Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

DEVELOPING NEW GENERATION CODES OF PRACTICES

FOR BRIDGES IN INDIA COMBINING TRADITIONAL
WISDOM, CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND ALLOWING
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
S.G. Joglekar
Director (Engineering Core)
STUP Consultants P. Ltd, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

ABSTRACT

Bridge codes have to integrate established principles of mechanics, workable and

acceptable modelling of structures, analytical tools, traditional art and practices of
construction, up-to-date knowledge of material behaviour, available technologies with
their limitations / advantages, and prescribe a set of requirements and recommendations
which ensure construction of serviceable, safe and durable bridges. The requirements
have to be restrictive wherever and to whatever extent necessary, but should not come in
the way of new developments and advances in the bridge engineering. This should be
done without compromising on safety and other basic issues. The code so drafted is not a
text book, nor a hand-book. It is not a statutory document, nor is it strictly a standard. It
should be truly a “Code of Practice” which is current, transparent and changeable.

It is necessary to adopt a design philosophy and an approach which will promote

the achievement of the above. Towards this end, it is relevant to derive benefit from the
experience of other countries in code making and adopt the suitable methods for our use.
Experience of European Countries while making Eurocodes is highly instructive.

INTRODUCTION

The Code is a written statement of acceptable, and/or desirable practices of the

subject matter of ‘Code’. Penal Code, Code of Conduct, Code of Practices are the usages
of this concept, which help us to grasp the essential meaning of the word ‘Code’. Codes
are necessarily written by those in authority for controlling and guiding the activities of
common practitioners. There is an inherent danger in this system. By too rigid an
enforcement, new developments and ultimately the progress may stultify; by being too
liberal (either by being very general and not becoming specific, or by not exercising
powers to assure compliance), it may become ineffective in achieving control; - either
way, defeating its whole purpose. How to achieve a proper balance by administrative or
legal means is not the subject matter of this presentation. The discussion is about how to
choose the contents of the code and organise them in such a way as to (a) encourage
voluntary compliance, by being useful, and not because of mandatory nature; (b)

39
 S.G. Joglekar

permit/encourage new developments and (c) adopt open and flexible format to accept and
include new developments in the main body of the code without having to re-write the
whole code. The Most important aspect of this task is to adopt a sound practicable
philosophy of design which fuels growth of knowledge and encourages development of
technology which benefits the supplier as well as the user at large. Although the
discussion has a specific target of Current and New Bridge Codes in India, the concepts
apply to all code-making activities in the present situation in India.

EVOLUTION OF PRESENT DAY CODES

In civil engineering environment, the codes deal with the design and construction
of civil engineering structures. With thousands of years of construction activity, it is not
surprising that the Indians, Chinese, Romans, Europeans and other civilisations evolved
codes, some of which are still available - if not practiced. However, in spite of a very
long history, it is only recently that the ‘codes’ have been given a ‘philosophical’ basis.
This happened slowly over decades in the process of development of scientific and
mathematical basis of theory of structures and concept of safety. In its early decades the
experience of constructing structures by practicing engineers influenced the code who
had to evolve solutions whether theories were developed or not. The advent of cast iron,
carbon steels, reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete and high strength steels made it
necessary to carry out theoretical studies and laboratory experiments and include this
knowledge in the code in order to give guidance for use of these materials. Also new
emerging technologies had to be codified.

Rapid developments and challenges in aircraft design and construction and its
safety aspects brought about by the Second World War gave a tremendous boost to the
structural engineering. This laid foundation for the present approach to safety.
Understanding and assuring safety has given impetus to the research and development for
all types of structural solutions. Safety of the structures and of users has become the main
concern of codes.

NEED FOR CHANGE

Developments have taken place in different countries and in different fields at

different rate and so have the practices and the codes differed widely. Time has come for
rationalising our approach and benefiting from the international experiences. Many more
developments in near future can be clearly foreseen by the way of introduction of new
materials and new methods of design. This will call for new ‘Codes’. It is imperative at
this point of time to review the situation and take fresh bearings for navigating our ways
in the future. An exhaustive review of current international codal practices in structural
engineering is not possible due to obvious limitations. It is proposed that we restrict
attention to those advanced codes which are nearer to our own practices and would help

40
Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

us in our ongoing efforts of preparing the ‘New Bridge Codes’, which will be used – and
extended for newer applications - in early two or three decades of the 21st century.

