Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
10 एवं 11 नव बर 2016 को
गोवा म होने वाल
पल
ु एवं संरचना मानक स म त क
चौरासीवीं
चौरासीवीं बैठक क काय"सूची
Agenda of
Eighty Fourth Meeting of
Bridge & Structures Standards Committee
(10th& 11th November - 2016)
At Goa
NOTES BY SECRETARY
A. Brief History-
1.0 Prevention of corrosion in reinforcement (within the codal life) is essential for
overall durability of RCC/PSC structures. The chronological development in this
regard is as below.
2.0 Initial provision- Relevant part of Clause 7.1.4.6 in IRS: CBC-1997 as existed
initially regarding prevention of corrosion in reinforcement is reproduced as
under:-
At that time four exposure conditions were envisaged namely Mild, Moderate,
Severe and Very Severe.
4.0 ME’s observation - In terms of the then ME’s observation on the provisions of
the coating vide Note No. 2005/M.E/Notes/29 dt 07.12.2005, the then provisions
of IRS-CBC were revised and A&C slip no. 8 to IRS CBC-1997 dated 15.02.2006
has been issued. The modified provisions of Clause 7.1.5 of IRS CBC are as
under,
5.0 Also vide A&C No. 2 to IRS CBC (Reprint Sept-2014) dated 14.01.2015
additional provision of concrete coating has been made vide Clause No 5.4.7 to
provide adequate protection against corrosion of embedded Steel/Material. The
frequency of coating shall depend upon the condition of existing coating.
6.0 Provisions in IRC: 112-2011 (Code of practice for Concrete Road Bridges) -
Provisions regarding products with improved corrosion resistance vide clause
6.2.3 of IRC: 112-2011 are as under.
Reinforcing steel bars with improved corrosion resistance by any of the methods
described in section 18 can be used as reinforcement provided they meet the
minimum strength, proof stress and elongation characteristics as specified
in Table 18.1.
The design properties are considered to be the same as per Clause 6.2.2 except
as given in Clause 6.2.3.2 for epoxy coated reinforcement.
Properties of stainless steel reinforcement shall not be inferior to the carbon steel
reinforcement of corresponding strength class. For bond properties reference
should be made to the relevant code or established on basis of tests.
5. Non-repairable/replaceable
However only in extreme exposure conditions based on specific technical
requirement provisions of IRC 112-2011 may be adopted based on techno
economic justification.
**********
BSC Ref. : Item No. 863 of 72nd BSC & Item No. 1021 of 80th BSC
RDSO File No. : CBS/DCP-1
Agenda : To make provisions for Horizontal Directional Drilling Method
in pipeline crossing under railway track.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
Presently, the concerned agencies for all crossings under railway track obtain
necessary approval & permission from concerned Divisional Railway Manager
(DRM) before pipeline laying. DRM office issues approval & permission
accordingly, as per guidelines of BS-105.
3. RDSO remarks:
i. Other similar agencies like ONGC, GAIL executing the work of pipeline
crossing should be consulted before finalization of modification.
ii. For corrosion, higher wall thickness & 3LPE coating (3mm) has been
suggested by IOCL in place of existing cathodic protection system. Since
the existing anti corrosion system for steel casing pipes greater than
350mm dia. was finalized and approved by M&C Directorate of RDSO,
thus proposal should also be sent to M&C Dte. for their views/approval
regarding corrosion.
iii. The carrier pipe shall be designed to latest approved Railway loading
standard as per IRS Bridge Rulkes or else the depth of carrier pipe shall
be where stresses due to railway loading does not affect the pipe. The
detailed design calculations for carrier pipe shall be submitted by
concerned agency to CBE.
iv. Subject to the above, alterations can be made to BS-105 for pipeline
crossing without casing pipe.
**********
ITEM No. 1062: Policy on maintaining of road and allied systems for
Limited Height subways/ Road Under Bridges.
NOTES BY SECRETARY
CBE/SECR has proposed the issue regarding drainage problems in RUBs and
further stated that;
1. Vide ED (B & S) – II, Railway board’s letter no. 2006/CE-IV/Misc/2 (RUBs) dated
18.04.2012, Board has issued guidelines that, level Crossings which do not
qualify for sanction of ROB on cost sharing basis in terms of para 925 of IRPWM,
can be planned for elimination by subways at Railway’s cost. It has also been
stated in the letter that, the responsibility for the maintenance of the road passing
through the subway, lighting, drainage system, diversion road and any other
allied works will rest with State Govt.
the maintenance of the road passing through the subway, lighting, drainage
system, diversion road and any other allied work will rest on State Govt. only”.
RDSO Remarks:
A) To analyze the problems regarding water logging, settlement of track, erosion
of banks and construction method/techniques and to suggest the improvement
in the design etc. and to deal with any other technical issue,
Adviser/Bridge/Railway Board has nominated a committee vide Railway Board
letter no. 2016/CE-IV/LX-ROB/RUB (Innovations) dated: 20.09.2016 consisting of
following officers.
i. Shri A. K. Singhal, EDCE (B&S), Railway Board, New Delhi
ii. Shri Kailash Singh, ED (Structures) RDSO, Lucknow
iii. Shri R. N. Sunkar, CBE WCR, Jabalpur
iv. Shri M. P. Singh, CBE, NR, New Delhi
B) Maintenance of roads, lighting, etc are a policy matter and suggestions may
be given on this.
**********
NOTES BY SECRETARY
This subject matter has been raised by the CBE/WCR for Modification in the
clause 4.5.9 of Bridge Substructure and Foundation Code. It was also discussed in the
CBE’s seminar held on 06th& 07th Oct.’2016 as item No.2 (a) and concluded that WCR
will prepare the check list and send it to RDSO. RDSO will check/modify and circulate it
to Zonal Railways for implementation.
4.5.9 For strengthening existing bridges by jacketing etc., a reduction in waterway area
as per the limits specified below may be allowed by the chief Bridge Engineer
provided that there has been no history of past incidents of overflow/
washout/excessive scour etc. and that measures for safety as considered
necessary by the field Engineer and approved by CBE are taken.
Further reduction in the area shall be subject to CRS sanction and submission
of detailed calculation of waterways etc. Where the clearances are not available, the
bridge should be rebuilt.
high, since a small reduction in waterway may not necessarily cause damage to
the bridge in case of flood. To account for small reduction in waterway, additional
safety measures like provision of flooring, pitching of approach bank etc. can be
specified.
• Based on the Committee Recommendation and Railway Board Order of the item
no. 897 of 74th BSC, clause 4.5.9 was inserted in Bridge Substructure and
Foundation Code.
Views of CBE/WCR
• Instead of percentage criteria, the waterway reduction should be related to the
size of the bridge and headroom available above the danger level as well as
CHFL keeping safety margin over that also. The para 4.5.9 of substructure code
may be modified as under:
(a) Revised HFL (CHFL) with reduction in waterway after proposed
rehabilitation has to be calculated. Rehabilitation should only be allowed if
standard clearance and freeboard as per clause 4.8 and clause 4.9 of
substructure code are available with revised HFL after rehabilitation.
(b) Subject to para (a) above, the protection work including toe wall, pitching
upto HFL, retarder/energy dissipater, curtain wall, droop wall, river training
works/protection works as required may be provided as per site
requirement to be suggested by Executive Officer and to be approved by
CBE.
(c) In case, with revised HFL, standard free board and clearance are not
available then additional opening with toe wall, pitching and river
training/protection work to be provided.
(d) In case above suggested additional opening work is delayed for any
reason, the bridge should be declared as vulnerable bridge till such time
additional opening is made.
(e) In case of minor bridges, however, depending upon the type of strata and
site observed velocity of water, only protection work can be done.
RDSO Remarks:-
**********
NOTES BY SECRETARY
2. However, it has been observed that on unimportant lines and where Railway
boundary is large, construction of via-duct over the whole Railway land is not
economically desirable.
3. Para 1816 (iv) Engineering Code states that cost of Bridge Structure for
Crossing additional tracks in future has to be borne by Railways. Para is
reproduced in verbatim as follows:-
“If provision is required to be made in the bridge structure for crossing additional
railways tracks in future, the cost of such extra length of the bridge structure will
be borne by Railway in addition to its share of the cost for the rest of the bridge
and its approaches. If the provision for extra tracks is already a sanctioned
scheme or included in the Works Programme the cost of extra length of bridge on
that account shall also be shared on a 50:50 basis between the Railway and
Road Authority.”
(i) On ‘C’ Routes and Yards, preferably via-duct should be planned over
the complete Railway Land.
(ii) On National Highway, State Highway, DFC Route, ‘A’ & ‘B’ routes,
via-duct should be planned considering the existing tracks,
sanctioned tracks and 4 more tracks for future expansion.
(iii) On all ‘D Spl’, ‘D’, ‘E Spl’ and ‘E’ routes, via-duct should be planned
covering existing track plus three future tracks.
