilling Method
in pipeline crossing under railway track.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
Indian oil corporation Ltd. vide letter No. PL/HO/CONST/GENERAL/1.0 dated

12.7.16 & 04.10.16 has raised the following issue:
1. With the advancement of technology and experience gained internationally and

within the country in particular, pipeline crossings across perennial rivers,
National Highways, Canals and other such locations are currently being
undertaken adopting the “Horizontal Directional Drilling” (HDD) technique. The
HDD technique is an advance and trenchless method of executing Pipeline
crossings.
Presently, the concerned agencies for all crossings under railway track obtain
necessary approval & permission from concerned Divisional Railway Manager
(DRM) before pipeline laying. DRM office issues approval & permission
accordingly, as per guidelines of BS-105.
While laying the pipeline by Bored Cased Crossing method, following

disadvantages have been observed as reported by IOCL:
i. Requires different size augers and cutting head for different casing size.
ii. In the case of soils with boulder greater than 0.3 times the casing
diameter, this method cannot be used.
iii. Short drive lengths < 100m
iv. Groundwater dewatering and protection of the pit from earth collapsing
may be required.
v. Grade and alignment control is difficult.
vi. In rocky strata, outer surface of casing pipe gets damaged.
vii. A larger entrance pit than pipe ramming.
viii. There is always a chance of shorting of casing & carrier pipe.
ix. Ingress of water inside casing pipe causing corrosion of pipes.
Item No 1061 Page 7

(November 2016)
x. Difficulty in extension of casing length in case of widening required as per

railway’s requirement
2. Based on the literature study undertaken by RDSO, the existing provisions of

Pipeline crossings under Railway track conveying inflammable substances like
petroleum, oil and gas etc is given below:
(i) Clause 1.3.3 of Report BS: 105
Except for pipeline crossings covered under category A(1) above, all pipes
conveying water, sewerage, non inflammable or inflammable substances
should be laid under the Railway track through a casing pipe of RCC, PSC
or steel of adequate strength to facilitate their maintenance and renewals
without causing interference to railway traffic. The nominal diameter of the
casing pipe should be sufficiently large to permit easy withdrawal of the
carrier pipe without disturbing the formation. Where carrier pipes are not
used, for Example telephone wires/TV cables etc as covered under
category A(1), the casing pipe of suitable material and adequate size
should be provided.
(ii) Clause 434.13.5 of ASME B 31.4 – 2009
Directionally Drilled Crossings: Written plans shall be developed for all
directionally drilled crossings or for when directional drilling is selected as
a pipe lay method. Plans will include the following:
a. Crossing plan and profile drawings showing all pipelines, utilities,
cables, and structures that cross the drill path, are parallel to and
within 100 ft (30 m) of the drill path, and that are within 100 ft (30 m) of
the drilling operation, including mud pits and bore pits.
b. Damage prevention plan to reduce the likelihood of damage to
adjacent underground facilities, including pipelines, utilities, cables,
and other subsurface structures. The plan shall consider the accuracy
of the method to be employed in locating existing structures and in
tracking the position of the pilot string during drilling. Consideration
should be given to having an auxiliary location system to include
manual excavation to ensure that the drilling bit or reamer is following
the projected path and does not encroach upon crossing or parallel
lines. The damage prevention plan should provide specific instructions
regarding the notification of affected parties including the participation
in one-call systems where applicable.
c. Written safety plan to include contingency plans in the event the drilling
string impacts subsurface facilities. The safety plan should identify
facilities and resources to be utilized in the event of an emergency or
any personnel injuries. The safety plan shall be reviewed on site with
all construction personnel prior to the commencement of drilling
operations.
d. Plan for containment and disposal of drilling fluids, if used.
Item No 1061 Page 8

(November 2016)
e. Hydrostatic test plan that should consider pretesting of the fabricated

string(s) prior to installing the crossing. The following publications
provide guidance on design of directionally drilled crossings:
(1) American Gas Association PR-227-9424“Installation of Pipelines by
Horizontal Directional Drilling, An Engineering Design Guide”.
(2) American Society of Civil Engineering, Practice No. 89 — “Pipeline
Crossings Handbook”
(3) Directional Crossing Contractors Association publications
“Guidelines For a Successful Directional Crossing Bid Package,”
“Directional Crossing Survey Standards,” and “Guidelines for
Successful Mid-Sized Directional Drilling Projects”
(iii) IOCL has submitted the outcome of study carried out through IIT, Madras
(IITM) to verify the pipeline against the soil surcharge and Rail loads, as
the pipeline is not protected by the casing pipe. IITM has verified that the
method of laying pipeline by HDD method is safe and stresses are within
limits, maximum effective combined stress (Seff) for three pipes of
different diameter is given in table-I. However, verification report of IITM is
available in soft copy as well as hard copy which may be shared if
required.
Table-I
Maximum Effective
Combined Stress (Seff)
MPa
Description Maximum Allowable
For diameter of pipe Value of Stress (0.9
SN (mm) Seff (MPa) x Specified
Minimum
Yield
Strength)
(MPa)
508 356 324
1 Hydro- testing 158.3 138.3 136.2 158.3 288.0
Condition
2 Operating 152.4 135.3 133.6 152.4 288.0
Condition
3. RDSO remarks:
i. Other similar agencies like ONGC, GAIL executing the work of pipeline
crossing should be consulted before finalization of modification.
Item No 1061 Page 9

(November 2016)
ii. For corrosion, higher wall thickness & 3LPE coating (3mm) has been
suggested by IOCL in place of existing cathodic protection system. Since
the existing anti corrosion system for steel casing pipes greater than
350mm dia. was finalized and approved by M&C Directorate of RDSO,
thus proposal should also be sent to M&C Dte. for their views/approval
regarding corrosion.
iii. The carrier pipe shall be designed to latest approved Railway loading
standard as per IRS Bridge Rulkes or else the depth of carrier pipe shall
be where stresses due to railway loading does not affect the pipe. The
detailed design calculations for carrier pipe shall be submitted by
concerned agency to CBE.
iv. Subject to the above, alterations can be made to BS-105 for pipeline
crossing without casing pipe.
4. Committee may please deliberate.
**********
Item No 1061 Page 10

(November 2016)
ITEM No. 1062: Policy on maintaining of road and allied systems for
Limited Height subways/ Road Under Bridges.
BSC Reference : Nil

RDSO File No. : CBS/LUSW
Agenda : Policy on maintenance of road passing through sub-ways,
lighting arrangement, drainage arrangement, diversion road
and other allied works connected with subways and to make
subways free from water logging.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
CBE/SECR has proposed the issue regarding drainage problems in RUBs and
further stated that;
1. Vide ED (B & S) – II, Railway board’s letter no. 2006/CE-IV/Misc/2 (RUBs) dated
18.04.2012, Board has issued guidelines that, level Crossings which do not
qualify for sanction of ROB on cost sharing basis in terms of para 925 of IRPWM,
can be planned for elimination by subways at Railway’s cost. It has also been
stated in the letter that, the responsibility for the maintenance of the road passing
through the subway, lighting, drainage system, diversion road and any other
allied works will rest with State Govt.
2. Chief Secretary of Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Odisha and Madhya

Pradesh were approached to issue directions towards the above matter of
maintenance of road, lighting, drainage etc. In response, only Govt. of
Chhattisgarh have issued instructions that too only to Municipal Commissioners
for arranging maintenance of road passing through the subway, lighting
arrangement, drainage etc. (Principal Secretary, Department of Town
administration and Development, Govt. of Chhattisgarh’s letter dated
31.07.2012). But, no directions have been issued by Govt. of Maharashtra,
Odisha and Madhya Pradesh. This is resulting into serious drainage problems in
RUBs during rainy season.
3. A letter was again written to Board vide PCE/SECR’s letter No.

SERC/HQ/Engg./RSW/Policy/03/Mtc/31 dated 06.05.2014 to withdraw the
condition stipulated in Board’s letter dated 18.04.2012 regarding “responsibility
for the maintenance of the road passing through the subway, lighting, drainage
system, diversion road and any other allied works.”
4. In response, EDCE (B&S)-II, Railway Board vide letter 2014/CE-IV/Misc./21

dated 12.06.2014 did not agree the proposal of SECR to withdraw the above
responsibility from State Govt. and it was reiterated that, the “responsibility for

(November 2016)
the maintenance of the road passing through the subway, lighting, drainage
system, diversion road and any other allied work will rest on State Govt. only”.
5. As a result, lot of drainage problems are faced in subways involving pumping, in

many cases, Railways are forcing out the water by pumping through emergency
methods. No permanent solution has been arrived at owing to Board’s above
guidelines.
6. The issue needs to be addressed for which a policy/MOU needs to be issued

from Railway Board.
7. Alternative/innovative arrangement made by other Railways for drainage of water

may also be shared.
RDSO Remarks:
A) To analyze the problems regarding water logging, settlement of track, erosion
of banks and construction method/techniques and to suggest the improvement
in the design etc. and to deal with any other technical issue,
Adviser/Bridge/Railway Board has nominated a committee vide Railway Board
letter no. 2016/CE-IV/LX-ROB/RUB (Innovations) dated: 20.09.2016 consisting of
following officers.
i. Shri A. K. Singhal, EDCE (B&S), Railway Board, New Delhi
ii. Shri Kailash Singh, ED (Structures) RDSO, Lucknow
iii. Shri R. N. Sunkar, CBE WCR, Jabalpur
iv. Shri M. P. Singh, CBE, NR, New Delhi
B) Maintenance of roads, lighting, etc are a policy matter and suggestions may
be given on this.
C) The suggestions may be submitted to the committee by Zonal Railways on

alternate/innovative arrangements for drainage of water.
8. Committee may please deliberate upon the item.
**********

(November 2016)
ITEM No. 1063: Reduction in water way of bridges.
BSC Ref. : Nil

RDSO File No. : CBS/PSBC
Agenda : Percentage criteria for the waterway reduction in clause
4.5.9 of Bridge Substructure and Foundation Code should be
modified.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
This subject matter has been raised by the CBE/WCR for Modification in the
clause 4.5.9 of Bridge Substructure and Foundation Code. It was also discussed in the
CBE’s seminar held on 06th& 07th Oct.’2016 as item No.2 (a) and concluded that WCR
will prepare the check list and send it to RDSO. RDSO will check/modify and circulate it
to Zonal Railways for implementation.
Existing clause 4.5.9 of Bridge Substructure and Foundation Code
4.5.9 For strengthening existing bridges by jacketing etc., a reduction in waterway area
as per the limits specified below may be allowed by the chief Bridge Engineer
provided that there has been no history of past incidents of overflow/
washout/excessive scour etc. and that measures for safety as considered
necessary by the field Engineer and approved by CBE are taken.
S.No. Span of Bridge Reduction in waterway area allowed

as %age of existing waterway
1. Upto and including 3.05m 20%
2. 3.05m to 9.12m (including) Varying linearly from 20% to 10%
3. Greater than 9.12m 10%
Further reduction in the area shall be subject to CRS sanction and submission
of detailed calculation of waterways etc. Where the clearances are not available, the
bridge should be rebuilt.
Background of the existing clause 4.5.9

• The item “to reduce waterway during strengthening of bridges by RCC jacketing”
was discussed as item no. 897 during 74th BSC held in 2003.
• CBE/ER has referred the problem of strengthening/rehabilitation of the arch
bridges where HFL is high. He has opined that CBE’s may be authorized to
condone resultant reduction in waterway due to such jacketing where HFL is

(November 2016)
high, since a small reduction in waterway may not necessarily cause damage to
the bridge in case of flood. To account for small reduction in waterway, additional
safety measures like provision of flooring, pitching of approach bank etc. can be
specified.
• Based on the Committee Recommendation and Railway Board Order of the item
no. 897 of 74th BSC, clause 4.5.9 was inserted in Bridge Substructure and
Foundation Code.
Views of CBE/WCR
• Instead of percentage criteria, the waterway reduction should be related to the
size of the bridge and headroom available above the danger level as well as
CHFL keeping safety margin over that also. The para 4.5.9 of substructure code
may be modified as under:
(a) Revised HFL (CHFL) with reduction in waterway after proposed
rehabilitation has to be calculated. Rehabilitation should only be allowed if
standard clearance and freeboard as per clause 4.8 and clause 4.9 of
substructure code are available with revised HFL after rehabilitation.
(b) Subject to para (a) above, the protection work including toe wall, pitching
upto HFL, retarder/energy dissipater, curtain wall, droop wall, river training
works/protection works as required may be provided as per site
requirement to be suggested by Executive Officer and to be approved by
CBE.
(c) In case, with revised HFL, standard free board and clearance are not
available then additional opening with toe wall, pitching and river
training/protection work to be provided.
(d) In case above suggested additional opening work is delayed for any
reason, the bridge should be declared as vulnerable bridge till such time
additional opening is made.
(e) In case of minor bridges, however, depending upon the type of strata and
site observed velocity of water, only protection work can be done.
RDSO Remarks:-
• CBE should be competent to reduce the waterway after assessing individual

cases based on the actual site condition and he should take further decision by
considering the past 50 years flow records also.
Committee may please deliberate upon the item.
**********

(November 2016)
ITEM No. 1064: Consideration of Future Tracks during Finalization of

GAD of ROB’s.
BSC Ref. : Nil.

RDSO File No. : CBS/DRB/Part BSC.
Agenda : Issue of Consideration of Future Tracks during Finalization
of GAD of ROB’s.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1. Broad guidelines for preparation of General Arrangement Drawings (GAD’s) of

Road Over Bridges (ROB’s) were issued by Railway Board vide their letter No.
2011/CE-III/DE/ROB dated 21/11/2011 & letter no. 2015/CE-IV/ROB/76 dated
04/03/2015. It was instructed that Railway should finalize the GAD in such a manner so
that involvement of Railway land should be minimum and generally piers/abutment
should be avoided within the Railway land to avoid the hindrance to any further
expansion of yard/track etc.
2. However, it has been observed that on unimportant lines and where Railway
boundary is large, construction of via-duct over the whole Railway land is not
economically desirable.
3. Para 1816 (iv) Engineering Code states that cost of Bridge Structure for
Crossing additional tracks in future has to be borne by Railways. Para is
reproduced in verbatim as follows:-
“If provision is required to be made in the bridge structure for crossing additional
railways tracks in future, the cost of such extra length of the bridge structure will
be borne by Railway in addition to its share of the cost for the rest of the bridge
and its approaches. If the provision for extra tracks is already a sanctioned
scheme or included in the Works Programme the cost of extra length of bridge on
that account shall also be shared on a 50:50 basis between the Railway and
Road Authority.”
4. Railway Board vide its letter No. 2015/CE-IV/ROB/76 dated 02-03-2016

proposed that Railway should finalize the GAD on guidelines as given below:-
(i) On ‘C’ Routes and Yards, preferably via-duct should be planned over
the complete Railway Land.
(ii) On National Highway, State Highway, DFC Route, ‘A’ & ‘B’ routes,
via-duct should be planned considering the existing tracks,
sanctioned tracks and 4 more tracks for future expansion.

(November 2016)
(iii) On all ‘D Spl’, ‘D’, ‘E Spl’ and ‘E’ routes, via-duct should be planned
covering existing track plus three future tracks.
On the remaining portion of Railway land, RE/Earthen embankment should

be planned due to economical consideration, Slopes for the approaches should
be started at the Railway Boundary.
5. Railway were asked to give their suggestions on above mentioned proposal so

that a comprehensive policy on the subject matter can be issued. Railway Board
advised vide their letter dated 25-10-2016 that this issue should also be deliberated
during the BSC.
6. RDSO after consideration is suggesting that span arrangement should be such

that it covers.
Existing Tracks + Sanctioned Lines + One Future Line + One Future span of 24m
on either side on either side (if Land
available)
Above to be provided if sufficient Railway Land is available and on the remaining

portion of Railway land, RE/Earthen embankment should be planned due to economical
consideration, Slopes for the approaches should be started at the end of Future span of
24m.
If Railway Land is restricted then arrangement should be such that whole

Railway Land is covered.
7. Committee may deliberate and make recommendations.
**********

(November 2016)
ITEM No. 1065: Load Test for steel girders.
BSC Reference : Nil

RDSO File No. : CBS/DPG/1
Agenda : To make provisions regarding static/dynamic load testing of
steel girders and specifying procedure for the load tests.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
Vide letter no W-3/65/09/RB & RDSO/Pt. II/111 Dated 11.02.2016, CBE ECR has
raised the issue of static/dynamic load testing of steel railway bridges. He has raised the
following important issues:
1. The strength of steel bridges existing on the system viz, underslung, open web,
plate and composite girders is primarily judged by measurement of camber and
quality of rivets. Normally no load tests are performed.
2. Newly constructed bridges are sometimes assessed for strength by passing

loaded goods trains.
3. If, however, the bridge is not connected with railway network, testing by trains is
not possible.
4. Static load tests are being insisted before allowing traffic over the steel bridges,
but there is no mention of load tests in railway codes/ manuals, for which no
standard practices are also not available. IRC-51 is available, which gives
methodology of load tests for road bridges.
5. Therefore, this item has been proposed to devise a methodology for

static/dynamic load testing on steel railway bridges.
Work Done by RDSO-
1.0 Codes/ Manuals: RDSO has studied the following codes/manuals
1.1 IRC SP-51 and IRC SP-37,
1.2 “Guideline for Load and Resistance Assessment of Existing European Railway
Bridges” issued as part of Sustainable Bridges by European Commission,
1.3 BS-5400 — Part 8 “Steel, concrete and composite bridges: Recommendations

for materials and workmanship, concrete, reinforcement and prestressing
tendons”,

(November 2016)
1.4 Inspection manual – Texas Department of Transportation. (Inspection manuals of

Connecticut, Delaware also seen but these are all US highway manuals, so only
one is referred to.
1.5 AS-5100.7-2004 “Rating for Existing Bridges”.
1.6 BA 54/94 “Load testing for bridge assessment”, issued by The Highways Agency,
Scotland.
1.7 IRS Concrete Bridge Code.
1.8 Load tests for piles, IS:2911.
2.0 Case Studies: RDSO has studied few case studies of load testing being
deployed on bridges and the conclusions drawn thereon:
2.1 Load testing of the new Svinesund Bridge, by Raid Karoumi and Andreas
Andersson, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Department of Civil and
Architectural Engineering, Division of Structural Design and Bridges, Stockholm,
Sweden, 2007.
2.2 Research report no UMCEE 96-10 on “Load Testing of Bridges”, submitted to

Michigan Department for Transportation and The Great Lakes Center for Truck
and Transit Research, by Andrej S. Novak and Vijay K. Saraf, University of
Michigan.
3.0 Conclusions which can be drawn based on various documents studied:
3.1 Static load test is used as a tool for assessing load carrying capacity of bridges.
The procedure for assessing the load carrying capacity of old bridges for the
purpose of ascertaining safety and for upgrading the bridges for higher loads is
given in the codes.
3.2 Performance static load tests, within normal live load regular operations are
sometimes used, but are generally not considered reliable. (Para 6.3.4 of AS
5100.7-2004; Section 5, Bridge Inspection Manual Texas DOT) Proof load tests
with loads exceeding the permitted live loads are considered a good tool to
physically verify the reserve strength of bridges and utilize part of same for
commercial operations. This approach might not be suitable for railway
operations where fatigue is governing in majority of cases.
3.3 None of the codes, however, specifies load test for ascertaining the quality of
new construction, as is sought in Indian Railways.
3.4 Dynamic load tests are used to collect information about the natural frequency
and resonance behaviour for better understanding of behaviour of the structure.

(November 2016)
3.5 Load test is used generally in conjunction with the instrumentation, so that the
conclusions drawn on the basis of instrumentation measurements are verified
through deflection measurements. This helps in eliminating errors associated
with fixing of gages and data collection etc.
4.0 Limitations of Static Load Tests: For steel structures, static load tests suffer
from several limitations, enumerated below:
4.1 Steel is an elastic, factory made product and its ductility is not in doubt. The
problems associated with fabrication which are often sought to be verified
through load tests come into play only under repeated applications of loads
(Fatigue). One time application of load in load test is not the right tool for verifying
the quality of fabrication.
4.2 Static load test using sand bags or other materials as kenteledge is a
cumbersome procedure and the amount of load required even for loading a mid-
sized girder for its live load capacity is often difficult, especially since space
availability in Railway girders is limited due to lesser width. As a result, the full
elastic behaviour of girder might not be possible to be verified through load tests.
4.3 If train vehicles are used for static load test, if the static load applied is not
precisely known, the deflection worked out might be erroneous and can lead to
wrong conclusions.
4.4 Establishing independent reference to measure the deflection using dial gauge or
scale system is not possible at all locations and this means that the shore spans
where height is less and water not present are the often default choice for
carrying out the load tests. This reduces the efficacy of load test.
4.5 Steel structures have sufficient residual strength beyond elastic limit and, in
many structures, alternate load paths are available. Even if load on structure
exceeds the elastic limit of some part, the same might not fully reflect in the
deflection. Due to simplifying assumptions such as pin-jointed trusses, zero fixity
at ends, ignoring the effect of track continuity and 2-D behaviour of girders, the
theoretical deflection computed is often higher than actual deflection of the
structure. Comparing the actual field measurements of static load test with
theoretical computations often lead to erroneous conclusions.
4.6 For long span bridges, dead load and superimposed dead load itself is a
substantial component of the entire load carrying capacity. In this scenario, live
load component might not be significant for the overall girder (Though it is still
important for some individual components). For such girders, the camber values
immediately after launching and after providing superimposed dead load might
give good idea of the behaviour of structure.
5.0 Benefits of Static Load Test: Even with the above limitations, static load tests
have several uses:

(November 2016)
5.1 Verification of design as to rule out gross errors. The measurements of deflection
during static load test can give idea about the design on overall basis such that
the gross errors can be ruled out.
5.2 Static load test is a simple test which can be performed easily in field and results
can be easily interpreted. Instrumentation requires specialized agencies for
conducting tests and for interpreting the results.
5.3 Static load test is an excellent physical measurement which can be used to
independently verify a numerical model of bridge created for instrumentation
purposes.
5.4 Static load test can help examine behaviour of old bridges which cannot be
analyzed theoretically due to non-availability of detailed design and/or
documentation. Similarly, the girders which are damaged due to impact/corrosion
etc where the theoretical study might not be so reliable can be studied through
load tests. For retrofitment, the before and after load tests give excellent
indication of efficacy of retrofitment.
6.0 Limitations of Dynamic Load Test:
6.1 The dynamic load tests can be used only with instrumentation. The impact factor
given in codes is a statistical value, which depends on several factors such as
condition of track, condition of vehicles, operation characteristics etc which are
difficult to create/replicate in field. If only deflection is measured, the errors due to
unknown impact factor might make the readings difficult to interpret.
6.2 Further, impact factor is not same at all locations and stress measurements
during dynamic tests at different locations on structure might show different
values. Therefore, dynamic load tests can be used only to know the envelope of
stresses and/or deflections.
6.3 Under dynamic load tests, the position of vehicle is not precisely known and
while the peak values might be captured, meaningful conclusions about why the
structure is behaving in a particular fashion might be difficult to establish without
supplementary tests.
7.0 Benefits of Dynamic Load Test:
7.1 Dynamic load tests give idea about vibrations on the structure and their
amplitude. Excess amplitudes are indicative of resonance and the natural
frequency of structure can give idea about the speeds that can be permitted on
bridge without undue vibrations.
7.2 Dynamic load tests can supplement the insights into behaviour of structure
gained through numerical models/static load tests etc.

(November 2016)
8.0 Load tests have already been specified for concrete precast units in Para 18 of
IRS Concrete Bridge Code. Load tests are also used for piles as per provisions
of IS:2911.
9.0 The item for load tests appears in the para “18.4.7 Para-17. Procedure For
Inspection Of Bridges” of Policy Circular No 7, which states that:
“(3) If the Commissioner considers it necessary, in addition to the certificate of

a Bridge Engineer employed for the purpose, he can call for the Load
Deflection Test under the loads for which the bridge is designed and
where this is not possible under the heaviest loads available.
(4) (a) When making Card Deflection Test, the test cards are to be placed at
right angles to the centre line of the track, in order to record oscillation
and the recording pencil point should be as fine as possible.
(b) When central deflection is measured, allowance shall be made for the
deflection, if any, of the abutments.
(5) In order to record the static deflection, the test shall be carried out at dead
slow speed and at the maximum permissible speed of the section and the
speed shall be carefully measured by stopwatch or by some automatic
means.
(6) The actual deflection cards shall be submitted to the Commissioner
together with a statement of deflections and oscillations in Form XVIII.
(7) The deflection of the girder shall be worked out theoretically and shall be
shown in Column 12 of Form XVIII to enable a comparison being made
with the observed deflection.
(8) In addition to the Card Deflection Test, the Commissioner may, at his
discretion, require Stress Recorder Test to be carried out on any plate or
open web girders of clear spans exceeding 30 metres.
(9) (a) Stress Recorder Test shall be carried out with a stress recorder of
approved type.
(b) Tests loads and speeds shall be as specified for Card Deflection Tests.
(c) Tests shall be taken, on the chords or flanges at mid span and on such
web and floor members as the Commissioner shall specify.
(d) If a sufficient number of instruments are available, these tests shall be
made simultaneously.
(10) The stress recorder diagrams together with calculations showing how the
maximum stress under the design load with full impact (including dead
load stresses) is deduced from the measured stress shall be submitted to
the Commissioner who shall, before sanctioning the opening of the bridge,
satisfy himself that the stresses in the girders will not exceed those
specified in the IRS Steel Bridge Code, 2003.