PRESENT SCENARIO OF INDIAN BRIDGE RELATED CODES

In India, three major sets of codes deal with the design of concrete/ steel bridge
structures. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is given mandate by Govt of India for
establishing all general purpose codes. These are published as IS Codes. The Indian
Roads Congress (IRC) publishes its own standards for special application to Bridges and
Roads, which get higher precedence over BIS codes where specifically provided for. For
other aspects, BIS Codes still hold good. Indian Railways similarly publish and use their
own codes. Various Irrigation Departments of State Governments follow their own
combination of IS/IRC codes supplemented by their own practices for aqueducts and
river hydraulic and bank protection. The “Regulatory Forest” is indeed dense, dark and
full of dangers for poor general practitioner of structural engineering. (Indian materials
are more intelligent and seem to adopt appropriately to each code and behave according
to its dictates.)

For reasons well known to the engineering fraternity, the Indian codes are mostly
(with few exceptions) written by updating their knowledge contents derived from the
foreign sources. Sources in the English languages – viz. British, American and Australian
are preferred. German and French sources are sometimes used. Often, a comparative
study is made to search for a common denominator. The recommendations of foreign
codes are examined in light of locally available materials, technology, workmanship etc.,
and decisions are made on the basis of faith, apprehensions, and personal choices of
decision maker(s), - rarely by detailed examination by truly expert sub-committee.

A totally voluntary group of experts supported by their organisations, who do not

have financial benefits, nor enough recognition for the work, are helping BIS to their
best. This is in great contrast with an array of foremost experts from the universities, and
industry working for the Eurocode, and the special R & D projects funded by the
European Committee. The motive force for them is the expanded market of Unified
Europe for all those contributing from the commercial establishments. .

The Indian Roads Congress on the other hand is in a much better position. All
the code making committees of IRC are active and working to some set agenda, targets
and time-table. The participants from Public Works Departments are backed by the
Government, and so are the private persons from the Industry backed by their own
organisation (obviously, for commercial reasons). This is a more cohesive and focused
group. A new set of documents based on the Limit State Approach are already under
preparation. The organisation of Bridge Codes of IRC and its technical committees are
listed in Annexure-1.

41
 S.G. Joglekar

NEW STRATEGY IS NEEDED

The general need of preparing ‘new generation codes’ has been brought out in
section 3.0 above. Some of the code committees have started work on new drafts.
However, a hi-level policy is required to be put in place and guidance to the different
committees needs to be formulated. A high level co-ordination between committees will
also be welcome to speed up the process. It is to be noted that without the strong
motivation, long term goals, and central co-ordination, the efforts of Eurocodes would
not have succeeded.

It should be realised that the ‘New Indian Bridge Codes’, will be used – and
extended for newer applications - in early two or three decades of the 21st century. To
achieve the same, an appropriate common design philosophy and a standardised and
purposeful format is essential. For this purpose it is necessary to understand the nature of
codes and their place in practice. The remaining parts of this discussion suggests a
suitable philosophy and the format, which is capable of combining the established theory,
principles and experience based rules, state acceptable modelling of the problems and
their solutions (structural, hydraulic, geotechnical etc.), incorporate up-to-date knowledge
of the materials, and come out with a set of requirements and recommendations based
upon the available technologies with their strengths and limitations. By being transparent
and admitting limits of applicability the format of codes will become helpful to new
developments and suitable for incorporating changes as the art and science of engineering
bridges develops.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY - LIMIT STATE SEMI-PROBABILISTIC APPROACH

For fully understanding the proposed philosophical basis of “Limit State Design”
understanding the historical developments in structural engineering is very useful. Many
excellent publications are available. For a quick and brief review reference is made to
Annexure-2 of this paper.

