Government of India Ministry of Railways

AGENDA
SEMINAR FOR

CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEERS

16th & 17th November, 2009

Indian Railways Institute of Civil Engineering Pune

AGENDA OF CBEs SEM INAR AT IRICEN ON TH TH 16 & 17 NOVEMBER, 2009

1. RDSO Items related to Instrumentation of bridges (a) Instrum entation on Railway Bridges after introduction of CC+8+2 Various zonal railways are carrying out ins trumentation as per the guideli nes issued earlier. After e xamining the reports , it is obs erved that necessary s crutiny is m issing at Railway level and the agencies are not giving any concrete conclusion of the s tudy. This item needs to be discuss ed and m odalities to be decided for future instrum entation and reporting.( A sm all pres entation will be given by RDSO regarding the obs ervations ) 2 Items related to DFC/25T loading Rebuilding/Strengthening/Rehabilitation of bridges for 25t & DFC loading Railway Board vide letter No.2007/CE-I/BR-III/5/25t dated 08.7.2009 has decided as under : (a) Bridges being rebuilt on DFC feeder routes s hould have the subs tructure rebuilt on DFC loading (32.5t axle load) provided in IRS Bridge Rules vide correction slip No.39. Supers tructure of thes e bridges would be rebuilt to 25t loading-2008 provided in IRS Bridge Rules vide correction slip No.38. (b) Other bridges on DFC feeder routes requiring rehabilitation/s trengthening s hould have required works carried out for 25t loading-2008 provided in IRS Bridge Rules . (c) For res t of the routes including 25t nom inated routes (but excluding DFC loading routes erstwhile HM loading routes ) being rebuilt/s trengthened/ rehabilitated, should have required works carried out for 25t loading-2008 provided in IRS Bridge Rules. 2. 25t loading and DFC loadings have been circulated by RDSO vide C.S. No.38 & 39 to Bridge Rules . It is interes ting to note that both these loads will be pulled by s ame locos in the front. For diesel and electric traction, tractive effort s hall be as under: 25T Electric loco 2 x 52 T = 104T in front Electric loco 1 x 84 T = 84T in front Diesel loco 2 x 63 T = 126 T in front DFC Same 1

IRICEN (a)

3. All longitudinal loads given in tables are for 126 T of horizontal load, which is applicable to dies el loco. If a route is electrified, max. tracti ve effort will be only 104T. 4. Des ign of s ubs tructure is prim arily based on longitudinal loads . So there is no point in checking a subs tructure and s trengthening it with reference to 126 T tractive effort if only electric locos have to be run on a particular route. There can be separate tables for Electric and dies el routes . NR (b) Policy of reconstruction & rehabilitation of bridges on feeder routes of DFC: Following points need deliberation Revis ed loading s tandard for bridges requiring rebuilding/s trengthening on DFC feeder routes have been reiterated by Bds letter no. 2007/CE-I/BR-III/5/25t dated 14.1.09 and provided in IRS bridge rules vide correction s lip no. 38, 39 & 40. It is des ired to ens ure that all the bridges on DFC feeder routes s hould conform to 25t loading 2008, i.e. axle load of 25t, tractive effort of 126t and trailing load of 9.33t/m. However considering that even 100t tractive effort pres cribed in MBG loading is not being run pres ently,m ild gradients ( maxm ruling gradient is 1 in 200 on Ropar-Nangal Dam s ection out of 7 DFC feeder routes), the need for running 126t tractive effort is not appreciated. Cons idering exis ting length of freight trains under 25t loading ( there is no increas e in loop length), increased tractive effort would be well within 20% due to increase in axle loads and bridges may not require jacketing as per correction s lip no. 23 of s ubs tructure and foundation code. For 25t loading 2008, TE has been kept the same while axle load is 25t, trailing load is 9.33t/m. Further if size of wagons is increased to have 25t axle load, SOD will be infringed and large s cale rem odeling of yards and s tructures like ROB/FOB etc. will be required. The whole iss ue needs re-exam ination and further ins tructions from Railway Board SER (c) Standard type of drawing for Pipe line crossing of DFC loading s tandard Railway Board, vide letter No.2007/CE-I?BR-III/5/25t dated 08.7.2009 ins tructed that Bridges being rebuilt on DFC feeder routes s hould have the subs tructure rebuilt on DFC loading (32.5t axle load) Provis ion of pipes under running traffic vide RDSOs Drg. No.1609R1 had been withdrawn and NP4 pip es were recomm ended vide RDSOs letter No.CBS/DCP dated 11.12.2006. NP4 pipe conforming to IS Code 458:2003 is fit for HML loading vide RDSOs letter No.CBS/DCP, dated 22/27.1.2004 and 24.12.2003. Standard drawings for RCC pipes and MS pipes for DFC loading are required for pipe line cross ing works or for providing pip e bridges in the s ection identified as DFC feeder routes . RDSO may issue s tandard drawings for pipe line crossings and bridges under running track for DFC loading. 2

SECR

(d)

Strengthening of well foundations /deep foundation In s ome of the bridges , the exis ting foundation is well foundation/deep open foundation. For s trengthening of these foundations suitable s cheme m ay be developed by RDSO.

ER

(e)

Rehabilitation of railway bridges - the future work load During recent days the population of bridge to be rehabilitated either by s trengthening or rebuilding has increased m any fold due to overage, introduction of high axel loads and identification of som e routes as feeder routes to DFC . The problem of a large number of dis tress ed bridges being anticipated in near future and the constraints in their rehabilitation has pos ed a s erious challenge to Railways in spite of the detailed guidelines s tipulated in chapter-V of IRBM for rehabilitation of bridges . Thus there is urgent need to evolve methodology for s peedy rehabilitation due to the followin g cons trains/reasons : 1. Cons traint of "Engineering Tim e Allowance". 2. The population of bridges being very large on DFC routes . 3. A large Nos . to becom e distress ed in near future 4. Speed res trictions . 5. Limited res ources and m an powers available with rail way. 6. Safety cons ideration while taking up of rehabilitation works on large scale. It is , therefore, s ugges ted that core committee of experts from zonal railways including RDSO compris ing three to four zones m ay be set up which will exam ine the adequacy of s trength of repres entative bridges in view of their old age and increasing axle loads and to evolve m ethodology for their rehabilitation keeping in view of above cons trains / reasons . Core comm ittee s hould also be empowered to take help of cons ultants if required.