(November 2016)
(11) If the Commissioner is satisfied that the girder has been properly designed
for the work it is intended to perform, then, the open web and plate girders
are not required to be tested.”
The committee may kindly deliberate and decide if any elaboration/modification

of the instructions given in policy circular no 7 is required.
************

(November 2016)
ITEM No. 1066: Standardization of drawing for modification of 18.3m

plate girder to drawing no RDSO/B-1529 for MBG loading 1987.
BSC Reference : Nil

RDSO File No. : CBS/DPG/1
Agenda : Standardization of drawing for modification of 18.3m plate
girder to drawing no RDSO/B-1529 for MBG loading 1987.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1. CBE ER, vide his letter no W(3)/66/3/38 dated 15/03/2016 has raised the issue of
excessive vibration noticed on girders built to RDSO drawing no B-1529 (18.3 m, MBG
Loading 1987) during passage of heavy trains to CC+8+2 (Annexure 1066/1).
2. This matter was earlier referred to RDSO in 2010 and a solution was provided by
RDSO vide letter no CBS/Insp/WBG dated 05/08.03.2010 (Annexure 1066/2). In this
solution, the V-type cross-frames were considered to be weak and RDSO advised that
the same may be replaced by X-type cross frames.
3. Eastern Railway has carried out this modification in all girders, however, this
problem was not rectified. The matter was again referred by Eastern Railway to RDSO
vide letter no W(3)/65/0/Vol.III Dated 24.02.2016.
4. RDSO carried out full design check and nit was found that the design of main
girders is adequate for the 4 Million cycles criteria that was adopted during design. Even
as per the new fatigue criteria, the fatigue life for these girders was found to be 40 years
with simplified procedure. The actual design life if stresses are measured or if detailed
design with train loading is done will be significantly higher. Therefore, the girders need
not be replaced.
5. The design check, however, revealed that the top lateral bracing section provided
in these girders i.e. ISA 75x75x10 is inadequate and ISA 100x100x12 is required as per
computations followed for RDSO designs. The same was advised to Eastern Railway
vide letter no CBS/DPG/1 Dated 11.03.2016(Annexure 1066/3).
6. Eastern railway is currently carrying out this modification is field and the result of
the modification in arresting the excess vibrations shall be known soon. This problem
has been reported on North Western Railway, as learnt during oral communication with
some officials.

(November 2016)
7. All railways where these girders are provided need to be examined afresh and
once the technical solution to the issue is found, modification of girders needs to be
done.
8. The committee may deliberate the issue and decide further course of action.
*************

(November 2016)
Annexure 1066/1

(November 2016)
Annexure 1066/2

(November 2016)
Annexure 1066/3

(November 2016)
ITEM No. 1067: Inspection proforma for PSC Girders.
BSC Ref : 955 (77th BSC)

RDSO File No’s : C-77 and CBS/DPC
Agenda : Inspection proforma for PSC Girders.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
CBE/SWR vide letter no. SWR/W-81/BSC Meeting/Vol-II, dated 25.07.2016

proposed subject Agenda Item No. 10 for 84th BSC Meeting.
The issue of Inspection Proforma has already been deliberated in details vide item
no. 955 of 77th BSC. During the deliberation of Item 955, a Proforma prepared by
IRICEN was circulated as below for feedback of CBE’s, but no feedback was received.
BRIDGE No._______
DETAILS OF BRIDGE
GAUGE___________ LOCATION AT KM__________

Section___________ LINE____________________
1. Number of Spans 6. Degree of
skewness
2. Span No. 7. Gradient on bridge,
if any
3. Clear Span 8. Curve on bridge,
if any
4. Overall Length 9. Super elevation on bridge
a) In rail
b) In bed block
5. Effective Span 10. Eccentricity of track
w.r.t. girders
11 Detail of Girders
(a) No. of Girders per span
(b) Type of Girder
(c) Spacing
(d) Girder Depth at end
(e) Girder Depth at center
(f) Bottom width of Girder
12 Type of Decking
13 Type of construction and location/ No. of construction joints/segmental joints/junction of precast and cast-in-
situ Slabs/Bracings/Diaphragms
Item No 934 Page 28

(November 2016)
14 (a) Type of bearing and Expansion arrangements
(b) Size and thickness of neoprene bearings including thickness of rubber and steel layers
(c) Restraint arrangement, if any
15 (a) Mix design used for concreting
(b) Admixtures used in concrete
(c) Special corrosion protection measures taken
(d) Type of reinforcement bars used
(e) Cover to reinforcement
(f) Wearing coat, type and thickness
16 (a) Details of Drainage arrangement
(b) Details of Ventilation arrangement
NAME OF RIVER----------------------
TERRITORIAL 1. PWI
2. AEN
3. DEN/Sr.DEN
17 Drawing No. of Girder

18 (a) Type of prestressing system and prestressing tendons used.
(b) No. & location of prestressing tendon
(c) Prestressing load on each tendon
(d) Type of cable ducts used and whether grouting done
(e) Dummy Cables, if any.
19 Designed Loading Standard
20 Date of placing girders on Bridge
21 DETAILS OF TRACK ON GIRDER SPANS
(a) Number of Track & c/c tracks

(b) Type & Weight of Rail
(c) Sleepers-Size, nos. per span and date laid
(d) Expansion joints-their type and location
(e) Guard Rails
(f) Location of rail joints
(g) Type of ballast and cushion
22 Depth from R.L. to top of Bed Blocks

23 Depth from R.L. to River bed level
24 Depth from R.L. to Summer water level
25 Depth from R.L. to bottom of Girder in the center of span and at end of span
26 Details of Gradients and curve on either side bridge approaches
(a) Near End (in increasing KMs)
(b) Far end
27 Type of foundation and depth from Rail level
28 Type of Abutments
29 Type of piers
30 Type and Size of Bed blocks/Pedestals
31 Details of jacking points of girder
32 (a) Type of surface coating done

(b) Painting Area
Item No 934 Page 29

(November 2016)
33 Girder weight (per span and total)
34 Location (a) Trolley refuges

(b) Safety refuges
(c) Foot-path
(d) Path-way
(e) Sand Bins
Br. No.______________
35. R.L. to H.F.L. and Date/Dates

of highest flood levels
36. Depth from R.L. to Danger Level
37. R.L. with respect to mean sea level.

38. Permanent Speed restrictions, if any and reasons of imposition.
39. Previous History of Bridge
40. Additions and alterations to original design
41. Year of Fabrication, Name of Fabricator

and Dimensioned Line sketch of Girder (End view and side view)
42. Sketches of Camber Diagram, Cable Profile
Section ----------------------------
43. CAMBER READINGS
DESIGNED CAMBER
READING
INITIAL ACTUAL
CAMBER READING
PANEL POINT
↓ YEAR CAMBER READINGS
44. DEFECT LIST

LOCATION OF REPAIRS DATE & REMARKS ON REMARKS ON YEAR Signature
DEFECT DETAILS OF CONDITION OF CONDITION OF
DEFECT DEFECT
Br. No._________
DT. OF LAST D.I.
Year, Nature And Condition of camber & Defects Date of cleaning of bearings, Condition of Bed Block
Date of Inspection. in readings, if any. Condition of Bearings and and Defects
Name &Desig. Of Defects
Inspecting Official
Item No 934 Page 30

(November 2016)
Section ________________________
Condition of Support point of Condition of End anchorage
Bearings & Defects Zone of PSC Elements and defects Sketches of Defects/Cracks noticed.
Br. No.___________
Year, Nature And Condition of Bottom Flange and Condition of Condition of Top Flange/Slab
Date of Inspection Defects Diaphragms/Cross Girder and including wearing coat & defects
Defects
Section_________________
Condition of Construction joints and Condition of Junction of Precast Beam & SKETCHES OF DEFECTS/CRACKS NOTICE
Defects Cast-in-situ Slab and Defects
Br. No._____________
Year, Nature and Condition of Expansion Joints Condition of Ventilation in case Temperature
Date of Inspection and Defects of box Girder and defects Inside Box Outside Box
Section__________________
Condition of Web of Girder Condition of Web of Condition of Area Sketches Defects/ Cracks
Along the In Box Girder on Girder in End Quarter Around Drainage Pipes Noticed
prestressing Interior Faces Span and defects
cables
Br. No._____________
Year, Nature and Date of Year of painting, Type of Cracks Nos. having tell-
Inspection paint, Condition of surface tales
Condition of Cracks under tell-tales
Protection Coating and
Defects
Section__________________
Condition of ladders, Experiments and trials under Signature of Inspecting Sketches of defects/cracks noticed
Railings, Inspection observation and official
Arrangements Miscellaneous Observations
Br. No.__________
Year of Inspection Recommendations of BRI on Defects Remarks of AEN (Bridges)
Noticed
Section__________
Orders of XEN (Bridges) Orders of Dy.CE(Bridges) Details of action taken on Previous
years’ orders.
RDSO vide letter no CBS/DPC dated 15-07-2009 submitted its views on the same
to the Railway Board. The RDSO’s views emphasize that the provisions of IRBM are
sufficient and cover almost all the items mentioned in the IRICEN Proforma.
Item No 934 Page 31

(November 2016)
Subsequently vide letter no CBS/DPC dated 5-11-2009, RDSO submitted a revised

Proforma also to Railway Board as below.
Add new Sub-Para 1107 (15) (I) as below:
“1107 (15) (I) In case of PSC girders, if the CRN is assessed to be 1, 2 or 3 by

the Inspecting Official in column no. 8 (relating to PSC Girder of standard
Proforma of Bridge Inspection Register for inspection of Major and Important
Bridges as per Annexure 11/9 Para 1103.4 of IR Bridge Manual), an additional
inspection Proforma should be submitted by the inspecting official as per the
Proforma given in Annexure 11/16 Para 1103.4 of the IR Bridge Manual.”
Alsoadd one new Annexure 11/16 para 1103.4 as under:
Annexure 11/16 Para 1103.4
Inspection Proforma for PSC girder
Division:........................... Block Section:………..…… Km Location:… …...

ADEN Sub Division:…………….. Bridge No:………………… Bridge Spans: ……..
Yea of Construction:…………….
Year and Span wise details of *Sketch of Defects/ Cracks Signature, Name and
Date of PSC girder & noticed, previous history of such Designation of the
inspection. component where defect (if any) details of Inspecting Official
defects/cracks condition/defects/cracks /observed
observed. (i.e. in PSC girder component (s) with
identification of reference to col. (2)
particular PCS girder or
/ its components etc)
1 2 3 4
*The length, width and type (longitudinal/transverse/horizontal/vertical/diagonal)

of the crack including its location with reference to identifiable component of the
PSC girder’s and details regarding any progression of such crack in width &
length assessed in previous inspection should also be indicated in the sketch. In
case there is no progression observed in width and length of such crack, it
should be marked as dormant crack
Add new Sub-Para 1103.4 (viii) as under: “1103.4 (viii): Proforma for inspection
of PSC Girders (Annexure 11/16).”
However, as per final deliberation on Item no. 955, Railway Board ordered for an
Advance Correction slip no 22 dated 28.03.2011 to Indian Railway bridge Manual
(IRBM) as below:-
“(I) Replace existing Para 1107 (15) (i) in IRBM with following and renumber it as
1107(15)(b)(i):
Item No 934 Page 32

(November 2016)
1107(15)(b)(i) – In case of PSC girders, assessment of loss of camber should

be done. Camber measurement should be at centre up to 20m span and at
centre& quarter points for spans more than 20m. Camber measurements
would be entered in column 8 of Annexure 11/9.
(II) Existing para 1107 (15) (b) is renumbered as 1107 (15)(b) (ii).”
This issue has been examined and it is found that provisions of inspection of
bridges exist in Chapter 11 of Indian Railway Bridge Manual. Para 15 of IRBM is related
to inspection of concrete bridges.
Modified Proforma in IRBM as annexure 11/9 (para 1103.4) will be following:-
PROFORMA FOR INSPECTION OF MAJOR AND IMPORTANT BRIDGES

CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION
Date of Foundation and Masonry Protective works and Bed Blocks
Inspection flooring extent of condition, extent Waterway scour, slips of Cracks, tendency
scour and of defect in settlements, sanctioned to move
damage substructure reserve available and whether
waterway is clear
1 2 3 4 5
Girder Steel work in the case of PSC/Concrete/Composite Sleepers, Year Line &
Bearings & steel/composite girder girder in superstructure of laying Level
expansion bridge structural condition condition of girders/ beams, condition and
arrangement and stage of painting. any cracks or defects renewals
noticed, condition of required
slabs/decks & Camber
6 7 8 9 10
Track on bridge Drainage Track on approaches,

Bearing plates & Guard rails Hook bolts arrangements on Approach slabs, ballast
their seating ballasted deck and walls & rails, earth slopes,
arch bridge etc.
11 12 13 14 15
Other items like trolley Action taken on last Initial of inspecting Initials of higher officials
refuges/foot paths, fire year’s notes official and URN with remarks
fightingequipments etc.
16 17 18 19
Committee may please deliberate.

*************
Item No 934 Page 33

(November 2016)
Review of action taken on pending items.
Item No. 934/84th: Criteria for safe load on arch bridge.
Ref: Item No. 934/76th/2007/CBS/DAB

COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS:
Committee noted that A&C Slip has been issued to Arch Bridge Code to arrive at
load carrying capacity by load testing for Arch Bridges of spans less than 4.57m.
Guidelines of Arch Bridges could not be issued as Committee could not meet
during the year.
COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS:
RDSO shall pursue to conduct meeting of committee nominated to issue
guidelines for Arch Bridges.
RAILWAY BOARD ORDERS:
The issue is long pending. The committee to submit its report latest by
31.10.2015.
PRESENT STATUS:
1. In compliance to RAILWAY BOARD ORDERS on 83rd BSC, the guidelines
on “Methodology of Load Testing and Calculation of Test Load for Testing of
Existing Arch Bridges” has been issued vide RDSO Report No. BS 116 on
06 June 2016.
2. Railway Board vide letter No. 2003/CE-I/BR-III/6 Pt. II Dated 14.09.2016 has
reconstituted a Committee for issuing guidelines regarding Assessment and
Retro-fitment of Arch Bridges comprising of following members:
a. Executive Director (Structures), RDSO : Convener
b. Sr. Professor (Bridge-I), IRICEN : Member
c. Chief Bridge Engineer, Eastern Railway : Member
The committee is to finalize and issue guidelines regarding Assessment and
Retro-fitment of Arch Bridges by 31st December 2016.
3. Accordingly, Five Arch Bridges of different Spans have been analyzed as per
formula given in book on Beams, Arches and frames, Issue 1, version
E1.06 from structx.com and the detailed calculations are enclosed and
results are summarized as under.
Item No 934 Page 34

(November 2016)
S. Br. Spa Rise Cus Thickn Arch Max. Max Permi Permi Resul With Resu With Result Remarks
N No. n (m) hion ess of barr Comp tensil ssible ssible t 100% lt 200%
o. (m) (m) Arch el stress e comp tensil over- Over-
ring leng (t/m2) stress stres e stres stres
(m) th in (t/m2)* s stres s s
m (t/m2) s (t/m2) (t/m2)
* (t/m2) ** **
*
1 844 3 1.4 1.1 0.46 4.8 43.9 0.00 54.79 10.75 Safe 109.5 Safe 164.3 Safe MD-PNU,
1 82 73 NWR
2 13 4.84 1.64 0.96 0.66 4.28 62.9 0.00 54.79 10.75 Safe 109.5 Safe 164.3 Safe Chapra-
1 82 73 Balia,
NER
3 149 6.09 2.06 1.37 0.61 5.23 90.1 0.00 54.79 10.75 Unsaf 109.5 Safe 164.3 Safe Kota-
6 1 e 82 73 Bina, WR
4 270 9.14 2.28 0.84 0.533 5.3 157.5 0.00 54.79 10.75 Unsaf 109.5 Unsa 164.3 Safe Poona-
4 6 1 e 82 fe 73 Miraj,
SCR
*Permissible comp stress as per clause no. 12.1.2 of IRS: Arch Bridge Code for brickwork in
lime mortar.
**Permissible comp stress when as per clause no. 5.16.2.2 of IRS: Substructure and
Foundation Code the overstress for Arch masonry is considered.
These bridges have also been analyzed through modified MEXE method and
Permissible Axle Load has been calculated as under:
SN Bridge Span Rise(m) Thickness Shape Depth Provisional Permissible Remarks

No (m) of Ring of Arch of Axle Load Axle Load
(m) fill(m) (KN) (t)
844 3 1.4 0.46 Parabolic 1.1 700 85.63 Hence Safe for
1
25t Loading
13 4.84 1.64 0.66 Parabolic 0.96 700 85.63 Hence Safe for
2
25t Loading
3
25t Loading
4
25t Loading
The detailed calculations are enclosed.
As per IRS: Arch Bridge Code Clause No. 12.1.2, the maximum permissible
compressive stress in arch is 0.5375 N/mm2 (54.0791 t/m2) & 0.8625N/mm2 (86.778
t/m2) for brickwork in lime mortar and cement mortar respectively and the maximum
permissible tensile/shear stresses in arch is 0.1075N/mm2 (10.525 t/m2) & 0.1725N/mm2
(16.890 t/m2) for brickwork in lime mortar and cement mortar respectively.
Item No 934 Page 35

(November 2016)
Whereas IRS: Substructure and Foundation Code, Clause No. 5.16.2.2, up to 200%
increase in Maximum Permissible Compressive stress in Masonry of Piers/Abutments is
permitted as below.
S. Max. Compressive Factor of safety for Remarks
stress/ equivalent compressive/equivalent
No
compressive stress compressive stress.
Without With
occasional occasional
load load
1 As per values given in IRS ≥ 6 ≥ 4.5
Bridge Substructure Code
vide clause 5.14.3 & 5.14.4
2 Upto 100% overstress ≥3 ≥ 2.25 Should be allowed subject to good condition of masonry
as contemplated for gauge conversion vide clause
5.16.3.2
3 Upto 200% overstress ≥2 ≥1.5 Can be allowed subject to good condition of masonry
and close observation of bridges as considered
necessary by the Chief Engineer after introduction of
new locomotive/ rolling stock or train composition
4 More than 200 % <2 < 1.5 Should be strengthened/ rebuilt to appropriate loading
overstress standard
Note: If maximum tensile stress exceeds by more than 100% of the values as contemplated in IRS
Bridge Substructure Code vide clause 5.14.3 & 5.14.4, tensile zone shall be neglected and
equivalent compressive stress shall be worked out.
Hence in same way overstressing up to 200% should be permitted in Masonry of

Arches too.
4. Committee may deliberate on this.

.
************
Item No 934 Page 36

(November 2016)
Item No. 995/84th: Revision of fatigue provisions in IRS Steel Bridge

Code.
Ref: Item No. 995/78th/2009/ CBS/PSB

1. RDSO has taken up design of open web girders with new fatigue provisions
to better understand the same.
2. The issues discussed in 82nd BSC need to be addressed. The study needs to
be completed by RDSO to decide this important item.
RDSO shall propose necessary correction slip.
RDSO to propose necessary correction slips for Fatigue provisions in steel
bridges after studying the design & cost implications. The item to be closed after
issue of correction slip.
PRESENT STATUS:
A. RDSO has prepared an A & C slip, completely re-revising the appendix G.
There are two major conceptual changes in the re-revised appendix, namely
to specify and change the loads taken for fatigue assessment, and to include
the fatigue assessment for existing bridges in the appendix whereas earlier
appendix was for new bridges only.
B. In 82nd BSC meeting, Railway Board had given orders that
1. The impact factor to be taken for fatigue assessment shall be 50% of
design impact factor.
2. The design procedure of members like diagonals which are not subject to
stress reversals for full magnitude of stress variation during passage of
trains shall be modified as:
a. Stress range in tension only shall be considered for fatigue.
b. 2/3rd of λ2 (factor for GMT) shall be used.
C. Railway Board had given orders that “RDSO to design a few structures with
proposed revisions and then propose necessary correction slip to IRS Steel
Bridge Code with necessary commentary”.
D. In 83rd BSC meeting, RDSO presented the results of few designs of open web
girders. The final correction slip was to be sent by RDSO after taking into
account these designs.
E. Upon further study and adequate experience gained with the fatigue design of
structures with new provisions, it was seen that there is no precedence for
Item No 995 Page 37

(November 2016)
reducing the λ2 value or using stress range in tension only for fatigue design
of diagonals in other codes. It was further found that the problem of increased
weight could be tackled by providing HSFG bolts. Accordingly, this change
has not been done.
F. Proposed A & C slip is placed at Annexure 995/1
G. Detailed comparison between the existing provisions and the proposed
provisions is placed at Annexure 995/2.
H. The important changes in Appendix G (re-revised) have been made as
follows (All references are to old clauses except where specifically written):
1. Major changes to the Appendix: There are two major changes in the re-
revised appendix, namely to specify and change the loads taken for
fatigue assessment, and to include the fatigue assessment for existing
bridges in the appendix whereas earlier appendix was for new bridges
only. These changes are in few paragraphs given below:
a. Clauses 6.2/12.5.1 merged and modified: These clauses have been
combined to remove duplication, and to give logical flow of the ideas.
This is the most important change in the revised appendix. The
provisions have been modified as clauses 6.2 (New) and 6.2.1 (New)
to specify the loads which are to be used for fatigue assessment. The
live loads alone are to be used for fatigue assessment as per
revised provisions, with 50% of impact. This problem was noticed
during design of open web girder and the revised provisions are as per
provisions of other codes, and as per orders of Railway Board on
discussions held in 83rd BSC meeting. (The recommendations
modifying design procedure for diagonal have not been found
technically in order)
b. Clause 6.7 modified: Provision changed to clause 6.2.2 (New) and
this now specifies actual train models to be used clearly and defines
the competent authority as Chief Bridge Engineer. In the revised
clause, the actual train history also allowed. This change expands
scope of existing appendix from mere design to include fatigue
assessment of existing bridges.
c. Clause 7/7.1.1: Revised as clauses 11/11.1/11.2(New). The earlier
revised appendix G provided for new design only. These clauses
permit use of field measurements for fatigue assessment. This is
especially useful for working out residual life of steel structures. This
change expands scope of existing appendix from mere design to
include fatigue assessment of existing bridges.
d. New Clauses 8.2 to 8.6 added to Re-revised Appendix ‘G’: These
clauses have been added to give step by step procedure for fatigue
evaluation/design. This is minor change.
Item No 995 Page 38

(November 2016)
e. Table 9.1: Fatigue categories 7(a) and 7(b) added for check for fatigue
stresses in shear. These are based on categories defined in EN:1993-
1-9, details 6 and 7.
f. Clauses 10.2.1/10.2.3/10.2.4/10.2.5 rewritten: These clauses have
been rearranged to explain the S-N curves properly. There was
problem in understanding the repetitive language in existing clauses.
g. Clauses 12.3.2.4, 12.3.2.7, 12.3.2.8, 12.3.3 and 12.3.3.1 deleted: The
appendix gives S-N curves with three slopes in different regions.
These clauses were in existing appendix allowed single or dual slope
curves to be used. Use of single/dual slope curves is slightly
conservative and these slightly ease the computations. However, these
provisions are not required in view of adequate computational efforts
available nowadays, as these are more likely to create confusion. This
is a minor change as it affects only cycles with low stress ranges.
h. Clause 3.6.4 of Steel Bridge Code: Revised to remove reference to
Bridge Rules as loads for assessment clearly specified in re-revised
appendix ‘G’.
i. Clause 3.6.5 of Steel Bridge Code: Use of other than standard
life/GMT allowed with the approval of CBE.
j. New clause 3.20.4 added to Steel Bridge Code, for specifying use of
re-revised appendix ‘G’ for fatigue assessment of existing bridges.
2. Clauses modified to specify competent authority: Few clauses in
appendix were dependent on decision by the competent authority but the
same was not specified. The same has been done in the following
clauses:
a. Clause 11.1: The authority to change partial safety factors has been
defined as Railway Board.
b. Clause 12.5.2.1: Reference to competent authority removed as no
decision is to be made for using simplified approach for design
because that is the only feasible option.
c. Clause 12.5.4.2: Competent authority defined as the designer for this.
3. Clauses modified to remove ambiguities or to provide proper codal
language or to remove premature reference to Palmgren-Miner’s
hypothesis: The appendix has numerous references to Palmgren-Miner’s
hypothesis even before the same was defined. This was creating
complexity in reading and understanding the appendix. Also, at few
locations, the codal language was not used which needed correction.
These clauses include: 4.2.9, 4.2.10, 6.1, 8.1/8.1.1/8.1.2, 6.1,
10.3.2.2/10.3.2.3.
4. Clauses deleted which were giving commentary or were for HM/MBG
loadings: Few clauses are actually commentary on how the various
Item No 995 Page 39

