Pipe

ECONOMIC DESIGNS OF HUME PIPES FOR
RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS AND UPGRADING OF

EXISTING HUME PIPES DESIGNED FOR BGML
STANDARD (CONSTRUCTED IN 1970)
TO HM LOADING STANDARD
(A CASE STUDY)
By
S. C. Gupta*
SYNOPSIS
Pipe culverts are most commonly used conduits for cross drainage through
Railway/Highway embankments, in addition to carrying of liquid under pressure.
They are one of the most economical conduits because of circular structure.
Circular structures are governed by the directed stress instead of bending
stress, therefore, are economical. The article deals with basic design concept
of pipe culverts and a case study showing advantage so obtained in
upgrading the existing pipe culverts in embankments for higher grade of
loading by following basic concepts.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
There is a general thinking amongst the Rly. engineers that the existing hume
pipes provided for a lower standard of loading are not suitable for higher
standard of loading, therefore, decisions are taken to dismantle and replace the
existing pipe culverts with higher grade pipes without going into design details.
A similar and interesting case study is provided here.
A Rly. line from Cuttack to Paradeep (82.9 km) long was to be executed as a
doubling project. Since the entire line from Cuttack to Paradeep was planned
for carrying axle load of Heavy Mineral Loading Standard, therefore, it was
planned to upgrade the existing bridges from BGML to HMLS and to construct
all new bridges for HMLS. The existing line was having 109 Hume pipe bridges
of dia varying 0.6 m to 1.2 m.
2.0 EXISTING DESIGN PRACTICES FOR RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS
The IS code provides thickness, amount and spacing of steel required for NP1,
NP2, NP3, NP4 type of pipes for different diameters ranging from 80 mm to
* Dy. CE/C/Designs, Bhubaneshwar
ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

‹x|> ëë, _¥™. î, GDY· íêêí / Vol. 11, No. 4, March - 2002
1
2200mm. The pipes once casted as per the specification provided in
IS 458-1988 need to be tested on 3 edge load bearing test for 0.25mm cracking
load and ultimate load.
These designs provided irrespective of surcharge over the pipe. It was also
clarified vide amendment slip no.2 of April, 1991, that the designs provided in
IS-458-1988 are not suitable for Railway loadings. This aspect is discussed in
detail in the subsequent paras.
Due to this reason, separate pipes are designed for loadings and various
drawings are issued by RDSO from time to time for various types of loadings or
sometimes designs are done by the field units as per the requirements. But in
most of the cases RDSO drawings are religiously followed.
However, RDSO’s drawing covered only up to MBG loading standards,

therefore, for HM Loading standard there remains confusion amongst the design
engineers and a general concept is that pipes for HM Loading standard shall be
of higher thickness & provided with heavy reinforcement. But this is not the case
always, as will be revealed in subsequent paras.
RDSO drawings contain following shortcomings.
(i) Design are for a minimum surcharge cushion, but if cushion increases
substantially then the design need to be reviewed from economy point of
view. This has not been considered & specified in RDSO’s drawings.
(ii) Design is probably made based on the working stress method assuming
pipe behaviour as a doubly reinforced beam, but has not been checked
for 0.25mm cracking load as prescribed in IS Codes and widely
practiced.
RDSO drg does not mention about at what load the pipes shall be tested. They
have defined that pipes are designed for wide trench, positive projection and
type ‘A’ beddings.
3.0 REVIEWING OF DESIGNS

The existing pipes in Cuttack-Paradeep BG line were laid in 1970 and must
have been designed for BGML Loading prevailing at that time as no details
were available except NP3 type engraved on pipes, so as per normal practice,
it was decided to dismantle all the existing pipes and to provide new type of
culverts either box or pipe. Most of the hume pipes bridges were already
dismantled, meanwhile a problem was felt in replacing existing hume pipe
bridges having surcharge more than 5.0m on a busy running line. This
requires suspension of traffic, dismantling of existing bridge, providing
relieving girder and constructing new bridge. So execution becomes a real
herculean task. Therefore, a detailed study and review of existing hume
pipe’s strength and suitability for HM Loading was made under the
guidance of Dy. CE/C/Designs, Bhubaneswar.

2
4.0 CRITERIA OF REVIEWING OF DESIGNS
4.1 Detailed design based on the basic concept
A design of hume pipe for HM Loading standard was checked theoretically

for simple bending and direct stresses with working stress method and also
as per the method prescribed in IS-783 for 0.25mm CRACKING LOADS.
The detailed calculations are available in Table I for different height of soil
surcharge. A sample calculation is enclosed in annexure. A similar
calculation for MBG Loading standard are given in Table II.
Table – I
Comparison of Hume pipe design parameters of internal dia 1200 mm with

working stress method vis-à-vis IS Code method (For HM Loading)
Working Stress Load to Produce 0.25 Permissible Parameters for Parameters for
Method mm crack (Edge load (l/m) class NP4 RC Existing BGML NP4
Surcharge height (M)
Bearing Strength) as to produce pipes type RC Pipes (Dia

per IS 783-1985 (ton/m) 0.25mm Thickness 1220mm, thickness
Sl. No
crack for 120 mm 125 mm)