SECR

(f)

Strengthening of abutments for running of heavier axle loads Des ign checks for s trengthening of s ubs tructures reveals that the abutm ent of almos t all the bridges are failing in 25 t loading. Though the piers of bridges are being s trengthened by way of conventional jacketing and open foundation by widening, it is not advis able to expos e the abutments , we are unable to finalis e any practically executable solution for s trengthening of abutm ents . For bridges having arches in the end spans , converting the end piers into abutm ent by clos ing the arch spans is feas ible. However, this is possible only where waterway is not a problem . The issues are i) Since this problem of s trengthening of abutment appears to be existing all over Indian Railways , RDSO s hould iss ue guidelines /s chemes for 3

the s ame. ii) Till such time, can Railway go ahead with the already sanctioned works of s trengthening of piers only? SECR (g) Jacketing of subs tructure of bridges where exis ting subs tructure is deficient in s ection com pared to RDSOs s tandard s ection for MBG loading In s ome of the bridges on SECR, the existing s ubs tructure is quite s le nder. On one of the bridges , it is found to be more than 30% less compared to RDSOs s tandard section for MBG loading. Requirem ent of jacketing to make thes e bridges fit for 25t loadin gs , is quite high (about 1 m ). Hence it is felt appropriate to rebuild such bridges ins tead of strengthening. Since rebuilding of bridge will take considerable tim e, whether it will be appropriate to go for s trengthening of these bridges to m ake them fit for MBG loading till rebuilding is com plete? Matter to be discuss ed. Maxim um thickness of jacketing Minim um thickness of jacketin g pres cribed in IRBM, but, there is no mention of maxim um thickness . So what s hould be the cut-off thickness beyond which the bridge should be taken up for rebuilding? 3. SCR Items related to Bridge Rules and Substructure code (a) 2-Tier Des ign for Floods As per the provis ions of IS:1893-2002 (Seism ic Code), 2-tier s eismic des ign is cons idered : 1. Des ign adequacy without any s tructural damage (DBE) 2. Prevention of collaps e s tructure (MCE). Similar philos ophy can be adopted for Hydraulic des ign als o DBF (Design Basis Flood) of say 100 years return period for comprehens ive des igning without any damage and MCF (Maximum Considered Flood) for prevention of complete was hout of bridge/breaches on approaches. During the recent floods of Krishna/Tungabhadra rivers on South Central Railway, it was noticed that there had been a cons iderable lateral shift in the PSC girders when the water had over-flown the rail level. Hence a s ys tem of res trainers s hall be devis ed for preventing the girders from dislodging/lateral m ovement during high floods . Sim il arly a s ys tem s hall be developed for retrofitting of existing bridges wherever found vulnerable. Similarly wherever water from the rivers /s tream overflows its banks/the approach banks of railway track also needs to be designed to withs tand the forces due to overflowing water and prevent the occurrence of breaches (subm erged condition)

SECR

(h)

SCR

(b)

Strengthening of Exis ting Bridges by Means of Jacketting As per Claus e 4.5.9 of Substructure Code, if the reduction in waterway area is beyond 20%, CRS sanction is mandatory. Hence, if exis ting VC and Freeboard are maintained, even after the reduction in waterway is beyond 20%, the above claus e requires m odification.

NWR

(c)

Review of Para 5.4.9 of IRS Code of Practice for the Design of Subs tructures and Foundations of Bridges (a) Para 4.5.9 of IRS Code of Practice for Design of Subs tructures and Foundatio ns of Bridges reads as under: For s trengthening exis ting bridges by jacketing etc., a reduction in waterway area as per the limits s pecified below may be allowed by the Chief Bridge Engineer provided that there has been no his tory of pas t incidents of overflow/ was hout/excessive s cour etc. and that m eas ures for s afety as cons idered necess ary by the field Engineer and approved by CBE are taken. Reduction in waterway area allowed as %age of exis ting waterway 1 Up to and including 3.05m 20% 2 3.05 m to 9.12m (including) Varying linearly from 20% to 10% 3 Greater than 9.12 m 10% Further reduction in the area s hall be s ubject to CRS sanction and s ubmiss ion of detailed calculation of waterways etc. Where the clearances are not available, the bridge should be rebuilt. SN Span of Bridge (b) As per the pres ent guidelines , bridges being rebuilt/s trengthened/ rehabilitated should have required works carried out for 25t loading-2008 or DFC loading standards provided in IRS Bridge Rule, depending on the routes on which s uch works are to be undertaken. (c) As a result, s ubs tructure of various bridges would invariably involve s trengthening by means of jacketing, which would imply reduction in waterway with res pect to the existing waterway. (d) Thus, all thos e bridges which have a his tory of pas t incidents of overflow/ was hout/excessive scour etc. would necessarily require increasing the waterway, entailing additional inputs by way of cost and tim e. (e) Considering the present situation where s trengthening of s ubstructure of exis ting bridges is going to be done in a big way, Para 4.5.9 of IRS Code of Practice for Design of Subs tructure and Foundations of Bridges needs a review, s o that efforts for increas ing the waterway at bridge sites , which have a history of pas t incidents of overflow/washout/excessive s cour etc., can be minimized. This issue m ay be deliberated to review the existing provis ions of Para 4.5.9 of IRS Code of Practice for Design of Subs tructure and Foundations of Bridges, s o 5

that m ore dis cretionary powers can be delegated to CBEs , to decide each cas e on merits. SR (d) Calculation of Silt Factor f As per claus e 4.6.5 IRS Code of Practice for Design of Subs tructure and Foundatio ns of Bridges, the value of s ilt factor f is given as under: Weighted Mean Diameter of Particle (mm) 0.04 0.08 0.15 0.30 0.50 0.7 1.0 2.0

Type of m aterial i) Coarse s ilt ii) Fine s and iii) Medium s and iv) Coars e s and

Value of f 0.35 0.50 0.68 0.96 1.24 1.47 1.76 2.49

As per IRC:5 1998, the s ilt factor is specified according to the type of bed m aterial classified as follows : Type of m aterial Fine silt Fine silt Fine silt Medium s ilt Standard silt Medium s and Coars e s and Fine bajril s and Heavy s and Weighted m ean diameter Value of s ilt factor of particle in d m. ksf. 0.081 0.500 0.120 0.600 0.158 0.700 0.233 0.850 0.323 1.000 0.505 1.250 0.725 1.500 0.988 1.750 1.290 2.000

The classification of bed m aterial in IRC: 5-1998 is more elaborate as compared to IRS Substructure Code. Further, Appendix given in the IRC: 5-1998 as Typical Method of Determination of Weighted Mean Diam eter of Particle (d m) is far more elaborate for working out s ilt factor. Claus e 4.6.5 IRS Code of Practice for Des ign of Subs tructure and Foundations of Bridges m ay be cons idered for am plification on the lines of IRC provis ions .