Existing Tracks + Sanctioned Lines + One Future Line + One Future span of 24m
on either side on either side (if Land
available)
**********
NOTES BY SECRETARY
Vide letter no W-3/65/09/RB & RDSO/Pt. II/111 Dated 11.02.2016, CBE ECR has
raised the issue of static/dynamic load testing of steel railway bridges. He has raised the
following important issues:
1. The strength of steel bridges existing on the system viz, underslung, open web,
plate and composite girders is primarily judged by measurement of camber and
quality of rivets. Normally no load tests are performed.
3. If, however, the bridge is not connected with railway network, testing by trains is
not possible.
4. Static load tests are being insisted before allowing traffic over the steel bridges,
but there is no mention of load tests in railway codes/ manuals, for which no
standard practices are also not available. IRC-51 is available, which gives
methodology of load tests for road bridges.
1.2 “Guideline for Load and Resistance Assessment of Existing European Railway
Bridges” issued as part of Sustainable Bridges by European Commission,
1.6 BA 54/94 “Load testing for bridge assessment”, issued by The Highways Agency,
Scotland.
2.0 Case Studies: RDSO has studied few case studies of load testing being
deployed on bridges and the conclusions drawn thereon:
2.1 Load testing of the new Svinesund Bridge, by Raid Karoumi and Andreas
Andersson, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Department of Civil and
Architectural Engineering, Division of Structural Design and Bridges, Stockholm,
Sweden, 2007.
3.1 Static load test is used as a tool for assessing load carrying capacity of bridges.
The procedure for assessing the load carrying capacity of old bridges for the
purpose of ascertaining safety and for upgrading the bridges for higher loads is
given in the codes.
3.2 Performance static load tests, within normal live load regular operations are
sometimes used, but are generally not considered reliable. (Para 6.3.4 of AS
5100.7-2004; Section 5, Bridge Inspection Manual Texas DOT) Proof load tests
with loads exceeding the permitted live loads are considered a good tool to
physically verify the reserve strength of bridges and utilize part of same for
commercial operations. This approach might not be suitable for railway
operations where fatigue is governing in majority of cases.
3.3 None of the codes, however, specifies load test for ascertaining the quality of
new construction, as is sought in Indian Railways.
3.4 Dynamic load tests are used to collect information about the natural frequency
and resonance behaviour for better understanding of behaviour of the structure.
3.5 Load test is used generally in conjunction with the instrumentation, so that the
conclusions drawn on the basis of instrumentation measurements are verified
through deflection measurements. This helps in eliminating errors associated
with fixing of gages and data collection etc.
4.0 Limitations of Static Load Tests: For steel structures, static load tests suffer
from several limitations, enumerated below:
4.1 Steel is an elastic, factory made product and its ductility is not in doubt. The
problems associated with fabrication which are often sought to be verified
through load tests come into play only under repeated applications of loads
(Fatigue). One time application of load in load test is not the right tool for verifying
the quality of fabrication.
4.2 Static load test using sand bags or other materials as kenteledge is a
cumbersome procedure and the amount of load required even for loading a mid-
sized girder for its live load capacity is often difficult, especially since space
availability in Railway girders is limited due to lesser width. As a result, the full
elastic behaviour of girder might not be possible to be verified through load tests.
4.3 If train vehicles are used for static load test, if the static load applied is not
precisely known, the deflection worked out might be erroneous and can lead to
wrong conclusions.
4.4 Establishing independent reference to measure the deflection using dial gauge or
scale system is not possible at all locations and this means that the shore spans
where height is less and water not present are the often default choice for
carrying out the load tests. This reduces the efficacy of load test.
4.5 Steel structures have sufficient residual strength beyond elastic limit and, in
many structures, alternate load paths are available. Even if load on structure
exceeds the elastic limit of some part, the same might not fully reflect in the
deflection. Due to simplifying assumptions such as pin-jointed trusses, zero fixity
at ends, ignoring the effect of track continuity and 2-D behaviour of girders, the
theoretical deflection computed is often higher than actual deflection of the
structure. Comparing the actual field measurements of static load test with
theoretical computations often lead to erroneous conclusions.
4.6 For long span bridges, dead load and superimposed dead load itself is a
substantial component of the entire load carrying capacity. In this scenario, live
load component might not be significant for the overall girder (Though it is still
important for some individual components). For such girders, the camber values
immediately after launching and after providing superimposed dead load might
give good idea of the behaviour of structure.
5.0 Benefits of Static Load Test: Even with the above limitations, static load tests
have several uses:
5.1 Verification of design as to rule out gross errors. The measurements of deflection
during static load test can give idea about the design on overall basis such that
the gross errors can be ruled out.
5.2 Static load test is a simple test which can be performed easily in field and results
can be easily interpreted. Instrumentation requires specialized agencies for
conducting tests and for interpreting the results.
5.3 Static load test is an excellent physical measurement which can be used to
independently verify a numerical model of bridge created for instrumentation
purposes.
5.4 Static load test can help examine behaviour of old bridges which cannot be
analyzed theoretically due to non-availability of detailed design and/or
documentation. Similarly, the girders which are damaged due to impact/corrosion
etc where the theoretical study might not be so reliable can be studied through
load tests. For retrofitment, the before and after load tests give excellent
indication of efficacy of retrofitment.
6.1 The dynamic load tests can be used only with instrumentation. The impact factor
given in codes is a statistical value, which depends on several factors such as
condition of track, condition of vehicles, operation characteristics etc which are
difficult to create/replicate in field. If only deflection is measured, the errors due to
unknown impact factor might make the readings difficult to interpret.
6.2 Further, impact factor is not same at all locations and stress measurements
during dynamic tests at different locations on structure might show different
values. Therefore, dynamic load tests can be used only to know the envelope of
stresses and/or deflections.
6.3 Under dynamic load tests, the position of vehicle is not precisely known and
while the peak values might be captured, meaningful conclusions about why the
structure is behaving in a particular fashion might be difficult to establish without
supplementary tests.
7.1 Dynamic load tests give idea about vibrations on the structure and their
amplitude. Excess amplitudes are indicative of resonance and the natural
frequency of structure can give idea about the speeds that can be permitted on
bridge without undue vibrations.
7.2 Dynamic load tests can supplement the insights into behaviour of structure
gained through numerical models/static load tests etc.
8.0 Load tests have already been specified for concrete precast units in Para 18 of
IRS Concrete Bridge Code. Load tests are also used for piles as per provisions
of IS:2911.
9.0 The item for load tests appears in the para “18.4.7 Para-17. Procedure For
Inspection Of Bridges” of Policy Circular No 7, which states that:
(11) If the Commissioner is satisfied that the girder has been properly designed
for the work it is intended to perform, then, the open web and plate girders
are not required to be tested.”
************
NOTES BY SECRETARY
1. CBE ER, vide his letter no W(3)/66/3/38 dated 15/03/2016 has raised the issue of
excessive vibration noticed on girders built to RDSO drawing no B-1529 (18.3 m, MBG
Loading 1987) during passage of heavy trains to CC+8+2 (Annexure 1066/1).
2. This matter was earlier referred to RDSO in 2010 and a solution was provided by
RDSO vide letter no CBS/Insp/WBG dated 05/08.03.2010 (Annexure 1066/2). In this
solution, the V-type cross-frames were considered to be weak and RDSO advised that
the same may be replaced by X-type cross frames.
3. Eastern Railway has carried out this modification in all girders, however, this
problem was not rectified. The matter was again referred by Eastern Railway to RDSO
vide letter no W(3)/65/0/Vol.III Dated 24.02.2016.
4. RDSO carried out full design check and nit was found that the design of main
girders is adequate for the 4 Million cycles criteria that was adopted during design. Even
as per the new fatigue criteria, the fatigue life for these girders was found to be 40 years
with simplified procedure. The actual design life if stresses are measured or if detailed
design with train loading is done will be significantly higher. Therefore, the girders need
not be replaced.
5. The design check, however, revealed that the top lateral bracing section provided
in these girders i.e. ISA 75x75x10 is inadequate and ISA 100x100x12 is required as per
computations followed for RDSO designs. The same was advised to Eastern Railway
vide letter no CBS/DPG/1 Dated 11.03.2016(Annexure 1066/3).
6. Eastern railway is currently carrying out this modification is field and the result of
the modification in arresting the excess vibrations shall be known soon. This problem
has been reported on North Western Railway, as learnt during oral communication with
some officials.
7. All railways where these girders are provided need to be examined afresh and
once the technical solution to the issue is found, modification of girders needs to be
done.
8. The committee may deliberate the issue and decide further course of action.
*************
Annexure 1066/1
Annexure 1066/2
Annexure 1066/3
NOTES BY SECRETARY
The issue of Inspection Proforma has already been deliberated in details vide item
no. 955 of 77th BSC. During the deliberation of Item 955, a Proforma prepared by
IRICEN was circulated as below for feedback of CBE’s, but no feedback was received.