(November 2016)
provisions have been derived. There is no need for such clauses in the
final appendix. Few clauses/tables pertained to MBG/HM loadings which
are no longer valid for design, hence deleted. These include clauses 2.1,
3, 6.3, 6.4, Tables 6.1/6.2, 6.9, 8.3.2 to 8.3.4, 10.3.3.1, Figure 7, Appendix
G-B,
5. Clauses deleted due to being superfluous or being repetitive: Few
clauses were either superfluous or were repetition hence have been
deleted. These include clauses 5(One term, which was not used in
appendix anywhere), 6.9, 8.3, 8.3.1, 10.2.5, and 12.1.1 (3rd and 4th point),
12.2.5 to 12.2.6 and 12.5.1.
6. Changes in clause no/ figure nos/ table nos only: The readability of the
appendix is a major issue due to improper sequencing of the clauses. The
complete appendix has been reordered for a logical flow of ideas. The
clause nos/ table nos and figure nos are major changes in the clause nos
2.2 to 2.5, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.2.3 to 4.2.8, 4.2.11, 4.2.12, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.4 to
4.3.7, Tables 6.3/6.4, 7.1.4, 7.3, 8.2, 9, 9.1, 9.2, Tables 9.2 to 9.6, 10.1.2,
10.3.1/10.3.2/10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.4, 10.3.3, 11/11.2/11.2.1/ 11.3/ 11.3.1/11.4,
12, 12.1.1 (1st/2nd point), 12.1.2, 12.1.2.1 to 12.1.2.3, 12.2.1 to 12.2.4,
12.3/12.3.1/12.3.2/12.3.2.1 to 12.3.2.3, 12.3.2.5, 12.3.2.6, 12.3.2.9,
12.3.3.2, 12.3.4/12.3.4.1 to 12.3.4.7, 12.4, 2.5/12.5.2.1 to 12.5.2.3,
12.5.2.5, 12.5.3, 12.5.4/12.5.4.1 to 12.5.4.7 and Appendix G-A.
7. Minor changes: Some minor changes of wordings have been made in
these clauses at few places for better understandability: Clause nos 2.6,
4.2.1, 4.2.10, 6.5, 6.6, 6.8, 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.2, 8, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 10, 10.1,
10.1.1, 10.3.2.2, 10.3.2.3, 11/11.2/11.2.1/ 11.3/ 11.3.1/11.4, 12, 12.1.1
(1st/2nd point), 12.1.2, 12.1.2.1 to 12.1.2.3, 12.2.1 to 12.2.4,
12.3/12.3.1/12.3.2/12.3.2.1 to 12.3.2.3, 12.3.2.5, 12.3.2.6, 12.3.2.9,
12.3.3.2, 12.3.4/12.3.4.1 to 12.3.4.7, 12.4, 2.5/12.5.2.1 to 12.5.2.3,
12.5.2.5, 12.5.3, 12.5.4/12.5.4.1 to 12.5.4.7 and Appendix G-A. Clause
nos have also been changed in these clauses.
8. No change:There are no changes in many clauses. These are clause nos
1, 2, 4,4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.5, 4.2, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.3.3, 6 and 6.8 (a) to (c).
******************
Item No 995 Page 40

(November 2016)
Annexure 995/1
Comparison between the existing and proposed A&C Slip no. 18 to IRS Steel Bridge
Code
SN Existing clause Proposed Changes/ clause Remarks on changes

1. Clause 1: General and Clause 2: No change
Scope
2. Clause 2.1: This document - Deleted. By the issue of
supersedes the provisions in the A&C slip, the old appendix
IRS Steel Bridge Code (1962) with is superseded. Para is
regards to Fluctuations of Stress superfluous, hence deleted.
(Fatigue).
3. Clause 2.2 to 2.5 Renumbered as clause 2.1 No change
to 2.4 respectively
4. Clause 2.6 Renumbered as clause 2.5 Words added for better
and sub-para(b) changed clarity and to eliminate
by adding (No of cycles to duplicate clause no 12.1.1
failure < 10,000) last two paras.
5. Clause 3: - Deleted. This clause is a
Basis commentary on entire
The assessment for fatigue appendix, which is not
performance is based on required. Reference to
Palmgren-Miners’ law and shall be ‘cycles’ and ‘Palmgren
conducted by either of the Miner’s hypothesis’ at this
following: stage creates confusion .
(a) the evaluation of the
accumulated damage, or Deleted for better
(b) the evaluation of the understandability.
equivalent constant amplitude
stress range which would
cause the same damage for 2
million cycles of application.
The assessment shall also be
based on a classification of
structural detail or connection
depending upon their fatigue
strength. The design stress range
corresponding to 2 million cycles
are given for each fatigue class.
The provisions for the adequacy of
a structural connection or detail
shall be complied with, at each
critical location of the structure
subjected to cyclic loading,
considering relevant number of
cycles and magnitudes of stress
ranges expected to be experienced
at the location during the design life
of the structure.
Item No 995 Page 41

(November 2016)
6. Clause 4 Terms and Definition and No change

4.1 General
7. Clause 4.1.1 to 4.1.5 No change in clauses 4.1.1, Sequence of terms changed
4.1.2 and 4.1.5. Clause such that latter concepts
4.1.3 renumbered as clause build on the previous
4.1.4 and vice versa. concepts.
8. Clause 4.2 Loading and stress Clause 4.2 Loading and Slight modification done for
parameters stress parameters better explaining the term
Clause 4.2.1: Load/Loading event Clause 4.2.1: Load/Loading “load”.
A defined sequence of loads event
passed over the structure. This A defined sequence of
shall usually consist of a sequence loads (say, a train) which is
of axle loads, specified by the passed over the structure a
magnitude of the load and the definite number of times
interval between successive axles, during the life of a bridge.
or recommended equivalents to This shall usually consist of
represent the passage of a train. a sequence of axle loads,
specified by the magnitude
of the load and the interval
between successive axles,
or recommended
equivalents to represent the
passage of a train.
9. Clause 4.2.2 No change
10. Clause 4.2.3 Renumbered as clause Sequence of terms changed
4.2.6 such that latter concepts
11. Clause 4.2.4 Renumbered as clause build on the previous
4.2.3 concepts. Slight change in
12. Clause 4.2.5 Renumbered as clause one heading.
4.2.4
13. Clause 4.2.6: Design Spectra Renumbered as clause
4.2.5: Design spectrum
14. Clause 4.2.7 Renumbered as clause
4.2.8
4.2.9
16. Clause 4.2.9: Damage a) Renumbered as clause a) First line rearranged for
4.2.10 correcting grammar.
Damage is the ratio of the actual
b) Reference to Palmgren-
number of cycles subjected to b) Clause modified:
Miner’s rule removed as it
member detail/connection to the
Damage: Damage is the has not yet been explained.
number of cycles to failure at a
ratio of the actual number of
specific stress range.
cycles a member
Total damage is the linear detail/connection is
combination of the ratios of the subjected to and the
cycles of various stress ranges number of cycles to failure
present to the number of cycles to at a specific stress range.
failure, for each stress range in a This is computed for various
stress spectrum, in accordance with stress ranges and added up
the Palmgren – Miner’s cumulative
Item No 995 Page 42

(November 2016)
rule. as specified.
17. Clause 4.2.10: Renumbered as clause a) Word order changed for
Equivalent constant amplitude 4.2.11: better grammar.
stress range Equivalent constant b) Reference to Palmgren –
The constant amplitude stress amplitude stress range: The Miner’s rule removed as it
range that would result in the same constant amplitude stress has not yet been explained.
fatigue damage as the spectrum of range that would result in
variable actual amplitude stress the same fatigue damage
ranges, when the comparison is as the spectrum of actual
based on the Palmgren – Miner’s variable amplitude stress
cumulative rule. ranges.
18. Clause 4.2.11 Renumbered as clause Sequence of terms changed
4.2.12 such that latter concepts
19. Clause 4.2.12 Renumbered as clause build on the previous
4.2.7 concepts.
20. Clause 4.3 Fatigue Strength No change
21. Clause 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 Renumbered as clause
4.3.2 and 4.3.1
22. Clause 4.3.3 No change
4.3.6
24. Clause 4.3.5: Renumbered as clause
4.3.7
4.3.5
4.3.4
27. Clause 5: list of symbols Clause 5: This term is not used in
Definition of A&C slip, hence deleted.
symbol∆σC,reddeleted.
28. Clause 6. Fatigue Loads Clause 6. Fatigue Loads Reference to Palmgren –
Clause 6.1: Clause 6.1: Miner’s rule removed as it
The fatigue loading specified in this The fatigue loading has not yet been explained.
section shall be used for the specified in this section
determination of stresses at critical shall be used for the
locations of the railway bridge, by determination of stresses at
appropriate and accepted methods critical locations of the
of analysis. The stresses so railway bridge, by
determined will form the basis of appropriate and accepted
fatigue assessment of the detail or methods of analysis. The
connection in accordance with stresses so determined will
Palmgren Miner’s rule. form the basis of fatigue
assessment.
29. Clause 6.2 and Clause 12.5.1 Clause 6.2:For fatigue life The loads to be used for
Clause 6.2: assessment, only live load fatigue analysis specified and
The trains comprising the fatigue and associated effects such impact effect to be considered
load models shall be in accordance as dynamic effects, reduced to 50%. Clauses
11.5.2.4 and 11.2.5.4 which
with Bridge Rules prevailing, unless centrifugal effects,
were also specifying load have
otherwise specified. longitudinal loads and also been merged/ modified in
Item No 995 Page 43

(November 2016)
Clause 12.5.1: General racking loads only shall be this clause.

The recommended equivalents for considered subjected to the This isnd as discussed & decided
train loads shall be adopted in following: in 82 BSC meeting for item
accordance with existing provisions no. 995.
6.2.1 For fatigue Only live load + 50% Impact
of IRS Bridge Rules, including the
assessment, 50% of the (Cl 8.7.1 of AS 5100:2)
dynamic impact factor Φ, which is impact loads specified in Impact taken 35% to 65% with
calculated as (1.0 + CDA), where Bridge Rules shall be values as 35% for “Beams,
CDA is the coefficient of Dynamic considered. stringers, girders & floor
Augment as specified in IRS Bridge beams”[Cl 1.3.13(d) of AREMA
Rules. manual 2010, Vol. 2]
50% Impact [Cl D. 1(2) of EN
1991-2:2003]
Only traffic load gives rise to
fatigue [Cl. 4.6.1(1) & 4.6.1(2)
Note 1 of EN 1991-2:2003]
30. Clause 6.3 The recommended - Deleted.MBG/HM Loadings
traffic models for MBG standard to are no longer to be used for
be adopted for the specification of design. Hence these
the fatigue loads shall be in clauses are not required.
accordance with Table - 6.1
Clause 6.4 The recommended
traffic models for HM routes to be
adopted for the specification of the
fatigue loads shall be in
accordance with Table - 6.2
31. Clause 6.7: Other traffic models, in Clause 6.2.2: The fatigue This clause allows use of
addition to the above or any assessment can be done actual history and trains
modification thereof, may be for traffic forecast on a plying in section as this is
considered as specified by the bridge based on actual required for fatigue
competent authority. loading history of trains assessment of existing
passed over the bridge bridges. The competent
and/or future projection of authority has been
traffic. The future traffic specified. Also, instead of
models to be used shall be mentioning the traffic
as specified by Chief Bridge models considered in A & C
Engineer. Alternately, it can slip as “Recommended”, the
be done for standard train same has been mentioned
combinations. The following as “standard”.
standard train combinations
have been considered while
formulating the simplified
provisions for design as per
this code:
32. Clause 6.5:The recommended Renumbered as Clause Instead of “recommended”,
traffic models for standard 25 t 6.2.2.1: The standard traffic word “standard” used to
loading -2008 to be adopted for the models for 25 t loading - allow other traffic models to
specification of the fatigue loads 2008 to be adopted for be used. Table nos
shall be in accordance with Table - fatigue assessment shall be changed and the same
6.3 in accordance with Table - moved to Appendix G-I for
1, Appendix G-I. better readability of the
33. Clause 6.6:The recommended Renumbered as clause provisions.
Item No 995 Page 44

(November 2016)
traffic models for standard 32.5 t 6.2.2.2: The standard traffic

loading (DFC Loading) to be models for 32.5 t loading
adopted for the specification of the (DFC Loading) to be
fatigue loads shall be in adopted for fatigue
accordance with Table - 6.4 assessment shall be in
accordance with Table - 2,
Appendix G-I.
34. Clause 6.8: Renumbered as clause 6.4: Reworded, as per normal
In case of bridges with multiple In case of bridges with codal language
tracks, it is recommended that multiple tracks, loading shall
be done as follows
35. Clauses 6.8 (a) to (c) Renumbered as clause 6.4
(a) to (c)
36. Clause 6.9: - Deleted. This para which
In general, the fatigue assessment, gave overview of further
shall be conducted in accordance procedure was superfluous
with 12.5 using either the actual and was reducing
train loads or their recommended readability, hence deleted.
equivalents in accordance with the
Bridge Rules. The loaded length,
for simplified analysis, is that length
of the span which will give the
maximum stress in the structural
member or connection, when
loaded by an equivalent uniformly
distributed load.
37. Table 6.1/6.2 - Deleted as HM/MBG
loadings are not to be used
for design any more.
38. Tables 6.3/6.4 Renumbered as Tables
G.I.1 and G.I.2
39. Clause 7: Renumbered as clause 11 The clause shifted to clause
Determination of stresses Determination of stresses to 11 so that the methodology
be used for fatigue design: of fatigue assessment is
For each For each clear. In the existing A & C
structural detail or joint slip, these clauses are at
being assessed for fatigue, different places, creating
typical load event (or train) confusion.
produces a stress history
plot, depending on position
of the train at different time
intervals. A typical stress
history with time plot is
shown in Figure A.1 of
Appendix G-III. These
stresses for different
positions of train(s) shall be
obtained for member(s) as
follows:
40. - 11.1 Field Measurements: New clause added which
Item No 995 Page 45

(November 2016)
The stresses measured on specifies methodology for

members while actual actual field measurements.
trains/ test trains pass over The earlier clause 7.1.1 was
the bridge and the plot of allowing only static linear
variation of stresses with elastic analysis. Field
position of train can be used measurements are
for fatigue assessment of important for fatigue
existing bridges. Based on assessment of existing
these plots, stress history bridges.
plots shall then be obtained
for the other trains plying/
likely to ply on the bridge.
For parameters difficult to
replicate/ measure in field,
such as impact, suitable
modifications shall be made
as per Bridge rules. This
method captures the actual
behaviour of girders.
However, if the actual plot
shape/ magnitude of
stresses measured in field
vary too much as compared
with the theoretical
expected stresses, reasons
for the same shall be
studied and designer shall
decide if the measured
stresses are reliable for
fatigue assessment studies
or not.
41. Clause 7.1.1: Renumbered as clause Para reworded and split for
The stresses due to the moving 11.2:Theoretical better readability. It has
train loads shall be determined on Computations: Alternately, been added that the
the basis of static linear elastic the theoretical plot of stress stresses due to fatigue
analysis carried out in accordance with position of loads only is to be
with accepted principles and actual/expectedmoving train considered as mentioned in
practices, unless otherwise stated loads shall be worked out clause 6.
or implied, taking into account all for the fatigue loads
axial, bending and shear stresses specified in clause 6 above. The last line of the existing
occurring under the prescribed Stresses shall be clause 7.1.1 “No
fatigue loading. No redistribution of determined on the basis of redistribution of loads or
loads or stresses is permitted from static linear elastic analysis stresses is permitted from
any consideration whatsoever. carried out in accordance any consideration
Clause 7.1.3:(First Line) with accepted principles whatsoever” has been
The nominal stresses should be and practices, unless mentioned in proposed
calculated at the location of otherwise stated or implied, clause 11.3.1.
potential fatigue initiation. taking into account all axial,
bending and shear stresses
occurring under the
Item No 995 Page 46

(November 2016)
prescribed fatigue loading.

Clause 11.4 Modification in New clause introduced by
measured/computed adding first line from clause
stresses 7.1.3 and the second line
Clause 11.4.1: The nominal from clause 7.1.1. This
stresses should be makes it easier to
calculated at the location of understand the provisions.
potential fatigue initiation.
No redistribution of loads or
stresses is permitted from
any consideration
whatsoever.
42. Clause 7.1.2:(First Part) Renumbered as clause The clause 7.1.2 had two
Where applicable the effect of the 11.4.2: Where applicable, parts. The same is split up
following should be incorporated in effect of the following as clause 11.4.2 and 11.4.3
the stress calculations :- should be incorporated in for easier referencing. New
(a) Shear lag, restrained torsion the stress calculations:- clause 11.4.2(d) comes
and distortion, transverse stresses (a) Shear lag, restrained from 7.1.2 second part (c)
and flange curvature torsion and distortion, to avoid the double negative
(b) Effective width of steel transverse stresses and earlier used which makes it
plates flange curvature difficult to understand the
(c) Load application away from (b) Effective width of steel provisions. Part of 7.1.3
joints, member eccentricities at plates included here for making
joints and rigidity of joints in (c) Load application away the meaning clear.
triangulated skeletal structures. from joints, member
eccentricities at joints and
rigidity of joints in
triangulated skeletal
structures.
(d) Stress concentration
effects, when specifically
stated as a requirement for
a detail or joint, which shall
be accounted for by using
an appropriate stress
concentration factor.
43. Clause 7.1.2:(Second Part)The Renumbered as clause Clause 7.1.2 second part
effects of the following, however, 11.4.3: The effects of the joined with second line of
need not be included in the stress following need not be 7.1.3 for better clarity.
calculations included in the stress 11.4.3 (c) wording removes
(a) Residual stresses calculations the existing double negative
(b) Eccentricities arising in a (a) Residual stresses. in 7.1.2 (c)
standard detail (b) Eccentricities arising in a
(c) Stress concentration, except standard detail.
when specifically stated as a (c) The standard stress
requirement for a detail or joint. concentration associated
Clause 7.1.3:(Second Line) with a detail as given in
Stress concentration at details, tables G-II.1 to G-II.6 which
other than those covered in Tables has already been
9.1 to 9.6 shall be accounted for by considered in the fatigue
Item No 995 Page 47

(November 2016)
using an appropriate stress detail category.

concentration factor.
44. Clause 7.1.4: Renumbered as clause No change except clause
The stresses to be determined for 11.5: The stresses to be nos.
purposes of assessment of fatigue determined for purposes of
shall consist of the stresses as assessment of fatigue shall
defined in 7.2 and 7.3 for stresses consist of the stresses as
in the parent material and stresses defined in clauses 11.7 and
in welds respectively. 11.8 for stresses in the
parent material and
stresses in welds
respectively.
45. Clause 7.2: Renumbered as clause No change except in fourth
When geometric stress 11.7: Figures nos. updated. para, words “…..other than
concentration occurs, figure-2, the Slight change in fourth para: that already considered in
stress should be determined as When geometric stress fatigue category” added for
follows concentration (such as better clarity that stress
shown in figure-11.1 (b) concentration is to be
other than that already considered only if the same
considered in fatigue is not part of standard detail
category) occurs, the category.
nominal stress should be
determined as follows
46. Clause 7.3: Renumbered as clause
11.8. No change except the
clause renumbered and
figure number changed.
47. Clause 8: Renumbered as clause 12: Reference to Palmgren-
Determination of stress ranges and Determination of stress Miner rule removed as it
cycles ranges and cycles for has not yet been explained.
8.1: General fatigue life assessment: Minor changes done to
Typical load events produce a Renumbered as clause 12.1 include the reference to
stress history, with respect to the General: Typical load clause 11.
position of the leading train axle, events analysed as per
depending on the location of the clause 11 produce a stress
structural detail or joint being history, with respect to the
assessed for fatigue. This variation position of the leading train
of stress in the stress history can axle, depending on the
be highly irregular except in those location of the structural
cases where a simplified analysis is detail or joint being
conducted in accordance with assessed for fatigue. This
clause 12.5. variation of stress in the
8.1.1: The stress history as stated stress history can be highly
above cannot be used directly to irregular. The stress history
assess the damage as stated above cannot be
usingPalmgren-Miner cumulative used directly to assess the
damage rule which requires the damage and cycle counting
number of occurrences (cycles) ni techniques are required to
of stress range ∆σi. be used. The purpose of
8.1.2: The purpose of cycle cycle counting is to reduce
Item No 995 Page 48

(November 2016)
counting is to reduce a complex a complex stress history to

stress history to a sequence of a sequence of stress
stress ranges and the ranges and the
corresponding number of cycles of corresponding number of
occurrence in the stress history. cycles of occurrence in the
stress history.
48. Clause 8.2: Renumbered as clause No change.
12.2:
49. Clause 8.2.1: Renumbered as clause First line deleted as same is
Determination of stress ranges and 12.2.1: confusing. Technical
cycles by the reservoir method Determination of stress content of this line already
This method of cycle counting is ranges and cycles by the covered in appendix-III.
most suited to stress histories reservoir method: The
consisting of a few peaks and method consists of
troughs as produced by simplified imagining the stress history
analysis using recommended as the section of a reservoir
equivalent loads. The method which is drained
consists of imagining the stress successively from each of
history as the section of a reservoir the lowest points till the
which is drained successively from reservoir is empty. Each
each of the lowest points till the draining operation is
reservoir is empty. Each draining considered to be equivalent
operation is considered to be to one cycle of a stress
equivalent to one cycle of a stress range equal in magnitude to
range equal in magnitude to the the maximum height of
maximum height of water drained in water drained in that
that particular operation (see particular operation (see
Appendix G-A). Appendix G-III)
50. Clause 8.2.2: Renumbered as clause Rules of method removed
Determination of stress ranges and 12.2.2: from this clause as these
cycles by the rainflow method Determination of stress are already given in
The rainflow method as the name ranges and cycles by the appendix G-III.
suggests counts half cycles based rainflow method: The
on the visualization of the complex rainflow method as the
stress history as a sequence of name suggests counts half
pagoda roofs over which rain cycles based on the
tickles down. In order to achieve visualization of the complex
the above the stress history is stress history as a
rotated by 90o (see Appendix G-A). sequence of pagoda roofs
The rules for counting half cycles over which rain tickles
are as follows:- down. In order to achieve
- A drop begins to flow left from the the above the stress history
upper side of a peak or right from is rotated by 900 (see
the lower side of a trough onto Appendix G-III). Counting of
subsequent roofs unless the cycles shall be done as per
surface receiving the drop is rules given in Appendix G-
formed by a peak which is more III
positive than the origin of the drop
for a left flow, or, a trough that is
more negative for a right flow.
Item No 995 Page 49

(November 2016)
-The path of a drop cannot cross

the path of a drop which has fallen
from a higher roof.
-The horizontal displacement of the
drop from its origin to its final
position measured in appropriate
stress units represents a half cycle
of the associated stress range.
51. Clause 8.3 Modification of stress Renumbered as clause 11.6 Both clauses, 8.3.1 and
ranges Modification of stress 12.4 merged and moved to
8.3.1 General ranges based on geometric clause 11.6 for logical flow
The fatigue assessment should be stress range: of ideas and to avoid
carried out using 11.6.1 Where abrupt duplication as earlier. The
(a) Nominal stress ranges for changes of section occur stress range to be used is
details shown in tables 9.1 to close to the potential crack already covered in old
9.5 locations (for details not clause 12.4.5, which has
(b) Modified nominal stress ranges covered in tables G.II.1 to been merged with 11.6.1.
where abrupt changes of G.II.5), high stress As given below, clauses
section occur close to the gradients occur close to a 12.4.1 to 12.4.4
initiation of potential crack weld in toe joints (covered renumbered as 11.6.2 to
locations (for details not in Table G-II.6), geometric 11.6.5.
covered in tables 9.1 to 9.5) stress range shall be used.
(c) Geometric stress ranges where
high stress gradients occur
close to a weld in toe joints
covered in table 9.6
The design values of stress range
to be used for the fatigue
assessment should be the stress
range γFf*∆σE,2corresponding to NC
= 2 x 106 cycles.
52. Clause 8.3.2 to clause 8.3.4 - Deleted as these clauses
are giving theory of fatigue
design. The λ values to be
used ought to be clearly
specified in the code. These
clauses were creating
confusion with the
designers, hence deleted.
53. Clause 9, 9.1 and 9.2 No change except table nos Tables shifted to Appendix
Tables 9.1 to 9.6 changed to Tables G.II.1 to G-II for better readability of
G.II.6. the A & C slip.
Table 9.1 Table G.II.1 These categories are
Fatigue categories 7(a) and required for fatigue design
7(b) added. Fatigue of shear stresses. Fatigue
category 100. category same as in table
8.1 of EN:1993-1-9, details
6 and 7.
54. Clause 10: Clause 10: No change except heading
S-N Curves Determination of fatigue which has been changed to
Item No 995 Page 50