APP ENDIX TYPICAL METHOD OF DETERMINATION OF WEIGHTED MEAN DIAMETER OF PARTICLES Representative dis turbed sam ples of bed m aterials shall be taken at every change of s trata up to the m aximum anticipated s cour depth. The s ampling s hould s tart from 300mm below the exis ting bed. About 500gms of each of the representative sam ples s o collected s hall be s ieved by a set of s tandard s ieves and the weight of s oil retained in each s ieve is taken. The results thereof are then tabula ted. A typical tes t result is shown below (Tables I & II). Sieve Des ignation 5.60mm 4.00mm 2.80mm 1.00mm 425 m icron 180 m icron 75 micron Pan TABLE-I Sieve Opening Weight of Soil (mm ) retained (gm) 5.600 0 4.000 0 2.800 16.90 1.000 76.50 0.425 79.20 0.180 150.00 0.750 41.00 55.40 Total 419.40 Per cent retained 0 0 4.03 18.24 18.88 35.86 9.78 13.21

Sieve No. (1) 4.00 to 2.80mm 2.80 to 1.00m 1.0 to 425 micron 425 to 180 m icron 180 to 75 m icron 75 micron & below

TABLE-II Average s ize Percentage of (mm ) weight retained (2) (3) 3.40 4.03 1.90 18.24 0.712 18.88 0.302 35.86 0.127 9.78 0.0375 13.21 =

Column (2) x column (3) (4) 13.70 34.66 13.44 10.83 1.24 0.495 74.365

CR

(e)

74.365 100 = 0.74365, Sa y = 0.74 In IRS Bridge Subs tructure and Foundation Code, the s urcharge due to live load for DFC and 25T-2008 loading are not given in Table No.3 under Clause 5.8.1. As per lates t Boards guidelines , the bridges on DFC and other routes are to be s trengthened for m inimum 25T 2008 loading. Therefore, the live load s urcharge 7

Weighted m ean diam eter

CR

(f)

for higher loadings are required. RDSO should provide the required details in the Table No.3 of Claus e 5.8.1 or till this modification, suitable guidelines as an interim measure to be iss ued. In IRS Bridge Subs tructure and Foundation Code vide Note under Claus e No.5.16.2.2 and 5.16.2.3, the guidelines are clear for the cas es where the s tress es exceeds by 100% of the stipulated value, but there are no guidelines for the cas es where the tensile s tresses does not exceed by 100%. At present, in this Railway, to check the exis ting bridges for higher loadings , the area under tension is being ignored for com pressive s tress es by treating as cracked s ection. RDSO s hould incorporate the necess ary guidelines in the above code. In IRS Bridge Subs tructure and Foundation Code vide Note under Claus e No.5.16.2.3, the m aximum value of perm iss ible tens ile s tress es is given by the reference of IRS Concrete Bridge Code. In IRS Concrete Bridge Code, the value of perm issible stress es for concrete below M20 is not given. So, many exis ting bridges are built with RBG/BGML s tandard and subs tructure of those is made of m ass concrete 1:3:6 which is equivalent to M10. As per the lates t guidelines of Board, the bridges on DFC and other routes are to be s trengthened for 25T 2008 loading and therefore the value of perm issible s tresses is required.

CR

(g)

4 RDSO

Items related to steel bridges (a) Ins pection of fabricated s teel girders Ins pection of fabricated s teel girders as per claus e No.27 of Welded Bridge Code and Ins pection of Fabricated Steel Girder Bridges has to be done by the RDSO ins pectio n team. In cas e of welded plate girders fabricated by Railway works hops , the inspection after firs t 1000 MT is trans ferred to works hop. However, in case of open web girder, the ins pection is to be done by RDSO team . Till recent past, the total work load for ins pection was of the order of 8000-10000 MT per year. This has increas ed to 15,000 MT for las t 2 years and now with som e im portant bridges in the eas tern part, this load will be around 40 to 50,000 MT per year. With the present team of RDSO, it is not possible to carry out the inspection as per the provisions . As per the pres ent s ystem , the inspecting officials are drawn from the workshops of zonal railways on a tenure basis . Hence the team will have to be augmented accordingly or s ome review of the inspecting sys tem will be required. One of the problems in ins pection is that many cons truction units are awarding the work of very less quantity, e.g. s ingle s pan of 30 m or 2-3 s pans of 18 m and 24 m etc. With this minor work load, no new fabricator can es tablish a reas onable works hop for girder fabrication and lot of time of ins pection team is was ted. Hence a review needs to be done whether such m inor works s hould be carried out only by the zonal railway workshops where the required facilities are already available. Only large works are done through contract 8

ER

(b)

Exces sive Vibrations in 18.3 m welded plate girder to RDSO Drg. No.B-1529 at Br.No.202 (Span 4 x 18.3 m plate girder) at km 126/1-2 between s tations Chatra-Murarai in Sahibganj Loop of Howrah Division of Eas tern Railway The existing early s teel girders of UP line of Br. No.202 were replaced with welded girders as per RDSOs Drawing No. B-1529 during June 2006. Imm ediately after replacem ent, excess ive la teral vibrations under traffic were felt and s ince then a TSR of 20 kmph has been imposed over the bridge. On DN road where old riveted plate girder exis ts , no s uch behavior was reported. Deflection tes ts have been carried out on the Up line girders of this bridge as well as DN road. The res ults are as under: TheoretiVerHorical tical Sl. Br. No. Span zontal Engine No. values of deflectSpeed No. & type No. s way & Load vertical tion (mm) deflection (mm ) (mm ) 1 202(UP) 1 12 14 Engine No. 4x18.3m 2 05 13 WDM2 18604 45 95 welded 3 07 14 Nos . BCNA girder 4 03 13 loaded 10.58 1 10 12 Engine No. 2 06 09 WDM2, 18754 95 3 06 10 5657 UP 4 02 08 (Kanchanjangha Exp.) 2 202(DN) 1 02 03 Engine No. 4x18.3m 2 04 09 WDM2, 16071R riveted 3 04 09 5658 DN 9.71 95 girder 4 03 06 (Kanchangangha Exp.) It is s een that in the riveted girders of the DN line, back to back vertical s tiffeners have been provided, whereas in the RDSO Drg. Us ed for UP road, alternate s tiffeners have been provided. Provis ion of alternate s tiffeners m ay be s afe as per codal provision. However, provis ion of s uch alternative s tiffener reduces the overall stiffness of the girders in lateral direction which m ight have res ulted in amplified vibration. This railway is of the opinion that additional vertical s tiffeners s hould be provided imm ediately to these girders s o as to make them back to back which should reduce the horizontal sway. This was also brought th out by the unders igned during the 78 BSC held at Puducherry in connection with item No.1000. It is als o s een that the welded girders as per RDSOs Drg. No.B-1529 has been provided with V type bracing, whereas exis ting riveted girders of DN line have 9