Ast(Kg/m) 1 2 class NP4 Ast (Kg/m) Ast (Kg/m)
Long Spiral Positive Imperfect RC pipes as Long Spiral Long Hoop Diag-
t (mm)
Projection Trench per IS steel onal

and wide Condition 458:1998 Mesh
Trench
Condition
0 165 8.679 63.615 11.408 11.402 9.001 6.04 53.07 - - -
1 0.5 145 7.89 62.825 8.497 8.537 9.001 6.04 53.07 7.103 41.06 2.17
(7.89)* (61.71)*
2 1.0 140 7.89 62.546 7.219 7.252 9.001 6.04 53.07 7.103 41.06 2.17
3 2.0 135 7.89 62.36 5.875 5.781 9.001 6.04 53.07 7.103 41.06 2.17
4 5.0 140 7.89 62.593 4.922 4.364 9.001 6.04 53.07 7.103 41.06 2.17
5 10.0 155 8.679 63.243 5.059 4.216 9.001 6.04 53.07 7.103 41.06 2.17
6 15.0 160 8.679 63.522 5.170 4.138 9.001 6.04 53.07 7.103 41.06 2.17
7 20.0 165 8.679 63.615 5.129 4.039 9.001 6.04 53.07 7.103 41.06 2.17
8 25.0 180 9.47 69.822 5.260 4.098 9.001 6.04 53.07 7.103 41.06 2.17
9 30.0 200 10.26 76.169 5.404 4.177 9.001 6.04 53.07 7.103 41.06 2.17
* It shows that NP4 pipes are safe for surcharge>0.5m

* Figures in brackets shows reinforcement required as per RDSO
Drg. No.B-1609- R1 for MBG loading
1. Positive trench conditions (Described in IS 783) is a pipe laying condition,

most widely practiced in Railways and recommended in RDSO Drawings.

‹x|> ëë, _¥™. î, GDY· íêêí /
Vol. 11, No. 4, March - 2002
3
2. In imperfect trench condition embankment is first compacted then part of the
embankment is excavated, pipe is laid and excavated portion is filled up with
loose/compressible materials. The detailed procedure is described in IS 783.
Table – II
Comparison of Hume pipe design parameters of Internal Dia 1200mm with

working stress method vis-à-vis IS Code method (For MBG Loading)
4.1.1 Assumption in Calculations

(a) Working stress calculations are based on the basic displacement equation
Ast (Kg/m) Load to Produce 0.25 m Permissible

crack (t/m) load for NP4
Sl. Surcharge Thickness Long Spiral +ve Imperfect pipe to
No. ht (m) (mm) Projection trench produce
condition condtion 0.25mm
1 0.5 120 8.679 66.852 7.134 7.172 9.001
2 1.0 120 7.89 61.71 6.195 6.223 9.001
3 2.0 120 7.89 61.71 5.160 5.061 9.001
4 5.0 120 8.679 66.852 4.464 3.925 9.001
5 10.0 120 10.257 77.137 4.560 3.770 9.001
6 15.0 120 11.046 82.28 4.613 3.672 9.001
7 20.0 120 11.046 87.422 4.552 3.571 9.001
8 25.0 120 14.202 107.992 4.476 3.479 9.001
9 30.0 120 17.358 133.705 4.405 3.401 9.001
described in detail in various RCC design books for pressure and non-
pressure pipes by neglecting relief due to side earth pressure.
(b) Pipes are checked for 0.25m cracking loads for two conditions
(i) Wide trench, +ve projection and A type bedding

(ii) +ve projection, imperfect ditch condition and A type bedding
4.1.2 Analysis of Calculation

(i) It is revealed from the calculations provided in Table II that existing
design of MBG Hume pipe are not suitable for surcharge less than 1.0 m
and again surcharge more than 2.0m, if checked with basic bending and
shear theory, which is contradictory to tested results. This may be
because of two reasons.
(a) The above theory neglects the relief due to side earth pressure, which is
about 33%.

‹x|> ëë, _¥™. î, GDY· íêêí /
Vol. 11, No. 4, March - 2002
4
(b) Simple bending and direct stress theories are absolutely not applicable
in pipe designs for Rly. embankments. Because they are neither
undergoing direct stresses nor bending stresses.
(ii) If checked with IS 783’s method then not only RDSO’s BGML and MBG
drawings are safe for HM loading but also NP4 type pipes of IS 458 are
safe with a surchage > 0.5 m. The design concept prescribed in IS 783 is
based on Spangler’s theory and is more appropriate as it directly checks
the 0.25mm cracking load and ultimate load, This procedure is well
established and proven reliable and safe over the years, not only in
India but all over the world in similar conditions (Ref.4,9,11)
(iii) It is also worth noting that even Spangler’s theory is on conservative side
as it does not take into account the full arching action of soil and IS-783
has further gone on more conservative side by neglecting cohesive
element of soil.
4.2 Based on Plate Load Test of Existing Pipes

It was planned to check the loads carrying capacity of each pipe by directly
applying the ultimate load in field conditions.
4.2.1. Load Calculations
(i) Calculation of superimposed dead load (SIDL) and equivalent live load:
Pipes are subjected to SIDL due to ballast, sleepers and Rails in addition to
dynamic loads. Dynamic loads were calculated for HM Loading. They were
coming as
Live Load - 15.8t/m as per Bridge Rules Amendment Slip No. 26

Dt. 17.11.2000.
Live Load with CDA = 15.8 x 1.806 = 28.535t/m
SIDL = 5.5t/m
Live Load + SIDL = 28.535 + 5.5 = 34.035t/m
Total Load on plate of 1.5 x 3.0 = 34.035 x 1.5 x 3.0/2.745 (Sleeper Length)t
Ultimate load with FOS of 1.5 = 55.79 x 1.5 = 83.69t
4.2.2. Loading arrangements
(i) To test pipes under field condition a plate 1.5 x 3.0 x 10mm x 4 nos were
provided on the bank coinciding with the underlying pipes centre line. The
above dimension were chosen on the basis that at ballast soil interface the
loading area over the 1.44m (external dia) pipe is approximately, 1.50 x
3.0m.