(November 2016)
strength reflect the actual purpose of

this clause in the design
process.
55. Clause 10.1: No change except figure no. Fig. 3 has been
changed renumbered as fig. 10.1.
56. Clause 10.1.1 10.2. Parameters of S-N
curves
Renumbered as clause
10.2.1
10.2.2
58. Clause 10.2:Specification of S-N Rewritten in clause 10.2.3 Fig. 4 and 5 has been
curves and 10.2.4 renumbered as fig 10.2 and
The fatigue strength curves for 10.2.3: S-N curve for 10.3 respectively.
constant amplitude nominal constant amplitude normal
stresses are as shown in figures 4 stress ranges: These Clause separated into two
and 5 and are defined as :- curves for different fatigue separate clauses to explain
NR *(∆σR)m = 2 * 106 * (∆σC)m categories are shown in the two different curves and
with m=3 for N ≤ 5*106 figure 10.1. Each curve is also divided into sub-
NR *(∆τR)m = 2 * 106 * (∆τC)m described as below: clauses to explain the
with m=5 for N ≤ 108 10.2.3.1: From 104 cycles to curves properly.
1
where ∆σ =  2  3 * ∆σ = 0.7368∆σ is the 5 x 106 cycles, the curve Appendix G-B has been
D
5
C C has a negative slope of 3. deleted as it was a
constant amplitude fatigue limit The value of ∆σD at 5 x 106 commentary on how the
and
1
 2  5 is cycles is called constant values in curves have been
∆τ = 
L  * ∆τ = 0.4573∆τ
C C amplitude fatigue limit. The worked out.
 100 
the cut off limit at 100 million fatigue strength in this part
cycles. is defined by:
10.2.1: The fatigue strength curves NR *(∆σR)m= 2 * 106 * (∆σC)m,
for nominal stress spectra above with m=3 for NR≤ 5*106
and below the constant amplitude Where
fatigue limit ∆σD are defined as :- 2
1
3 and
∆σ =
D   * ∆σ = 0.7368 ∆σ
C C
5
m 6 m
NR * (∆σR) = 2 * 10 * (∆σC) NR is the number of cycles
with m=3 for N ≤ 5*10 6 to failure corresponding to
∆σR read from the
NR * (∆σR)m = 5 * 106 * (∆σD)m appropriate S-N curve.
with m=5 for 5*106≤ N≤108 10.2.3.2 From 5 x 106
where ∆σ =  5  * ∆σ = 0.5493 * ∆σ is cycles to 1 x 108 cycles, the
1
5
L D D
 100  curve has a negative slope
the cut off limit at 100 million cycles
Item No 995 Page 51

(November 2016)
Clause 10.2.3 Fatigue strength of 5. The value of ∆σL at 100

curves for nominal normal stresses million cycles is called cut
for typical detail categories are as off limit. The fatigue
given in figure 4. The characteristic strength in this part is
fatigue strength for each category defined by:
is specified by the stress range NR * (∆σR)m = 5 * 106 *
corresponding to failure at 2 million (∆σD)m
cycles. The limiting stress range is with m=5 for 5*106< NR≤108
the magnitude of the stress range where
corresponding to 10000 cycles to 1
 5  5
failure while the constant amplitude ∆σ L =   * ∆σ D = 0.5493 * ∆σ D
 100 
fatigue limit and the cut off limit are
the fatigue strengths corresponding 10.2.3.3 Beyond 1 x 108
to 5 million and 100 million cycles cycles, the curve has NIL
to failure respectively. The curve slope and there is no
has a constant slope m = 3 from fatigue damage.
the limiting stress range to the 10.2.4 S-N curve for
constant amplitude fatigue limit. constant amplitude shear
The fatigue strength curve is stress ranges: These
bilinear with a constant slope m = 5 curves for different fatigue
from the constant amplitude fatigue categories are shown in
limit to the cut off limit. The figure 10.3. Each curve is
numerical values for calculating the described as below:
fatigue strength are as given in 10.2.4.1 From 104 cycles to
Table 10.1(Also see Table 10.1A in 1 x 108 cycles, the curve
Appendix G-B). has a negative slope of 5.
Clause 10.2.4 The fatigue strength The value of ∆τL is the cut
curves for nominal shear stress off limit at 100 million
ranges are as given in figure 5. The cycles. The fatigue strength
characteristic fatigue strength for curves for shear stress are
each category is specified by the defined as:
stress range corresponding to NR *(∆τR)m = 2 * 106 *
failure at 2 million cycles. The (∆τC)m,
limiting stress range is the with m=5 for NR≤ 108
magnitude of the stress range where
1
corresponding to 10000 cycles to  2  5
∆τ L =   * ∆τ C = 0.4573∆τ C
failure while there is no constant  100 
amplitude fatigue limit the cut off is the cut off limit at 100
limit is the fatigue strength million cycles
corresponding to 100 million cycles 10.2.4.2 Beyond 1 x 108
to failure as in the case of nominal cycles, the curve has NIL
normal stresses. The curve has a slope and there is no fatigue
single constant slope m = 5 from damage.
the limiting stress range to the cut
off limit. The numerical values for
calculating the fatigue strength are
as given in Table 10.2(Also see
Table 10.2A in Appendix G-B).
59. Clause 10.2.2: Renumbered as clause Equation for ∆τR added to
The fatigue strength curves for 10.2.5: cover shear stress also.
Item No 995 Page 52

(November 2016)
nominal normal stresses are also Equations defining S-N The earlier term N was
defined by curves: The fatigue strength wrong as per definitions of
log N = log a – m * log ∆σR where curves for nominal the terms given in clause 2,
∆σR is the fatigue strength normal/shear stresses are hence corrected to NR.
N is the number of cycles to also defined by Word ‘corresponding’ added
failure of stress range ∆σR log NR = log a – m * log for better clarity separately.
m is the constant slope of the ∆σR or log NR = log a – m *
fatigue strength curves log ∆τR
log a is a constant which depends where ∆σRor ∆τR is the
on the specific segment of the fatigue strength
fatigue curve NR is the number of
The numerical values for the cycles to failure of stress
fatigue strength curves for normal range ∆σR or ∆τR
and shear stress ranges are as m is the constant slope
given in Tables 10.1 and 10.2 of the fatigue strength
respectively. curves
log a is a constant which
depends on the specific
segment of the fatigue
curve.
The numerical values for
the fatigue strength curves
for normal and shear stress
ranges as defined by above
are given in Tables 10.1
and 10.2 respectively.
60. Clause 10.2.5 The above fatigue - Deleted as it is already
strength curves will not be covered in exceptions in
applicable for stress ranges which clause 2.
are associated with less than
10000 cycles to failure.
61. Clause 10.3, Clause 10.3.1, Clause Clause 10.3, Clause 10.3.1, The wording “figure 6” has
10.3.2 and 10.3.2.1 Clause 10.3.2 and 10.3.2.1: been replaced by “Figure
No change except figure no. 10.3”
Headings added to 10.3.1
and 10.3.2
62. Clause 10.3.2.2: The variation of Merged and renumbered as Slight rewording done by
fatigue strength with thickness, of clause 10.3.2.2: merging old 10.3.2.2 and
the parent metal, greater than 25 Where the material 10.3.2.3.
mm shall be accounted for by thickness of the structural
reducing the fatigue strength as :- detail is greater than 25
mm, the effect of thickness
∆σ R ,t = ∆σ R * (25 / t ) 0.20 shall be accounted for by
reducing the fatigue
Clause 10.3.2.3: Where the
strength as :-
material thickness of the structural
detail is less than 25 mm the ∆σ R ,t = ∆σ R * (25 / t )
0.20
,
fatigue strength shall be taken as where 25/t ≤1
that for a thickness of 25 mm
∆σ R ,t = ∆σ R
Item No 995 Page 53

(November 2016)
63. Clause 10.3.2.4: Renumbered as clause

10.3.2.3
64. Clause 10.3.3 Table and figure nos.
changed.
65. Clause 10.3.3.1, Figure 7 and - Deleted. 10.3.3.1 and Fig 7
Appendix G-B described the way in which
the values in Appendix B
have been worked out. This
was a commentary on code
as to how the curves have
been derived. Deleted as
not required in the code.
66. Clause 11 Renumbered as clause 7 Sequence changed as the
partial safety factors shall
be decided before the
design is taken up in hand.
67. Clause 11.1:General Renumbered as clause 7.1 Competent authority
The values of the partial safety General: The values of the defined.
factors to be used shall be as partial safety factors to be
specified herein unless otherwise used shall be as specified
recommended by the appropriate herein unless otherwise
competent authority, taking into due recommended by the
consideration: Railway Board, taking into
(a) the ease of access for due consideration:
inspection or repair and likely (a) the ease of access for
frequency of inspection and inspection or repair and
maintenance, likely frequency of
(b) the consequences of failure. inspection and
maintenance,
(b) the consequences of
failure
68. Clause 11.2 and 11.2.1 Merged and renumbered as No change
clause 7.2
69. Clause 11.3 and 11.3.1 Merged and renumbered as No change
clause 7.3
70. Clause 11.4 Renumbered as clause 7.4 No change
71. Clause 12: Renumbered as clause 3: Renumbered for proper
Fatigue assessment procedures Limitations of provisions in order of terms/concepts.
this Appendix The limitations of the
provisions shall come
before the provisions are
enumerated.
72. Clause 12.1.1(First part): Renumbered as clause 3.1 Paragraphs numbered for
Limitations & 3.2: easy referencing
- For fatigue assessment, all 3.1 For fatigue assessment,
nominal stresses, direct or shear, all nominal stresses, direct
shall be within the elastic limits of or shear, shall be within the
the material. The range of the elastic limits of the material.
design values of such stresses The range of the design
shall not exceed 1.5 fy for normal values of such stresses
Item No 995 Page 54

(November 2016)
stresses or 1.5 fy/√3 for shear shall not exceed 1.5 fy for
stresses. normal stresses or 1.5 fy/√3
- The fatigue strengths specified in for shear stresses.
this document are applicable to 3.2 The fatigue strengths
structures where suitable corrosion specified in this document
protection measures have been are applicable to structures
undertaken and corrosion is not where suitable corrosion
allowed to take place. protection measures have
been undertaken and
corrosion is not allowed to
take place.
73. Clause 12.1.1(Second part): - Deleted as these are
- The fatigue assessment already included in clause
procedures herein are applicable 2.5.
only to structures subjected to
temperatures not exceeding 150
°C.
- The constant amplitude stress
range or a component of the
variable amplitude stress ranges,
under the prescribed fatigue
loading, for a structural connection
or detail is such that either the
nominal stress range exceeds the
limiting stress or the endurance is
equal to or less than 10,000 cycles.
74. Clause 12.1.2: Renumbered as clause 8.1: Clause no. 8 in re-revised
Exceptions: No fatigue assessment No fatigue assessment: appendix gives method for
is required when any of the Fatigue assessment is not carrying out assessment.
following conditions is satisfied; required in the following This clause has shifted
cases: there to ensure all relevant
clauses are at one place.
75. Clause 12.1.2.1 to Clause 12.1.2.3 Renumbered as clause
8.1.1 to clause 8.1.3
76. - Clause 8.2 Classification of New clauses added to
details: All details which are explain the step by step
to be designed under procedure in fatigue
fatigue shall first be evaluation/design.
classified so that standard
curves known as S-N
curves (explained in clause
10)shall be used wherever
possible. The details shall
be classified as per clause
9.
Clause 8.3 Determination of
fatigue strength:
Corresponding to the detail
classification, the fatigue
strength shall be worked out
Item No 995 Page 55

(November 2016)
as per clause 10.

Clause 8.4 Determination of
stress history: For each
detail to be studied under
fatigue, stress histories to
be used for fatigue study
have to be determined. If
actual field measurements
or detailed analytical
analysis of stresses is being
done, clauses 11 and 12
shall be followed. For new
construction, especially
where the accurate traffic
details are not available,
simplified method given in
clause 14 may be followed.
Clause 8.5 Fatigue
Assessment: The fatigue
assessment of each detail
shall be done as per clause
13.
Clause 8.6: Simplified
fatigue analysis may be
done as per clause 14 if
actual field measurements
or detailed analytical
analysis of stresses are not
done.
77. Clause 12.2: Renumbered as clause 13:
General Fatigue assessment:-
Fatigue assessment refers
either to checking if a
member has been designed
with adequate fatigue life or
to verifying if the residual
fatigue life of a member is
adequate. Stresses
determined/ modified in
accordance with clause 12
shall be used for this
purpose.
78. Clause 12.2.1 Renumbered as clause 13.1
79. Clause 12.2.2 to 12.2.4 Renumbered as clauses Table nos changed.
11.3.1 to 11.3.3
80. Clause 12.2.5 and clause 12.2.6 - Deleted. These sub-clauses
arealready included in
existing clauses 7.2.2 and
7.2.3.
81. Clause 12.3 Fatigue assessment Renumbered as clause Shear stress also added for
Item No 995 Page 56

(November 2016)
based on nominal stress ranges 13.2: Fatigue assessment completing the provisions
12.3.1 Constant amplitude loading based on nominal stress
For constant amplitude loading the ranges
fatigue assessment criterion is: 13.2.1 Constant amplitude
γ Ff * ∆σ ≤ ∆σ R / γ Mf loading
For constant amplitude
where ∆σ is the nominal stress loading the fatigue
range assessment criterion is:
and ∆σR is the fatigue ∗∆ ≤ ∆ / or
strengthfor the relevant detail ∗∆ ≤ ∆ /
category for the total number of where ∆σ(or ∆τ) is the
cycles N during the required design nominal stress range.
life. ∆σR (or ∆τR) is the fatigue
strength for the relevant
detail category for the total
number of cycles N during
the required design life.
and γ and γ shall be
as per clause 7.4
82. Clause 12.3.2 Variable amplitude Renumbered as clause This is the appropriate
loading 13.2.2 Variable amplitude location for stating
12.3.2.1 For variable amplitude loading Palmgren-Miner’s
loading defined by a design 13.2.2.1 For variable hypothesis as it has been
spectrum, the fatigue assessment amplitude loading defined described in succeeding
shall be based on Palmgren-Miner by a design spectrum, the para.
rule of cumulative damage. fatigue assessment shall be
based on Palmgren-Miner
rule of cumulative damage
given in clause 13.2.2.3
below.
83. 12.3.2.2 If the maximum stress Renumbered as clause
range due to the variable amplitude 13.2.2.2
loading is higher than the constant
amplitude fatigue limit, then one of
the following types of fatigue
assessment shall be made;
- Cumulative damage
- Equivalent constant amplitude
84. 12.3.2.3 A cumulative damage 13.2.2.3 A cumulative Shear stress values added
assessment may be made using damage assessment may to make the clause
ni be made using complete. The source of
Dd≤ 1 where Dd = ∑ ni values also added for
Ni Dd≤ 1 where Dd = ∑Ni clarity.
whereniand Ni are the number of
cycles of stress range ∆σi during whereniand Ni are the
the required design life, and the number of cycles of stress
number of cycles of stress range range ∆σi(or ∆τi)during the
γFf. γMf . ∆σi to cause failurefor the required design life,
relevantdetail category. takenfrom stress range
histogramand the number of
Item No 995 Page 57

(November 2016)
cycles of stress range γFf .

γMf .∆σi(or γFf*γMf*∆τi) to
cause failurefor the
relevantdetail category,
read from the appropriate
S-N curve given in clause
10.
85. Clause 12.3.2.4, 12.3.2.7, 12.3.2.8 - Deleted. These clauses
and 12.3/12.3.3.1 allowed use of either a
single slope curve or a
double slope curve or a
triple slope curve. The
single/ double slope curves
are slightly conservative but
the computations are easier
with these. Given that work
can be done with
computers/ calculators, the
ease of computations is not
really required, hence the
clauses deleted.
86. Clause 12.3.2.6 Renumbered as clause
13.2.5and formula for shear
included.
13.2.6and formula for shear
included.
88. Clause 12.3.2.5 and 12.3.3.2 Renumbered as 13.2.3 and The Ni computations shifted
13.2.4 to the location where these
are to be used, for proper
sequencing
90. Clause 12.3.4.1 to 12.3.4.7 Renumbered as clause
13.3.1 to 13.3.7
91. Clause 12.4 Fatigue Assessment Renumbered asClause Merged with clause 8.3.1
based on geometric stress ranges 11.6Fatigue Assessment and incorporated as clause
Clause 12.4.1 to 12.4.4 based on geometric stress 11.6.
ranges
Renumbered as clause
11.6.2 to 11.6.5. Only
clause number changed as
per new numbers.
92. Clause 12.4.5 - Deleted. This is included in
clause 11.6.1.
93. Clause 12.5.1 - Deleted. Loads for fatigue
assessment already
included in new clause 6.2
94. Clause 12.5/12.5.2.1: Assessment Renumbered as clause 14: There shall be no need for
for simplified load models: Simplified Approach if taking permission from any
For the simplified fatigue loading actual field measurements authority for using simplified
Item No 995 Page 58

(November 2016)
the following procedure may be or detailed analytical analysis. In practice, this is

adopted to determine the design analysis of stresses is not the default method for
stress spectrum, unless specified done: For the simplified fatigue design.
otherwise by the competent fatigue assessment, the
authority following procedure may be
adopted to determine the
design stress spectrum:
95. Clause 12.5.2.2: The maximum Renumbered as clause Both clauses merged and
stress σP,maxand the minimum 14.1: reference given to clause 6
stress σP,minshould be determined For a detail or structural to avoid repetition of
for a detail or structural connection connection being assessed provisions. Equivalent
by evaluating influence areas for fatigue, the maximum Uniformly Distributed Loads
Clause 12.5.2.5:The fatigue stress stress σP,maxor τP,maxand the explicitly allowed for
spectra may also be obtained by minimum stress σP,minor simplified approach. The
evaluation of stress histories τP,minshould be determined reference to shear stresses
fromtrain formation diagrams as for the live loads specified included to make the para
specified in the existing Bridge in clause 6. Instead of complete.
Rules. actual train loads, the
Equivalent Uniformly
distributed loads as
specified in IRS Bridge
Rules may be used.
96. Clause 12.5.2.3 Renumbered as clause 14.2
and reference for shear
stresses given.
97. Clause 12.5.2.4 - Deleted. This is covered in
clause 6 in the revised A &
C slip and hence not
required to be repeated
again.
98. - New clause 14.3: Modification of stress range
Modification of the above for stress concentration,
stress range may be done compressive/ tensile
in accordance with clause effects, thickness, etc. is
10.3 and 11.4, if applicable. required in simplified
approach also.
99. Clause 12.5.3: Renumbered as clause ∆σC /∆τC defined here for
Fatigue assessment 14.5Fatigue assessment: clarity.
The fatigue assessment
The fatigue assessment shall be shall be carried out by
carried out by ensuring the ensuring the satisfaction of
satisfaction of the following criteria: the following criteria:
γFf *∆σE,2 ≤∆σC / γMf γFf *∆σE,2 ≤∆σC / γMf
and and γFf *∆τE,2 ≤∆τC / γMf
γFf *∆τE,2 ≤∆τC / γMf Where ∆σC or ∆τC is the
reference value of the
fatigue strength for the
relevant detail (at 2 million
cycles).
Item No 995 Page 59

(November 2016)
101. Clause 12.5.4.1 & 12.5.4.7 Renumbered as clause The value of λmax from
14.6.1 clause 12.5.4.7
incorporated here itself for
easier reading.
102. Clause 12.5.4.2 Renumbered as clause Table nos changed and
The value of λ1 may be obtained 14.6.2: reference to MBG and HM
from tables 7.1 to 7.4 for MBG The value of λ1 may be loadings removed as these
loading, HM loading, 25t loading – obtained from tables 14.6.2 are not to be used for
2008 and 32.5t loading (1) and 14.6.2 (2)for 25t design any more.
(DFC)respectively as a function of loading – 2008 and 32.5t Reference to old clause 6.9
the loaded length (see 6.9) for the loading (DFC) respectively not required as the
train types included in respective as a function of the loaded sequence of clauses has
traffic models. The loaded length length for the train types been rectified.
shall depend upon the influence included in respective traffic The designer given
line diagram of the structural models. The loaded length authority to use alternative
element or detail/connection under shall depend upon the values of λ1 if other train
consideration. For simplified influence line diagram of the types are there.
analysis the maxima for each structural element or
length category could be adopted. detail/connection under
For routes with train types other consideration. For simplified
than those considered above, the analysis the maxima for
competent authority may specify each length category could
alternative values of λ1. be adopted. For routes with
train types other than those
considered above, the
designer may use
alternative values of λ1.
103. Clause 12.5.4.3 to 12.5.4.4 Renumbered as clause Only figure number
14.6.3 and 14.6.4 changed.
104. Clause 12.5.4.5: Renumbered as clause For 100 years life, the value
Unless otherwise specified by the 14.6.5: of λ3 comes to 1.00 only. In
competent authority the value of λ3 The value of λ3, in terms of view of flexibility in design
will be taken as 1.00 for a design the design life may be life being given in clause
life of 100 years. For other values calculated from the 3.6.5 of Steel Bridge Code,
of design life the corresponding following expression where the clause is reworded. The
value may be calculated from the LD is the design life in earlier clause was
following expression where LD is the years:- contradictory in this sense.
design life in years λ3 = 0.3899 * LD 0.2048
λ3 = 0.3899 * LD 0.2048

14.6.6
106. Clause 12.5.4.7 Combined with 14.6.1
107. Appendix G-A Renumbered as Appendix No change.
G.III
108. Clause 3.6.4 of Steel Bridge Code- Clause 3.6.4 of Steel Bridge The loads to be used for
For any structural member or Code - For any structural fatigue assessment have
connection, the fatigue assessment member or connection, the been specified in Appendix
shall be made as per Appendix ‘G’ fatigue assessment shall be ‘G’ (re-revised), hence
(revised) for a specified ‘Design made as per Appendix reference to Bridge Rules
Item No 995 Page 60

(November 2016)
Life’ and ‘Fatigue Load Model’. The ‘G’(re-revised)for a removed.

trains comprising the fatigue load specified ‘Design Life’ and
models shall be in accordance with ‘Fatigue Load Model’.
Bridge Rules.
109. Clause 3.6.4 of Steel Bridge Code- Clause 3.6.4 of Steel Bridge The standard design life
The fatigue assessment shall be Code - The fatigue and GMT are creating
made for a standard design life of assessment shall be made problems in sections like
100 years for a standard GMT of for a standard design life of DFC where much higher
50. 100 years for a standard GMT is anticipated, hence
Note:- No allowance for fatigue GMT of 50. However, any freedom to change the
need be made in the design of Foot other design life/annual standard values
Over Bridges. GMT may be used for incorporated.
design with the approval of
Chief Bridge Engineer.
Note:- No allowance for
fatigue need be made in the
design of Foot Over
Bridges.
110. - Add a new clause 3.20.4 of The correction slip has
Steel Bridge Code - Fatigue been expanded to include
assessment for Existing the fatigue assessment of
Bridges- The procedure existing bridges, hence this
given in appendix ‘G’ (Re- clause proposed to be
Revised) shall be followed introduced. The use of
for carrying out fatigue actual field measurements
assessment of members of or numerical models
existing bridges, using validated with field
either actual field measurements shall help in
measurements or numerical correct assessment of
models validated with field residual fatigue assessment
measurements. Traffic and of existing steel bridges.
repair history of the bridge
shall be used as accurately
as possible. In the absence
of accurate data,
conservative estimates shall
be made.
************
Item No 995 Page 61

Annexure 995/2
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
INDIAN RAILWAY STANDARD

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE DESIGN OF
STEEL OR WROUGHT IRON BRIDGES
(STEEL BRIDGE CODE)
Adopted – 1944
Revised – 1962
Reprinted in 1977
(Incorporating Correction Slips 1 to 10)
Addendum & Correction Slip No. ….dated ……….. (Draft)
1.0 Delete existing Clause 3.6.4/ Clause 3.6.5 and insert revised clauses as under:
Clause 3.6.4 – For any structural member or connection, the fatigue design shall be done as
per Appendix ‘G’ (Re-Revised) for a specified ‘Design Life’ and ‘Fatigue Load Model’.
Clause 3.6.5 –The fatigue life assessment shall normally be made for a standard design life
of 100 years for a standard annual GMT of 50. However, any other design life/ annual GMT
may be used for design with the approval of Chief Bridge Engineer.
Note:- No allowance for fatigue need be made in the design of Foot Over Bridges.
2.0 Add a new clause 3.20.4 – Fatigue assessment for Existing Bridges- The procedure given in
appendix ‘G’ (Re-Revised) shall be followed for carrying out fatigue assessment of members of
existing bridges, using either actual field measurements or numerical models validated with field
measurements. Traffic and repair history of the bridge shall be used as accurately as possible. In
the absence of accurate data, conservative estimates shall be made.
3.0 Replace existing Appendix ‘G’ (Revised) with new Appendix ‘G’ (Re-Revised).
By Order
DA : Appendix ‘G’ (Re-Revised)
Lucknow (A K Dadarya)
Dated : -10-2016 Executive Director (B&S)
Item No 995 Page G.1