It is most appropriate to adopt what is commonly known as “Limit State

Philosophy” as the basic philosophy of all bridge codes, with possible exception (at this
stage) for the geotechnical aspects of design. The up-to-date information and suitable
format of the same is available (for concrete structures) in CEB/FIP Model Code of 1978
and 1990. (The model adopted by ‘Eurocodes’ is based on it, but is a practical
compromise between the model code, existing national codes and divergent approaches
of member states. Thus, it deviates in details from the model code formats.) The
advantages of adopting limit state philosophy are briefly listed below without going in
detail discussion:

42
Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

1. The basic aims of safety, serviceability, durability and economy are recognised.
Other aspects such as fire resistance and environmental impacts can be easily
added where applicable.

2. With better understanding of material behaviour in the elastic range, plastic range
and failure mechanisms, appropriate mathematical models for the analysis are
chosen. The behaviour (i.e. performance) of the structure being designed can be
pre-determined as a design choice.

3. Appropriate magnitudes of material factors depending upon the variability in

properties of different materials subjected to different types of loads can be
incorporated.

4. Variability of loads from the natural events (e.g. wind, earthquake) and also those
loads from intended use (man-made loads) can be incorporated knowing their
statistical distribution functions. These loads when they combine in different
combinations, the probability of combination of extreme values can be estimated
and allowed for in the design. This permits proper evaluation of “risk” in
probabilistic terms and more rational approach to risk management can be taken.

5. Where knowledge is inadequate and full rationalisation is not possible, the

existing practices and experiences can be incorporated by techniques of
retrofitting. This is what was done when the first limit state codes were written
and tried in practice concurrently with existing codes for a few years. This
approach permits immediate change over to the new formats and then changing
the same in details (i.e. values of partial factors) when further studies /
experiences justify the change

NATURE OF CODE

What ‘Code-is-Not’

In an engineering environment, it is easier to understand what the code is and

what should be its coverage or contents, if one understands what code is not:

Code is not a Text Book

A textbook contains fundamental principles and basic knowledge of the subject

matter, which is well established and widely accepted. A code refers to this knowledge
base, but does not quote it in a comprehensive manner and is not a ‘stand-alone’ text
covering theory.

43
 S.G. Joglekar

Code is not a Hand-Book

A hand-book on any subject is a collection of theory, data-base, statement of

practices, rules and information needed by users, and is basically a comprehensive
reference document. The code may refer to some commonly known and acceptable data
base, acceptable practices, approximations and thumb rules – but it is not a
comprehensive collection of the same.

Code is not a Statutory Document

In most of the countries code contains recommendations which are not legally
mandatory by themselves, - (they may become so by virtue of provisions of contract
document between the purchaser and supplier), - nor does the use of code relieves user
of his statutory, professional, or moral responsibilities in the social context.

Code is not a ‘Standard’

A ‘standard’ tries to formally define as accurately as practicable the properties,

methods of measurements, tests and procedures which lend precise meaning to general
concepts, and form basis of acceptance/ rejection of a product. This is the case of ASTM
(American Standards of Testing Materials). In many a case the structural “code of
practice” has been raised to a status of “national standard”, but in reality it continue to be
a “code” in its essence. This happens when a statutorily established national body
formulates codes of practices.

CONTENTS OF CODE

These can be grouped in the following parts:

Principles

These are general statements or definitions for which there are no alternatives
within the time-frame of validity of code. Principles by this definition also include
fundamental knowledge (theory or text-book knowledge).

Application Rules

These are the statement of methods acceptable to code, which follow the
principles and are consistent with their requirements. Alternative methods may be
permitted explicitly provided they comply with the spirit of the principles and satisfy the
general requirements of the code, such as strength, durability etc. Often, the use of
alternatives is left unstated (or uncommented in commentary also, if one is provided)

44
Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

which leads to various interpretations and debate about validity and/or acceptability of
the new and/or unstated propositions.

Commentary

This supplies clarifications, background information, limits of applicability,

further guidance and any such help that code writers care to bring to the attention of
users.

This division of contents is explicitly used by some codes like French codes,
(BAEL and BPEL Codes dealing with RCC and Prestressed Concrete Bridges). This is
also a preferred format of Model Code of CEB/FIP-1978 and 1990.Some other codes
publish a separate Explanatory Guide. The Rest leave it to the enterprising authors, or to
the mercy of the authority and users.