‹x|> ëë, _¥™. î, GDY· íêêí /
Vol. 11, No. 4, March - 2002
5
(ii) Thereafter a loading platform with the helps of rail pieces was made so as to
obtain a dimension of 6.5 x 5.5m.
(iii) Remaining load was then applied with help of sand bags and loose sand.
The arrangements are shown in Sketch – 1 and photographs No. 1 on
page no. 12.
(iv) Such load was applied for a surcharge of 1.0m and 3.0m.
4.2.3. Recording of deflection and settlement of pipe
(i) One meter scale was fixed at the bottom bed of the pipes centre and
supported with a plate.
(ii) To measure deflection in hume pipe a scale was fixed on the inside top of
the hume pipe having a least count of 1.0mm.
(iii) Out side reference BM were fixed to measure relative settlement and
deflection of pipe.
The details of measurement arrangement are shown in sketch No. 2 and
photograph No. 2 on page no. 13.
TABLE III RESULTS OF PLATE LOAD TEST
Sl. Surcharge Load Settlement of Pipe Deflection of Hume Pipe

No. height Applied
in Tons
Plate Ref. Diff Settle Invert Slump Add Defl.
Read- Pt. ment pipe Plate In cm
ing in cm top Reading
reading
14.76 91.7 83.9 7.8 0 37 75.2 112.2 0
1 3.0 84.88 91.2 83.0 8.2 0.4 21 91.2 112.2 0
131.68 93.2 85 8.2 0.4 19 93.2 112.2 0
14.76 91.3 83.3 8 0 19.8 91.3 111.1 0
66.604 81.9 73.9 8 0 29.2 81.9 111.1 0
2 1.0mt 143.264 89.9 81.5 8.4 0.4 14.75 96.15 110.9 0.2
197.9 96.15 87.15 9 1.0 14.75 96.15 110.9 0.2
Note: Readings were taken at an increment of 20-25 ton of load, but same are not
shown as there is no change in between readings.
The above load test indicates that the existing pipes are safe even HMLS
Loading with a factor of safety of more than 2.25 to 3.0, which is much more than the
codal requirement of 1.5.

‹x|> ëë, _¥™. î, GDY· íêêí /
Vol. 11, No. 4, March - 2002
6
4.3. Testing Pipes On Three Edge Bearing Load For 0.25m Crack as per IS
3597-1998
Three pieces of 1.2m dia pipe, one piece each of 900mm dia and 600mm dia
pipes were taken to a factory about 100km away from the site at Bhubaneswar.
The pipes were tested by three edge bearing test as prescribed in IS
3597:1998. The results are given in the Table – IV below:
TABLE–IV THREE EDGE BEARING TEST RESULTS
0.25mm Crack Load in Tonnes

Required for HM Loading
Required for Standard
Sl. Dia of NP4 pipe as per Without With 500mm Actual
No. pipe IS783 Cushion cushion load
1 600mm 11.1 12.699 11.664 21.0
2 900mm 15.90 18.141 16.663 25.0
3 1200mm 21.2 23.379 20.248 26.0
4 1200mm 21.2 27.379 20.248 26.0
5 1200mm 21.2 27.395 20.248 27.0
5.0. ECONOMICS
At this juncture it was decided not to dismantle about 9 No. of Hume pipe
bridges having higher (5-7m) cushion. The saving because of adoption of
existing pipes was about 42.9 lakhs (Refer table V) excluding saving of
disruption to traffic and inconvenience under traffic block.
Where as the saving could be unimaginable had there been clear and logical
guidelines on the subject. Such type of dismantling of Hume pipe bridges must
be continuing all over the Indian Railways, such in depth study and
reviewing certainly help in ease in construction apart from saving of
money and time.
Above saving includes only cost of extension portion of bridge for doubling, but
there is a plan to upgrade existing BGML bridge to HM loading standard in next
phase. Then the savings will almost be double. Entire savings for left over
bridges may amount to several crores.

7
TABLE V-SAVING DUE TO REVISED DESIGNS
Sl. No. Br.No. Value of BOX Value of Net Saving

Hume Pipe
1 3 707000 127000 580000
2 21 707000 127000 580000
3 22 850000 200000 650000
4 23 850000 200000 650000
5 25 850000 200000 650000
6 26 707000 127000 580000
7 243 550000 250000 300000
8 244 550000 250000 300000
TOTAL 5771000 1481000 4290000
6.0. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS
I. From the above calculations, laboratory tests and field test it

becomes quite clear and evident that Hume pipes designed and
casted as per NP3 standard requirement for BGML loading are safe
for HMLS with strength factor more than 2 – 3. Therefore, shall be
adopted as it is, without any modification.
II. For all new construction of HM/MBG loading standards, present NP4
pipes (given IS 458-1998) shall be used with a minimum cushion of
600 – 900 mm.
III. The study so conducted caused a immediate saving of Rs. 42.90 lakhs
for Rlys in addition to time saving, easier execution, avoiding of
suspension of running lines.
IV. It shall also be kept in mind that calculations and formulae developed by
Mortson and Spangler for pipes are itself on very much conservative
side, as they ignores the full arching benefits of soil. In addition to this
IS 783:1985 has further gone on safer side by ignoring cohesive element
of soil in calculating dead load factor.
V. Construction in field can be easily and shall be done as per para A-4 of
IS 783:1985 for imperfect ditch conditions than load factors will further
increase and requirement of pipe thickness and reinforcement will further
decrease.
VI. Special design Hume pipe with simple bending and shear stress
theory for HM loading with 85kg per meter spiral reinforcement
(1200mm internal dia, 120mm thickness, M-30 concrete) are also
casted and tested on three edge bearing load. The pipes shown