BRIDGE No._______
DETAILS OF BRIDGE
(c) Spacing
12 Type of Decking
13 Type of construction and location/ No. of construction joints/segmental joints/junction of precast and cast-in-
situ Slabs/Bracings/Diaphragms
NAME OF RIVER----------------------
TERRITORIAL 1. PWI
2. AEN
3. DEN/Sr.DEN
Br. No.______________
Section ----------------------------
43. CAMBER READINGS
DESIGNED CAMBER
READING
INITIAL ACTUAL
CAMBER READING
PANEL POINT
↓ YEAR CAMBER READINGS
Br. No._________
DT. OF LAST D.I.
Year, Nature And Condition of camber & Defects Date of cleaning of bearings, Condition of Bed Block
Date of Inspection. in readings, if any. Condition of Bearings and and Defects
Name &Desig. Of Defects
Inspecting Official
Section ________________________
Condition of Support point of Condition of End anchorage
Bearings & Defects Zone of PSC Elements and defects Sketches of Defects/Cracks noticed.
Br. No.___________
Year, Nature And Condition of Bottom Flange and Condition of Condition of Top Flange/Slab
Date of Inspection Defects Diaphragms/Cross Girder and including wearing coat & defects
Defects
Section_________________
Condition of Construction joints and Condition of Junction of Precast Beam & SKETCHES OF DEFECTS/CRACKS NOTICE
Defects Cast-in-situ Slab and Defects
Br. No._____________
Year, Nature and Condition of Expansion Joints Condition of Ventilation in case Temperature
Date of Inspection and Defects of box Girder and defects Inside Box Outside Box
Section__________________
Condition of Web of Girder Condition of Web of Condition of Area Sketches Defects/ Cracks
Along the In Box Girder on Girder in End Quarter Around Drainage Pipes Noticed
prestressing Interior Faces Span and defects
cables
Br. No._____________
Year, Nature and Date of Year of painting, Type of Cracks Nos. having tell-
Inspection paint, Condition of surface tales
Condition of Cracks under tell-tales
Protection Coating and
Defects
Section__________________
Condition of ladders, Experiments and trials under Signature of Inspecting Sketches of defects/cracks noticed
Railings, Inspection observation and official
Arrangements Miscellaneous Observations
Br. No.__________
Year of Inspection Recommendations of BRI on Defects Remarks of AEN (Bridges)
Noticed
Section__________
Orders of XEN (Bridges) Orders of Dy.CE(Bridges) Details of action taken on Previous
years’ orders.
RDSO vide letter no CBS/DPC dated 15-07-2009 submitted its views on the same
to the Railway Board. The RDSO’s views emphasize that the provisions of IRBM are
sufficient and cover almost all the items mentioned in the IRICEN Proforma.
Add new Sub-Para 1103.4 (viii) as under: “1103.4 (viii): Proforma for inspection
of PSC Girders (Annexure 11/16).”
However, as per final deliberation on Item no. 955, Railway Board ordered for an
Advance Correction slip no 22 dated 28.03.2011 to Indian Railway bridge Manual
(IRBM) as below:-
“(I) Replace existing Para 1107 (15) (i) in IRBM with following and renumber it as
1107(15)(b)(i):
This issue has been examined and it is found that provisions of inspection of
bridges exist in Chapter 11 of Indian Railway Bridge Manual. Para 15 of IRBM is related
to inspection of concrete bridges.
Girder Steel work in the case of PSC/Concrete/Composite Sleepers, Year Line &
Bearings & steel/composite girder girder in superstructure of laying Level
expansion bridge structural condition condition of girders/ beams, condition and
arrangement and stage of painting. any cracks or defects renewals
noticed, condition of required
slabs/decks & Camber
6 7 8 9 10
Other items like trolley Action taken on last Initial of inspecting Initials of higher officials
refuges/foot paths, fire year’s notes official and URN with remarks
fightingequipments etc.
16 17 18 19
S. Br. Spa Rise Cus Thickn Arch Max. Max Permi Permi Resul With Resu With Result Remarks
N No. n (m) hion ess of barr Comp tensil ssible ssible t 100% lt 200%
o. (m) (m) Arch el stress e comp tensil over- Over-
ring leng (t/m2) stress stres e stres stres
(m) th in (t/m2)* s stres s s
m (t/m2) s (t/m2) (t/m2)
* (t/m2) ** **
*
1 844 3 1.4 1.1 0.46 4.8 43.9 0.00 54.79 10.75 Safe 109.5 Safe 164.3 Safe MD-PNU,
1 82 73 NWR
2 13 4.84 1.64 0.96 0.66 4.28 62.9 0.00 54.79 10.75 Safe 109.5 Safe 164.3 Safe Chapra-
1 82 73 Balia,
NER
3 149 6.09 2.06 1.37 0.61 5.23 90.1 0.00 54.79 10.75 Unsaf 109.5 Safe 164.3 Safe Kota-
6 1 e 82 73 Bina, WR
4 270 9.14 2.28 0.84 0.533 5.3 157.5 0.00 54.79 10.75 Unsaf 109.5 Unsa 164.3 Safe Poona-
4 6 1 e 82 fe 73 Miraj,
SCR
*Permissible comp stress as per clause no. 12.1.2 of IRS: Arch Bridge Code for brickwork in
lime mortar.
**Permissible comp stress when as per clause no. 5.16.2.2 of IRS: Substructure and
Foundation Code the overstress for Arch masonry is considered.
These bridges have also been analyzed through modified MEXE method and
Permissible Axle Load has been calculated as under:
As per IRS: Arch Bridge Code Clause No. 12.1.2, the maximum permissible
compressive stress in arch is 0.5375 N/mm2 (54.0791 t/m2) & 0.8625N/mm2 (86.778
t/m2) for brickwork in lime mortar and cement mortar respectively and the maximum
permissible tensile/shear stresses in arch is 0.1075N/mm2 (10.525 t/m2) & 0.1725N/mm2
(16.890 t/m2) for brickwork in lime mortar and cement mortar respectively.
Whereas IRS: Substructure and Foundation Code, Clause No. 5.16.2.2, up to 200%
increase in Maximum Permissible Compressive stress in Masonry of Piers/Abutments is
permitted as below.
S. Max. Compressive Factor of safety for Remarks
stress/ equivalent compressive/equivalent
No
compressive stress compressive stress.
Without With
occasional occasional
load load
1 As per values given in IRS ≥ 6 ≥ 4.5
Bridge Substructure Code
vide clause 5.14.3 & 5.14.4
2 Upto 100% overstress ≥3 ≥ 2.25 Should be allowed subject to good condition of masonry
as contemplated for gauge conversion vide clause
5.16.3.2
3 Upto 200% overstress ≥2 ≥1.5 Can be allowed subject to good condition of masonry
and close observation of bridges as considered
necessary by the Chief Engineer after introduction of
new locomotive/ rolling stock or train composition
4 More than 200 % <2 < 1.5 Should be strengthened/ rebuilt to appropriate loading
overstress standard
Note: If maximum tensile stress exceeds by more than 100% of the values as contemplated in IRS
Bridge Substructure Code vide clause 5.14.3 & 5.14.4, tensile zone shall be neglected and
equivalent compressive stress shall be worked out.
reducing the λ2 value or using stress range in tension only for fatigue design
of diagonals in other codes. It was further found that the problem of increased
weight could be tackled by providing HSFG bolts. Accordingly, this change
has not been done.
F. Proposed A & C slip is placed at Annexure 995/1
G. Detailed comparison between the existing provisions and the proposed
provisions is placed at Annexure 995/2.
H. The important changes in Appendix G (re-revised) have been made as
follows (All references are to old clauses except where specifically written):
1. Major changes to the Appendix: There are two major changes in the re-
revised appendix, namely to specify and change the loads taken for
fatigue assessment, and to include the fatigue assessment for existing
bridges in the appendix whereas earlier appendix was for new bridges
only. These changes are in few paragraphs given below:
a. Clauses 6.2/12.5.1 merged and modified: These clauses have been
combined to remove duplication, and to give logical flow of the ideas.