Appendix ‘G’
(Re-Revised)
Fatigue Assessment For Steel Bridges

1. General
“The process of progressive localized permanent structural change occurring in a material
subjected to conditions which produce fluctuating stresses and strain at some point or points
and which may culminate in cracks or complete fracture after a sufficient number of fluctuations.”
The above definition of fatigue implies that fatigue in materials is the phenomenon which causes
failure of any structural member, under the action of repetitive loads, to take place at stress
levels that are substantially less than those associated with failure under static loading
conditions. Railway bridges are dynamically loaded structures which are subjected to complex
fluctuating loads of varying amplitudes. Therefore, an assessment for fatigue is required to be
made if the bridges are to be designed for a definite service life.
2. Scope
2.1. The fatigue assessment shall be deemed to apply to structures which comply with all
applicable codes of practice or regulations and have been analyzed and designed in
accordance with accepted principles and practices.
2.2. The structural materials and fabrication procedures shall be deemed to comply with all
applicable codes of practice or regulations.
2.3. This document is restricted in scope to the assessment of adequacy of members,
connections and joints of railway bridges subjected to fatigue loading for a specified design
life.
2.4. The assessment procedure contained herein shall be applicable to all grades of structural
steel, conforming to applicable codes of practice or regulations.
2.5. The assessment procedure will not be applicable to the following:-
a. Corrosion fatigue
b. Low cycle(high stress) fatigue (No of cycles to failure < 10,000)
c. Thermal fatigue
d. Stress corrosion cracking
e. High temperatures >1500C
f. Low temperatures ( brittle transition temperature)
g. Aerodynamically induced vibrations
3. Limitations of provisions in this Appendix
3.1. For fatigue assessment, all nominal stresses, direct or shear, shall be within the elastic limits
of the material. The range of the design values of such stresses shall not exceed 1.5 fy for
normal stresses or 1.5 fy/√3 for shear stresses.
3.2. The fatigue strengths specified in this document are applicable to structures where suitable
corrosion protection measures have been undertaken and corrosion is not allowed to take
place.
4. Terms and definitions

4.1. General
4.1.1 : The phenomenon of damage in a structural part through crack initiation and/or
gradual crack propagation caused by repeated stress fluctuations.
4.1.2 : in the parent material or in a weld adjacent to a potential crack location calculated in
accordance with elastic theory excluding all stress concentration effects. The nominal
stress as specified can be a direct stress, a shear stress, a principal stress or an
equivalent stress as appropriate, unless explicitly specified.
4.1.3 Geometric stress (hot spot stress): The geometric stress is the maximum principal
stress in the parent material adjacent to the weld toe, taking into account stress
concentration effects due to the overall geometry of a particular constructional detail.
(Local stress concentration effects e.g. from the weld profile shape already included
in the detail categories need not be considered separately.)
4.1.4 : A nominal stress multiplied by an appropriate stress concentration factor kf, to allow
for a geometric discontinuity that has not been taken into account in the classification
of a particular constructional detail.
4.1.5 : Residual stress is a permanent state of stress in a structure that is in static
equilibrium and is independent of any applied action. Residual stresses can arise
from rolling stresses, cutting processes, welding shrinkage or lack of fit between
members or from any loading event that causes yielding of part of the structure.
4.2. Loading and stress parameters
4.2.1 : A defined sequence of loads (say, a train) which is passed over the structure a
definite number of times during the life of a bridge. This shall usually consist of a
sequence of axle loads, specified by the magnitude of the load and the interval
between successive axles, or recommended equivalents to represent the passage a
train.
4.2.2 : A record of the stress variation at a particular point in the structure during a
load/loading event obtained either by analytical or experimental means.
4.2.3 : The algebraic difference between the two extremes of a particular stress cycle
forming part of the stress history is denoted as a stress range.
4.2.4 : The stress range spectrum is a histogram of different stress ranges and their
frequency of occurrence for a particular loading event.
4.2.5 Spectrum: The combination of all stress range spectra applicable to the fatigue
assessment.
4.2.6 Rainflow method / Reservoir method: These are cycle counting techniques used
to count the number of stress cycles corresponding to each stress range in a given
stress history to derive a stress range spectrum.
4.2.7 Fatigue loading: The fatigue loading means a set of specific train loads and their
daily frequency indicating the traffic density in terms of GMT (Gross million tons per
annum). The traffic load models will consist of a combination of trains to which the
bridge may be subjected within a specified time frame, usually specified by the
passage of trains on a daily basis.
4.2.8 : The specified period for which a structure is expected to perform safely with an
acceptable probability that failure due to fatigue will not occur.
4.2.9 : The predicted period, expressed in years, preceding fatigue failure at a structural
joint or detail based on analytical calculations or experimental observations.
4.2.10 : Damage is the ratio of the actual number of cycles a member detail/connection is
subjected to and the number of cycles to failure at a specific stress range. This is
computed for various stress ranges and added up as specified.

4.2.11 : The constant amplitude stress range that would result in the same fatigue damage
as the spectrum of actual variable amplitude stress ranges.
4.2.12 Simplified constant amplitude loading representing the fatigue effects of actual
variable amplitude loading events based on the concept of equivalent damage.
4.3. Fatigue strength
4.3.1 Detail category: The designation given to a particular structural detail for a given
direction of stress fluctuation to indicate which fatigue strength curve is applicable for
fatigue assessment. This is denoted by a number which represents the magnitude in
N/mm2 of the stress range which is associated with an endurance of 2 million cycles
for that particular category.
4.3.2 : The fatigue strength curve or the S-N curve is a logarithmic relationship between
stress range and the corresponding cycles to failure, based on the category of the
detail under consideration. The S-N curves are defined separately for each detail
category and may be modified in accordance with other provisions, as applicable.
4.3.3 : The reference fatigue strength for a structural detail or connection is the magnitude
in N/mm2 of the constant amplitude stress range (direct or shear as applicable)
associated with an endurance of 2 million cycles in S-N curve.
4.3.4 Endurance: Endurance is the duration of life to fatigue failure, expressed in cycles
under the action of a constant amplitude stress history.
4.3.5 Limiting Stress Range: The limiting stress range for a particular structural
connection or detail is the stress range for that particular detail category which
corresponds to an endurance of 10000 cycles. If either the constant amplitude stress
range or any of the variable amplitude stress ranges (direct or shear as applicable)
exceed the limiting stress range then the provisions contained herein will not be
applicable.
4.3.6 Constant Amplitude Fatigue Limit: The constant amplitude fatigue limit is the
limiting magnitude of the stress range (direct or shear, as applicable) below which no
fatigue damage is deemed to accrue for constant amplitude loading of that particular
detail. Under variable amplitude stresses, all stress ranges must be below this limit
for no fatigue damage to occur.
4.3.7 Cut off limit: The limiting value of the stress range, below which, the stress ranges
do not contribute to the accumulated damage in variable amplitude stress conditions.

5. List of symbols
Symbol Definition
∆σ Stress range (direct stress)

∆τ Stress range (shear stress)
∆σE , ∆τE Equivalent constant amplitude stress range related to given number of cycles
∆σE,2 , ∆τE,2 Equivalent constant amplitude stress range related to 2 million cycles
∆σC , ∆τC Reference value of the fatigue strength at NC = 2 million cycles
Fatigue limit for constant amplitude stress ranges at ND = 5 million cycles, unless
∆σD , ∆τD
otherwise specified
∆σL , ∆τL Cut off limit for stress ranges at NL = 100 million cycles
∆σSL , ∆τSL Limiting stress range for a detail category at 10000 cycles
γFf Partial safety factor for equivalent constant amplitude stress range ∆σE , ∆τE
γMf Partial safety factor for fatigue strength ∆σC , ∆τC
m Slope of fatigue strength curve
λi Damage equivalence factors
Φ Dynamic impact factor
log Logarithm to the base 10
ks Reduction factor for fatigue stress to account for size effects
kf Stress concentration factor
NR (or N) Design life expressed as number of cycles related to a stress range i.e. ∆σR or ∆τR .
Other symbols occurring in text do not conform to universally accepted nomenclature and are
defined wherever they first occur.
6. Fatigue loads
6.1. The fatigue loading specified in this Appendix shall be used for the determination of
stresses at critical locations of the railway bridge, by appropriate and accepted methods of
analysis. The stresses so determined will form the basis of fatigue assessment.
6.2. For fatigue life assessment, only live load and associated effects such as dynamic effects,
centrifugal effects, longitudinal loads and racking loads specified in Bridge rules shall be
considered subject to the following:
6.2.1 For fatigue assessment, 50% of the impact loads specified in Bridge Rules shall be
considered.
6.2.2 The fatigue assessment can be done for traffic forecast on a bridge based on actual
loading history of trains passed over the bridge and/or future projection of traffic. The
future traffic models to be used shall be as specified by Chief Bridge Engineer.
Alternately, it can be done for standard train combinations. The following standard
train combinations have been considered while formulating the simplified provisions
for design as per this code:
6.2.2.1 The standard traffic models for 25 t loading -2008 to be adopted for fatigue
assessment shall be in accordance with Table - 1, Appendix G-I.
6.2.2.2 The standard traffic models for 32.5 t loading (DFC Loading) to be adopted for
fatigue assessment shall be in accordance with Table - 2, Appendix G-I.

6.3. The loads shall be placed at different positions and the variation of stress with the same
shall be worked out for carrying out fatigue assessment.
6.4. In case of bridges with multiple tracks, loading shall be done as follows:
(a) The train load shall be applied on a track which produces the greatest stress at the
detail under consideration.
(b) 15%, unless otherwise specified, of the train loads scaled in magnitude shall be applied
on any other track so as to produce the greatest stress at the detail under
consideration.
7. Partial safety factors
7.1. The values of the partial safety factors to be used shall be as specified herein unless
otherwise recommended by the Railway Board, taking into due consideration:
(a) the ease of access for inspection or repair and likely frequency of inspection and
maintenance,
(b) the consequences of failure.
7.2. Partial safety factor for fatigue loading γFf:To take account of uncertainties in the fatigue
response analysis, the design stress ranges for the fatigue assessment procedure shall
incorporate a partial safety factor γFf. The partial safety factor γFfcovers the uncertainties in
estimating:
(a) the applied load levels,

(b) the conversion of these loads into stresses and stress ranges,
(c) the equivalent constant amplitude stress range from the design stress range
spectrum,
(d) the design life of the structure, and the evolution of the fatigue loading within the
required design life of the structure.
7.3. Partial safety factor for fatigue strength γMf: In the fatigue assessment procedure, in
order to take account of uncertainties in the fatigue resistance, the design value of the
fatigue strength shall be obtained by dividing by a partial safety factor γMf .The factor γMf
covers the uncertainties due to the effects of:
(a) the size of the detail,

(b) the dimensions, shape and proximity of the discontinuities,
(c) local stress concentrations due to welding uncertainties.
(d) variable welding processes and metallurgical effects.
7.4. Values of partial safety factors: The values of the partial safety factor for fatigue loading
(γγFf) and fatigue strength (γγMf) shall be taken as follows;
γFf= 1.00
γMf = 1.15
8. Methodology for Fatigue Assessment: The fatigue assessment shall be carried out as
follows:
8.1. No fatigue assessment: Fatigue assessment is not required in the following cases:
8.1.1 The largest nominal stress range ∆σ satisfies
γ Ff * ∆σ ≤ 26 γ Mf N/mm2
8.1.2 The total number of stress cycles N satisfies

3
 36 γ Mf 
N ≤ 2 x10 * 
6

 γ Ff * ∆σ E , 2 
where∆σE,2 is the equivalent constant amplitude stress range in N/mm2 .
8.1.3 For a detail for which a constant amplitude fatigue limit ∆σD is specified, the largest
stress range (nominal or geometric as appropriate) ∆σ satisfies the relation
γ Ff * ∆σ ≤ ∆σ D / γ Mf
8.2. Classification of details: All details which are to be designed under fatigue shall first be
classified so that standard curves known as S-N curves (explained in clause 10) shall be
used wherever possible. The details shall be classified as per clause 9.
8.3. Determination of fatigue strength: Corresponding to the detail classification, the fatigue
strength shall be worked out as per clause 10.
8.4. Determination of stress history: For each detail to be studied under fatigue, stress
histories to be used for fatigue study have to be determined. If actual field measurements
or detailed analytical analysis of stresses is being done, clauses 11 and 12 shall be
followed. For new construction, especially where the accurate traffic details are not
available, simplified method given in clause 14 may be followed.
8.5. Fatigue Assessment: The fatigue assessment of each detail shall be done as per clause
13.
8.6. Simplified fatigue analysis may be done as per clause 14 if actual field measurements or
detailed analytical analysis of stresses are not done.
9. Classification of details: The structural connections and details, non-welded and welded, are
divided into several detail categories, each corresponding to a specific S-N curve depending
upon
- The geometrical arrangement of the detail.
- The direction of the fluctuating stress relative to the detail.
- The location of potential crack and direction of propagation.
- The method of fabrication and inspection of the detail.
9.1. In some welded joints, there are several locations at which fatigue cracks may develop, e.
g. at the weld toe in each of the parts joined, at the weld ends, and/or in the weld itself.
Each such location should be classified separately and assessed independently for
fatigue performance.
9.2. The detail categories of structural connections and details has been given in tables in
Appendix G-II as follows :-
9.2.1 Table G-II.1: Non-welded details
9.2.2 Table G-II.2: Welded built-up sections
9.2.3 Table G-II.3: Transverse butt welds
9.2.4 Table G-II.4: Welded attachments and stiffeners
9.2.5 Table G-II.5: Load carrying welded joint
9.2.6 Table G-II.6: Fatigue resistance against geometric stress for cracks initiating from
toes of welds.

NOTE: Table G-II.6 does not cover effects of misalignment. The effect of misalignment has
to be considered explicitly in determination of stress. Further, it does not cover fatigue
initiation from the root followed by propagation through the throat.
10. Methodology for Assessment, Step II: Determination of fatigue strength
10.1. S-N Curves: The fatigue strength for nominal stresses is defined by a series of S-N
curves(log ∆σR – log N, or, log ∆τR – log N), each corresponding to a specific detail
category. Each curve is a log-log plot of the stress range against the number of cycles to
failure at that stress range where the logarithms are to the base 10. A typical fatigue
strength curve is shown in figure 10.1.
Figure 10.1: Typical fatigue strength (S-N) curve

10.2. Parameters of S-N curves
10.2.1 Each detail category is characterized by a number which represents, in N/mm2, the
reference value ∆σC or ∆τC as applicable for the fatigue strength at 2 million cycles.
10.2.2 The S-N curves include the effects due to :-
• Local stress concentration
• Size and shape of acceptable discontinuities
• The stress directions
• Residual stresses
• Metallurgical conditions

Figure 10.2: Fatigue Strength curves for normal stress ranges
10.2.3 S-N curve for constant amplitude normal stress ranges: These curves for
different fatigue categories are shown in figure 10.2. Each curve is described as
below:
10.2.3.1 From 104 cycles to 5 x 106 cycles, the curve has a negative slope of 3. The
value of ∆σD at 5 x 106 cycles is called constant amplitude fatigue limit. The
fatigue strength in this part is defined by:
NR *(∆σR)m = 2 * 106 * (∆σC)m, with m=3 for NR ≤ 5*106
1
2 3
where ∆σ D =   * ∆σ C = 0.7368∆σ C
5
and NR is the number of cycles to failure corresponding to ∆σR read from the appropriate S-
N curve.
10.2.3.2 From 5 x 106 cycles to 1 x 108 cycles, the curve has a negative slope of 5.
The value of ∆σL at 100 million cycles is called cut off limit. The fatigue strength
in this part is defined by:
NR * (∆σR)m = 5 * 106 * (∆σD)m with m=5 for 5*106< NR≤108
1
 5  5
where ∆σ L =   * ∆σ D = 0.5493 * ∆σ D
 100 
10.2.3.3 Beyond 1 x 108 cycles, the curve has NIL slope and there is no fatigue
damage.
10.2.4 S-N curve for constant amplitude shear stress ranges: These curves for
different fatigue categories are shown in figure 10.3. Each curve is described as
below:

10.2.4.1 From 104 cycles to 1 x 108 cycles, the curve has a negative slope of 5. The
value of ∆τL is the cut off limit at 100 million cycles. The fatigue strength curves
for shear stress are defined as:
NR *(∆τR)m = 2 * 106 * (∆τC)m, with m=5 for NR≤ 108
1
 2  5
where ∆τ L =   * ∆τ C = 0.4573∆τ C is the cut off limit at 100 million cycles
 100 
10.2.4.2 Beyond 1 x 108 cycles, the curve has NIL slope and there is no fatigue
damage.
Figure 10.3: Fatigue Strength curves for shear stress ranges

10.2.5 Equations defining S-N curves: The fatigue strength curves for nominal
normal/shear stresses are also defined by
log NR = log a – m * log ∆σR or log NR = log a – m * log ∆τR
where∆σR or ∆τR is the fatigue strength
NR is the corresponding number of cycles to failure of stress range ∆σR or ∆τR
m is the constant slope of the fatigue strength curves
log a is a constant which depends on the specific segment of the fatigue curve
The numerical values for the fatigue strength curves for normal and shear stress ranges as
defined by above are given in Tables 10.1 and 10.2 respectively.

Table 10.1: Numerical values for fatigue strength curves for normal stress ranges
Stress Range at
log a for NR≤ 108 Stress Range Limiting Stress
Detail Constant
at Range
Category amplitude
NR≤ 5 * 106 NR≥ 5 * 106 Cut off limit
∆σC Fatigue limit
(NR = 108) (NR = 104)
(N/mm2) m=3 m=5 (NR = 5*106)
∆σL(N/mm2) ∆σSL(N/mm2)
∆σD(N/mm2)
160 12.913 17.056 118 65 936
140 12.739 16.766 103 57 819
125 12.592 16.520 92 51 731
112 12.449 16.282 83 45 655
100 12.301 16.036 74 40 585
90 12.164 15.807 66 36 526
80 12.010 15.551 59 32 468
71 11.855 15.292 52 29 415
63 11.699 15.032 46 25 368
56 11.546 14.777 41 23 327
50 11.398 14.531 37 20 292
45 11.261 14.302 33 18 263
40 11.107 14.046 29 16 234
36 10.970 13.817 27 15 211
Table 10.2: Numerical values for fatigue strength curves for shear stress ranges
Detail Stress Range at Cut Limiting Stress

log a for N ≤ 108
Category off limit(N = 108) Range(N = 104)
m=5
∆τC(N/mm2) ∆τL(N/mm2) ∆τSL(N/mm2)
100 16.301 46 289
80 15.816 37 231
10.3. Modifications to the fatigue strength

10.3.1 To account for reversal of stresses: In non-welded or stress relieved details the
effective stress range to be considered for fatigue assessment shall be determined
by adding the tensile portion of the stress range with 70% of the compressive
portion of the stress range as shown in figure 10.4.

Figure 10.4: Modified stress range for non-welded or stress relieved details
10.3.2 To account for the influence on the fatigue strength of the thickness of the
parent metal in which the potential cracks may initiate and propagate:
10.3.2.1 The reduction in the fatigue strength will be applicable only to those structural
details with welds transverse to the direction of the normal stress.
10.3.2.2 Where the material thickness of the structural detail is greater than 25 mm,
the effect of thickness shall be accounted for by reducing the fatigue strength
as :-
∆σ R,t = ∆σ R * (25 / t ) 0.20 , where 25/t ≤ 1.
10.3.2.3 Where the detail category in the classification tables indicates a specific
variation in the fatigue strength with thickness then 10.3.2.1 will not be
applicable.
10.3.3 Modified fatigue strength is applicable to structural details duly marked with an
asterisk in the detail classification table G.II.5. Such details have been allocated a
category lower than the stress range corresponding to 2 million cycles. The
classification of such details may be upgraded by one category provided that
fatigue strength curves are adopted such that the constant amplitude fatigue limit is
at 10 million cycles for a slope of m = 3 as shown in figure 10.5 and the numerical
values for the modified fatigue strength curves are as indicated in table 10.3.

Figure 10.5: Modified fatigue Strength Curves
Table 10.3: Numerical values for modified fatigue strength curves for normal stress ranges
Stress Range at Stress Range

Detail log a for N ≤ 108 Limiting Stress
Constant at
Category Range
amplitude Cut off limit
Fatigue limit
∆σC N ≤ 107 N ≥ 107 (N = 104)
(N = 107) (N = 108)
m=3 m=5 ∆σSL
∆σD ∆σL
(Nominal) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
50*(56) 11.546 14.576 33 21 327
45*(50) 11.398 14.330 29 18 292
36*(40) 11.107 13.845 23 15 234

NOTE: Values in parentheses indicate the next higher category for which the constants are
evaluated as per clause 10.3.3.
11. Determination of stresses to be used for fatigue design: For each structural detail or joint
being assessed for fatigue, typical load event (or train) produces a stress history plot, depending
on position of the train at different time intervals. A typical stress history with time plot is shown
in Figure A.1 of Appendix G-III. These stresses for different positions of train(s) shall be obtained
for member(s) as follows:
11.1. Measurements: The stresses measured on members while actual trains/ test trains
pass over the bridge and the plot of variation of stresses with position of train can be used
for fatigue assessment of existing bridges. Based on these plots, stress history plots shall
then be obtained for the other trains plying/ likely to ply on the bridge. For parameters
difficult to replicate/ measure in field, such as impact, suitable modifications shall be made
as per Bridge rules. This method captures the actual behaviour of girders. However, if the
actual plot shape/ magnitude of stresses measured in field vary too much as compared
with the theoretical expected stresses, reasons for the same shall be studied and
designer shall decide if the measured stresses are reliable for fatigue assessment studies
or not.
11.2. theoretical plot of stress with position of actual/expected moving train loads shall be
determined for the fatigue loads specified in clause 6 above. The stresses due to the
moving train loads shall be determined on the basis of static linear elastic analysis carried
out in accordance with accepted principles and practices, unless otherwise stated or
implied, taking into account all axial, bending and shear stresses occurring under the
prescribed fatigue loading.
11.3. Stresses for Fatigue Assessment:
11.3.1 For a particular class of construction detail, the stresses to be considered may be
nominal stresses or shear stresses or both.
11.3.2 When a constructional detail is defined in the detail classification tables (Table
G.II.1 to G.II.5), the nominal stress range shall be used.
11.3.3 The effects of geometric discontinuities which are not part of the constructional
detail itself, such as holes, cut-outs or re-entrant corners shall be taken into account
separately, either by a special analysis or by the use of appropriate stress
concentration factors, to determine the modified nominal stress range.
11.4. Modification in measured/ computed stresses:-
11.4.1 The nominal stresses should be calculated at the location of potential fatigue
initiation. No redistribution of loads or stresses is permitted from any consideration
whatsoever.
11.4.2 Where applicable, effect of the following should be incorporated in the stress
calculations:-
(a) Shear lag, restrained torsion and distortion, transverse stresses and flange
curvature
(b) Effective width of steel plates
(c) Load application away from joints, member eccentricities at joints and rigidity of
joints in triangulated skeletal structures.
(d) Stress concentration effects, when specifically stated as a requirement for a detail
or joint, which shall be accounted for by using an appropriate stress concentration
factor.
11.4.3 The effects of the following need not be included in the stress calculations
(a) Residual stresses.
(b) Eccentricities arising in a standard detail.
(c) Standard stress concentration associated with a detail as given in tables G-II.1 to
G-II.5 which has already been considered in the fatigue detail category.
11.5. s 11.7 and 11.8 for stresses in parent material and stresses in welds respectively.
11.6. Modification of stress ranges based on geometric stress range:
11.6.1 Where abrupt changes of section occur close to the potential crack locations (for
details not covered in tables G.II.1 to G.II.5), high stress gradients occur close to a
weld in toe joints (covered in Table G-II.6), geometric stress range shall be used.