been provided with cross bracings . This railway is als o of the opinion that cross bracing is inherently stronger arrangem ent that V bracing and hence the Drg. No.B-1529 for the welded girders should als o be m odified by providing cross bracing ins tead of V bracing. However the issue is proposed to be dis cuss ed in this forum so as to obtain the views of other Railways . SECR (c) RDSO drawing for 100 Plate Girder and Under Slung Girder for 25 t loading SECR is having 3 bridges with 100 Plate Girders and 2 bridges of 100 Under Slung Girder on 25 t axle load nominated routes . These girders are sanctioned for replacem ent but s tandard drawings for 25 t loading are yet to be iss ued by RDSO. NER (d) Welded open web girder fabrication by bridge works hops PSC girders are to be provided up to 24.4 m spans as per the Boards letter No.2005/CE-I/BR-II/8 dated 28.05.09 and, therefore, only open web girder is to be fabricated now by the bridge works hops barring exceptions . However, RDSO is issuing drawings for only welded open web girders in connection with 25T loading. The Gorakhpur Bridge Works hop had been fabricating only riveted open web girders . Com ple te s witching over to welded open web girder fabrication would require modification in exis ting infras tructure, fabrication of fres h jigs, fixture & templates and augmentation of tools & plants . This Railway feels that following issues need decision and im plem entation for sm ooth change in technology: a) b) c) d) e) f) Whether fabrication of riveted open web girder fabricatio n will completely stop or will als o continue, Individual workshop should be ass igned limited types of s pans to reduce modification requirement and worklo ad of works hops may be accordingly redis tributed, Works hop s tudy is required for s witching over for providing full infras tructure and s tate of art tools and plants , Strengthening welders cadre is required for the workshop by redes ignation along with training in welded fabrication, Study for re-organis ation, equipm ents , s taff and training for ins pection and repair weld are also required for strengthening of brid ge girder maintenance organization, and, Welding procedure (WPSS) & quality assurance programme (QAP) are being drawn independently for each type of girder by each workshop and approved by the RDSO. S tandard WPSS and QAP s hould be developed by RDSO wherever the s ame has not been drawn by any works hop.

Since all Railways m ight be facing or would have above constraints, they may kindly like to share their view and recommend comm on iss ues to the Board for orders . 10

5 SWR

Items related to RCC/PS C bridges (a) Standard Drawin gs for RCC Slabs and PSC Slabs for Spans 0.61m to 9.15m As per the note given in thes e s tandard drawings , the des ign has been done cons idering 300 mm to 400 mm ballas t cushion. It is not clear whether thes e drawings are s uitable for bridges with overburden of earth cus hion also s ay up to 3 m. Recently when thes e drawings were proposed to be us ed repla cing stone slabs with RCC s labs for s pans up to 2.44 m with earth overburden up to 3 m , CRS has sought clarification regarding s uitability of these drawings . In this context, it is reques ted to clarify up to what extent earth overburden (height of earth filling) can thes e standard drawings for RCC slabs and PSC s labs be used.

WCR

(b)

Drawing of 9.15 m PSC pos t tens ioned s lab for MBG loading (RDSO/B-10241) As per the above drawing, the slab has to be cas t at bridge s ite on s taging i.e. at the level of the top of the piers of the abutm ents and pos t tens ioning is als o required to be done on the s taging its elf and thereafter the s labs are to be placed in position by side s lewing. A great deal of problems are faced in this arrangement as a lot of work of s taging has to be done at each span, during the pos t tensioning process and also in making the arrangem ent for side s lewing. In the above drawing, there is no provision for hooks , therefore, the s labs are not amenable for launching by road cranes . It is , therefore, proposed that the drawing may please be suitably modified s o that the cas ting can be done at ground level and launching can be done by cranes. It is further propos ed that in the drawings of post tens ioned PSC s labs for 25T loading, for 9.15 m and 12.2 m s pans to be iss ued by RDSO, necessary provis ion m ay be made for hooks to facilitate casting, pre-s tress ing and launching by cranes without problems .

SCR

(c)

Specific m ention of dis tance from s ea coas t in cas e of extreme and severe environment As per Claus e 5.4.1 of IRS Concrete Bridge Code, the general environm ent to which the concrete will be exposed during its working life is class ified in three levels of s everity that is MODER ATE, SE VERE and EXTRE ME. As per above claus e coas tal area com es in SEVERE environm ent. However, the boundary dis tance of coas tal area from s ea s hore is not defined. It is , therefore, required that the dis tance of coastal area from s ea shore is defined. 11

On South Central Railway, Coas tal area is considered up to a dis tance of 70 km from s ea s hore. 6 ER Items related to Mapping of unknown foundations/ vibration signatures (a) Mapping of hidden foundations In case of introduction of new rolling s tock and loading s tandard, Zonal Railway is required to certify the adequacy of the exis ting subs tructure of bridges in terms of claus e No.5.16.2.1 of IRS Subs tructure Code 2004 as per which The Railway should check the theoretical s tresses in abutm ents and piers of existing bridges . This has become m ore relevant in the context of introduction of heavier loading s tandards like DFC and 25t 2008 where there is s ubs tantial increase in longitudinal forces . Now, CRS is als o insis ting on s ubm iss ion of calculations and the basis of certification of s ubs tructure/foundation. The completion drawings of s ubstructures are practically not available for s tandard as well as non-s tandard spans . In absence of completion drawings and loading s tandard to which the bridges were originally cons tructed, it is not poss ible to check the bridges theoretically. Therefore, it is ess ential to develop completion drawings for such bridges employing s uitable advanced techniques for m apping the hidden foundations . Since Railway does not have required expertise in advanced techniques for mapping the hidden dimens ions , RDSO m ay iss ue s uitable guidelines for mapping hidden foundations . As an interim meas ure, som e guidelines are als o required to certify the adequacy of foundations . SECR (b) Strengthening of bridges where completion drawings are not available Com pletion drawings of m os t of the old bridges are not available in SECR due to which it is not possible to check their s uitability for 25 t axle load. It is learnt that RDSO is carrying out pilot project for mapping of unknown foundations . This project need to be extended to other railways and covering mapping of abutm ents also. ECoR (c) Mapping of Unknown Foundations of Bridges Com pletion Drawings of many bridges existing in this Railway are not available for around 2000 bridges and hence foundation details of s uch bridges are not known. Although acous tic em iss ion technique has been s ugges ted to map the exis ting unknown foundations, yet the technique has been doubted due to non availability of technical know-how and experience with the Railways. There is need to iss ue guidelines for making com pletion drawings for such bridges .