This is the most important change in the revised appendix. The
provisions have been modified as clauses 6.2 (New) and 6.2.1 (New)
to specify the loads which are to be used for fatigue assessment. The
live loads alone are to be used for fatigue assessment as per
revised provisions, with 50% of impact. This problem was noticed
during design of open web girder and the revised provisions are as per
provisions of other codes, and as per orders of Railway Board on
discussions held in 83rd BSC meeting. (The recommendations
modifying design procedure for diagonal have not been found
technically in order)
b. Clause 6.7 modified: Provision changed to clause 6.2.2 (New) and
this now specifies actual train models to be used clearly and defines
the competent authority as Chief Bridge Engineer. In the revised
clause, the actual train history also allowed. This change expands
scope of existing appendix from mere design to include fatigue
assessment of existing bridges.
c. Clause 7/7.1.1: Revised as clauses 11/11.1/11.2(New). The earlier
revised appendix G provided for new design only. These clauses
permit use of field measurements for fatigue assessment. This is
especially useful for working out residual life of steel structures. This
change expands scope of existing appendix from mere design to
include fatigue assessment of existing bridges.
d. New Clauses 8.2 to 8.6 added to Re-revised Appendix ‘G’: These
clauses have been added to give step by step procedure for fatigue
evaluation/design. This is minor change.
e. Table 9.1: Fatigue categories 7(a) and 7(b) added for check for fatigue
stresses in shear. These are based on categories defined in EN:1993-
1-9, details 6 and 7.
f. Clauses 10.2.1/10.2.3/10.2.4/10.2.5 rewritten: These clauses have
been rearranged to explain the S-N curves properly. There was
problem in understanding the repetitive language in existing clauses.
g. Clauses 12.3.2.4, 12.3.2.7, 12.3.2.8, 12.3.3 and 12.3.3.1 deleted: The
appendix gives S-N curves with three slopes in different regions.
These clauses were in existing appendix allowed single or dual slope
curves to be used. Use of single/dual slope curves is slightly
conservative and these slightly ease the computations. However, these
provisions are not required in view of adequate computational efforts
available nowadays, as these are more likely to create confusion. This
is a minor change as it affects only cycles with low stress ranges.
h. Clause 3.6.4 of Steel Bridge Code: Revised to remove reference to
Bridge Rules as loads for assessment clearly specified in re-revised
appendix ‘G’.
i. Clause 3.6.5 of Steel Bridge Code: Use of other than standard
life/GMT allowed with the approval of CBE.
j. New clause 3.20.4 added to Steel Bridge Code, for specifying use of
re-revised appendix ‘G’ for fatigue assessment of existing bridges.
2. Clauses modified to specify competent authority: Few clauses in
appendix were dependent on decision by the competent authority but the
same was not specified. The same has been done in the following
clauses:
a. Clause 11.1: The authority to change partial safety factors has been
defined as Railway Board.
b. Clause 12.5.2.1: Reference to competent authority removed as no
decision is to be made for using simplified approach for design
because that is the only feasible option.
c. Clause 12.5.4.2: Competent authority defined as the designer for this.
3. Clauses modified to remove ambiguities or to provide proper codal
language or to remove premature reference to Palmgren-Miner’s
hypothesis: The appendix has numerous references to Palmgren-Miner’s
hypothesis even before the same was defined. This was creating
complexity in reading and understanding the appendix. Also, at few
locations, the codal language was not used which needed correction.
These clauses include: 4.2.9, 4.2.10, 6.1, 8.1/8.1.1/8.1.2, 6.1,
10.3.2.2/10.3.2.3.
4. Clauses deleted which were giving commentary or were for HM/MBG
loadings: Few clauses are actually commentary on how the various
provisions have been derived. There is no need for such clauses in the
final appendix. Few clauses/tables pertained to MBG/HM loadings which
are no longer valid for design, hence deleted. These include clauses 2.1,
3, 6.3, 6.4, Tables 6.1/6.2, 6.9, 8.3.2 to 8.3.4, 10.3.3.1, Figure 7, Appendix
G-B,
5. Clauses deleted due to being superfluous or being repetitive: Few
clauses were either superfluous or were repetition hence have been
deleted. These include clauses 5(One term, which was not used in
appendix anywhere), 6.9, 8.3, 8.3.1, 10.2.5, and 12.1.1 (3rd and 4th point),
12.2.5 to 12.2.6 and 12.5.1.
6. Changes in clause no/ figure nos/ table nos only: The readability of the
appendix is a major issue due to improper sequencing of the clauses. The
complete appendix has been reordered for a logical flow of ideas. The
clause nos/ table nos and figure nos are major changes in the clause nos
2.2 to 2.5, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.2.3 to 4.2.8, 4.2.11, 4.2.12, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.4 to
4.3.7, Tables 6.3/6.4, 7.1.4, 7.3, 8.2, 9, 9.1, 9.2, Tables 9.2 to 9.6, 10.1.2,
10.3.1/10.3.2/10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.4, 10.3.3, 11/11.2/11.2.1/ 11.3/ 11.3.1/11.4,
12, 12.1.1 (1st/2nd point), 12.1.2, 12.1.2.1 to 12.1.2.3, 12.2.1 to 12.2.4,
12.3/12.3.1/12.3.2/12.3.2.1 to 12.3.2.3, 12.3.2.5, 12.3.2.6, 12.3.2.9,
12.3.3.2, 12.3.4/12.3.4.1 to 12.3.4.7, 12.4, 2.5/12.5.2.1 to 12.5.2.3,
12.5.2.5, 12.5.3, 12.5.4/12.5.4.1 to 12.5.4.7 and Appendix G-A.
7. Minor changes: Some minor changes of wordings have been made in
these clauses at few places for better understandability: Clause nos 2.6,
4.2.1, 4.2.10, 6.5, 6.6, 6.8, 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.2, 8, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 10, 10.1,
10.1.1, 10.3.2.2, 10.3.2.3, 11/11.2/11.2.1/ 11.3/ 11.3.1/11.4, 12, 12.1.1
(1st/2nd point), 12.1.2, 12.1.2.1 to 12.1.2.3, 12.2.1 to 12.2.4,
12.3/12.3.1/12.3.2/12.3.2.1 to 12.3.2.3, 12.3.2.5, 12.3.2.6, 12.3.2.9,
12.3.3.2, 12.3.4/12.3.4.1 to 12.3.4.7, 12.4, 2.5/12.5.2.1 to 12.5.2.3,
12.5.2.5, 12.5.3, 12.5.4/12.5.4.1 to 12.5.4.7 and Appendix G-A. Clause
nos have also been changed in these clauses.
8. No change:There are no changes in many clauses. These are clause nos
1, 2, 4,4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.5, 4.2, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.3.3, 6 and 6.8 (a) to (c).
******************
Annexure 995/1
Comparison between the existing and proposed A&C Slip no. 18 to IRS Steel Bridge
Code
rule. as specified.
17. Clause 4.2.10: Renumbered as clause a) Word order changed for
Equivalent constant amplitude 4.2.11: better grammar.
stress range Equivalent constant b) Reference to Palmgren –
The constant amplitude stress amplitude stress range: The Miner’s rule removed as it
range that would result in the same constant amplitude stress has not yet been explained.
fatigue damage as the spectrum of range that would result in
variable actual amplitude stress the same fatigue damage
ranges, when the comparison is as the spectrum of actual
based on the Palmgren – Miner’s variable amplitude stress
cumulative rule. ranges.
18. Clause 4.2.11 Renumbered as clause Sequence of terms changed
4.2.12 such that latter concepts
19. Clause 4.2.12 Renumbered as clause build on the previous
4.2.7 concepts.
20. Clause 4.3 Fatigue Strength No change
21. Clause 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 Renumbered as clause
4.3.2 and 4.3.1
22. Clause 4.3.3 No change
23. Clause 4.3.4 Renumbered as clause
4.3.6
24. Clause 4.3.5: Renumbered as clause
4.3.7
25. Clause 4.3.6 Renumbered as clause
4.3.5
26. Clause 4.3.7 Renumbered as clause
4.3.4
27. Clause 5: list of symbols Clause 5: This term is not used in
Definition of A&C slip, hence deleted.
symbol∆σC,reddeleted.
28. Clause 6. Fatigue Loads Clause 6. Fatigue Loads Reference to Palmgren –
Clause 6.1: Clause 6.1: Miner’s rule removed as it
The fatigue loading specified in this The fatigue loading has not yet been explained.
section shall be used for the specified in this section
determination of stresses at critical shall be used for the
locations of the railway bridge, by determination of stresses at
appropriate and accepted methods critical locations of the
of analysis. The stresses so railway bridge, by
determined will form the basis of appropriate and accepted
fatigue assessment of the detail or methods of analysis. The
connection in accordance with stresses so determined will
Palmgren Miner’s rule. form the basis of fatigue
assessment.
29. Clause 6.2 and Clause 12.5.1 Clause 6.2:For fatigue life The loads to be used for
Clause 6.2: assessment, only live load fatigue analysis specified and
The trains comprising the fatigue and associated effects such impact effect to be considered
load models shall be in accordance as dynamic effects, reduced to 50%. Clauses
11.5.2.4 and 11.2.5.4 which
with Bridge Rules prevailing, unless centrifugal effects,
were also specifying load have
otherwise specified. longitudinal loads and also been merged/ modified in
L D D
100 curve has a negative slope
the cut off limit at 100 million cycles
nominal normal stresses are also Equations defining S-N The earlier term N was
defined by curves: The fatigue strength wrong as per definitions of
log N = log a – m * log ∆σR where curves for nominal the terms given in clause 2,
∆σR is the fatigue strength normal/shear stresses are hence corrected to NR.