11.6.2 The geometric stress is the maximum principal stress in the parent material
adjacent to the weld toe taking into account only the overall geometry of the joint,
excluding local stress concentration effects due to the weld geometry and
discontinuities at the weld toe.
11.6.3 The maximum value of the geometric stress range shall be found, investigating
various locations at the weld toe around the welded joint or the stress concentration
area.
11.6.4 The geometric stresses may be determined using stress concentration factors
obtained from parametric formulae within their domains of validity, a finite element
analysis or an experimental model.
11.6.5 A fatigue assessment based on the geometric stress range, shall be treated
similarly to the assessment methodology given in clause 12, but replacing the
nominal stress range by the geometric stress range.
11.7. in the parent material: Depending upon the fatigue assessment to be carried out, either
the nominal stresses or geometric stresses shall be evaluated.
- Nominal direct stresses σ
- Nominal shear stresses τ
Figure-11.1 Nomination stress and geometric stress concentration

The nominal normal or direct stress when a member is under uni-axial and bending
stresses, (Refer figure-11.1(a)), is as calculated according to basic strength of materials
theory
N M*y
σN = and σ M =
A I
Where N and M are the axial force and bending moment at the section
A and I are the cross sectional area and moment of inertia, and
y is the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber.
When geometric stress concentration (such as shown in figure-11.1 (b) other than that already
considered in fatigue category) occurs, the nominal stress should be determined as follows

σG = kf* σN,net
whereσG is the effective stress
kf is the stress concentration factor
andσN,net is the stress calculated on the net area
the fatigue requirements for the structural joint or detail, as applicable.
11.8. : In load carrying partial penetration or fillet welded joints, the forces transmitted by a unit
length of weld shall be resolved into components transverse and parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the weld.
The fatigue stresses in the weld will consist of the following:
- Normal stresses σw transverse to the axis of the weld
- Shear stresses τw longitudinal to the axis of the weld
The stresses σw and τw may be obtained by dividing the relevant component of the force
transmitted per unit length of the weld, by the throat size ‘a’.
Figure-11.2 stresses in fillet welds

Alternatively, σw and τw may be obtained by the following, (Refer figure 11.2).
- σ w = σ ⊥2 f + τ ⊥2 f
- τw =τ||f
It will be necessary to ensure that the effects of the stresses considered individually and in
conjunction satisfy the fatigue requirements for the structural joint or detail, as applicable.
12. Determination of stress ranges and cycles for fatigue life assessment:
12.1. General:Typical load events analyzed as per clause 11 produce a stress history, with
respect to the leading train axle, depending on the location of the structural detail or joint
being assessed for fatigue. This variation of stress in the stress history can be highly
irregular. The stress history as stated above cannot be used directly to assess the
damage and cycle counting techniques are required to be used. The purpose of cycle
counting is to reduce a complex stress history to a sequence of stress ranges and the
corresponding number of cycles of occurrence in the stress history.
12.2. Methods of cycle counting: There are two established methods of cycle counting
namely the “Rainflow method” and the “Reservoir method”, both yielding identical results
provided that rainflow counting begins with the highest peak in the loading event.
Generally, rainflow counting is more suited to computer analyses of long stress histories,
whereas the reservoir method is most convenient for graphical analyses of short histories.
12.2.1 Determination of stress ranges and cycles by the reservoir method: The
method consists of imagining the stress history as the section of a reservoir which is
drained successively from each of the lowest points till the reservoir is empty. Each
draining operation is considered to be equivalent to one cycle of a stress range equal
in magnitude to the maximum height of water drained in that particular operation (see
Appendix G-III).
12.2.2 Determination of stress ranges and cycles by the rainflow method: The
rainflow method as the name suggests counts half cycles based on the visualization
of the complex stress history as a sequence of pagoda roofs over which rain tickles
down. In order to achieve the above the stress history is rotated by 900 (see
Appendix G-III). Counting of cycles shall be done as per rules given in Appendix G-
III.
12.3. The values of stress ranges for which cycles are thus counted might be quite variable in
magnitude. For further computations, the values of stress ranges are grouped together in
different stress range slabs to get the stress histogram. The fatigue assessment is done
using this stress histogram. Stress histogram for the stress history has been worked out in
clause A3.3 of Appendix G-III.
12.4. For each stress range slab in stress histogram, the corresponding fatigue life can be
worked out for the appropriate SN curve applicable to the member detail.
13. Fatigue assessment:-Fatigue assessment refers either to checking if a member has been
designed with adequate fatigue life or to verifying if the residual fatigue life of a member is
adequate. Stresses determined/ modified in accordance with clause 12 shall be used for this
purpose.
13.1. The assessment for fatigue shall be carried out either
- in terms of cumulative damage by comparing the applied damage to the limiting
damage, or
- in terms of the equivalent stress range by comparing it with the fatigue strength
for a given number of stress cycles.
13.2. Fatigue assessment based on nominal stress ranges:
13.2.1 Constant amplitude loading
For constant amplitude loading the fatigue assessment criterion is:
∗∆ ≤ ∆ / or ∗∆ ≤ ∆ /
where ∆σ (or ∆τ) is the nominal stress range.

∆σR (or ∆τR) is the fatigue strength for the relevant detail category for the total number
of cycles N during the required design life.
and γ and γ shall be as per clause 7.4
13.2.2 Variable amplitude loading
13.2.2.1 For variable amplitude loading defined by a design spectrum, the fatigue
assessment shall be based on Palmgren-Miner rule of cumulative damage
given in 13.2.2.3 below.
13.2.2.2 If the maximum stress range due to the variable amplitude loading is higher
than the constant amplitude fatigue limit, then one of the following types of
fatigue assessment shall be made:
- Cumulative damage
- Equivalent constant amplitude
13.2.2.3 A cumulative damage assessment may be made using:

ni
Dd≤ 1 where Dd = ∑N
i
Where niis the number of cycles of stress range ∆σi(or ∆τi) during the required design life,
takenfrom stress range spectrum histogram.
and Ni is the number of cycles of stress range γFf*γMf*∆σi (or γFf*γMf*∆τi) to cause failure
for the relevant detail category, read from the appropriate S-N curve given in
clause 10.
13.2.3 For nominal stress ranges, Ni may be calculated as follows ;
(a) ifγFf . ∆σi≥∆σD / γMf
3
 ∆σ D γ Mf 
N i = 5 *10 * 
6

 γ Ff * ∆σ i 
(b) if∆σD / γMf ≥γFf . ∆σi≥∆σL / γMf

5
 ∆σ D γ Mf 
N i = 5 *10 * 
6

 γ Ff * ∆σ i 
(c) if∆σL / γMf ≥γFf * ∆σi then Ni may be taken as infinite

13.2.4 For shear stress ranges, Ni may be calculated as follows :
(a) ifγFf * ∆τi≥∆τL / γMf
5
 ∆τ D γ Mf 
N i = 2 *10 *  6

 γ Ff * ∆τ i 
(b) if γFf * ∆τi≤∆τL / γMf then Ni may be taken as infinite

13.2.5 An equivalent constant amplitude fatigue assessment may be made by checking the
criterion:
γFf * ∆σE ≤∆σR /γMf or γFf * ∆τE ≤∆τR /γMf
Where,
∆σE or ∆τE is the equivalent constant amplitude stress range which, for the
given number of cycles leads to the same cumulative damage as the design
spectrum, and
∆σR or ∆τR is the fatigue strength for the relevant detail category for the
same number of cycles as used to determine ∆σE.
13.2.6 An equivalent constant amplitude fatigue assessment may be made alternatively by

the following criteria;
γFf * ∆σE,2≤∆σC / γMf or γFf * ∆τE,2 ≤∆τC /γMf
Where, ∆σE,2or ∆τE,2 is the equivalent constant amplitude stress range for 2 million
cycles worked out as per clause 14,

And ∆σC or ∆τC is the reference value of the fatigue strength for the relevant detail
(also at 2 million cycles).
13.3. Combination of normal and shear stress ranges:
13.3.1 In the case of a combination of normal and shear stresses the fatigue assessment
shall consider their combined effects.
13.3.2 If the equivalent nominal shear stress range is less than 15 % of the equivalent
nominal normal stress range, the effects of the shear stress range may be neglected.
13.3.3 At locations other than weld throats, if the normal and shear stresses induced by the
same loading event vary simultaneously, or if the plane of the maximum principal
stress does not change significantly in the course of a loading event, the maximum
principal stress range may be used.
13.3.4 If, at the same location, normal and shear stresses vary independently, the
components of damage due to normal and shear stresses shall be determined
separately in accordance with the Palmgren-Miner rule and then combined in
accordance with
Dd,σ+ Dd,τ≤ 1
where Dd,σ = ∑(ni / Ni ) for normal stress ranges ∆σi
and Dd,τ = ∑(ni / Ni ) for shear stress ranges ∆τi
13.3.5 The criteria specified in 13.3.4 for equivalent constant amplitude stress ranges
assumes the form
3 5
 γ Ff * ∆σ E   γ Ff * ∆τ E 
  +  ≤1
 ∆σ R γ Mf   ∆τ R γ Mf 
13.3.6 An equivalent constant amplitude fatigue assessment may, alternatively, be made

by the following criterion
3 5
 γ Ff * ∆σ E , 2   γ Ff * ∆τ E , 2 
  +  ≤1
 ∆σ C γ Mf   ∆τ C γ Mf 
13.3.7 Stress ranges in welds shall be determined as specified in Clause 11.6. The
components of damage for normal and shear stresses shall be assessed in
accordance with the Palmgren-Miner rule and then combined in accordance with
Dd,σ+ Dd,τ≤ 1
where Dd,σ = ∑(ni / Ni ) for normal stress ranges σwf.
and Dd,τ = ∑(ni / Ni ) for shear stress ranges ∆τwf.

14. Simplified Approach if actual field measurements or detailed analytical analysis of
stresses is not done: For the simplified fatigue assessment, the following procedure may be
adopted to determine the design stress spectrum:
14.1. For a detail or structural connection being assessed for fatigue, the maximum stress
σP,maxor τP,maxand the minimum stress σP,minor τP,minshould be determined for the live loads
specified in clause 6. Instead of actual train loads, the Equivalent Uniformly distributed loads
as specified in IRS Bridge Rules may be used.
14.2. The reference stress range ∆σP (or∆τP) for determining the damage due to the stress
spectrum should be obtained from:

∆σ P = σ P ,max − σ P ,min or ∆τ P = τ P ,max − τ P ,min
14.3. Modification of the above stress range may be done in accordance with clause 10.3, 11.3
and 11.4, if applicable.
14.4. Design value of equivalent constant amplitude stress range: The design value of
equivalent constant amplitude stress range (related to NCi.e. 2 x 106 cycles, ∆σE,2or ∆τE,2)
shall be worked out by multiplying the modified stress range worked out as per clause 14.3
above by damage equivalent factor for railway bridges, λ worked out as per clause 14.6
below.
14.5. Fatigue assessment
The fatigue assessment shall be carried out by ensuring the satisfaction of the following
criteria:
γFf *∆σE,2 ≤∆σC / γMf
and γFf *∆τE,2 ≤∆τC / γMf
Where ∆σC or ∆τC is the reference value of the fatigue strength for the relevant detail (at 2
million cycles).
14.6. Damage equivalence factors
14.6.1 The damage equivalent factor for railway bridges should be determined from:
λ = λ1 * λ2 * λ3 * λ4
subject to the condition that λ≤λmax whereλmax =1.4
Where,
λ1 is a factor that takes into account the damaging effect of traffic and depends
on the base length of the longest loop of the influence line diagram
λ2 is a factor that takes into account the annual traffic volume in million tons
λ3 is a factor that takes into account the design life of the bridge in years
λ4 is a factor to be taken into account when the bridge structure is loaded on
more than one track
λmax is the maximum λ value taking into account the fatigue limit
14.6.2 The value of λ1 may be obtained from tables 14.6.2 (1) and 14.6.2 (2) 25t loading –
2008 and 32.5t loading (DFC) respectively as a function of the loaded length for the
train types included in respective traffic models. The loaded length shall depend upon
the influence line diagram of the structural element or detail/connection under
consideration. For simplified analysis the maxima for each length category could be
adopted. For routes with train types other than those considered above, the designer
may use alternative values of λ1.
Table 14.6.2 (1): λ1 for 25 T Loading
Span Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train-
(m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0.50 1.30 1.34 1.45 1.28 1.45 1.44 1.48 1.53 1.36 1.09 0.88
1.00 1.29 1.32 1.43 1.28 1.43 1.43 1.48 1.53 1.35 1.08 0.89
1.50 1.28 1.31 1.42 1.27 1.42 1.42 1.47 1.52 1.35 1.07 0.90
2.00 1.27 1.30 1.40 1.27 1.40 1.41 1.47 1.52 1.35 1.06 0.90
2.50 1.26 1.29 1.38 1.26 1.37 1.39 1.46 1.51 1.34 1.05 0.91

Span Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train-
(m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3.00 1.24 1.28 1.36 1.25 1.34 1.38 1.45 1.50 1.34 1.04 0.92
3.50 1.22 1.26 1.34 1.23 1.32 1.36 1.44 1.49 1.33 1.03 0.93
4.00 1.20 1.25 1.32 1.22 1.30 1.34 1.43 1.47 1.31 1.02 0.94
4.50 1.18 1.23 1.30 1.21 1.28 1.31 1.42 1.46 1.30 1.00 0.95
5.00 1.17 1.21 1.28 1.19 1.26 1.27 1.41 1.45 1.28 0.99 0.96
6.00 1.12 1.17 1.24 1.15 1.23 1.21 1.39 1.42 1.24 0.96 0.97
7.00 1.08 1.14 1.19 1.11 1.18 1.16 1.37 1.39 1.19 0.93 0.98
8.00 1.05 1.12 1.17 1.09 1.16 1.12 1.38 1.37 1.14 0.91 1.00
9.00 1.03 1.11 1.15 1.07 1.13 1.08 1.38 1.36 1.09 0.90 1.02
10.00 0.96 1.03 1.12 1.15 1.08 1.10 1.37 1.37 1.08 0.89 0.99
12.50 0.89 0.98 1.05 1.06 1.03 1.02 1.32 1.32 1.00 0.86 1.01
15.00 0.87 0.92 1.00 1.01 1.05 1.00 1.30 1.31 0.99 0.83 1.02
17.50 0.82 0.86 0.94 0.93 1.04 0.94 1.24 1.24 0.93 0.78 0.98
20.00 0.83 0.86 0.99 0.94 1.07 0.89 1.13 1.09 0.89 0.79 1.01
25.00 0.76 0.86 0.93 0.85 1.08 0.87 1.13 1.11 0.87 0.75 0.99
30.00 0.77 0.82 0.84 0.80 1.09 0.88 0.98 1.10 0.87 0.69 0.96
35.00 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.76 0.87 0.86 0.93 1.09 0.86 0.66 0.90
40.00 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.73 0.85 0.78 0.84 1.07 0.78 0.63 0.75
45.00 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.77 0.81 0.77 0.82 1.01 0.78 0.63 0.65
50.00 0.62 0.63 0.65 0.77 0.80 0.75 0.79 0.91 0.76 0.62 0.66
60.00 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.77 0.78 0.74 0.60 0.67
70.00 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.75 0.76 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.75 0.61 0.64
80.00 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.66 0.76 0.74 0.76 0.77 0.75 0.60 0.63
90.00 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.64 0.76 0.72 0.75 0.76 0.75 0.58 0.63
100.00 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.76 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.74 0.55 0.63
Table 14.6.2 (2): λ1 for 32.5 T Loading

Span (m) Train-1 Train-2 Train-3 Train-4 Train-5 Train-6 Train-7
0.50 1.53 1.60 1.39 1.59 1.30 1.11 0.86
1.00 1.52 1.59 1.38 1.58 1.28 1.10 0.87
1.50 1.52 1.58 1.37 1.57 1.27 1.09 0.87
2.00 1.52 1.58 1.36 1.57 1.25 1.09 0.88
2.50 1.51 1.57 1.36 1.56 1.24 1.08 0.89
3.00 1.51 1.56 1.35 1.55 1.23 1.08 0.89
3.50 1.51 1.55 1.34 1.54 1.21 1.07 0.90
4.00 1.50 1.54 1.34 1.53 1.20 1.07 0.91
4.50 1.49 1.53 1.33 1.51 1.19 1.06 0.92
5.00 1.47 1.52 1.32 1.50 1.17 1.05 0.93
6.00 1.43 1.50 1.29 1.46 1.14 1.03 0.95
7.00 1.38 1.48 1.28 1.44 1.11 1.02 0.97
8.00 1.34 1.46 1.27 1.42 1.09 1.01 0.99
9.00 1.31 1.45 1.25 1.39 1.06 1.00 1.01
10.00 1.31 1.47 1.30 1.39 1.18 1.06 1.06
12.50 1.22 1.40 1.25 1.33 1.12 1.03 1.09
15.00 1.16 1.34 1.20 1.28 1.08 1.00 1.08
17.50 1.10 1.28 1.15 1.23 1.05 0.97 1.04
20.00 0.96 1.18 1.04 1.15 1.17 1.08 1.08
25.00 0.89 1.11 0.97 0.97 1.10 0.88 0.99
30.00 0.88 1.10 0.88 0.89 0.95 0.75 0.93
Span (m) Train-1 Train-2 Train-3 Train-4 Train-5 Train-6 Train-7
35.00 0.84 1.06 0.85 0.84 0.89 0.75 0.90
40.00 0.84 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.76 0.81
45.00 0.81 0.84 0.80 0.81 0.80 0.73 0.68
50.00 0.80 0.82 0.79 0.80 0.77 0.73 0.70
60.00 0.74 0.75 0.73 0.74 0.70 0.66 0.67
70.00 0.72 0.74 0.70 0.73 0.69 0.63 0.65
80.00 0.72 0.77 0.70 0.76 0.69 0.63 0.63
90.00 0.74 0.76 0.70 0.75 0.70 0.61 0.63
100.00 0.74 0.75 0.70 0.75 0.69 0.60 0.64
14.6.3 The loaded length for determination of appropriate λ1 should be taken as follows:
(a) for moments:
- For a simply supported span, the span length, L
- For cross girders supporting rail bearers (or stringers), the sum of the spans of the rail
bearers (or stringers) carried by the cross girder.
(b) for shear for a simply supported span
- For the support section, the span length.
- For the mid-span section, 0.4 * the span under consideration.
(c) for axial force in members of a triangulated truss
- Base length of loop containing the largest ordinate (+ve or -ve) in member being
assessed for fatigue as per the Influence Line Diagram (ILD) of the member (see Fig.
14.1).
(d) In other cases
- the same as for moments.
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7
L0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
27000 mm
(+)
(-) 36000 mm
Loaded Length
Figure
Figure14.1 (a) Loaded Length for Diagonal U3 -L 4
- 9 (a)
(+)
L0 L2 L4 L8
7875 mm
Loaded Length
Figure
Figure14.1 (b) Loaded Length for Vertical U3-L 3
- 9 (b)
(+)
L0 L1 L8
63000 Loaded Length
Figure
Figure14.1 (c) Loaded Length for Bottom Chord L0-L1 & L1-L2
- 9 (c)
Note :- (+) For Tension and (-) For Compression
Figure 14.1: Loaded lengths for finding λ1.

14.6.4 The value of λ2, in terms of the annual volume of traffic may be obtained from the
following expression where Ta is the annual volume of traffic expressed in million
tons:
λ2 = 0.5193 * Ta 0.2036
14.6.5 The value of λ3, in terms of the design life may be calculated from the following
expression where LD is the design life in years:-
λ3 = 0.3899 * LD 0.2048
14.6.6 The value of λ4, assuming 15% of the total traffic on both tracks crosses whilst on
the bridge, shall be obtained from
λ4 = 0.7926* a 2 − 0.7280* a + 0.9371

Where a = ∆σ1 / ∆σ1+2
∆σ1 = Stress range at the section being checked due to train on one track.
∆σ1+2 = Stress range at the same section due to train load on two tracks.
The values of λ4 may be calculated for other proportions of crossing traffic from
λ4 = 5 n + (1 − n )[a 5 + (1 − a ) 5 )]
Where, n is the proportion of traffic that crosses simultaneously on the bridge.

Appendix G.I
Table 1(a) – Traffic Models for 25t Loading

Class of Traffic
Weigh Heavy Freight Mixed Traffic Sub Urban Mixed Traffic

Train No.
Type of t per GMT/ Traffic Lines with Heavy Traffic (60 Lines with Light
Train Composition
Train train Train (100 GMT) Traffic (70 GMT) GMT) Traffic (40GMT)
(t)
No. of No. of No. of No. of
GMT GMT GMT GMT
Trains Trains Trains Trains
1+15ICF COACH
1 900 0.33 3 1.0 6 2.0 - - 5 1.7
NON AC
2+22 ICF COACH 3.57

2 1400 0.51 2 1.0 10 5.1 7 5 2.6
Passenger NON AC
3 2+26 COACH AC 1700 0.62 - - 14 8.7 7 4.34 - -
4 EMU12 700 0.26 - - - - 200 52.0 - -
5 2(22.5T)+40 BOXN 4270 1.56 2 3.1 - - - - 4 6.24
6 2(25T)+55 BOXN 5800 2.12 8 16.96 4 8.48 - - 9 19.08
Freight 7 2E(2+55 BOXN) 11540 4.21 10 42.1 6 25.21 - - 1 4.21
8 2D(2+55 BOXN) 11600 4.23 8 33.84 5 21.15 - - 1 4.23
9 Bo-BO +40 BOXN 4200 1.53 2 3.06
10 2(25T)+55BOXN 1686 0.61 - - - - - - 1 0.61

Freight
empty
11 2(22.5T)+40 BOXN 1278 0.47 - - - - - - 2 0.9
Total 35 101.06 45 70.64 214 59.91 28 39.57

Appendix G.I
1
Total
Train type Composition Diagram
(m)
1. PASSENGER TRAIN
ONE 25 t. LOCO + 15 ICF COACH NON AC
ONE UNIT @ 19500 15 UNITS @ 22297
Type - 1 1L+15 ICF 348.676 930 TOTAL Wt. = 930 t

25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 13t 13t 13t 13t
COACH
(Non AC)
11887
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
5279
2896
2896
2309
2. PASSENGER TRAIN
TWO 25 t. LOCO + 22 ICF COACH NON AC
2 UNITS @ 19500 22 UNITS @ 22297
TOTAL Wt. = 1444 t

25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 13t 13t 13t 13t
Type - 2 2+22 ICF 524.255 1444
COACH
11887
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
5279
2896
2896
2309
(Non AC)
(Contd.)
Appendix G.I
(Contd.)
1
Total
(m)
3. PASSENGER TRAIN
TWO 25 t. LOCO + 26 COACH AC
Type - 3 2+26 COACH 613.443 1990
2 UNITS @ 19500 26 UNITS @ 22297
(AC)
TOTAL Wt. = 1990 t
25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 16.25t 16.25t 16.25t 16.25t
11887
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
5279
2896
2896
2309
4. PASSENGER TRAIN
EMU 12 (3x4 UNITS)
TOTAL Wt. = 736 t
4 UNITS @ 64563
13t 13t 13t 13t 20t 20t 20t 20t 13t 13t 13t 13t
Type - 4 EMU 12 254.257 736
1998
2896
2896
3995
2896
2896
3995
2896
2896
1998
11734
11734
11734
(Contd.)

Appendix G.I
(Contd.)
1
Total
(m)
5. FREIGHT TRAIN
TWO 22.5T LOCO + 40 BOXN
Type - 5 2(22.5t)+40 457.925 4270 2 UNITS @ 16000 40 UNITS @ 10713
BOXN
TOTAL Wt. = 4270 t
25t 25t 25t 25t
2594.5
1094.5
1500
1650
1650
6400
1650
1650
2000
4524
2000
6. FREIGHT TRAIN
TWO 25T LOCO + 55 BOXN
2 UNITS @ 19500 55 UNITS @ 10713
TOTAL Wt. = 5800 t

25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t
Type - 6 2(25T)+55 624.15 5800
4064.5
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
2000
4524
2000
1094.5
BOXN
(Contd.)
Appendix G.I
(Contd.)
1
Total
(m)
7. FREIGHT TRAIN
2 (TWO ELECTRIC LOCO + 55 BOXN)
2 UNITS @ 31110 55 UNITS @ 10713
Type - 7 2E(2+55 1236.33 11400 TWO SUCH UNITS
BOXN) 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t
TOTAL Wt. = 5700 t
3244.5
2150
2800
5650
2800
2000
4524
2000
1094.5
8. FREIGHT TRAIN
2 (TWO DIESEL LOCO + 55 BOXN)
2 UNITS @ 22415.2 55 UNITS @ 10713
TWO SUCH UNITS
TOTAL Wt. = 5800 t
25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t
1094.5
3828.1
1850
1850
9548
1850
1850
2000
4524
2000
2733.6
Type - 8 2D(2+55 1262.62 11600

BOXN) Table 6.4 (a) – Traffic Modes for 32.5t Loading
(Contd.)

Appendix G.I
(Contd.)
1
Total
(m)
9. FREIGHT TRAIN
TWO BO-BO + 40 BOXN
Type - 9 BO-BO+40 456.375 4200 2 UNIT @ 31110 40 UNITS @ 10713
BOXN TOTAL Wt. = 4200 t

25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t
3244.5
1094.5
2150
2800
5650
2800
2000
4524
2000
10. FREIGHT EMPTY TRAIN
TWO 25T LOCO + 55 BOXN
2 UNITS @ 19500 55 UNITS @ 10713
Type - 10 2(25T)+55 624.15 1686 TOTAL Wt. = 1686 t

25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 6.3t 6.3t 6.3t 6.3t
BOXN
4064.5
1094.5
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
2000
4524
2000
(Contd.)

Appendix G.I
(Contd.)
1
Total
(m)
11. FREIGHT EMPTY TRAIN

TWO 22.5T LOCO + 40 BOXN
2 UNITS @ 16000 40 UNITS @ 10713
Type - 11 2(22.5T)+40 457.925 1278
BOXN TOTAL Wt. = 1278 t
6.3t 6.3t 6.3t 6.3t
1094.5
2594.5
1500
1650
1650
6400
1650
1650
2000
4524
2000
Appendix G.I
Table 2 (a) – Traffic Models 32.5t (DFC) Loading

Class of Traffic
Total Heavy Medium Light
Train Weight
length GMT
for- Train per (150 GMT) (100 GMT) (50 GMT)
of per
Type of mation Composition Train
Train train No. of No. of No. of
Train No. (t) Trains Trains Trains
(m) GMT GMT GMT
per per per
day day day
Freight 1 Two 6 axle 473.35 5500 2.07 3 6.12 2 4.08 4 8.16
trains loco as
loaded proposed +
(Gondola 40
Type
2 2(2WDG2 1256.43 14900 5.44 4 21.988 2 10.994 1 5.497
Wagon)
Type +55)
3 One 8-axle 459.62 5400 1.97 15 29.895 11 21.923 2 3.986
loco + 40
4 3WDG2 861.975 10200 3.72 6 22.536 4 15.024 2 7.512
Type+75
5 3WAG6C 865.161 10155 3.7 18 66.474 12 44.316 6 22.158
+75
Freight 6 2WDG2 467.52 1332 0.486 3 1.524 2 1.16 3 1.524
trains Type+40
empty
7 2MBG Type 621.215 1689 0.616 2 1.232 4 2.464 2 1.232
loco +55

Appendix G.I

Appendix G.I

Appendix G.I

Appendix G-II
Table G-II.1 Non-welded details
Detail Constructional Detail Description Requirements

category
NOTE: The fatigue strength curve associated with category 160 is the Rolled and extruded products: Details 1) to 2)
highest. No detail can reach a better fatigue strength at any number
1) Plates and flats Sharp edges, surface and rolling
of cycles.
2) Rolled sections flaws to be improved by grinding
until removed and smooth
160 transition achieved.
1 2
3) Sheared or gas cut plates: 3) All visible signs of edge

discontinuities to be removed.
Machine gas cut or sheared
The cut areas are to be
material subsequently dressed
machined or ground and all
to remove all edge
burrs to be removed.
discontinuities.
Any machinery scratches for
example from grinding
operations can only be parallel
125 to the stresses.
3 Detail 3
- Re-entrant corners to be
improved by grinding (slope <
¼) or evaluated using the
appropriate stress concentration
factors.
- No repair by weld refill.