12

ER

(d)

Utility of Vibration s ignature for PSC girders Vibration s ignature testings were conducted on 07 Nos. of PSC girder bridges having total 27 Nos . of s pans in Garhwa-Chopan-Singrauli section of Dhanbad divis ion of E.C. Railway in January' 2006 and January' 2009 by KRCL by recording their Eigen frequencies . The following results were inferred vide the reports subm itted by KRCL2. 4 girders of Br. No. 40 gained som e frequency while 1 girder los t frequency by 29% and thus witnessed a loss in s tiffness . 3. All 03 girders of the Br. No.88 los t frequencies and the maxim um loss was 61%. 4. All the 3 girders of Br. No. 75 gained som e frequency and gain was 13% to 55%. 5. 2 girders of Br. No. 59 gained s ome frequency while 01 girder los t frequency to the tune of 18.75%. 6. All 3 nos. of girders of Br. No. 309 gained s ome frequencies ranging from 13% to 54%. 7. 4 girders of Br. No.97 gained frequency while 1 girder los t frequency by 37.30%. 8. One girder of Br. No.93 gained frequency while 4 girders los t frequency max. up to 55%. The above res ults generate som e fundamental ques tions like following which are not explained in the results of KRCL2. Some girders of a particular bridge are gaining s tiffness while others are los ing while the uniformity of m aintenance, the exposure conditions , the type of loadings , the type of bearing provided etc. are s ame. In above s ituation the loss of s tiffness in som e girders and gain in s tiffness in other girders of the sam e bridge do not s eem convincing. 3. It is true that s tructures may loose their s tiffness over a period of tim e but s uch a huge loss as arrived out by KRCL does not s eem convincing particularly in the s ituation when the phys ical condition of the girders are almos t some over the both recording periods. 4. There does not seem any reason of gain in s tiffness and that too by an am ount as s hown in KRCL res ults . Generally the s tructures loos e their stiffness over a period of time. However, the above tes t technique has the following drawbacks : 1. This sys tem of vibration signature is so s ensitive that it can capture any vibration even due to wind. 2. It does not ass ess the adequacy of s trength of a s tructure for a given loading. 3. It does not provide any thresh hold limits for reduction in frequency ,so that one may assess whether the s tructure is s afe or not. 13

4. It always requires designed natural frequency of girders for comparison purposes which may not be available with the railway. In s uch a s ituation it is high tim e to think the utility and reliability of vibration signature testing for judging the health of the s tructures particularly for PSC girders. 7 ER Items related to ROB/RUB/LC (a) Com pendium on ROB/RUB ins tructions Earlier, Railway Board has issued a com pendium incorporating all the instructions and guidelines on ROBs /RUBs . Since then number of additional guidelines have been issued. It is suggested that a revis ed/am ended compendium incorporating all the guidelines relating to ROB/RUB/Limited height s ubway may please be iss ued. SECR (b) Clos ure of LCs In SECR, State Go vernm ent are not allowing for clos ure of LCs on law and order reas on even after comm issioning of ROB (cos t s haring), due to which number of audit objections are com ing up. SECR has reques ted state authorities to refund railway share of total cos t of cons truction, but State Government are not responding. No further s olution is available with railway. SR (c) ROB/RUB: (REVISION OF NORMS FOR CONSTRUCTION THE COST SHARING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROB/RUB WITH STATE GOVERNMENT) As per pres ent norms specifie d by Railway Boards letter No. 202/CE-I/BRO/64 dt. 19.2.08, the s harin g of cos t for two lane ROBs on State Highways and National Highways , the bridge width shall be 7.50m carriage way plus a minim um 1.50m foot path on either side + kerb width + parapet offset, totaling 12.0 m to be provided. State Government and Railways are to s hare the cos t equally. As per the IRC Standard s pecifications , the two lane deck wid th in the brid ge portion shall be 16.20m (2 x 5.50m (lane) + 1.20m (m edian) + 2 x 0.50m (kerb width) + 2 x 1.50m (footpath) = 16.20 m and in the approach portion it is 13.20m 2 x 5.50m (lane) + 1.20m (m edian) + 2 x 0.50m (kerb width) = 13.20m. According to this projected value of passenger car unit, and based on IRC s tandard s pecification the additional lane width as well as the m edian are to be provided in the bridge portion and in the approach portion too. The State Governm ents are demanding for sharing the cos t as per carriageway s pecified in IRC codes . Even though we are in the process of m aking a reference to Railway Board for modifying the extant ins tructions , other Zonal 14

Railways m ay share their experience in this regard. ER (d) Overall width of 2-lane ROB (on other than National Highway) Amendment to Para 1816(iii) of Engineering Code circulated vide Railway Boards le tter No.2002/CE-I/BRO/64(Policy) dated 19.02.08 s tipulates that for 2 lane bridge other than National Highways , the bridge width shall provide for 7.5m carriageway plus a minimum of 1.5m footpath on either s ide wherever required as per provis io ns of IRC-5, 1998. At the end of para it has been s tated that, the provis ion of cross s lopes , median, footpath width, crash barrie r s hall be as per s tipulations and requirem ents of MOSRTH circular No.RW/NH/33044/2/88/S&R dated 09.5.2000 read along with the provisions of claus e 112 of IRC:5-1998. The above provis ion is creating confusion as in Railway/Railway Board, it is being interpreted that overall width of ROBs in such cas es has to be limited to 10.5m whereas if the provis io n of cras h barrier and hand railing is to be kept, then the minimum width required would be 12m. In this connection a copy of s ketch s howing the cross s ection of ROB is enclosed. In fact, State Go vernments are insis ting for 12 m width for double lane ROB wherever the provis ion of footpath is to be kept. It is pertinent to s ay that in the case of National Highway, the Engineering Code do permit, width of 12 m between the outer faces of railing kerbs inclus ive of the cras h barrier. It is felt that the provis ion of Engineering Code needs m odificatio n in this regard. ECoR (e) Limited Height Subway Enhancem ent of Sanction Power to the General Managers As per exis ting policy, powers delegated to General Managers for sanction of work of Limited Height Subway is Rs .50 lakhs only. It has been experienced that actual average cos t required to com plete the lim ited height s ubways is more than Rs .50 lakhs . Since powers delegated to General Managers to s anction other individual works has been enhanced to Rs .1.0 Crore in new SOP, there is need to delegate s uch powers to the General Managers for Lim ited Height Subways als o. NR (f) Limited Use Subways Railway Board has allowed cons truction of lim ited ht. RUB/ Limited us e s ubway in lieu of exis ting level crossing gates at Railways cos t. The size of such box/opening has been advis ed by Rly. Board as 4.0m x2.5m to 3.6m .(4m width & Height 2.5m to 3.6m ). Accordingly, works were s anctioned. However, at the tim e of execution, this railway is facing the following difficulties: i. Local adminis tration does not agree to the size of box and demands a larger s ize. For s ome of the s anctioned works they have not agreed for clos ure of LC. 15