8
0.25mm crack on 30 ton load where as an NP3 pipe (design for
BGML) with a spiral reinforcement of 43kg per meter found safe for
26 ton crack load, therefore, the increase in the reinforcement does
not increase the relative strength of pipe. Hence, there is no use in
increase of reinforcement for higher loading.
VII. There is no need for separate RDSO’s drawings for Hume pipes, rather
they shall only prescribe the requirement of test load for three edge
bearing test for present NP4 type of pipes. As this method is well
established, proven and tested all over the world as discussed by various
authors. The clause provided in IS – 458 i.e., NP4 pipes shall not be
used for Rly loadings shall not be mistaken as those calculations are
provided irrespective of minimum cushion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
1. I acknowledge my gratitude to Sri S.P. Sahu, CE/C/I/BBS, who inspired, helped
and encouraged in conducting load tests.
2. I acknowledge my thanks to Sri. I.B. Jha, Dy. CE/C/CTC and Sri. N.S. Uikey,
Dy. CE/C/D-IV/BBS for helping in making arrangements for necessary load
testing.
3. I acknowledge my thanks to Sri PK Patra, AXEN/C/Designs/BBS, Sri RC Sethi,
JE/I/Drg, Sri DK Choudhury, JE/I/W for helping in making calculations and
supervising load tests.
REFERENCES:
1. IS-783-1985 “Indian Standard Code of Practice For Laying of Concrete Pipes”,
(First Revision), Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.
2. Is-458-1988 “Indian Standard Specification for Precast Concrete Pipes (With &
Without Reinforcement)”, (Third Revision), Bureau of Indian Standard,
New Delhi.
3. IS-3597-1998 “Concrete Pipes – Method of Tests”, Bureau of Indian Standard,
New Delhi.
4. A. Rico Rdgrighez, H.del Castrilo and G.F. Seweres “Soil Mechanics in
Highway Engineering”, Trans Tech Publication.
5. G.Annamalai, J Shammujesunderam & others “Earthfill Load on Burred Pipes”.
Journal of Insitute of Engineers, India
6. N.Krishna Raju “Advanced RCC Design”. Tata Machrawhill Publication.
7. O.P. Jain & Jai Krishna “Plain and Reinforced Concrete –Vol.II” Nem Chand
and Brothers, Roorkee
8. Merlin G.Spangler “Culverts and Conduits”.
9. Bernard E.Butler “Structural Design Practice of Pipe Culverts”, Highway
Research Record No.413/1972
10. A.Martson & A.O. Anderson “Theory of Loads on Pipes in Ditch”.

9
ANNEXURE I
DESIGN EXAMPLE OF HUME PIPE BRIDGE FOR RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS
VARIOUS FORCES ACTING ON A HUME PIPE
Type of Loading HMLS

Formation Level 9.54 m
Bed Level 7.22 m
Internal diameter of pipe 1.2 m
Grade of concrete M30
Grade of Steel Hard drawn wire
Dia of Longitudinal bar 8 mm
Dia of Spiral bar 10 mm
No. of longitudinal bar 22 Nos.
Spacing of Spiral bar 80 mm
STANDARD DATA
Depth of ballast cushion 0.35 m

Dead load 5.5 T/m
Live load 15.8 T/m
Angle of repose 30 degree
Unit Wt of soil 1.8 T/cum
Unit Wt of water 1 T/cum

10
A) Design with basic bending moment & shear force theory, assuming pipe as double
reinforced beam.
BENDING MOMENT AND FORCE TABLE

(Unit – All bending moments in ton metre and all Forces in ton)
Loading Type Bending Moment Direct Force
Top Side Bottom Top Side Bottom
Wt. of Pipe 0.045 -0.051 0.058 0.033 -0.311 -0.033
Wt. of Water 0.05 -0.056 0.063 0.254 0 -0.254
Earth of 0.012 -0.022 0.024 0.014 -0.168 -0.014
haunches
UDL from top 0.924 -0.924 0.924 0 -5.602 0
Earth pressure -0.101 -0.108 -0.116 0 0 0
Total sagging 1.031 0.108 1.07
Sign for force +ve is Tension,
Total hogging -0.101 -1.054 -0.116 -ve is Thrust
Net moment 0.93 -0.946 0.954 Total
Critical moment 1.031 1.054 1.07 0.301 -6.082 -0.301
*Bending moment due to side earth pressure are neglected, while considering critical
design moments
Design moment 1.07 Tm