PROPOSED COVERAGE OF CODE

Whether explicitly stated or implied, the subject matter covered by codes covers
the following :

Statement of Philosophy, ‘Basis of Design’

The code should clearly state its aims and its approach adopted to achieve the
aims.

Established Knowledge/Theory

Established knowledge/theory is reiterated in code to minimum necessary extent

to indicate the basis for application clauses.

Analytical Models and Simplifications

Modern codes explicitly well established cover this topic and distinguish between
simple, normally met methods by long use and the more advanced methods of analysis
and use of more exact properties of materials. The use of latter in preference to ‘simple’
should be clearly indicated.

Stated (or Unstated) Aims

Safety, serviceability, durability, and economy – Most often these aims being of
qualitative nature, and not easily measurable, may or may not be stated explicitly, but
they form a strong background for contents of the code. New aims are getting added to

45
 S.G. Joglekar

this list – eco-friendliness, aesthetics, energy conservation, operation and maintenance

requirements are being now added by modern codes directly or indirectly.

Expected Minimum Requirements of Structures

The ‘requirements’ are the description of the characteristics that a structure

(and/or it’s components) should possess in order to meet the “aims” stated in (b). This is
followed by setting up corresponding ‘design criteria’. The code presumes that by
satisfying design criteria the requirements will be met.

Rules and Practices

A set of rules, derived from theory or from practice, and acceptable analytical
models used in predicting the characteristics/properties of the designed structure
(element), which meets the ‘requirements’ stated in (c).

Materials

Acceptable materials and their properties. The most commonly used materials are
included covering the essential - but not exhaustive - properties.

Workmanship

Recommended workmanship practices, which essentially are technical

specifications, but are not complete by themselves and are not exhaustive like tender
specifications are covered. Aspects of Quality Assurance and Reliability, Operation and
Maintenance are being addressed to varying degree.

The extent to which the above aspects are detailed decides the extent to which the
document stands on its own, (or has to draw support from other similar codes). This
choice lies with the code writing bodies.

COMPOSITION OF CODE COMMITTEES

To prepare a code meeting all ‘desirables’ listed above is a complex task. The
code committee should be properly balanced. Academicians, researchers, designers,
constructors, manufacturers, in fact all disciplines related to bridges must be represented
and contribute their knowledge and experience. Owners and Government Departments in
their position as Trustees of Public Property should represent users.

An apex committee should formulate the approach and philosophy and give
overall guidance to the main committees. The sub-committees and expert organisations
should prepare detailed drafts. A central cell of experts should be formed to interact with

46
Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

users for clarifying their doubts and suggestions. These methods will go a long way to
achieve desirable results.

REFERENCES

1. Concrete Structures Euro-Design Handbook – 1994/96.

2. Joglekar. S.G. Proposals for Revision – IS:456-1978 – Code of Practice for Plain
and Reinforced Concrete, May 1991 : General Approach & Restructuring of
Code Format by

3. Joseph Pugsley, Safety of Structures.

4. Proceedings / Report on IABSE Conference, DAVOS 1992 – Structural

Eurocodes.

ANNEXURE-1

PRESENT ORGANISATION OF IRC BRIDGE CODES

IRC Code No. Title

IRC:5 – 1985 Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section I General Features of Design (Sixth Revision).

IRC:6 – 1966 Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section II Loads and Stresses (Third Revision).

IRC:18 - 1985 Design Criteria for Prestressed Concrete Road Bridges (Post
Tensioned Concrete) (Second Revision).

IRC:21 - 1987 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section III Cement Concrete (Plain and Reinforced (Second
Revision).

IRC:22 - 1986 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section VI - Composite Construction for Road Bridges (First
Revision).

IRC:24 - 1967 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section V - Steel Road Bridges.

47
 S.G. Joglekar

IRC:40 - 1970 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges
Section IV - Brick, Stone and Block Masonry.

IRC:78 - 1983 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges
Section VII - Foundations and Substructure (First Revision).

IRC:83 - 1982 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section IX - Bearings, Part I : Metallic Bearings.

IRC:83 - 1987 Standard Specifications and Code of

Part-II Practice for Road Bridges, Section IX, Bearings, Part II -

Elastomeric Bearings.