ii.

The recommended s ize of the box is not in accordance with IRC. In view of the above, it is propos ed as follows :i. The s ize of the box s hould be increased to 6.25m x 3.6m which include a carriage way of 4.25m and footpath of 1.0m on either side (as per IRC code). ii. RDSO m ay be reques ted to issue a standard drawing which m ay be adopted every where. This drawing s hould be issued in cons ultation with MOSRT s o that there is no dis pute about the size of such limited use subway with the local adminis tration. iii. Keeping in view the increasing num ber of road vehicles , only norm al RUBs should be cons tructed on cost sharing basis . Limited use s ubways should be provided on depos it terms bas is on specific demand of local adm inistration.

NR

(g)

Creation of ROB/RUBs cell in open line Num ber of works pertaining to cons truction of ROB/RUBs are on the ris e. Presently N.Rly. has about 250 ROB/RUBs and 22 limited us e s ubways s anctioned for cons truction. About 50 proposals are already in pipe line for s anction. There are another 186 LCs where TVU > 1.0 lakhs which qualify for cons truction of ROBs/RUBs on cost s haring basis . It can thus s een that the work load of ROB/RUBs is on the ris e and there is a need to have a proper infras tructure to s uccess fully m anage these works . It is therefore propos ed as under:i. ii. iii. A s eparate ROB/RUB-Cell should be created in open line. The Cell s hould have a Dy. CE/ROB, two AEN/XEN (ROB), two draftsmen and two Clerks . The cell will be responsible for coordinating with various State Govts . and advis ing them the list of LCs which qualify for construction of ROB/RUBs on cos t s haring bas is , attending various co-ordination meetings , preparing abs tract estimate, conceptual plans , preparing proposals , getting the works s anctioned, m onitoring progress of work, Approval of GADs , etc. It is further proposed that som e pos ts of Dy.CE/ROB may als o be created in the field under Open Line for effective m onitoring and lias ioning with NHAI, IRCON, RITES and other agencies for speedy execution of work. Thes e fie ld units will be res pons ible for execution of work including preparing GADs ., TADs , launching Schem es; obtaining approval of competent authority including CRS sanction, quality control; obtaining traffic block, etc.

iv.

NR

(h)

Standardization of Spans of ROB/RUBs . Due to tremendous increase in work load of Cons truction of ROB/R UBs there is dire need to standardize spans to cut down the time required for desig n and approval. RDSO may be reques ted to issue s tandard drawings of s upers tructure. It is sugges ted that only compos ite s teel girders may be adopted for s uper s tructure. 16

A number of bridges have been nom inated by RDSO for key gauging, cres t gauging, s crew gauging etc. This work has shifted set back due to shrinkage of organization. Changes have taken place in topography and flood pattern due to construction of dams and other s tructures . RDSO may re-examine the need of this exercise and issue revised instructions . 8 SECR Items related to bearings (a) Strengthening of bearings by provision of additional anchor bolts on additional plates welded to the exis ting bed plates . Drawings issued by RDSO (No.1521 & 1522) for bearing on BGML girders to make them fit for 25 t load are for new bearings. Hence the exis ting bearings will have to be replaced. For replacem ent of bearings not only longer duration blocks will be required but we m ay als o encounter practical problems due to mismatch of exis ting anchor bolt hole and new holes in bearing plates and other s ite conditions . However, as per RDSOs letter No.CBS/25 t axle load dated 20.04.09, existing bearings are to be s trengthened by provision of additional anchor bolts . But in the field it is not practically possible to drill holes in exis ting bed plate. In view of the above, RDSO s hould clarify whether the bearings are to be s trengthened or replaced? If they are to be s trengthened, RDSO s hould s ugges t s cheme for strengthening of existing bearings . SECR has carried out experiment for strengthening of bearing by providing additional anchor bolts on additional plates welded to the existing plate. Barring som e initial problems of warping of additional plates, this experiment has been successful so far (Schem atic s ketch is enclos ed). CR (ii) Vide RDSOs letter No.CBE/25t Axle load dated 20.04.2009, Para 2.2.2, the bearings of various spans need s trengthening with provision of additional holding down bolts . The existing bearings have very lim ited space in bas e pla te. Additional area for new bolts can be achieved by increasing the size of bas e plate. The location of additional bolts in bas e plate is als o an iss ue for their effectiveness .

9 ER

Items related to CRS sanction (a) Bridge Certificate being dem anded by CRS/Eas tern Circle for individual bridges CRS/EC is demanding s ubmiss ion of bridge certificate as per Annexure 13/3 (Para 1304 if IRPWM-2004) along with the application for sanction of bridge works . Scrutiny of the content of Bridge Certificate in Annexure 13/3 (Para 1304) of IRPWM 2004 reveals that the certificate proforma is for a s ection and not for individual bridges . Certificates on this proforma are issued by this Railway while 17