Design force 0.301 Ton
Thickness of pipe provided 0.12 m
Standard thickness 0.12 m
Stress in Steel 13744.769 ton/sqm
Permissible Stress in Steel 14000 ton/sqm i.e. SAFE
Stress in Concrete 744.922 ton/sqm
Permissible Stress in Concrete 1020 ton/sqm i.e. SAFE
Weight of spiral reinforcement 66.852 kg/m
Weight of longitudinal reinforcement 8.679 kg/m
B) Checking with IS-458-1988, method

i.e. With ultimate load theory for 0.25 mm crack load
Steel as per NP4 pipes

Edge bearing strength for positive projection, wide trench condition 10.52 ton/m
Edge bearing strength for imperfect ditch condition 10.563 ton/m
Load to produce 0.25mm crack for positive projection 7.013 ton/m
Load to produce 0.25 mm crack for imperfect ditch condition 7.042 ton/m
Permissible load to produce 0.25mm crack for NP4 pipe 9.001ton/m i.e.
NP4 pipes of IS-458-1988 are SAFE

11
Photo 1, Load test arrangement at site
Sketch 1, Load test arrangement at site

12
Photo 2, Load arrangement and deflection measuring arrangement
ARRANGEMENT FOR
HUME PIPE SETTLEMENT READING
NOT TO SCALE
BANK HEIGHT 1.00M
SCALE 0.30M
SCALE 1.00M
INSTRUMENT NO. 1
H. P. 1.2MØ
REFERENCE
POINT
Sketch 2, Deflection measuring arrangement

13
Photo 3, Deflection measurement with the help of auto level

14
WATER PROOFING TR
EATMENT
ON RCC/FLAT SLAB BY
CHINA MOSAIC PROCESS
BY
Vardhman Jain*
D. S. Yadav**
P. K. Vyas***
1. Introduction :
The problem of leakage from roof of building is experienced by all the zonal railways.
Various methods / Techniques have been tried to arrest the leakages. Most of the time
the treatments adopted proves to be effective only for a short duration.
This report is covering the details of prevention of leakage through R.C.C. New/old or
flat slabs terrace by China mosaic treatment.
2. Reason of leakage through slabs :

The following are the probable causes of leakage through flat slab.
(a) Deterioration of slabs (i) Due to age

(ii) Weathering actions
(iii) Debonding
(b) Improper Supervision (i) Honey combing / porus concrete.

(ii) Inadequate compaction.
(iii) Excess water addition.
(iv) Improper cover.
(v) Inadequate slope
(vi) Bad workman ship
(c) Water stagnation
(d) Provision of less number of discharge / down take pipes.
*AXEN (CS) CCG, **AXEN (TP) CCG, ***ADEN (W) DHD

15
(e) Leakage through cold joint, construction joints, expansion joints, cracks, junction of
wall joints of different materials etc.
3. Basic requirements of arresting leakage of roofs
The following are the basic requirements of water proofing of roofs.
1. Provision of adequate slope - gravitational flow (1 in 100)
2. Provision of adequate openings for drainage of water pipe - spacing of Down take
pipes - not more than 6 meter (as per clause 5.3.2 of IS 2527 year 1984).
3. Proper detailing of junction at roof with parapet wall - (as per IS 3067 -1988).
4. Proper treatment of expansion joint
5. Provision of effective water proofing system over the roof.
In order to arrest leakage of water through RCC roofs. It is necessary that roofs are
provided with suitable water Proofing system.
4. Different process of water proofing system
The various methods adopted at various part of country are given below :
1. Lime concrete terracing.
2. Water proofing using bitumen felts
3. Mud - phuska treatment.
4. Water proofing using polyethylene films.
5. Water proofing using polymer modified bitumen members.
6. Water proofing by polymer cementitious slurry coating and then china mossaic
treatment.
5. Water proofing by China Mossaic process
In order to overcome the leakage problems the china mosaic treatment is very effective
to prevent leakage from slabs. And most widely used in W. Railway in BCT Division.
Surface Preparation :

16
1. Surface preparation is most important step before application to get best results
and to avoid failure.
2. The surface must be free from dust, dirt, coatings loose particle, fungus, oils,
greases etc.
3. Clean the surface by scrapping sand blasting, grinding to remove dust and loose
particles.
4. Treat the surface with 5 to 10% hydrochloric acid followed by complete

neutralization with water which will improve bonding of the coating.
5. Oils, greases and mould release agents can be cleaned with solvents.
Provision of Slope :
A minimum slope of 1 in 100 with M 15 concrete and water proofing admixture on

prepared surface. The thickness of layer is kept between 25 to 40 mm. the size of
aggregate should be down 10 mm. The w/c ratio 0.45 should be maintained.
It is better if slope is 1 in 60.
6. Detail of NS items adopated in Western Railway (BCT Division)
Providing water proofing treatment with china mosaic on terrace slab as per under in
addition to specifications enclosed along with tender documents. Preparing the surface
for water proofing treatment by scrapping and brushing the surface so as to remove all
loose material after removing old tarfelt bitumen fiber glass tissues etc. and complete
washing to the surface with. Only dismantling of concrete if any will be paid separately
under SOR item. Providing cement concerete to proper slope as directed by the
Railway Engineer or his representative. However, cost of providing cement concrete
will be paid for separately under SOR items.
Applying one coat of polymer based water proofing compound of approved quality
mixed with cement (OPC). 1 kg of polymer based water proofing compounds and 2 kg
of cement (OPC) should cover an area of 2.80 sq. m.
Providing and laying broken China Mosaic (Broken pieces of China glazed tiles) of
approved colour set in 20 mm thick cement mortaral 1 : 3 mixed with water proofing
powder of approved quality at correct level and slope and joints finished by pouring
cement slurry and brooming them down. The tiles shall be closely packed such that
china mosaic covers atleast 90% of slab area.
The above treatment shall be provided on the parapets / any other wall upto 30 cm
above the floor level and the junction between the wall and parapet round offin the
shape of area of a curve.
Curing of the flooring continuously for 10 days so as to render the surface hard.
17
Cleaning the China mosaic tiles of all dust and stains.
The rate shall also exclude cost of cement, which will be paid for separately, but shall
include disposal debris released from this work.
7. Salient features of polymers
1. Bonds (adhesive) strongly to most of the building materials.
2. Can be applied to uniform thickness coating on horizontal and vertical surface.
3. Allows trapped water vapours to escape and prevents blistering and adhension
failure.
4. It is unaffected by UV light and prevents discolouration of concrete. It will not