Appendix G-II
For detail 1-3 made of weathering steel use the next lower category
4) Double covered symmetrical 4) ∆σto be calculated on the gross
joint with preloaded high cross-section.
strength bolts.
112
4
5) Double covered joint with fitted 5) ∆σto be calculated on the net

or non preloaded bolts. cross section.
5
6) One sided connection with 6) ∆σto be calculated on the gross
preloaded H.S.B. cross-section.
90
7) Structural element with holes 7) ∆σto be calculated on the net

subject to bending and axial cross- section.
forces.

Appendix G-II
100 7a) & 7b) Rolled and extruded 7a) & 7b) ∆τ calculated from:
products, as in details
M=5 ( )
1) and 2) above τ =
8) One sided connection with fitted 8) ∆σto be calculated on the net

bolts or rivets. cross-section.
80
9) Bolts and rods with rolled or cut 9) ∆σto be calculated using the
thread in tension. tensile stress area of the bolt.
For large diameters (anchor Bending and tension resulting
from prying effects and bending
bolts) the size effect has to be stresses from other sources
taken into account with ks must be taken into account.
50
Size effect for φ>30mm For preloaded bolts, the
ks=(30/φ)0.25. reduction of the stress range
may be taken into account.
Where, φ is the nominal
diameter of the bolt or rod.

Appendix G-II
10) Rivets or Bolts in single or 10) ∆τcalculated on the shank area

double shear. Thread not in the of the bolt.
shear plane
100 - Fitted bolts
m=5 - Normal bolts without load
reversal (bolts of property class
6.6, 8.8 or 10.9)

Appendix G-II
Table G-II.2 Welded built-up sections

category
Continuous longitudinal welds: Details 1) to 2)
1) Automatic butt welds carried out No stop/start position is
from both sides. permitted except when the repair
125 2) Automatic fillet welds Cover is performed and inspection is
plate ends to be checked using carried out to verify the proper
detail 5) or 6) Table G-II.5. execution of the repair.
1 2
3) Automatic fillet or butt weld 4) When this detail contains

carried out from both sides but stop/start positions category 100
containing stop/start positions. to be used.
4) Automatic butt welds made from
112 3 one side only, with a continuous
backing bar, but without
stop/start positions.
4
5) Manual fillet or butt weld. 6) A very good fit between the

flange and web plates is
6) Manual or automatic butt weld
essential. The web edge to be
carried out from one side only,
100 prepared such that the root face
5 6 particularly for box girders.
is adequate for the achievement
of regular root penetration
without break-out.

Appendix G-II
7) Repaired automatic or manual 7) Improvement by grinding

fillet or butt welds for categories performed by specialist to
1-6 above. remove all visible signs and
100 adequate verification can restore
the original category.
7
8) Intermittent longitudinal fillet 8) ∆σbased on normal stress in

welds. flange.
80
9) Longitudinal butt weld, fillet weld 9) ∆σbased on normal stress in

or intermittent weld with cope flange.
holes, cope holes not higher
than 60mm.
71
10) Longitudinal butt welds, both

125 sides ground flush parallel to
load direction, 100% NDT.
10) No grinding and no start/stop.
112
10
90 10) With start/stop positions.

Appendix G-II
Table G-II.3 Transverse butt welds

category
t Without backing bar: Details 1, 2 and 3:
slope < 1/4 t 1) Transverse splice in plate and - All welds ground flush to plate
flats surface parallel to direction of the
arrow.
2) Flange and web splices in plate
1 girders before assembly. - Weld run-on and run-off pieces to be
Size effect used and subsequently removed,
2a) Full cross-section butt welds
plate edge to be ground flush in
112 for t>25mm: of rolled sections without cope
direction of stress.
holes.
ks=(25/t)0.2 < 1/4
- Welded from both sides: checked by
3) Transverse splices in plates or
2 NDT
3 flats tapered in width or in
thickness, with a slope < ¼. Detail 2 a)
Rolled sections with the same
dimensions without tolerance
2a
differences or cut and rewelded.
4) Transverse splices in plates - The height of the weld convexity to
or flats. be not greater than 10% of the weld
< 0 .1 b t s lo p e < 1 /4 t
b width, with smooth transition to the
4a)Full cross-section butt welds of
plate surface.
rolled sections without cope
Size effect holes. - Weld run-on and run-off pieces to be
for t>25mm: used and subsequently removed,
90 4 5) Transverse splices in plates or
plate edges to be ground flush in
flats tapered in width or in
ks=(25/t)0.2 < 1 /4
thickness with a slope < ¼.
direction of stress.
5 Translation of welds to be - Welded from both sides; checked by
4a
machined notch free. NDT.
Details 4 and 5
Welds made in flat position.

Appendix G-II
4b)Full cross-section butt welds - All weld ground flush to plate

of rolled sections with cope surface parallel to direction of the
holes. arrow.
- Weld run-on and run-off pieces to
Size effect be used and subsequently
for removed, plate edges to be
90 t>25mm: ground flush in direction of stress.
ks=(25/t)0.2
4b - Welded from both sides; checked
by NDT.
- Rolled sections with the same
dimensions without tolerance
differences.
6) Transverse splices in - The height of the weld convexity
welded plate girders without to be not greater than 20% of the
< 0.2b t cope hole. weld width, with smooth transition
b 6a) Full cross-section butt
to the plate surface.
welds of rolled sections with - Weld not ground flush.
cope holes.
- Weld run-on and run-off pieces to
6 7) Transverse splice in plates, be used and subsequently
Size effect
flats, rolled sections or plate removed, plate edge to be ground
for girders. flush in direction of stress.
80 7
t>25mm:
- Welded from both sides; checked
ks=(25/t)0.2 by NDT.
6a
Detail 6a:
The height of the weld convexity to
be not greater than 10% of the weld
width, with smooth transition to the
plate surface.

Appendix G-II
8) Full cross-section butt - Weld run-on and run-off pieces to

welds of rolled sections be used and subsequently
without cope hole. removed, plate edges to be
ground flush in direction of stress.
63
- Welded from both sides.
8
t 9) Butt welds made from one 12) Without backing strip.
36 side only
Size effect 9) Butt welds made from one

for side only when full
71 t>25mm: penetration checked by
9 appropriate NDT.
ks=(25/t)0.2
With backing strip: Details 10) and 11):

10) Transverse splice. Fillet welds attaching the backing
Size effect strip to terminate > 10mm from the
11) Transverse butt weld
for edges of the stressed plate.
tapered in width or
71 t>25mm: thickness with a slope < ¼.
Also valid for curved plates.
ks=(25/t)0.2

Appendix G-II
12) Transverse butt weld on a 12) Where backing strip fillet welds
Size effect < 1/4 permanent backing strip end < 10 mm from the plate
for tapered in width or edge, or if a good fit cannot be
50 thickness with a slope < ¼. guaranteed.
t>25mm:
Also valid for curved plates.
ks=(25/t)0.2
As 13) Transverse butt weld at Details 13) and 14)

detail crossing flanges.
The fatigue strength in the
1 in perpendicular direction has to be
Table checked with Table G-II.4 detail 4 or
G-II.5 detail 5.
As 14) With transition radius

detail according to Table G-II.4,
4 in detail 4.
Table
G-II.4

Appendix G-II
Table G-II.4 Welded attachments and stiffeners

catego
ry
80 L<50mm Longitudinal attachments: The thickness of the attachment
must be less than its height. If not
50<L<80 1) The detail category varies
71 according to the length of the see Table G-II.5, details 5 or 6.
mm L L
attachment L.
80<L<10
63
0mm 1
L>100m
56 m
2) Longitudinal attachments to
plate or tube.
L>100m L L
71 m
α<45o
2

Appendix G-II
3) Longitudinal fillet welded gusset Detail 3) and 4)

L r with radius transition to plate or
r tube; end of fillet weld reinforced Smooth transition radius r formed
(full penetration); length of by initially machining or gas cutting
80 r>150mm 3 reinforced weld >r. the gusset plate before welding,
then grinding subsequently the
reinforced weld area parallel to the direction
of the arrow so that the transverse
weld toe is fully removed.
r 1 4) Gusset plate, welded to the

≥ edge of a plate or beam flange.
90 l 3
r>150mm
1 r 1
≤ ≤
71 6 l 3
r 1
50 <
l 6
5) As welded, no radius transition.
40

Appendix G-II
Transverse attachments Details 6) and 7):

80 ℓ<50mm
6) Welded to plate.
7) Vertical stiffeners welded to a Ends of welds to be carefully
beam or plate girder. ground to remove any undercut
8) Diaphragm of box girders that may be present.
welded to the flange or the web.
Not possible for hollow sections.
50<ℓ<80 7) ∆σto be calculated using
71 The values are also valid for ring
mm principal stresses if the stiffener
stiffeners. terminates in the web.
9) The effect of welded shear studs ∆τto be calculated on the nominal

on base material. cross section of the stud.
80

Appendix G-II
Table G-II.5 Load carrying welded joint

category
all t Cruciform and Tee joints 1) Inspected and found free
from discontinuities and
1) Toe failure in full penetration misalignments outside
butt welds and all partial the recommended
80 ℓ <50mm penetration joints. tolerances.
t t
1 2) For computing ∆σ, use
modified nominal stress.
3) In partial penetration
71 50< ℓ <80 all t
joints two fatigue
63 80< ℓ <100 all t assessments are
required. Firstly, root
56 100< ℓ <120 all t cracking evaluated
according to stresses
56 ℓ >120 t <20
defined in section 7.3,
120< ℓ <200 t >20 using category 36* for
50 ∆σw and category 80 for
ℓ >200 20<t<30 ∆τw. Secondly, toe
200 <ℓ <300 t >30 cracking is evaluated by
45 determining ∆σ in the
ℓ >300 30<t<50 load carrying plate.
40 ℓ >300 t >50

Appendix G-II
2) Toe failure from edge of Details 1) to 3)

flexible panel attachment to plate, with
stress peaks at weld end The misalignment of the
As detail load-carrying plates should
due to local plate
1 in not exceed 15% of the
deformations.
Table thickness of the intermediate
G-II.5 t plate.
2
3) Root failure in partial

penetration Tee-built joint or
fillet welded joint and
36* effective full penetration in
Tee-butt joint.
3
>10 Overlapped welded joints 4) ∆σin the main plate to be

mm stressed area
As detail calculated on the basis of
>10 mm of main plate 4) Fillet welded lap joint. area shown in the sketch.
1 in
Table
G-II.5 4 slope 1/2
t

Appendix G-II
Overlapped 5) ∆σto be calculated in the

overlapping plates.
5) Fillet welded lap joint.
>10
mm
Details 4) and 5)
45* - Welded terminations more
than 10 mm from plate
edge.
5
- Shear cracking in the weld
should be checked using
detail 8).
tc<t tc>t Cover plates in beams and 6) If the cover plate is wider
plate girders than the flange, a frontal
56* t<20 - weld is needed. This
6) End zones of single or
50 20<t<30 t<20 weld should be carefully
multiple welded cover plates,
ground to remove
with or without frontal weld.
45 30<t<50 20<t<30 undercut.
40 t>50 30<t<50 The minimum length of
the cover plate is 300mm.
36 - t>50 For shorter attachments
see detail 1).
7) Cover plates in beams and 7) Front weld ground flush.
reinforced front weld t plate girders. In addition, if tc>20mm,
front of plate at the end
5 tc is the minimum length of
ground with a slope < ¼.
56 the reinforcement weld.
7 5t c
t

Appendix G-II
8) Continuous fillet welds 8) ∆τto be calculated from

>10 transmitting a shear flow, the weld throat area.
m m such as web to flange welds
in plate girders. 9) ∆τto be calculated from
80 the weld throat area
9) Fillet welded lap joint. considering the total
m=5
8 9 length of the weld. Weld
terminations more than
10mm from the plate
edge.

Appendix G-II
Table G-II.6 : Fatigue resistance against geometric stressfor cracks initiating from toes of welds.
Detail Constructional details Description Requirements

category
1) Full penetration butt 1)

joint.
− All welds ground flush to plate surface parallel to direction of
1 the arrow.
112 − Weld run-on and run-off pieces to be used and subsequently
removed, plate edges to be ground flush in direction of stress.
− Welded from both sides, checked by NDT.
− For misalignment see note 1 below.
2) Full penetration butt 2)
joint.
− Weld not ground flush
2
− Weld run-on and run-off pieces to be used and subsequently
100
removed, plate edges to be ground flush in direction of stress.
− Welded from both sides.
− For misalignment see note 1 below
3) Cruciform joint with 3)
full penetration K-
− Weld toe angle < 60o
100 3 butt welds.
− For misalignment see note 1 below.

Appendix G-II
4) Non load-carrying 4) Weld toe angle < 60o

fillet welds.
(see note 2 below)
100
4
5) Bracket ends, ends 5) Weld toe angle < 60o

of longitudinal
(see note 2 below)
100 stiffeners.
5
6) Cover plate end and 6) Weld toe angle < 60o

similar joints.
100 6 (see note 2 below)
7) Cruciform joints with 7) Weld toe angle < 60o

90 load-carrying fillet
7 (see notes 1 and 2 below)
welds.
NOTE 1. Table G-II.6 does not cover effects of misalignment. They have to be considered explicitly in determination of stress.
NOTE 2. Table G-II.6 does not cover fatigue initiation from the root followed by propagation through the throat.
******************

Appendix G-II
Cycle counting Methods

A.1. The application of a loading event, in general, produces complex stress histories that
rarely have constant amplitude at most of the structural details. In order to assess the
fatigue damage at these details due to the complex stress history, the load history has to
be reduced to a sequence of blocks of constant amplitude. The process of identification
of the constant amplitude stress ranges and the associated number of cycles present in
the stress history is known as ‘cycle counting’. The damage accumulated due to these
constant amplitude blocks can be calculated individually and summed using Palmgren-
Miner's rule to calculate the total accumulated damage of the structure. The two most
commonly employed methods for cycle counting are the ‘Reservoir method’ and the
‘Rainflow method’, both yielding identical results if the rainflow analysis is initiated from
the highest peak in the stress history. The reservoir count is employed for short stress
histories while the rainflow counting is employed for longer and more complex stress
histories.
A.2. Cycle counting by the reservoir method
A.2.1. The graphical plot of the stress history, in this method, is imagined as a cross
section of a reservoir filled with water. The water is drained from each of the lowest
points successively till the entire reservoir is drained. Each drainage operation
represents a cycle of stress range equal in magnitude to the height of the water
drained in that particular operation.
A.2.2. The procedure for cycle count by the reservoir method is as follows :-
A.2.2.1 It is assumed that the stress history has been derived taking into consideration such
provisions as are applicable with regard to loads, structural details, structural
material, methods of analysis and any other modifications necessary.
A.2.2.2 The peaks and valleys are identified in the original stress history (figure A.1) and
joined by straight line segments, if necessary. This modified stress history will be
used for the reservoir count as shown in figure A.2.
A.2.2.3 A copy of the stress history is appended to the original (figure A.3) and the highest
point (A) in the original segment and its counterpart (B) in the appended segment
are marked and joined by a straight horizontal line. The portion of the stress history
so enclosed will be used to represent the reservoir. In case there are two or more
equal peaks in the original segment of the stress history then the first such peak will
be considered along with its counterpart from the appended segment.

Appendix G-II
A.2.2.4 The reservoir is drained successively from the lowest points (E, F, D and C taken in
order as shown in figure A.4) which retain water till the entire reservoir is emptied.
Each drainage operation corresponds to a cycle of stress range equal in magnitude
to the height of the water drained in that particular operation i.e. one cycle of stress
range σA - σE when drainage is from trough E.
A.2.2.5 The stress ranges and their associated number of cycles are sorted according to the
magnitude of the stress ranges for further processing using the Palmgren-Miner
criteria.
A.2.3. Consider the following example :-
A stress history consists of the following stress variation
Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Stress 28 -18 8 2 22 -6 20 8 20 -18 22 -4 26 12
A, O B C D E F G H I J K L M N
In order to conduct a reservoir count appending the first point, as it is the highest,
will suffice for the definition of the reservoir. A schematic diagram indicating the

Appendix G-II
extent of drainage from each trough is as shown in figure A.5. The points in the
stress history have been labeled from A to O for easy identification.
The results from the reservoir count can be tabulated as follows:-

Drainage from Trough Highest water level at Stress range
B A 46
J K 40
F G 26
L K 26
D C 6
H G 12
N M 14
The above may be arranged in order for further processing.

A.3. Cycle counting by the rainflow method
A.3.1. The rainflow counting technique is based on the visualization of flow of rain over
a sequence of pagoda roofs and essentially counts half cycles. In order to effect
the visualization the stress history is rotated such that the time axis is vertical with
the origin located towards the top. Rainflow is assumed to begin from a peak or a
trough and the distance it travels determines the magnitude of the stress range,
each flow contributing a half cycle.
A.3.1. The procedure for rainflow count is as follows :-
(a) It is assumed that the stress history conforms to 2.2(a) and is modified in
accordance with 2.2(b) so that the stress history is reduced to a sequence of
peaks and troughs.
(b) The stress history may be modified in accordance with 2.2(c) so that it begins
and ends with the highest peak (or the deepest trough).

Appendix G-II
(c) The stress history is rotated through 90o such that the origin of the time axis is
located towards the top (figure A.6).
(d) A drop begins to flow (figure A.7) left from a peak (1-2) or right from a trough(1-3)
onto subsequent roofs (3-4-6) unless the surface receiving the drop is formed by
a peak which is more positive than the origin of the drop (1-2) for a left flow, or, a
trough that is more negative for a right flow(4-5).
(e) The path of a drop cannot cross the path of a drop which has fallen from a higher
roof (5-6).
(f) A drop ceases to flow when it reaches the end of the stress history record (1-3).
(g) The horizontal displacement of the drop from its origin to its final position
measured in appropriate stress units represents a half cycle of the associated
stress range.
A.3.1. Considering the same example as in 2.3 the rainflow patterns are as shown in
figure A.8.

Appendix G-II
The results from the rainflow count can be tabulated as follows:-

Origin of flow Termination of flow Half cycle stress range
A B 46
B O 46
C D 6
D C 6
E J 40
F G 26
G F 26
H I 12
I H 12
J K 40
K L 26
L K 26
M N 14
N M 14

Appendix G-II
The half cycles in the above may be combined and subsequently arranged in order for
further processing. It may be noted that the results of the rainflow and the reservoir counting
are identical in this case.
A.3.1. Stress Histogram: If we divide stress range in units of 10, Stress histogram for
the above cycles can be made as follows:-
Stress Range slab Mean Value of No of Cycles
Stress Range slab
0-9.9 5 1
10-19.9 15 2
20-29.9 25 2
30-39.9 35 0
40-49.9 45 2
***********

84TH BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING
Item No. 1006/84th: Guidelines on Seismic Design of Railway Bridges.
Ref: Item No. 1006/79th/2010/CBS/Project Seismic/I&P

1. The adoption of new seismic design method requires corrections in
several codes of Railways. Seismic provisions scattered in different codes
will create confusion.
2. Provision of a single Seismic Code will avoid duplicity of codal provisions
and will make revisions and updation much easier.
1. It is recommended to have a single Seismic Code for Railway Bridges.
Necessary procedures shall be followed for issue of a new Code.
2. The RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges can be
converted into a Seismic Code for Railway Bridges.
3. Necessary Correction Slips shall be issued for all the existing Codes
replacing all the Seismic related clauses with a reference to Seismic Code
for Railway Bridges.
A New Seismic Code For Railways Bridges shall be prepared by the RDSO
based upon “RDSO Guidelines on Seismic Design of Railway Bridges”
synchronizing with all the existing codes. Necessary correction slips shall be
proposed in existing codes and manuals replacing all the relevant Para with a
reference to the proposed Seismic Code.
PRESENT STATUS:
The current Seismic provisions of Bridge rules have now become obsolete and
needs to be replaced with latest provisions of IS codes, which are based on the
current International Seismic design philosophy and practices.
After 83rd BSC meeting, it was decided that a New “Seismic Code for Railways
Bridges” shall be prepared by the RDSO based upon “RDSO Guidelines on
Seismic Design of Railway Bridges” synchronising with all the existing codes.
Necessary correction slips shall be proposed in existing codes and manuals
replacing all the relevant Para with a reference to the proposed Seismic Code.
However, IS-1893 (Part 3) dealing with Seismic Design of Highway and Railway
Bridges has now been published by the BIS. But this IS code cannot be adopted
by Railways in Toto because we want some of the design parameters changed
for Railway loadings. The IS 1893 (part3) stipulates the Live load combination
factor to be 30% instead of 50% adopted by us. The response reduction factors
for Bearings and foundations are also very low and at variance with what we
have adopted for Railways. Apart from these constant factors, IS code 1893
Item No 1066/1006 Page 62

(part 3) and the RDSO’s Seismic Guidelines for Railway Bridges are having
exactly the same provisions.
To avoid duplicity or confusions, it is now proposed that we adopt the IS1893
(part 3) with small modifications in R values and Live Load factor as Railways
Seismic Code. Hence a Draft Seismic Code for Railway Bridges has been
prepared based upon IS-1893 (part 3) with only a small change in R value and
Live Load factor. The provisions of ductile detailing as given in the Appendix A is
also the same as in IS 1893. The Railways Seismic Code for all practical purpose
shall be same as IS 1893-(Part 3) with all the references to related IS-codes such
as IS-1893 (part-1) for Zone map and IS code 13920-1993 for ductile detailing
etc remaining intact.
In due course of time the IS code 1893 (part 3) may get revised based upon
Railway’s Seismic code and then in that case there will be no conflict in the
railways and IS codes.
*************
Item No 1066/1006 Page 63