N is the number of cycles to also defined by Word ‘corresponding’ added
failure of stress range ∆σR log NR = log a – m * log for better clarity separately.
m is the constant slope of the ∆σR or log NR = log a – m *
fatigue strength curves log ∆τR
log a is a constant which depends where ∆σRor ∆τR is the
on the specific segment of the fatigue strength
fatigue curve NR is the number of
The numerical values for the cycles to failure of stress
fatigue strength curves for normal range ∆σR or ∆τR
and shear stress ranges are as m is the constant slope
given in Tables 10.1 and 10.2 of the fatigue strength
respectively. curves
log a is a constant which
depends on the specific
segment of the fatigue
curve.
The numerical values for
the fatigue strength curves
for normal and shear stress
ranges as defined by above
are given in Tables 10.1
and 10.2 respectively.
60. Clause 10.2.5 The above fatigue - Deleted as it is already
strength curves will not be covered in exceptions in
applicable for stress ranges which clause 2.
are associated with less than
10000 cycles to failure.
61. Clause 10.3, Clause 10.3.1, Clause Clause 10.3, Clause 10.3.1, The wording “figure 6” has
10.3.2 and 10.3.2.1 Clause 10.3.2 and 10.3.2.1: been replaced by “Figure
No change except figure no. 10.3”
Headings added to 10.3.1
and 10.3.2
62. Clause 10.3.2.2: The variation of Merged and renumbered as Slight rewording done by
fatigue strength with thickness, of clause 10.3.2.2: merging old 10.3.2.2 and
the parent metal, greater than 25 Where the material 10.3.2.3.
mm shall be accounted for by thickness of the structural
reducing the fatigue strength as :- detail is greater than 25
mm, the effect of thickness
∆σ R ,t = ∆σ R * (25 / t ) 0.20 shall be accounted for by
reducing the fatigue
Clause 10.3.2.3: Where the
strength as :-
material thickness of the structural
detail is less than 25 mm the ∆σ R ,t = ∆σ R * (25 / t )
0.20
,
fatigue strength shall be taken as where 25/t ≤1
that for a thickness of 25 mm
∆σ R ,t = ∆σ R
stresses or 1.5 fy/√3 for shear shall not exceed 1.5 fy for
stresses. normal stresses or 1.5 fy/√3
- The fatigue strengths specified in for shear stresses.
this document are applicable to 3.2 The fatigue strengths
structures where suitable corrosion specified in this document
protection measures have been are applicable to structures
undertaken and corrosion is not where suitable corrosion
allowed to take place. protection measures have
been undertaken and
corrosion is not allowed to
take place.
73. Clause 12.1.1(Second part): - Deleted as these are
- The fatigue assessment already included in clause
procedures herein are applicable 2.5.
only to structures subjected to
temperatures not exceeding 150
°C.
- The constant amplitude stress
range or a component of the
variable amplitude stress ranges,
under the prescribed fatigue
loading, for a structural connection
or detail is such that either the
nominal stress range exceeds the
limiting stress or the endurance is
equal to or less than 10,000 cycles.
74. Clause 12.1.2: Renumbered as clause 8.1: Clause no. 8 in re-revised
Exceptions: No fatigue assessment No fatigue assessment: appendix gives method for
is required when any of the Fatigue assessment is not carrying out assessment.
following conditions is satisfied; required in the following This clause has shifted
cases: there to ensure all relevant
clauses are at one place.
75. Clause 12.1.2.1 to Clause 12.1.2.3 Renumbered as clause
8.1.1 to clause 8.1.3
76. - Clause 8.2 Classification of New clauses added to
details: All details which are explain the step by step
to be designed under procedure in fatigue
fatigue shall first be evaluation/design.
classified so that standard
curves known as S-N
curves (explained in clause
10)shall be used wherever
possible. The details shall
be classified as per clause
9.
Clause 8.3 Determination of
fatigue strength:
Corresponding to the detail
classification, the fatigue
strength shall be worked out
based on nominal stress ranges 13.2: Fatigue assessment completing the provisions
12.3.1 Constant amplitude loading based on nominal stress
For constant amplitude loading the ranges
fatigue assessment criterion is: 13.2.1 Constant amplitude
γ Ff * ∆σ ≤ ∆σ R / γ Mf loading
For constant amplitude
where ∆σ is the nominal stress loading the fatigue
range assessment criterion is:
and ∆σR is the fatigue ∗∆ ≤ ∆ / or
strengthfor the relevant detail ∗∆ ≤ ∆ /
category for the total number of where ∆σ(or ∆τ) is the
cycles N during the required design nominal stress range.
life. ∆σR (or ∆τR) is the fatigue
strength for the relevant
detail category for the total
number of cycles N during
the required design life.
and γ and γ shall be
as per clause 7.4
82. Clause 12.3.2 Variable amplitude Renumbered as clause This is the appropriate
loading 13.2.2 Variable amplitude location for stating
12.3.2.1 For variable amplitude loading Palmgren-Miner’s
loading defined by a design 13.2.2.1 For variable hypothesis as it has been
spectrum, the fatigue assessment amplitude loading defined described in succeeding
shall be based on Palmgren-Miner by a design spectrum, the para.
rule of cumulative damage. fatigue assessment shall be
based on Palmgren-Miner
rule of cumulative damage
given in clause 13.2.2.3
below.
83. 12.3.2.2 If the maximum stress Renumbered as clause
range due to the variable amplitude 13.2.2.2
loading is higher than the constant
amplitude fatigue limit, then one of
the following types of fatigue
assessment shall be made;
- Cumulative damage
- Equivalent constant amplitude
84. 12.3.2.3 A cumulative damage 13.2.2.3 A cumulative Shear stress values added
assessment may be made using damage assessment may to make the clause
ni be made using complete. The source of
Dd≤ 1 where Dd = ∑ ni values also added for
Ni Dd≤ 1 where Dd = ∑Ni clarity.
whereniand Ni are the number of
cycles of stress range ∆σi during whereniand Ni are the
the required design life, and the number of cycles of stress
number of cycles of stress range range ∆σi(or ∆τi)during the
γFf. γMf . ∆σi to cause failurefor the required design life,
relevantdetail category. takenfrom stress range
histogramand the number of
101. Clause 12.5.4.1 & 12.5.4.7 Renumbered as clause The value of λmax from
14.6.1 clause 12.5.4.7
incorporated here itself for
easier reading.
102. Clause 12.5.4.2 Renumbered as clause Table nos changed and
The value of λ1 may be obtained 14.6.2: reference to MBG and HM
from tables 7.1 to 7.4 for MBG The value of λ1 may be loadings removed as these
loading, HM loading, 25t loading – obtained from tables 14.6.2 are not to be used for
2008 and 32.5t loading (1) and 14.6.2 (2)for 25t design any more.
(DFC)respectively as a function of loading – 2008 and 32.5t Reference to old clause 6.9
the loaded length (see 6.9) for the loading (DFC) respectively not required as the
train types included in respective as a function of the loaded sequence of clauses has
traffic models. The loaded length length for the train types been rectified.
shall depend upon the influence included in respective traffic The designer given
line diagram of the structural models. The loaded length authority to use alternative
element or detail/connection under shall depend upon the values of λ1 if other train
consideration. For simplified influence line diagram of the types are there.
analysis the maxima for each structural element or
length category could be adopted. detail/connection under
For routes with train types other consideration. For simplified
than those considered above, the analysis the maxima for
competent authority may specify each length category could
alternative values of λ1. be adopted. For routes with
train types other than those
considered above, the
designer may use
alternative values of λ1.
103. Clause 12.5.4.3 to 12.5.4.4 Renumbered as clause Only figure number
14.6.3 and 14.6.4 changed.
104. Clause 12.5.4.5: Renumbered as clause For 100 years life, the value
Unless otherwise specified by the 14.6.5: of λ3 comes to 1.00 only. In
competent authority the value of λ3 The value of λ3, in terms of view of flexibility in design
will be taken as 1.00 for a design the design life may be life being given in clause
life of 100 years. For other values calculated from the 3.6.5 of Steel Bridge Code,
of design life the corresponding following expression where the clause is reworded. The
value may be calculated from the LD is the design life in earlier clause was
following expression where LD is the years:- contradictory in this sense.
design life in years λ3 = 0.3899 * LD 0.2048
λ3 = 0.3899 * LD 0.2048
************
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
Adopted – 1944
Revised – 1962
Reprinted in 1977
(Incorporating Correction Slips 1 to 10)
1.0 Delete existing Clause 3.6.4/ Clause 3.6.5 and insert revised clauses as under:
Clause 3.6.4 – For any structural member or connection, the fatigue design shall be done as
per Appendix ‘G’ (Re-Revised) for a specified ‘Design Life’ and ‘Fatigue Load Model’.
Clause 3.6.5 –The fatigue life assessment shall normally be made for a standard design life
of 100 years for a standard annual GMT of 50. However, any other design life/ annual GMT
may be used for design with the approval of Chief Bridge Engineer.