s eeking s anction of the Comm ission for introduction of new rolling s tock, increase in s peed of the existing rolling s tock or increase in axle load of existing rolling stock over a s ection or sections i.e. whenever the case involves certification for large number of bridges . In such cas es , drawings for individual bridges are not issued but the bridges are checked for their adequacy for the introduction of new rolling stock, increase in s peed of the exis ting rolling stock or increas e in axle load of the existing rolling s tock as the case m ay be. In cas e of individual bridge works , however, individual drawings are m ade and all details m entioned in above certificates are also incorporated in the drawing and thus the contents s tipulated in Annexure 13/3 (Para 1304) of IRPWM 2004 are complied with as s oon as s uch drawings are approved by Chief Bridge Engineer. Therefore, individual bridge wis e certification is not cons idered necess ary. The matter has been dis cussed with CRS/EC but he has so far not agreed to dispens e with the above bridge certificate on the ground that it is a m andatory docum ent to be s ubmitted along with the application to CRS in terms of Para 1304 of IRPWM-2004. Since the drawings for the bridge works cover all the aspects mentioned in the bridge certificate, it is felt that iss uance of the brid ge certificate of individual bridge works is an unnecessary repetition of work. Therefore, it is suggested that suitable A&C slip to IRPWM-2004 m ay be issued s o that the provis ion of submission of bridge certificate for individual bridge work is dis pensed with. Approval by CBE of GAD, tem porary arrangements prepared by CE/Cons t., lifting of FOBs prepared by RE/Elect. departm ent, PWD,NHAI etc. As per ins tructions of CRS Northern circle GADs , tem porary arrangements for the works being carried out by construction organization are being s ubmitted to CBE for signature. Cons t. organization has independent des ign office and approval of drawings by CBE res ults in duplication of efforts bes ides affecting the des ign works being carried out by open line for which GADs /other drawings are prepared in CBEs office. Sim ilarly the FOBs drawings for the works being carried out by RE/Elect. departm ent are being s ubm itted to CBE for s ignature on the plea that CRS des ires for s ignature of CBE on thes e plans. Common instructions s hould be iss ued for s uch plans whether these require approval of CBE or not. ECoR (c) Revis ed Draft Guidelines of Pipe line Cross ing under railway track has been circulated to all Zonal Railways vide RDSO No.CBS/DCP/1 dated 18.09.06 which covers various categories of pipeline crossings under Railway track and on railway bridges . This rail ways have received various propos als of pipeline crossings containing Iron Ore Slurry under pressure. Although the drawings have been approved by this railway as per category A3 (conveying water of s ewage or other non-inflammable subs tances under press ure) of revis ed draft 18

NR

(b)

NR

(d)

guidelines , yet CRS/SE Circle has refus ed to s anction for the work due to major difference in mass /m and pressure between water/s ewage and iron ore s lurry. Hence, there is need to include iron ore slurry in Category A3 of revis ed draft guidelines . Guidelines for cross ing of pipes under railway bridges and along railway bridge It has becom e a practice now a days to propose cross ing of pipes below the exis ting railway bridges thus reducing the water way apart from causing difficulty for ins pection of brid ges & for future s trengthening of foundations / s ub s tructures . Comm on guidelin es s hould be framed for crossing of pipe lines under railway bridges

SWR

(e)

Maxim um Permissible Skew Angle and Standardis ation of Drawings for Skew Alignment Railways are receiving large num ber of designs & drawings with s kew alignment from both railway and other departments . In s ome cases , the s kew is even 44 degrees . The standard drawings issued by RDSO are all for square alignment only and not suitable for s kew. In the context it is request to clarify (a) What s hould be the maxim um s kew angle than can be permitted? (b) It is reques ted that while iss uing s tandard drawings , RDSO m ay consider s kew up to s om e degree as per s tandardization poss ible and iss ue drawings.

ER

(f)

Railway affecting works / Railway affecting tanks As per the prevalent practice "the railway affecting works as identified by the Chief Engineer of Irrigation and PWD of the State Govt. and approved jointly with the Chief Bridge Engineer of the res pective Railway are jointly inspected by Ass is tant Engineer of the PWD/Irrigation and the Ass is tant Engineer of the Railway jus t after the m onsoon to ass ess the general health of the railway affecting work and to identify the repair works needed if any and to estim ate the cos t of the above identified repairs . The join t ins pection report is to be submitted to Divis ional Engineer/Sr. Divis ional Engineer who in turn will subm it this report to the Chief Bridge Engineer. Authorities of Irrigation and PWD carry out necess ary repairs s ugges ted after joint ins pection as early as poss ible but well before the s tart of next m ons oon. However, in case of non completion /non carrying of identified repairs to s om e RAWs /RATs , the Chief Engineer/Irrigation and PWD sends a s eparate list of s uch cases to the Chief Bridge Engineer and to Divisional Engineer/Sr. Divis ional Engineer who declares the portion of the Railway likely to be affected by the non repairs of RAWs/ RATs as VULNERABLE . The DEN/Sr.DEN als o arranges patrolling of the above s ection declared vulnerable during mons oon for ens uring of the s afety of the track and the traffic".

19

However, it is being seen that the above practice is not being follo wed. The authorities of State Govt. hardly show any interes t in the joint inspection of RAWs /RATs . As a result of that RAWs /RATs are inspected by Railways Officials only. The repair works as sugges ted by Railways officials after their ins pection are als o not given any cognizance by State Govt authorities and they also never s ubm it any report regarding not carrying out the repairs. In s uch case onus lies upon Railways only. It is , therefore, s ugges ted to incorporate provisions in Railway act to m ake it mandatory for State govt. officials to ass ociate with railway officials in ins pection of RAWs and RATs and ens ure their proper upkeep to safeguard railway tracks and bridges . WCR (g) Minim um barrel length of RCC box segments In the RDSOs Drawing No.RDSO/M/00004 & RDSO/M/00005 m inim um width of s egm ent (across track) has not been specified. Dis persion and intensity of track load and s uper im pos ed dead load/live load depends upon the width of individual s egment and dis pers ion depth. While designing or checking the des ign of the RCC box s egments , the calculated reinforcem ent data cannot be compared with what is indicated in the RDSOs above drawings , in abs ence of s egm ent width data. It is , therefore, propos ed that necessary m odifications may be made in the RDSOs above drawings by incorporating details of reinforcement for various widths of the segm ent. SCR (h) Use of TMT Steel Due to its inherent superior properties and better perform ance for dynam ic loads , it s hall be m ade im perative to use TMT s teel for bridges . The steel pres ently being us ed is m ostly HYSD bars . TMT s teel has better properties , s trength and ductility com pared to the normal s teel and m os t s uited for railway bridges . SCR (i) Use of CRS Steel Certain Steel companies are m anufacturing CRS (Corrosion Res istant Steel) reinforcement bars . For coas tal environment (severe/extrem e) CBC propos es anti-corrosion protective coatings for s teel rods . This coating is not only cos tly but also is ineffective as it is done at s ite and vulnerable for damage during handling/trans it. Hence the us e of CRS s teel s hould be included for s uch locations in place of norm al steel with coatin g.