Item No. 1024/84th: Inclusion of provision of HSFG Bolt in IRS Steel

Bridge Code.
Ref: Item No. 1024/80th/2011/ CBS/DFP

1. HSFG bolts are advantageous as compared to rivets and shall be used.
2. The proper provision of HSFG bolts requires care on part of personnel
carrying out/ inspecting the work.
3. RDSO submitted that HSFG bolts are as per IS codes and need not have
separate vendor List. However it was discussed that HSFG bolts are a
new introduction in system and more care in quality is required.
1. RDSO shall propose a cut off date for making HSFG bolts mandatory for
all steel construction.
2. RDSO shall prepare vendor list for this item.
3. Training of field engineers shall be arranged by RDSO.
1. The instruction have already been issued vide Board’s letter No. 2014/CE-
III/BR/Bridge Policy dated 31.08.2015 for using drawings with HSFG bolt
works for all future bridge works.
2. RDSO to issue list of known sources for HSFG bolts within two months
time.
3. RDSO shall integrate training on HSFG bolts in the training programmes
regularly organized for steel fabrication.
PRESENT STATUS:
1. HSFG bolts are being taught regularly at IRICEN and has been included in
RDSO’s training programs.
2. RDSO has issued BS:111 Revision 5 and QAP has been incorporated in
the same for ensuring quality in field. RDSO is associating with IRICEN for
training in HSFG Bolts and has included these in fabrication training.
3. List of known sources is not a standard procedure at RDSO. Few items for
which such lists have been prepared give rise to complaints as there is no
procedure for updating the list and vendors left out of this list keep on
complaining. If proper procedure is not followed, improper Vendors get
included in “list of known sources.”
4. High Strength Friction Grip (HSFG) bolts were approved for use on railway
bridges in January 2014. These bolts have been used for ROBs for a

couple of years prior to that. RDSO has issued guidance to field units
through report no BS-111, which has been regularly updated to reflect the
latest knowledge in this respect.
5. There are few reports of problems due to use of HSFG bolts and most of
the problems referred are due to use of non-standard
procedure/equipment for tightening and due to non-usage of Direct
Tension Indicator (DTI) washers. The performance of HSFG bolts
depends on proper tightening of bolts on properly prepared surface.
6. 3.0 The surface preparation for new applications has been specified as
“Metallising without overcoating”. The specifications for metallising are as
per IRS B1, para 39.2.1. Checking the thickness of metallising is a simple
procedure using elcometer and the quality of surface preparation ca be
easily ensured. Some old tenders did not have metallising provisions but
newer tenders are all having this provision.
7. 4.0 Therefore, proper tightening of bolts is the only variable that needs
proper care in field. The procedure given in IRS Steel Bridge code is
simple and can ensure proper tightening if the field officials take care in
inspections. But the quality still depends on the diligence of the field
officials.
8. 5.0 There is another class of bolts whose action is similar to HSFG bolts
but the quality control is easier. These bolts, called lock bolts, are provided
on slightly different principle than HSFG bolts. The HSFG bolts require
proper torque to be given to the bolt so that proper axial tension is induced
in the same, whereas the lock bolts are pulled axially to directly give the
requisite tension in the shank of the bolt before the collar is pressed to
complete the bolt installation. Certain bolts have an additional feature
wherein the extended leg of bolt is broken by twisting off the same.
9. Advantages of Lock bolts:
a. The axial load in bolt shank is directly given, so the chances of axial
load being correct are higher. Unlike HSFG bolts, these bolts are not
dependent on the condition of surface of threads to determine the
amount of torque that is transmitted as axial force in bolt.
b. The installation is faster than HSFG bolts as reliable single stage
installation is possible.
c. There are certain bolts in which the indication of desired axial load
being given to the bolt is provided in bolt itself. These bolts will not
require DTI washers to be used.
d. With close fitting bolts, these can be used as a replacement of rivets in
repair applications. Since the rivets have been phased out in new
construction, it is likely that, in few years, the riveting equipment and
skilled persons will not be available at all for carrying out the repair
works. This was also a recommendation no 2(iv) of committee of CBEs
for review of maintenance practices for bridges.
e. These bolts can be one-to-one substitute for HSFG bolts for

appropriate property class.
f. These bolts are temper-proof and don’t require tack welding or locking
of threads as currently specified in railway codes.
g. These bolts are covered in British standard BS 7805 Part 2:1997.
h. The lock bolts are already in use in wagons for underframe where
welding is not desirable. Specifications have been issued vide WD-
11036-S-01 and WD-11036-S-02 for “Technical requirements and
performance parameters of lock bolts and collars used in wagons”.
10. Disadvantages of Lock bolts:
a. Two-stage tightening is not possible with lock bolts. For joints with
thicker plates, two stage tightening to ensure that the plates are in
close contact is essentially required, as the joint will not work on friction
grip effect. To overcome this shortcoming, ordinary bolts can be used
for first stage tightening and then replaced by lock bolts in second
stage. The proper contact between plates can be ensured after the first
stage.
b. There are some apprehensions about malfunctioning of the equipment
to be used for installing the lock bolts. For the same, these bolts shall
be required to be periodically checked for proper axial load using DTI
washers.
c. Special proprietary equipment are required to tighten the bolts. This
equipment may be electrically operated or hydraulic and are generally
operated by the bolt manufacturers themselves. This can lead to
reliance on the manufacturer to complete the projects on time. This
problem will be acute for projects where the number of bolts is lesser.
d. Some bolts with twist-off feature have lots of wastage. This makes
these bolts slightly costlier than normal HSFG bolts in capital cost even
though the labour requirement is lesser.
11. The committee may deliberate and decide on the following issues:
1. Whether any standard list of vendors shall be prepared for HSFG
bolts/nuts and washers which are to be supplied as per IS codes.
2. Whether RDSO shall prepare specifications for lock bolts for use on
Indian Railways.
*************

Item No. 1025/84th: Standard Drawings for FOB’s.
Ref: Item No. 1025/80th/2011/ CBS/DFOB

New Designs with lighter structures must be adopted as has been done in
Western & Central Railways. The new design shall be lighter, durable and easily
maintainable. Support should be single column base on Platform. Subways to be
preferred instead of very high FOBs. Maintenance of FOBs is a big problem
today.
1. RDSO to explore new forms of FOBs with aesthetics and addressing
maintenance/ construction aspects.
2. Single central column shall be given and provision of lift.
3. Ramp Design may also be examined.
4. Suggestions from Railways may be sent to RDSO.
RDSO to explore new forms of FOB’s keeping the requirements of aesthetics
and ease in maintenance.
PRESENT STATUS:
The design unit at RDSO is presently engaged in the design and drawing of Long
Span Open web girders and High priority Bow String Arch ROB’s.
After completing high priority designs the design of new FOB’s will be taken up.
*************

Item No. 1038/8th: Yardsticks for Bridge Organisation.
Ref: Item No. 1038/81st/2012/ CBS/Admn.

This is a very important item affecting creation of posts and bridge maintenance
in field. The work of committee needs to be expedited.
The committee shall complete its work within next three months and submit
report before 01-09-2015.
Committee to submit report by 31-10-2015.Item to be dropped from BSC.
PRESENT STATUS:
Further Railway Board vide letter No. 2015/CE-III/BR/ Yardsticks for Bridges/4
dt.11.12.15 advised committee that lot of new bridges/ tunnels on new
lines/doubling etc. are under construction in hilly regions/across large rivers
necessitating construction of tall piers and massive superstructures such as
Bogibeel Bridge, Ganga Bridge in Patna and Munger, Chenab Bridge
etc.Committee shall take up in to account efforts required for inspection and
maintenance of bridge piers which has increased exponentially with increase in
height of piers and a proper assessment of workload is to be done for such
bridges for field supervisors viz. BRIs, IOWs and PWIs.
Committee has taken up this task also along with terms and references to the
committee made vide Railway Board’s letter No. 2015/CE-III/BR/ Yardsticks for
Bridges/4 dt.11.12.15.Last meeting was held at IRICEN, Pune
on12.02.2016.Performa for collection of details have been circulated to all CBEs
with a view to obtain details of the existing system and practices. Committee has
planned to visit Chenab, Bogibeel and Ganga Bridge site Patna and Munger to
assess the workload.
Efforts are being made to submit the report shortly.
Committee may kindly deliberate further.
*************

Item No. 1040/84th: Technical guidelines for Box Pushing technique.

Ref: Item No. 1040/82nd/2014/ CBS/DBC
1. RDSO has prepared draft guidelines based on references received from
some zonal railways.
2. This need to be further studied. Railways shall forward details of
difficulties/problems faced by them so that these cases can be included in
the guidelines before issue.
Detailed study is needed, especially in regard to problems/ difficulties faced by
Railways. Railways to send details in this regard to RDSO.
Item to be closed after issue of guidelines or instructions in this regard.
Instructions have already been issued by Railway Board vide Policy letter No.
2014/CEIII/BR/Bridge Policy dated 29.05.2015. Item to be closed.
PRESENT STATUS:
Railway Board vide letter No. 2014/CEIII/BR/Bridge Policy dated 29.05.2015
advised Zonal Railways that Box pushing should not be resorted as this led to
unsafe condition. It was also advised that in exceptional circumstances Box
Pushing Technique should be adopted that too, with the personal approval of
PCE/CAO/C concerned.
Railway Board has further advised vide letter No. 2016/CEIII/BR/Bridge Policy
dated 25.10.2016 that this item needs to be discussed in BSC.
Guidelines for Box Pushing Technique were compiled at RDSO and submitted to
Railway Board vide RDSO letter No. CBS/Box Pushing dated 18.07.2014. A copy
of Draft Guidelines for Box Pushing Technique was also circulated to Zonal
railways for comments vide letter No. CBS/Box Pushing dated 04.03.2015.
BSC may please deliberate upon the item.
*************

Item No. 1042/84th: Periodicity of changing of oil in oil bath for roller
bearing.
Ref: Item No. 1042/82nd/2014/ CBS/ Bearing

This item may be closed.
Item may be closed.
RDSO shall study how the periodicity of change of oil bath has been decided
and the item may be presented in next BSC.
PRESENT STATUS:
This item was deliberated in the 82nd BSC and the committee observed that Oil in
the Oil bath degrade after prolonged used and may not remain usable after
cleaning. Hence oil replacement frequency must be decided to maintain the
quality. After due deliberations and discussions the committee decided that the
oil in the oil bath bearing must be replaced completely after every 5 year.
Railway Board accepted the above recommendations of 82nd BSC and asked the
RDSO to issue the necessary correction slips in Bridge Manual.
Accordingly, advance correction Slip number 32 to IRBM dated 12-03-2015 have
been issued and uploaded on the web site. The Para 222 2(f) has been replaced
and it says;
“In the case of roller bearing with oil bath, dust covers should invariably be
provided to keep the oil free from dirt. Whenever oil bath bearings are provided,
inspection of the bearing, after removal of the casing to the extent necessary,
should be carried out at least once in 5 years. Checking of oil level, draining out
as necessary to detect and remove any water collected at the bottom and
replenishing the oil, should be done annually. The Oil in Oil bath Bearing must be
changed completely once in every 5 years.”
Now the Railway Board has directed that the basis on which the frequency of 5
years was decided be discussed again.
The basis on which the frequency of Oil change was decided are as follows:-
1. Existing and prevalent RDSO guidelines in the form of BS-102 clearly
stipulates (in Para 3.3-page 4) that Oil in the Oil Bath must be changed
completely every 5 years. Therefore, the old guidelines already existed for
5 year replacement frequency.
2. The service life of oil in a bearing system depends upon several factors
such as type of oil, pressure and temperature, dirt and water

contamination etc. The service life of Oil will also depend on Span of the
Bridge and Traffic. Water may remain well mixed in the oil through
emulsification and still appear perfectly clean oil. However, water
contamination acts as catalyst for oil degradation in the form of resin and
sludge formation. The Oil film breaks down under heavy pressure if water
gets mixed in the oil through emulsification. Even the best type of oil will
have a finite and limited service life under such high pressure surface
sliding asis the case in large bridge bearings.
3. There are no clearly established OIL cleanliness standards for Railway
bridge bearings. Therefore, rejection or acceptance of the Oil after a
certain years of service life based upon chemical& filtration analysis is a
complicated issue.
4. There are NO official records of OIL testing of existing Oil bath bearings
and no one can say for sure that the OIL contamination level is within
acceptable range or not. Even Oil filtration standards have not been
defined in any of our manuals for Bridge Bearings.
5. The Cost of replacement of Oil for Bridge Bearings are quite insignificant
even if it is thrown away after 5 years as a waste product. However, the
Oil need not be thrown away as a waste product and its recycling
elsewhere will reduce the cost of wastage even further. The OIL after
filtration can be very well used in other equipment’s and machines such as
small and large track machines, mobile cranes and Vehicles etc.
6. Once the oil replacements starts, we can get it tested and create a record
which may help us in arriving to any revised frequency of oil replacement
in future.
*************

Item No. 1045/84th: Introduction of Higher spans and skew angles in

ROB drawings.
Ref: Item No. 1045/82nd/2014/ CBS/DRO/Skew

1. There is wide spread requirement of ROBs at higher skew angles.
However the methods suggested by RDSO shall allow reduction of skew
angles below 20 degree in most of the cases which are covered by RDSO
drawings. For exceptional cases local designs may be used.
2. For 6 line highways, Bow string girders shall have 3 lanes.
1. RDSO shall issue instructions for restricting skew angles to 20 degree as
far as possible.
2. Bow string girders shall be designed for 3 lane width.
3. The item may be closed.
1. RDSO to issue instructions for restricting Skew angles to 20 deg as far as
possible.
2. RDSO to design Bow String Arch Girders for 3-Lane Bridges.
3. Item to be closed.
PRESENT STATUS:
RDSO has incorporated the instructions regarding skew angle in report no BS-
112.
The revised RDSO drawings for revised lane width configurations for NHAI have
been designed and GAD/structural details of main girder drawings have already
been issued. Other drawings are being prepared and will be issued shortly.
RDSO is going to develop 3 Lane Bow String Arch Girder with new IRC lane
width and loading. The Drawings are expected to be ready by June 2017.
*************

Item No. 1047/84th: Formulae for the estimation of scour depth at

bridge piers.
Ref: Item No. 1047/82nd/2014/ RBF/BSC/82

Feedback received from CR & SWR only. The details from other railways have
not been received. Validation therefore could not be done of the new formula for
scour estimation.
SER, ECR and ER have mentioned that they will provide details of scour
observed in last 50-100 years for at least 10 bridges each.
RDSO will compare scour estimation for these bridges to validate the formulae.
SER, ECR and ER to provide scour observed data for 10 bridges each.
RDSO to validate the formula and results be advised to Railways.
Item be closed.
1. RDSO to validate the formula and propose A&C slip.
2. Item to be closed after issue of A&C slip.
PRESENT STATUS:
1. SER, ECR and ER were requested to submit the requisite data to RDSO
vide letter no. RBF/BSC/82 dated 22.09.2015.
2. Reminders to ECR &ER have been sent vide letter nos. RBF/BSC/82
dated 12.07.16 and 15.09.2016. The required data is still awaited from
both Railways.
3. SER has submitted the data for 10 bridges to RDSO vide their letter dated
03.11.2015. After due analysis the data submitted by SER has been found
incomplete. Accordingly SER has been informed.
4. The validation of the Melville formula will be done after getting the
complete data from three Railways.
*************

Item No. 1050/84th: Working of BCM through ballasted deck.
Ref: Item No. 1050/82nd/2014/ CBS/BCM Machine

Railway Board Order are awaited on the committee’s report.
Relaxation in para 8 (iii) (a) & (c) of chapter-I of IRSOD in accordance with
provision of para 11 A (v) & (vi) of chapter-II of IRSOD.
Action need to be taken based on Railway Board Orders on committee’s
(nominated by Railway Board) recommendations.
Committee’s report under consideration. Board’s orders on Committee’s
recommendations will be communicated.
PRESENT STATUS:
Committee’s report under consideration. Board’s order on Committee
recommendations is awaited.
*************

Item No. 1053/84th: Buoyancy Effect for Design of Foundation and

Substructures.
Ref: Item No. 1053/83rd/2015/CBS/PSBC

Historical background for present provisions in IRS Sub-Structures and
Foundations Code related to buoyancy effects for design of structures/
foundation were discussed. There is need to modify the present provision to
further clarify them.
1. A&C Slip to Sub-Structures and Foundations Code to modify para 5.10
buoyancy effect be proposed by RDSO.
2. The para numbers need not be changed.
3. Item to be closed after issue of A&C Slip.
Orders will be issued separately
PRESENT STATUS:
Vide letter No. CBS/PSBC dated 02.09.2014 & 10.06.2015, A&C Slip was
submitted to Railway Board for approval. Railway Board, vide its letter no
2014/CE-III/BR/BSC/83/Seminar dated 07.10.2016 has advised that this issue to
be addressed by the committee constituted for revising the IRS Sub-structure
and Foundation code. The committee’s report is to be finalized by 31.12.2016.
*************

Item No. 1054/84th: Standard Inspection Arrangement for Bridges.
Ref: Item No. 1054/83rd/2015/CBS/DOW

1. Inspection arrangements are very important for proper inspections.
2. These arrangements shall not cause corrosion/damage to existing
structures.
3. The inspection arrangements shall be incorporated in RDSOs standard
drawings.
4. Lots of bridges already have inspection arrangements which can be
referred standardizing.
1. BS report 113 has been issued by RDSO for planning of inspection
arrangements.
2. Zonal railways shall share drawings/designs and photographs of
inspection arrangement already provided in field.
3. RDSO shall examine different materials/methods that can be used to
minimize corrosion in girders. The inspection arrangements shall be
planned so as to cause least problems in steel/ concrete.
4. RDSO shall incorporate inspection arrangements in standard drawings.
1. Provision of inspection arrangements is mandatory for all new bridges to
be constructed vide Railway Board letter no 2014/CE-III/BR/Bridge Policy
dated 09.10.2014.
2. Detailed inspection arrangements to be incorporated in the standard
drawings by RDSO latest by 31.10.2015.
PRESENT STATUS:
1. No Zonal Railway has sent any photograph/arrangement already provided
in field. All railways are requested once again to give the details of
inspection arrangement provided on their jurisdictions and also give their
opinion about BS-113 so that the same can be improved and the
inspection arrangement drawings can be incorporated in the RDSO’s
standard drawings.
2. Inspection Arrangement for Bearings: RDSO has issued inspection
arrangement for bearings at piers as drawing no CBS-0016 on
27.03.2001.

3. Inspection Arrangement for Bearings and Plate/ Composite girders:

RDSO has recently issued drawing No. CBS 0044 for inspection
arrangement for standard plate and composite girder to RDSO drawings.
4. Inspection Arrangement for Open Web girders:
a. All the new drawings being developed by RDSO for long span Open
Web girder are being provided with inspection footpaths. However, in
the absence of any input by Railways, nothing could be decided on
preferred methods of attachment of inspection arrangements on
existing bridges.
b. The inspection arrangements attached with clamping arrangements
only may become bulky and ugly looking. Such clamping
arrangements are also likely to create corrosion in the clamping
locations. It is preferred to have several cleats welded in appropriate
locations to support the inspection ladders, pathways, platforms and
railings. No structural weakness is introduced if welding of cleats is
done on the existing structure at appropriate locations (such as web of
a girder) with proper care and planning. We may decide to drill holes in
the web of girders to fix the support angles for inspection frames
instead of welding.
c. The Scope and number of Inspection arrangements cannot be
standardized by RDSO for open web girders. It is recommended that
modern and advance inspection tools such as Quadcopter/ Drone
Camera be hired for important OWG bridge inspections, which are now
cheaply and abundantly available in all metros. Then based upon
specific requirements special repair or inspection arrangements may
be installed on a temporary basis only. Further, the material to be used
to erect such a temporary inspection arrangement may be built using
light weight Aluminums Ladders or even composite materials. The
material for inspection arrangements may also be not standardized.
Therefore the BS report may be used as guideline for erection of such
arrangements.
5. Inspection Arrangement for Concrete Girders:
a. Brief History-
Following minimum clearance to be ensured for proper inspection of
prestressed structures as stipulated vide A&C Slip to IRS CBC, Dated
04.09.2006:
• Minimum vertical clearance inside PSC Box Girder shall be
900mm.
• Minimum gap between ballast wall and the girder shall be 600mm.
• Minimum gap between ends of the girders at piers shall be
1200mm.

• Size of opening in the diaphragms of PSC box girder shall be

600mm x 900mm (width x Height)
b. Various Inspection Arrangements for different types of bridges have
been issued in BS-113 (Guidelines for Providing Arrangements for
Bridge Inspection) in November 2014. For inaccessible parts, the
arrangements for their inspection as per BS-113 are as below:-
• By temporarily hanging the platforms around the inspecting area of
the girder.
• Vehicle mounted mechanical inspection Platform running on track,
which will run in block.
• Vehicle mounted mechanical inspection Platform on river bed or
floating on river.
• Permanent Inspection arrangement as in 6.3 of BS-113.
c. RDSO Remarks:
• The parts or portion of a PSC girder near the pier/abutment can be
inspected visually.
• However, inaccessible parts may be provided with the following
arrangements:
- Fixed arrangement on piers.
- Movable portable type trolley.
- High resolution camera (static or fitted on Unmanned Ariel
Vehicle (UAV)/Drone).
- Also, if permanent fixed Inspection arrangement is to be
supported from PSC Girder itself then PSC Girder will have to
be designed/ checked for the same.
• Further, Railways may advise the arrangement for inspection
presently being used by them so that standardization of the same
can be examined.
6. Inspection Arrangement for sub-structure: BS-113 mentions either
inspection vehicle or rungs provided on the piers/abutments for inspection.
There was an idea about lift for tall piers (>40m). The practical solution is,
however, not yet in sight. The Zonal Railways may give arrangements
provided, if any, or give their opinion about possible solutions.
7. The committee may deliberate further.
*************

Item No. 1055/84th: Revision of Standard list of tools and equipment

for inspection of bridges.
Ref: Item No. 1055/83rd/2015/CBS/IRBM

RDSO shall take suggestions from Zonal Railways and prepare a comprehensive
list of tools/equipments for inspection.
Correction Slip shall be proposed by RDSO.
A committee of CBEs has been nominated by Railway Board to make a
comprehensive list of tools and equipments for inspection of bridges. RDSO to
propose correction slip(s) taking into account recommendations of this
committee. The item stands closed after issue of correction slip(s).
PRESENT STATUS:
Final Railway Board Orders on the report of committee of CBEs awaited. The
A&C Slip will be proposed after the orders are received.
*************

Item No. 1057/84th: Percentage of passive earth pressure to be taken

in design and analysis of well foundation.
Ref: Item No. 1057/83rd/2015/CBS/PSBC

Historical background of present provisions in IRS Sub-Structures and
Foundations Code (Para 6.9.3) was discussed. It is observed that while issuing
A&C Slip some error was incorporated and it gives contradictory instructions (in
first part and second part of the para).
A&C Slip be proposed by RDSO to clarify the provisions. Item may be closed
after issue of A&C.
Orders will be issued separately.
PRESENT STATUS:
Vide letter No. CBS/PSBC dated 16.06.2015, A&C Slip submitted to Railway
Board for approval. Railway Board, vide its letter no 2014/CE-
III/BR/BSC/83/Seminar dated 07.10.2016 has advised that this issue to be
addressed by the committee constituted for revising the IRS Sub-structure and
Foundation code. The committee’s report is to be finalized by 31.12.2016.
*************

Item No. 1059/84th: Provision of Shrinkage and Temperature

reinforcement in Concrete Structures.
Ref: Item No. 1059/83rd/2015/CBS/DBC

The provisions in para 4.9 and 5.9.9 may be deleted. These are very stringent
and otherwise covered by other provisions.
RDSO shall propose A&C slip to delete para 4.9 and 5.9.9 of IRS Concrete
Bridge Code. Item be closed after issue of A&C slip.
There is no requirement of discussion on standardization of Drawings in BSC.
PRESENT STATUS:
Draft A&C Slip No. 4 to IRS Concrete Bridge Code has been sent to Railway
Board for approval vide letter No CBS/PSBC dated 11.06.15. Railway Board has
again been requested for approval vide letter No. CBS/PSBC dated 22.09.15.
Approval of Railway Board is awaited.
*************

Manual On The Design and Construction of Well and Pile Foundations

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Manual On The Design and Construction of Well and Pile Foundations

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

भारत सरकार रे ल मं ालय

अनुस%धान अ भक'प एवं मानक संगठन,

ITEM No. 1060: Use of Corrosion Resistant Reinforcement.

BSC Reference : Nil

As per Railway Board’s instruction vide letter no. 2015/CE-III/BR/RDSO/Misc.

“Special precaution like coating of reinforcement may be required in very severe

3.0 BS-14 (Durability of Concrete structures) - After detailed deliberations, A&C-1

“7.1.5 Protective Coatings: - In order to offer adequate resistance against

Item No 1060 Page 3

Aggressive Environment Non aggressive environment

7.1.5 Protective Coatings: - In order to offer adequate resistance against

6.2.3 Products with improved corrosion resistance

Item No 1060 Page 4

6.2.3. Galvanized reinforcement

The strength as well as elongation and bond properties of galvanized

6.2.3.2 Epoxy-coated reinforcement

Reinforcing bars conforming to IS 1786 can be coated by fusion bonded epoxy

The bond of coated reinforcement is lowered by upto 20 percent of that of

6.2.3.3 Stainless steel reinforcement

Note: The Indian Standard for stainless steel reinforcement is under

7.0 RDSO Remarks:-

Existing provisions in IRS CBC seems to be adequate if proper cover (with

Reinforcement Coating Concrete Coating

Item No 1060 Page 5

8. Committee may please deliberate.

Item No 1060 Page 6

ITEM No. 1061: Provision of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)

Indian oil corporation Ltd. vide letter No. PL/HO/CONST/GENERAL/1.0 dated

1. With the advancement of technology and experience gained internationally and

While laying the pipeline by Bored Cased Crossing method, following

Item No 1061 Page 7

x. Difficulty in extension of casing length in case of widening required as per

2. Based on the literature study undertaken by RDSO, the existing provisions of

Item No 1061 Page 8

e. Hydrostatic test plan that should consider pretesting of the fabricated

Item No 1061 Page 9

4. Committee may please deliberate.

Item No 1061 Page 10

BSC Reference : Nil

2. Chief Secretary of Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Odisha and Madhya

3. A letter was again written to Board vide PCE/SECR’s letter No.

4. In response, EDCE (B&S)-II, Railway Board vide letter 2014/CE-IV/Misc./21

Item No 1062 Page 11

5. As a result, lot of drainage problems are faced in subways involving pumping, in

6. The issue needs to be addressed for which a policy/MOU needs to be issued

7. Alternative/innovative arrangement made by other Railways for drainage of water

C) The suggestions may be submitted to the committee by Zonal Railways on

8. Committee may please deliberate upon the item.

Item No 1062 Page 12

ITEM No. 1063: Reduction in water way of bridges.

BSC Ref. : Nil

Existing clause 4.5.9 of Bridge Substructure and Foundation Code

S.No. Span of Bridge Reduction in waterway area allowed

Background of the existing clause 4.5.9

Item No 1064 Page 13

• CBE should be competent to reduce the waterway after assessing individual

Committee may please deliberate upon the item.

Item No 1064 Page 14

ITEM No. 1064: Consideration of Future Tracks during Finalization of

BSC Ref. : Nil.

1. Broad guidelines for preparation of General Arrangement Drawings (GAD’s) of

4. Railway Board vide its letter No. 2015/CE-IV/ROB/76 dated 02-03-2016

Item No 1064 Page 15

GAUGE_ LOCATION AT KM