Note:- No allowance for fatigue need be made in the design of Foot Over Bridges.
2.0 Add a new clause 3.20.4 – Fatigue assessment for Existing Bridges- The procedure given in
appendix ‘G’ (Re-Revised) shall be followed for carrying out fatigue assessment of members of
existing bridges, using either actual field measurements or numerical models validated with field
measurements. Traffic and repair history of the bridge shall be used as accurately as possible. In
the absence of accurate data, conservative estimates shall be made.
3.0 Replace existing Appendix ‘G’ (Revised) with new Appendix ‘G’ (Re-Revised).
By Order
DA : Appendix ‘G’ (Re-Revised)
Lucknow (A K Dadarya)
Dated : -10-2016 Executive Director (B&S)
The above definition of fatigue implies that fatigue in materials is the phenomenon which causes
failure of any structural member, under the action of repetitive loads, to take place at stress
levels that are substantially less than those associated with failure under static loading
conditions. Railway bridges are dynamically loaded structures which are subjected to complex
fluctuating loads of varying amplitudes. Therefore, an assessment for fatigue is required to be
made if the bridges are to be designed for a definite service life.
2. Scope
2.1. The fatigue assessment shall be deemed to apply to structures which comply with all
applicable codes of practice or regulations and have been analyzed and designed in
accordance with accepted principles and practices.
2.2. The structural materials and fabrication procedures shall be deemed to comply with all
applicable codes of practice or regulations.
2.3. This document is restricted in scope to the assessment of adequacy of members,
connections and joints of railway bridges subjected to fatigue loading for a specified design
life.
2.4. The assessment procedure contained herein shall be applicable to all grades of structural
steel, conforming to applicable codes of practice or regulations.
2.5. The assessment procedure will not be applicable to the following:-
a. Corrosion fatigue
b. Low cycle(high stress) fatigue (No of cycles to failure < 10,000)
c. Thermal fatigue
d. Stress corrosion cracking
e. High temperatures >1500C
f. Low temperatures ( brittle transition temperature)
g. Aerodynamically induced vibrations
3. Limitations of provisions in this Appendix
3.1. For fatigue assessment, all nominal stresses, direct or shear, shall be within the elastic limits
of the material. The range of the design values of such stresses shall not exceed 1.5 fy for
normal stresses or 1.5 fy/√3 for shear stresses.
3.2. The fatigue strengths specified in this document are applicable to structures where suitable
corrosion protection measures have been undertaken and corrosion is not allowed to take
place.
4. Terms and definitions
7.3. Partial safety factor for fatigue strength γMf: In the fatigue assessment procedure, in
order to take account of uncertainties in the fatigue resistance, the design value of the
fatigue strength shall be obtained by dividing by a partial safety factor γMf .The factor γMf
covers the uncertainties due to the effects of:
7.4. Values of partial safety factors: The values of the partial safety factor for fatigue loading
(γγFf) and fatigue strength (γγMf) shall be taken as follows;
γFf= 1.00
γMf = 1.15
8. Methodology for Fatigue Assessment: The fatigue assessment shall be carried out as
follows:
8.1. No fatigue assessment: Fatigue assessment is not required in the following cases:
8.1.1 The largest nominal stress range ∆σ satisfies
γ Ff * ∆σ ≤ 26 γ Mf N/mm2
8.1.3 For a detail for which a constant amplitude fatigue limit ∆σD is specified, the largest
stress range (nominal or geometric as appropriate) ∆σ satisfies the relation
γ Ff * ∆σ ≤ ∆σ D / γ Mf
8.2. Classification of details: All details which are to be designed under fatigue shall first be
classified so that standard curves known as S-N curves (explained in clause 10) shall be
used wherever possible. The details shall be classified as per clause 9.
8.3. Determination of fatigue strength: Corresponding to the detail classification, the fatigue
strength shall be worked out as per clause 10.
8.4. Determination of stress history: For each detail to be studied under fatigue, stress
histories to be used for fatigue study have to be determined. If actual field measurements
or detailed analytical analysis of stresses is being done, clauses 11 and 12 shall be
followed. For new construction, especially where the accurate traffic details are not
available, simplified method given in clause 14 may be followed.
8.5. Fatigue Assessment: The fatigue assessment of each detail shall be done as per clause
13.
8.6. Simplified fatigue analysis may be done as per clause 14 if actual field measurements or
detailed analytical analysis of stresses are not done.
9. Classification of details: The structural connections and details, non-welded and welded, are
divided into several detail categories, each corresponding to a specific S-N curve depending
upon
- The geometrical arrangement of the detail.
- The direction of the fluctuating stress relative to the detail.
- The location of potential crack and direction of propagation.
- The method of fabrication and inspection of the detail.
9.1. In some welded joints, there are several locations at which fatigue cracks may develop, e.
g. at the weld toe in each of the parts joined, at the weld ends, and/or in the weld itself.
Each such location should be classified separately and assessed independently for
fatigue performance.
9.2. The detail categories of structural connections and details has been given in tables in
Appendix G-II as follows :-
9.2.1 Table G-II.1: Non-welded details
9.2.2 Table G-II.2: Welded built-up sections
9.2.3 Table G-II.3: Transverse butt welds
9.2.4 Table G-II.4: Welded attachments and stiffeners
9.2.5 Table G-II.5: Load carrying welded joint
9.2.6 Table G-II.6: Fatigue resistance against geometric stress for cracks initiating from
toes of welds.
Table 10.2: Numerical values for fatigue strength curves for shear stress ranges
80 15.816 37 231
10.3.2 To account for the influence on the fatigue strength of the thickness of the
parent metal in which the potential cracks may initiate and propagate:
10.3.2.1 The reduction in the fatigue strength will be applicable only to those structural
details with welds transverse to the direction of the normal stress.
10.3.2.2 Where the material thickness of the structural detail is greater than 25 mm,
the effect of thickness shall be accounted for by reducing the fatigue strength
as :-
∆σ R,t = ∆σ R * (25 / t ) 0.20 , where 25/t ≤ 1.
10.3.2.3 Where the detail category in the classification tables indicates a specific
variation in the fatigue strength with thickness then 10.3.2.1 will not be
applicable.
10.3.3 Modified fatigue strength is applicable to structural details duly marked with an
asterisk in the detail classification table G.II.5. Such details have been allocated a
category lower than the stress range corresponding to 2 million cycles. The
classification of such details may be upgraded by one category provided that
fatigue strength curves are adopted such that the constant amplitude fatigue limit is
at 10 million cycles for a slope of m = 3 as shown in figure 10.5 and the numerical
values for the modified fatigue strength curves are as indicated in table 10.3.
Table 10.3: Numerical values for modified fatigue strength curves for normal stress ranges
11. Determination of stresses to be used for fatigue design: For each structural detail or joint
being assessed for fatigue, typical load event (or train) produces a stress history plot, depending
on position of the train at different time intervals. A typical stress history with time plot is shown
in Figure A.1 of Appendix G-III. These stresses for different positions of train(s) shall be obtained
for member(s) as follows:
11.1. Measurements: The stresses measured on members while actual trains/ test trains
pass over the bridge and the plot of variation of stresses with position of train can be used
for fatigue assessment of existing bridges. Based on these plots, stress history plots shall
then be obtained for the other trains plying/ likely to ply on the bridge. For parameters
Item No 995 Page G.13
difficult to replicate/ measure in field, such as impact, suitable modifications shall be made
as per Bridge rules. This method captures the actual behaviour of girders. However, if the
actual plot shape/ magnitude of stresses measured in field vary too much as compared
with the theoretical expected stresses, reasons for the same shall be studied and
designer shall decide if the measured stresses are reliable for fatigue assessment studies
or not.
11.2. theoretical plot of stress with position of actual/expected moving train loads shall be
determined for the fatigue loads specified in clause 6 above. The stresses due to the
moving train loads shall be determined on the basis of static linear elastic analysis carried
out in accordance with accepted principles and practices, unless otherwise stated or
implied, taking into account all axial, bending and shear stresses occurring under the
prescribed fatigue loading.
11.3. Stresses for Fatigue Assessment:
11.3.1 For a particular class of construction detail, the stresses to be considered may be
nominal stresses or shear stresses or both.
11.3.2 When a constructional detail is defined in the detail classification tables (Table
G.II.1 to G.II.5), the nominal stress range shall be used.
11.3.3 The effects of geometric discontinuities which are not part of the constructional
detail itself, such as holes, cut-outs or re-entrant corners shall be taken into account
separately, either by a special analysis or by the use of appropriate stress
concentration factors, to determine the modified nominal stress range.
11.4. Modification in measured/ computed stresses:-
11.4.1 The nominal stresses should be calculated at the location of potential fatigue
initiation. No redistribution of loads or stresses is permitted from any consideration
whatsoever.