corrode reinforcing steel.
5. Coating is highly durable even in continuous contact with water.
6. It is resistant to water, dilute acids and alkali solution.
7. It is non-flammable, non hazardous, does not evolve toxic gasses when exposed to
fire.
8. Non-toxic to human being.
9. Most properties improve an aging.
10. Resistant to fungus and micro organism growth.
8. Typical characteristics fo different polymers of the water proofing compounds

and admixtures
A) Tech. coat - 61 (p) white polyurethane water proofing coating.
(a) Mixing ratio - 10 to 15% of cement.
(b) Consistency of mix - ready to use brushable.
(c) Application time (portlife) at 30 0 C - 3 to 4 hours.
(d) Surface dry time at 300 C - 15 to 30 minute on concrete surface
(e) Complete curing time - 72 hours min.
(f) Recoatibility time - 10 to 12 hours.

18
(g) Coverage : on concrete surface - 45 to 50 sq. f / lit / coat.
(h) Packing - 1, 4, 20 lit.
B) Master - Crete
(a) PH Value - 9 to 10
(b) Consistency - free folwing thin / liquid
(c) Mixing ratio - 18 to 20 % by weight or cement quality
(d) Intitial setting time - 24 hours
(e) Initial curing time - 72 hours
(f) First coat - 4 to 4.5 sqm / 3 lit mix
(g) Second coat - 4.5 to 5.5 sqm / 3 lit mix
(h) Package 1, 5, 20 lit.
C) Chemistik - clean water proofers
(a) Colour - Clear liquid
(b) Film properties - flexible tack free. Clean film
(c) Coverage - first coat - 60 to 70 sq.f/ lit
(d) Second coat - 75 to 80 sqf / fit
(e) Flash point - 400 C
D) Polcrete admixture : Used as admixture to control w/c ratio generally 2% of

cement dose prepared with water. Admixture available in packing - 1, 4, 10, 20 kg
and 100 gms.
E) Chemicrete integers water proof admixture.
doses - 250 gm. per kg.
It can be used with all types of cement including the sulphate resistance type. It is

19
chloride free hence will not have any harmful effect on the reinforcement steel,
prestressed tendon.
F) Xypex : Water proofing by crystallization when mixed with water and applied as a
cementitious coating, the active chemical in X Y P E X cause a catalytic reaction
with generates a non-soluble crystalline formation of dendristic fibers within the
pores and capillary track of concrete. Thus the concrete becomes permanently
sealed against the penetration of water or liquids from any direction.
Before applying wet the surface.
G) S B R Polymer latexes based n styrene butadiene (SBR) acrylics or polyvinyl

acetate can be used
Properties :
(a) Solid contents mini 40% max. 50%
(b) pH 7.5 to 8.5
(c) 14 days bond strength at 250C-7.5 to 10 mpa
(d) Maximum shrinkage conefficient on cure (linear)- 0.005.
(e) Mini compressive yield strength at 7 days- 55mpa.
(f) Absorption: 24 hours maxi. 1% .
(g) Tensile strength 7 days mini - 40 Mpa.
(h) Elongation at break mini 1% .
(I) Doses- depends upon use-10 to 15 lit/bag
for cover replacement-7%
core replacement-10%
Applied in 3 Croat first two coat perpendicular to each other.
H) Roff Super Crete : Acrylic polymer based designed for use with cement
formulation.
50 kg cement + 125 kg zone II sand + 10 lit roff super create + 5 to 7 lit water.
9. Conclusion

20
China mosaic process is the best process of all available methods in following
way.
1. It Completely prevent the leakages from slab for long duration.,
2. Terrace give good out look appearances. Hence can be used for commercial
purpose.
3. The 90% area of top surface is covered by the Broken tiles which reduced
weathering effects.
4. The method reduce unnecessary dead load.
5. The minimum effective life is 5 years. However it is effective more than 12 years.
6. The further maintenance cost in NIL
7. It prevents the leakage through RCC roof or terrace in three way,
(i) The china clay tiles pieces give the impervious surface which do not allow to
penetrate the water through top surface.
(ii) If due to any cause water passes through the china clay top layer then the
dense M 15 layer of concrete with admixtures and in proper slope do not permit
the water to further penetrate the slab. The penetrated water flow outside the
slab due to gravitational flow. Hence, water is not sustain above the slab.
(iii) Even though, if water penetrates through the both surfaces, then the third
(i. e. bottom most) layer of polymers do not allow to penetrate the water through
the slab.
Hence, the china mosaic restrict the percolation of water in three stages thus
proving to be the most effective method of water proofing.
10. Suggestions :
Inspite of water proofing treatment of the leaky roofs, in some of the cases, water
again starts leaking from the roofs after passing one or two years, due to poor
workmanship or in adequate supervision, causing hardship to the occupants.
Therefore the water proofing treatment shall be guaranteed for a minimum period of
5 years from the date of completion of the work. For this purpose special condition
should be included in all tenders regarding water proofing treatment work. A
certain amount say about 5% of the cost of work shall be kept deposit from the
contractor which shall be released only after successful completion of 5 years. In
the meantime if leakage occurs the contractor should be bound to rectify the same.