IRC:87 - 1984 Guidelines for the Design & Erection of False Work for Road
Bridges.

IRC:89 - 1985 Guidelines for Design Construction of River Training and

Control Works for Road Bridges.

IRC:SP-9 - 1972 Rating for Bridges

IRC:SP-13 - 1973 Guidelines for the Design of Small Bridges and Culverts.

IRC:SP-18 - 1978 Manual for Highways Bridge Maintenance Inspection.

IRC:SP-33 - 1988 Guidelines on Supplemental Measures for Design, Detailing

Durability of Important Bridge Structures.

IRC:SP-47 – 1998 Guidelines on Quality Systems for Road Bridges.

IRC:SP-64 - 2005 Guidelines for the Analysis and Design of Cast-in-Place Voided
Slab Superstructure

IRC:SP-65 - 2005 Guidelines for Design and Construction of Segmental Bridges.

IRC:SP-66 - 2005 Guidelines for Design of Continuous Bridges.

IRC:SP-67 - 2005 Guidelines for Use of External and Unbonded Prestressing

Tendons in Bridge Structures.

IRC:SP-70 - 2005 Guidelines for the Use of High Performance Concrete in

Bridges.

48
Advances in Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

The task of updating and revising these codes is entrusted to Bridge & Specifications
Committee which has in turn constituted eight to nine sub-committees to take charge of
various Groups of Codes and Special Publications.

ANNEXURE-2

DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

It is useful to trace briefly the evolution of design philosophies in the order to put
the whole issue of new generation codes in its proper perspective.

The industrial revolution in Europe led to development of cast iron and then steel
as structural materials. The economy of construction and the problem of variability of
strength of materials had opposite pulls in achieving optimal design and construction
solutions. A series of theoretical studies and problems faced in the practical application
led to concepts like safety margins, or safety factors measured by the ratio of minimum
expected strength and maximum working load – a combined material and load factor as
presently understood. In case of brittle fracture, or sudden failure like buckling, the
acceptable ‘safe’ margins were proposed and were improved from time to time. The
theory of bending combined with the ductility (or yielding) of materials led to another
approach based on the ratio of yielding stress to permissible stress (safety factor on yield
can also be looked at as safety factor on large deformations). Methods for ensuring safety
against dynamic effects of loads, impact and fatigue developed. These approaches
worked well for steel. When reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete developed
both allowable (working) stress (i.e. serviceability methods) and overall safety factors
(i.e. safety factors on strength) were followed by engineers, and as a result a mixed
approach has entered in the design of concrete structures. The understanding of the
behaviour of concrete structures and its many applications in practice had developed side
by side. This led to frequent changes in not only the detailed design rules, but also in the
basic approach, or design philosophy. These basic philosophies also differed from
country to country.

The American Practice followed semi-empirical approach thereby understanding

and developing theory to the extent possible, but for the practical use establishing
strength prediction methods experimentally. This approach has practical limitations in
promoting growth of knowledge. The Russians developed the Ultimate Load Factor
methods. The British and European approach was theoretically more ‘pure’, but it had to
accept artificial compromises to accommodate observed (or experimental) behaviour.
The example of design of (composite) reinforced concrete column by working stress
method is the best known example of this compromise, wherein the real decision making
is based on ultimate sharing of load in steel and concrete (after creep and shrinkage takes

49
 S.G. Joglekar

place), but the strength formulae in working load codes are made to look live “allowable
stress method” formulae.

However, a new design philosophy evolved for steel and concrete structures
borrowing philosophical approach from the fields of aircraft design and incorporating
growing understanding of their own old approaches. This philosophy is a practical
compromise between the old methods and new fully probabilistic concepts of safety, or
‘reliability’ based risk management. This semi-probabilistic limit-state philosophy, at
present, forms the basis of many of the national codes, including the Canadians, who are
switching over from the American ways to the European concepts. The Indian Code
writers are slowly, but surely, adopting this approach and even the staunch followers of
“working load / elastic formats” such as prestressed concrete bridge designs, design of
water retaining structures are adopting the new philosophy.

In light of these developments it is useful to learn from those who have attempted
the change before us. The experience of Eurocodes is very instructive and well
documented. The end results are also becoming available one by one.

50