11.4.2 Where applicable, effect of the following should be incorporated in the stress
calculations:-
(a) Shear lag, restrained torsion and distortion, transverse stresses and flange
curvature
(b) Effective width of steel plates
(c) Load application away from joints, member eccentricities at joints and rigidity of
joints in triangulated skeletal structures.
(d) Stress concentration effects, when specifically stated as a requirement for a detail
or joint, which shall be accounted for by using an appropriate stress concentration
factor.
11.4.3 The effects of the following need not be included in the stress calculations
(a) Residual stresses.
(b) Eccentricities arising in a standard detail.
(c) Standard stress concentration associated with a detail as given in tables G-II.1 to
G-II.5 which has already been considered in the fatigue detail category.
11.5. s 11.7 and 11.8 for stresses in parent material and stresses in welds respectively.
11.6. Modification of stress ranges based on geometric stress range:
11.6.1 Where abrupt changes of section occur close to the potential crack locations (for
details not covered in tables G.II.1 to G.II.5), high stress gradients occur close to a
weld in toe joints (covered in Table G-II.6), geometric stress range shall be used.
- σ w = σ ⊥2 f + τ ⊥2 f
- τw =τ||f
It will be necessary to ensure that the effects of the stresses considered individually and in
conjunction satisfy the fatigue requirements for the structural joint or detail, as applicable.
12. Determination of stress ranges and cycles for fatigue life assessment:
12.1. General:Typical load events analyzed as per clause 11 produce a stress history, with
respect to the leading train axle, depending on the location of the structural detail or joint
being assessed for fatigue. This variation of stress in the stress history can be highly
irregular. The stress history as stated above cannot be used directly to assess the
damage and cycle counting techniques are required to be used. The purpose of cycle
counting is to reduce a complex stress history to a sequence of stress ranges and the
corresponding number of cycles of occurrence in the stress history.
12.2. Methods of cycle counting: There are two established methods of cycle counting
namely the “Rainflow method” and the “Reservoir method”, both yielding identical results
Item No 995 Page G.16
provided that rainflow counting begins with the highest peak in the loading event.
Generally, rainflow counting is more suited to computer analyses of long stress histories,
whereas the reservoir method is most convenient for graphical analyses of short histories.
12.2.1 Determination of stress ranges and cycles by the reservoir method: The
method consists of imagining the stress history as the section of a reservoir which is
drained successively from each of the lowest points till the reservoir is empty. Each
draining operation is considered to be equivalent to one cycle of a stress range equal
in magnitude to the maximum height of water drained in that particular operation (see
Appendix G-III).
12.2.2 Determination of stress ranges and cycles by the rainflow method: The
rainflow method as the name suggests counts half cycles based on the visualization
of the complex stress history as a sequence of pagoda roofs over which rain tickles
down. In order to achieve the above the stress history is rotated by 900 (see
Appendix G-III). Counting of cycles shall be done as per rules given in Appendix G-
III.
12.3. The values of stress ranges for which cycles are thus counted might be quite variable in
magnitude. For further computations, the values of stress ranges are grouped together in
different stress range slabs to get the stress histogram. The fatigue assessment is done
using this stress histogram. Stress histogram for the stress history has been worked out in
clause A3.3 of Appendix G-III.
12.4. For each stress range slab in stress histogram, the corresponding fatigue life can be
worked out for the appropriate SN curve applicable to the member detail.
13. Fatigue assessment:-Fatigue assessment refers either to checking if a member has been
designed with adequate fatigue life or to verifying if the residual fatigue life of a member is
adequate. Stresses determined/ modified in accordance with clause 12 shall be used for this
purpose.
13.1. The assessment for fatigue shall be carried out either
- in terms of cumulative damage by comparing the applied damage to the limiting
damage, or
- in terms of the equivalent stress range by comparing it with the fatigue strength
for a given number of stress cycles.
13.2. Fatigue assessment based on nominal stress ranges:
13.2.1 Constant amplitude loading
For constant amplitude loading the fatigue assessment criterion is:
∗∆ ≤ ∆ / or ∗∆ ≤ ∆ /
Where niis the number of cycles of stress range ∆σi(or ∆τi) during the required design life,
takenfrom stress range spectrum histogram.
and Ni is the number of cycles of stress range γFf*γMf*∆σi (or γFf*γMf*∆τi) to cause failure
for the relevant detail category, read from the appropriate S-N curve given in
clause 10.
13.2.3 For nominal stress ranges, Ni may be calculated as follows ;
(a) ifγFf . ∆σi≥∆σD / γMf
3
∆σ D γ Mf
N i = 5 *10 *
6
γ Ff * ∆σ i
Where,
∆σE or ∆τE is the equivalent constant amplitude stress range which, for the
given number of cycles leads to the same cumulative damage as the design
spectrum, and
∆σR or ∆τR is the fatigue strength for the relevant detail category for the
same number of cycles as used to determine ∆σE.
Where, ∆σE,2or ∆τE,2 is the equivalent constant amplitude stress range for 2 million
cycles worked out as per clause 14,
13.3.7 Stress ranges in welds shall be determined as specified in Clause 11.6. The
components of damage for normal and shear stresses shall be assessed in
accordance with the Palmgren-Miner rule and then combined in accordance with
Dd,σ+ Dd,τ≤ 1
where Dd,σ = ∑(ni / Ni ) for normal stress ranges σwf.
14.3. Modification of the above stress range may be done in accordance with clause 10.3, 11.3
and 11.4, if applicable.
14.4. Design value of equivalent constant amplitude stress range: The design value of
equivalent constant amplitude stress range (related to NCi.e. 2 x 106 cycles, ∆σE,2or ∆τE,2)
shall be worked out by multiplying the modified stress range worked out as per clause 14.3
above by damage equivalent factor for railway bridges, λ worked out as per clause 14.6
below.
14.5. Fatigue assessment
The fatigue assessment shall be carried out by ensuring the satisfaction of the following
criteria:
γFf *∆σE,2 ≤∆σC / γMf
and γFf *∆τE,2 ≤∆τC / γMf
Where ∆σC or ∆τC is the reference value of the fatigue strength for the relevant detail (at 2
million cycles).
14.6. Damage equivalence factors
14.6.1 The damage equivalent factor for railway bridges should be determined from:
λ = λ1 * λ2 * λ3 * λ4
subject to the condition that λ≤λmax whereλmax =1.4
Where,
λ1 is a factor that takes into account the damaging effect of traffic and depends
on the base length of the longest loop of the influence line diagram
λ2 is a factor that takes into account the annual traffic volume in million tons
λ3 is a factor that takes into account the design life of the bridge in years
λ4 is a factor to be taken into account when the bridge structure is loaded on
more than one track
λmax is the maximum λ value taking into account the fatigue limit
14.6.2 The value of λ1 may be obtained from tables 14.6.2 (1) and 14.6.2 (2) 25t loading –
2008 and 32.5t loading (DFC) respectively as a function of the loaded length for the
train types included in respective traffic models. The loaded length shall depend upon
the influence line diagram of the structural element or detail/connection under
consideration. For simplified analysis the maxima for each length category could be
adopted. For routes with train types other than those considered above, the designer
may use alternative values of λ1.
Table 14.6.2 (1): λ1 for 25 T Loading
Span Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train- Train-
(m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0.50 1.30 1.34 1.45 1.28 1.45 1.44 1.48 1.53 1.36 1.09 0.88
1.00 1.29 1.32 1.43 1.28 1.43 1.43 1.48 1.53 1.35 1.08 0.89
1.50 1.28 1.31 1.42 1.27 1.42 1.42 1.47 1.52 1.35 1.07 0.90
2.00 1.27 1.30 1.40 1.27 1.40 1.41 1.47 1.52 1.35 1.06 0.90
2.50 1.26 1.29 1.38 1.26 1.37 1.39 1.46 1.51 1.34 1.05 0.91
14.6.3 The loaded length for determination of appropriate λ1 should be taken as follows:
(a) for moments:
- For a simply supported span, the span length, L
- For cross girders supporting rail bearers (or stringers), the sum of the spans of the rail
bearers (or stringers) carried by the cross girder.
(b) for shear for a simply supported span
- For the support section, the span length.
- For the mid-span section, 0.4 * the span under consideration.
(c) for axial force in members of a triangulated truss
- Base length of loop containing the largest ordinate (+ve or -ve) in member being
assessed for fatigue as per the Influence Line Diagram (ILD) of the member (see Fig.
14.1).
(d) In other cases
- the same as for moments.