21
In case contractor fails to rectify the leakages the deposited amount should be
forfeited. This will ensure 100% water proofing of the leaky roofs.
Annexure - I
Standards & codes of practice dealing with water proofing to roofs.
Following is the list of various I S codes which deals with water proofing of roofs.
(a) I S 1322 : 1993 specification for bitumen felts for water proofing and damp proofing
(Forth revision)
(b) I S 1346 : 1991 code of practice for water proofing of roofs with bitumen felt (Third
revision)
(c) I S 1580 : 1991 specification for bituminous compound for water proofing and
caulking proposes (First revision)
(d) I S 2115 : 1980 code of practice for flat roof finish mud phuska.
(e) I S 2527 : 1984 code of practice for fixing rain water gutters and down pipes for
drainage.
(f) I S 3036 : 1992 code of practice for laying lime concrete of a water proofing roof
finish (second revision)
(g) I S 3037 : 1986 specification of bitumen mastic for use in water proofing of roofs
(First revision)
(h) I S 3067 : 1988 code of practice for general design details and preparatory work for
damp proofing and water proofing of buildings (First revision)
(i) I S 3384 : 1986 specification for bitumen primer for use in water proofing and damp
proofing (first revision)
(j) I S 4365 : 1967 code of practice for application of bitumen mastic for water -
proofing of roofs.
(k) I S 4911 : 1968 glossary of terms relating to bituminous water proofing and damp
proofing buildings (first revision)
(G) I S 7193 : 1974 specification for glass fiber base - bitumen felt.
(m) I S 7290 : 1979 Recommendations for use of polyethylene film for water - proofing
of roofs (first revision)

22
(n) I S 9981 : 1981 Code of practice for in situ water proofing and damp -proofing
treatments with glass fiber tissue reinforced bitumen.
(o) I S 13182 : 1991 Recommendations for water proofing of wet areas in building.
(p) I S 13826 ( P + 1) 1993 Bitumen based felts - method of test part 1 breaking
strength test,.
(q) I S 13826 (P + 2) Bitumen based felts method of : 1993 test part 2 pliability test
(r) I S 13826 Bitumen based felts - method of test (P + 3) : 1993 Part 3 storage
stocking test.
(s) I S 13826 Bitumen based felts - method of (p + 4) 1993 test part - 4 pressure head
test.,
(t) I S 13826 Bitumen based felts - method of test (P + 5) 1993 Part-5 head resistance
test.
(u) I S 13826 Bitumen based felts - method of test (P + 6), 1993 Part - 6 water
absorption test.
(v) I S 13826 Bitumen based felts - method of test (P + 7) 1993 Part-7 determination of
binder content.
___

23
CLEANING OF SURFACE IN PROGRESS
SURFACE AFTER APPLYING POLYMER

CEMENTITIOUS SLURRY COAT

24
FINAL VIEW AFTER LAYING CHINA MOSAIC ON ROOF SLAB
FINAL VIEW AFTER LAYING CHINA MOSAIC ON PARAPET

25
ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D
INDIAN RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN
‹x|> ëë, _¥™GDx_™ î GDY· íêêí

Volume 11, Number 4 March 2002
ÙxßDj_™ Gx|>Ú
EDITORIAL BOARD
o» ¨Ãw ß¥_™Dm <≤jdm_™ / ΩRæÙd≤ Í¡¤±

Shri Budh Prakash Director / IRICEN Chairman
o» e≤ Ù» mDæjD „RæŸfl> ß¥D¡¤Dß_™ / ΩRæÙd≤ Ùjy¤

Shri N. C. Sharda Sr. Professor / IRICEN Member
o». ÙÃwDxmÃ mGD· ß¥D¡¤Dß_™ / ΩRæÙd≤ Ùjy¤

Shri Sudhanshu Sharma Professor / IRICEN Member
o». ß¥„»Ò _Ã™GDæ ß¥D¡¤Dß_™ / ΩRæÙd≤ Ùjy¤

Shri Praveen Kumar Professor / IRICEN Member
o» e. _d™. ¤Dj„ „Ræ˛> ß¥D¡¤Dß_™ / ΩRæÙd≤ _™D¤·_™Dæ» ÙxßDj_™

Shri A. K. Yadav Sr. Professor / IRICEN Executive Editor
FROM THE DESK OF EXECUTIVE EDITOR
The March 2002 issue of the Construction Bulletin features two

articles. The first article by Shri S.C. Gupta Dy CE/C/ Designs
Bhubaneshwar deals with basic design concept of Pipe Culverts with a
case study showing advantages obtained in upgrading the existing pipe
culverts for higher grade of loading by following basic concepts. Thorough
analysis, and field laboratory tests author has observed that, hume pipes
designed as per NP3 standard for BGML loading are safe for H.M.loading
standards with strength of factor 2-3.
The second article authored by Shri Vardhman Jain AXEN (CS)

CGE, Shri D.S. Yadhav AXEN (TP) CCG and Shri P.K.Vyas ADEN (W)
DHD, Western Railway deals with water proofing treatment on RCC/FLAT
Slab. The authors have detailed water proofing by Chaina Mosaic. Various
advantages of this treatment has been highlighted.
It is hoped that these articles will be useful to the field Engineers.
The field engineers and other readers are requested to send articles
on various issues, which they feel important enough to be shared with
others through this common forum of Indian Railway Construction Bulletin.
The articles may be sent on diskette or through E-mail so that editing at our
end can be done quickly.
With best wishes,
- EDITOR