20

SCR

(j)

Rational Design for Fatigue The fatigue (no. of s tress cycles ) is different for different members of a bridge, maxim um being for rail bearers , cross girders etc. Hence the allowable s tress es for such mem bers are m uch lower than the other m em bers where fatigue load is less . While evaluating the residual life of the exis ting girders , this is im portant, as various m embers having different fatigue loads need different cross-section. Hence a rational s trengthening s chem e needs to be developed for various members s o that the bridge s tructure as a whole will have a common overall residual life.

SECR

(k)

Drawings are required for following cas es Foundatio n arrangement for OHE mas ts on CC crib during accident on girder bridges . Arrangement for erectio n of OHE mas ts on girders in case of dam age to existing OHE m ast on piers . Inspection pathway/walkway by the s ide of all girder bridges to facilitate sm ooth inspection and als o help the drivers/guards in cas e of stalling of train on bridge proper due to ACP, accident, OHE failure etc.

SR

(l)

CHECKING OF ARCH BRIDGES USING UIC ANALSYSIS Seismic zones were reclass ified as per IS 1893 (Part I) 2002. Alm os t all the areas classified previous ly under Zone II were reclass ified as Zone III. As per Cl: 2.12.5.2 bridge rules Bridges of span more than 15m or bridges with total length more than 60m are to be checked for earthquake fo rces . Further Arch Bridge code Cl.14 s tates that: Masonry or pla in cement concrete Bridges shall not be cons tructed in Zone V. Masonry or Plain cement concrete Arches shall not be cons tructed with spans exceeding 6m in Zone IV and 10 m in Zone III. In Southern Railway, m os t of the area falls under Zone III as per revised classification. There are Masonry Arch Bridges of spans 12.2m in southern Railway constructed nearly a century back. As per SP.22-1982 (Chapter 6- Bridges ), Arch Bridges are more vulnerable to damage due to Brittleness of the material. Failure of one of the continuous Arch spans caus es the failure in other spans . New UIC analysis program for analy is of Arch Rin g (Ring 1.5) supplied to Zonal s Railways assumes that that the Arch ring res ts on un-yielded Abutments /Piers (Rigid supports ). Ring 1.5 software doesnt analyze the abutment or Piers . Hence UIC analysis program for analys is of Arch Ring (Ring 1.5) may be revised to suit for checking the entire Arch Bridge (not only Ring portion) duly considering the earthquake forces including soil characteris tics . 21

SR

(m ) STEEL COMP OSITE BRIDGES FOR SP AN MORE TH AN 24.40M SPAN Railway Board has advis ed vide letter No. 2005/CE-I/BR-II/8 dated 28.5.09 that all Zonal Railways to go for com posite s teel girder bridges for spans more than 24.40m spans . All the Steel girder Bridges need to be designed and cons tructed as per the Steel Bridge code. Steel Bridge code (Cl.4.11, 4.12,4.13) does not cover in detail on Com posite Cons truction of Bridges on Design features and as well as on fabrication part including important elem ents like Shear connectors as per pres ent advanced Shear Stud connectors . There is need for inclusion of Steel Compos ite Bridges in the Steel Bridge Code and IR Bridge Manual. Suitable drawings for Steel Compos ite Bridges for 25t loading 2008 may als o be developed by RDSO.

CR

(n)

Replacement of bridge timbers with channel sleepers involves lifting of track. As per IRPWM Para 233(4), lifting s hould comm ence from the down hill end carried out in the direction of ris ing grade in cas e of single line. However, in case of double line, it s hould proceed in the opposite direction to traffic. In such a case, irres pective of single line or double line to s tart the work from down hill side becom es advantageous , as the s cheme results in flatter slope in the ram p portion over the bridge. Necessary correction m ay be incorporated in the manual accordingly for carrying out the work of replacem ent of bridge tim bers with channel s leepers . Instrum entation of Bridges Fres h Guidelines bas ed on experience gained s o far Instrum entation of bridges is being carried out to s tudy the effect of increas ed axle and longitudinal lo ads on bridges . Results obtained s o far indicated noncorrelation of various param eters over the quarters of the s tudy. There is need that new guidelines to be issued early.

ECoR

(o)

ECoR

(p)

Foot Over Bridges at Ways ide Stations with Minimum Platform Width 6.10 m There has been s o many ways ide stations in this railway s ys tem where width of island platforms are less than 6.10 m . To provide foot over bridges on such s tations as passenger amenities , m inim um horizontal clearance required for tres tles of FOBs from nearest track centres 5.33 m (Para 7(a) of SOD 2004) get infringed. Hence, there is need that relaxation in the above claus e m ay be given for ways ide s tations to provide minimum essential am enities .

NR

(r)

Provis ion of PSC Sleepers on s teel girder bridges having s teel trough ballasted deck At pres ent, s teel trough ballas ted deck bridges are having wooden sleepers . The condition of these wooden sleepers is bad and needs to be replaced. The 22

wooden sleepers are not available as per ban impos ed by honorable court on procurement of new wooden s leeper. Steel channel s leepers are als o not feasible on such s teel trough girders. Due to this, great difficulty is being faced to m aintain the track on s uch bridges. Whether PSC s leepers conform ing to RDSO Drg. No. T-4089 meant for ballas ted deck bridges upto s traight portion of guard rail, m ay be provided on these troughs needs deliberation due to increase in s elf wt of sleeper, lateral s tability of PSC s leeper, dynam ic behavior & frequency of deep s creening of ballas t on trough. ER (s ) Procedure for clos ure of bridges There are number of small balancing culverts and minor bridges which are no longer required in view of change of flow pattern and developments in the catchment areas . Thes e bridges are not serving any purpose and needs to be clos ed. As per clause 27(3) of Chapter VII of Railways (Opening of Public Carriage of Passenger) Rules, 2000, clos ure of bridges requires the sanction of CRS. However, no details regarding the s ubject are available either in bridge manual or els ewhere regarding the procedure to be adopted for s uch clos ures . The extant practice in this Railway is to obtain the concurrence of the State Govt/local authority for clos ure. As this communication from the State Govt./local authority is not easily forthcom ing, this Railway cannot go ahead with the clos ure for m any bridges. It is felt that CBE approval and CRS s anction s hould be s ufficient to close non-functional bridges . It is s ugges ted that RDSO/Board may iss ue detailed instructions on the procedure to be adopted for clos ure of bridges s o that uniform ity of practice may be maintained and unnecessary delay in obtaining the concurrence of local authority/s tate govt. is avoided.

23