( 28
ii )
ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D
INDIAN RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN
<„ Q ¤ „ yÔÃ
C O N T E N T S
Page No.
1. Economic Designs of Hume Pipes for Railway Embankments and Upgrading (1)
of Existing Hume Pipes Designed for BGML Standard (Constructed in 1970)
to HM Loading Standard (A Case Study)
By
S. C. Gupta. Dy. CE/C/Designs, Bhubaneshwar
2. Water Proofing Treatment on RCC/FLAT Slab by (15)

China Mosaic Process
By
Vardhman Jain, AXEN (CS) CCG
D. S. Yadav, AXEN (TP) CCG
P. K. Vyas, ADEN (W) DHD
Ô_™≤»_™” ßdßÙ· _d™ Úd‹_™Dd* VDæD @¤⁄Ô <_™e ‘e <„YDæ Í<≤„D¤· L™ß Ùd ΩRæÙd≤ _d™ <„YDæ ≤´»* ´I $
The views expressed by the authors of Technical Papers are not
necessarily the views of IRICEN.
‹x|> ëë, _¥™GDx_™ î GDY· íêêí

Volume 11, Number 4 March 2002
(i)
THIS IS YOUR BULLETIN, SHOULDN'T
YOU BE CONTRIBUTING TO IT?
Editor, Indian Railways Construction Bulletin
extends an invitation to all its readers to take active
part in the publication of the Bulletin.
Do send any articles, experiences, notes and
suggestions which you think would make interesting
and informative reading to other readers of our
Bulletin.
You could also give us some ideas on how
to improve the Bulletin, its contents and its
presentations.
Any reader can contribute articles, but they
should be about your work environment and
experiences on maintnance & construction of works
and Bridges.
Please send your articles to:
The executive Editor,
Indian Railways Construction Bulletin,
Director,
Indian Railways institute of Civil Engineering,
Pune 411 001.
Fax: (020) 6128677
e-mail : mail@iricen.gov.in
Website : www.iricen.gov.in
Edited Published By :
The Director
Indian Railways Institute Of Civil Engineering,
Pune - 411 001.
DESIGNED & PRINTED by :

M/S. M. R. & Co.
1552 Chimanbaug,
P. Jog Classes Lane,
Pune - 411 030.
Phone : 4330449

Pipe

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pipe

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ECONOMIC DESIGNS OF HUME PIPES FOR

RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS AND UPGRADING OF

2.0 EXISTING DESIGN PRACTICES FOR RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS

* Dy. CE/C/Designs, Bhubaneshwar

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

However, RDSO’s drawing covered only up to MBG loading standards,

3.0 REVIEWING OF DESIGNS

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

4.1 Detailed design based on the basic concept

A design of hume pipe for HM Loading standard was checked theoretically

Comparison of Hume pipe design parameters of internal dia 1200 mm with

Bearing Strength) as to produce pipes type RC Pipes (Dia

crack for 120 mm 125 mm)

Projection Trench per IS steel onal

* It shows that NP4 pipes are safe for surcharge>0.5m

1. Positive trench conditions (Described in IS 783) is a pipe laying condition,

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

Comparison of Hume pipe design parameters of Internal Dia 1200mm with

4.1.1 Assumption in Calculations

Ast (Kg/m) Load to Produce 0.25 m Permissible

(i) Wide trench, +ve projection and A type bedding

4.1.2 Analysis of Calculation

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

4.2 Based on Plate Load Test of Existing Pipes

4.2.1. Load Calculations

Live Load - 15.8t/m as per Bridge Rules Amendment Slip No. 26

4.2.2. Loading arrangements

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

4.2.3. Recording of deflection and settlement of pipe

TABLE III RESULTS OF PLATE LOAD TEST

Sl. Surcharge Load Settlement of Pipe Deflection of Hume Pipe

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

TABLE–IV THREE EDGE BEARING TEST RESULTS

0.25mm Crack Load in Tonnes

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

Sl. No. Br.No. Value of BOX Value of Net Saving

I. From the above calculations, laboratory tests and field test it

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

DESIGN EXAMPLE OF HUME PIPE BRIDGE FOR RAILWAY EMBANKMENTS

VARIOUS FORCES ACTING ON A HUME PIPE

Type of Loading HMLS

Depth of ballast cushion 0.35 m

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

BENDING MOMENT AND FORCE TABLE

Design moment 1.07 Tm

B) Checking with IS-458-1988, method

Steel as per NP4 pipes

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

Sketch 1, Load test arrangement at site

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

BANK HEIGHT 1.00M

Sketch 2, Deflection measuring arrangement

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

2. Reason of leakage through slabs :

(a) Deterioration of slabs (i) Due to age

(b) Improper Supervision (i) Honey combing / porus concrete.

(c) Water stagnation

(d) Provision of less number of discharge / down take pipes.

*AXEN (CS) CCG, **AXEN (TP) CCG, ***ADEN (W) DHD

ADæÔ»¤ ædÚ <≤GD·Ò _™D¤· ß<Ë_™D Indian Railways Construction Bulletin

3. Basic requirements of arresting leakage of roofs

AXEN (CS) CCG, AXEN (TP) CCG, ADEN (W) DHD