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7
L0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
27000 mm
(+)
(-) 36000 mm
Loaded Length
Figure
Figure14.1 (a) Loaded Length for Diagonal U3 -L 4
- 9 (a)
(+)
L0 L2 L4 L8
7875 mm
Loaded Length
Figure
Figure14.1 (b) Loaded Length for Vertical U3-L 3
- 9 (b)
(+)
L0 L1 L8
63000 Loaded Length
Figure
Figure14.1 (c) Loaded Length for Bottom Chord L0-L1 & L1-L2
- 9 (c)
λ2 = 0.5193 * Ta 0.2036
14.6.5 The value of λ3, in terms of the design life may be calculated from the following
expression where LD is the design life in years:-
λ3 = 0.3899 * LD 0.2048
14.6.6 The value of λ4, assuming 15% of the total traffic on both tracks crosses whilst on
the bridge, shall be obtained from
1+15ICF COACH
1 900 0.33 3 1.0 6 2.0 - - 5 1.7
NON AC
1
Total
Train type Composition Diagram
(m)
1. PASSENGER TRAIN
ONE 25 t. LOCO + 15 ICF COACH NON AC
ONE UNIT @ 19500 15 UNITS @ 22297
11887
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
5279
2896
2896
2309
2. PASSENGER TRAIN
TWO 25 t. LOCO + 22 ICF COACH NON AC
2 UNITS @ 19500 22 UNITS @ 22297
11887
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
5279
2896
2896
2309
(Non AC)
(Contd.)
Item No 995 Page G.25
Appendix G.I
(Contd.)
1
Total
Train type Composition Diagram
(m)
3. PASSENGER TRAIN
TWO 25 t. LOCO + 26 COACH AC
Type - 3 2+26 COACH 613.443 1990
2 UNITS @ 19500 26 UNITS @ 22297
(AC)
TOTAL Wt. = 1990 t
25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 16.25t 16.25t 16.25t 16.25t
11887
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
5279
2896
2896
2309
4. PASSENGER TRAIN
EMU 12 (3x4 UNITS)
TOTAL Wt. = 736 t
4 UNITS @ 64563
13t 13t 13t 13t 20t 20t 20t 20t 13t 13t 13t 13t
Type - 4 EMU 12 254.257 736
1998
2896
2896
3995
2896
2896
3995
2896
2896
1998
11734
11734
11734
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
1
Total
Train type Composition Diagram
(m)
5. FREIGHT TRAIN
TWO 22.5T LOCO + 40 BOXN
Type - 5 2(22.5t)+40 457.925 4270 2 UNITS @ 16000 40 UNITS @ 10713
BOXN
TOTAL Wt. = 4270 t
25t 25t 25t 25t
2594.5
1094.5
1500
1650
1650
6400
1650
1650
2000
4524
2000
6. FREIGHT TRAIN
TWO 25T LOCO + 55 BOXN
2 UNITS @ 19500 55 UNITS @ 10713
4064.5
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
2000
4524
2000
1094.5
BOXN
(Contd.)
Item No 995 Page G.27
Appendix G.I
(Contd.)
1
Total
Train type Composition Diagram
(m)
7. FREIGHT TRAIN
2 (TWO ELECTRIC LOCO + 55 BOXN)
2 UNITS @ 31110 55 UNITS @ 10713
Type - 7 2E(2+55 1236.33 11400 TWO SUCH UNITS
BOXN) 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t
TOTAL Wt. = 5700 t
3244.5
2150
2800
5650
2800
2000
4524
2000
1094.5
8. FREIGHT TRAIN
2 (TWO DIESEL LOCO + 55 BOXN)
2 UNITS @ 22415.2 55 UNITS @ 10713
TWO SUCH UNITS
TOTAL Wt. = 5800 t
25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t 25t
1094.5
3828.1
1850
1850
9548
1850
1850
2000
4524
2000
2733.6
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
1
Total
Train type Composition Diagram
(m)
9. FREIGHT TRAIN
TWO BO-BO + 40 BOXN
3244.5
1094.5
2150
2800
5650
2800
2000
4524
2000
10. FREIGHT EMPTY TRAIN
TWO 25T LOCO + 55 BOXN
2 UNITS @ 19500 55 UNITS @ 10713
4064.5
1094.5
2970
2050
1950
5560
1950
2050
2000
4524
2000
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
1
Total
Train type Composition Diagram
(m)
1094.5
2594.5
1500
1650
1650
6400
1650
1650
2000
4524
2000
Item No 995 Page G.30
Appendix G.I
1 2
For detail 1-3 made of weathering steel use the next lower category
4) Double covered symmetrical 4) ∆σto be calculated on the gross
joint with preloaded high cross-section.
strength bolts.
112
4
5
6) One sided connection with 6) ∆σto be calculated on the gross
preloaded H.S.B. cross-section.
90
100 7a) & 7b) Rolled and extruded 7a) & 7b) ∆τ calculated from:
products, as in details
M=5 ( )
1) and 2) above τ =
80
9) Bolts and rods with rolled or cut 9) ∆σto be calculated using the
thread in tension. tensile stress area of the bolt.
For large diameters (anchor Bending and tension resulting
from prying effects and bending
bolts) the size effect has to be stresses from other sources
taken into account with ks must be taken into account.
50
Size effect for φ>30mm For preloaded bolts, the
ks=(30/φ)0.25. reduction of the stress range
may be taken into account.
Where, φ is the nominal
diameter of the bolt or rod.
80
Detail 6a:
The height of the weld convexity to
be not greater than 10% of the weld
width, with smooth transition to the
plate surface.
8
t 9) Butt welds made from one 12) Without backing strip.
36 side only
12) Transverse butt weld on a 12) Where backing strip fillet welds
Size effect < 1/4 permanent backing strip end < 10 mm from the plate
for tapered in width or edge, or if a good fit cannot be
50 thickness with a slope < ¼. guaranteed.
t>25mm:
Also valid for curved plates.
ks=(25/t)0.2
L>100m
56 m
2) Longitudinal attachments to
plate or tube.
L>100m L L
71 m
α<45o
2
r 1
50 <
l 6
5) As welded, no radius transition.
40
80
Table G-II.6 : Fatigue resistance against geometric stressfor cracks initiating from toes of welds.
NOTE 1. Table G-II.6 does not cover effects of misalignment. They have to be considered explicitly in determination of stress.
NOTE 2. Table G-II.6 does not cover fatigue initiation from the root followed by propagation through the throat.
******************
A.2.2.3 A copy of the stress history is appended to the original (figure A.3) and the highest
point (A) in the original segment and its counterpart (B) in the appended segment
are marked and joined by a straight horizontal line. The portion of the stress history
so enclosed will be used to represent the reservoir. In case there are two or more
equal peaks in the original segment of the stress history then the first such peak will
be considered along with its counterpart from the appended segment.
A.2.2.4 The reservoir is drained successively from the lowest points (E, F, D and C taken in
order as shown in figure A.4) which retain water till the entire reservoir is emptied.
Each drainage operation corresponds to a cycle of stress range equal in magnitude
to the height of the water drained in that particular operation i.e. one cycle of stress
range σA - σE when drainage is from trough E.
A.2.2.5 The stress ranges and their associated number of cycles are sorted according to the
magnitude of the stress ranges for further processing using the Palmgren-Miner
criteria.
A.2.3. Consider the following example :-
A stress history consists of the following stress variation
Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Stress 28 -18 8 2 22 -6 20 8 20 -18 22 -4 26 12
A, O B C D E F G H I J K L M N
In order to conduct a reservoir count appending the first point, as it is the highest,
will suffice for the definition of the reservoir. A schematic diagram indicating the
extent of drainage from each trough is as shown in figure A.5. The points in the
stress history have been labeled from A to O for easy identification.
(c) The stress history is rotated through 90o such that the origin of the time axis is
located towards the top (figure A.6).
(d) A drop begins to flow (figure A.7) left from a peak (1-2) or right from a trough(1-3)
onto subsequent roofs (3-4-6) unless the surface receiving the drop is formed by
a peak which is more positive than the origin of the drop (1-2) for a left flow, or, a
trough that is more negative for a right flow(4-5).
(e) The path of a drop cannot cross the path of a drop which has fallen from a higher
roof (5-6).
(f) A drop ceases to flow when it reaches the end of the stress history record (1-3).
(g) The horizontal displacement of the drop from its origin to its final position
measured in appropriate stress units represents a half cycle of the associated
stress range.
A.3.1. Considering the same example as in 2.3 the rainflow patterns are as shown in
figure A.8.
The half cycles in the above may be combined and subsequently arranged in order for
further processing. It may be noted that the results of the rainflow and the reservoir counting
are identical in this case.
A.3.1. Stress Histogram: If we divide stress range in units of 10, Stress histogram for
the above cycles can be made as follows:-
Stress Range slab Mean Value of No of Cycles
Stress Range slab
0-9.9 5 1
10-19.9 15 2
20-29.9 25 2
30-39.9 35 0
40-49.9 45 2
***********
(part 3) and the RDSO’s Seismic Guidelines for Railway Bridges are having
exactly the same provisions.
To avoid duplicity or confusions, it is now proposed that we adopt the IS1893
(part 3) with small modifications in R values and Live Load factor as Railways
Seismic Code. Hence a Draft Seismic Code for Railway Bridges has been
prepared based upon IS-1893 (part 3) with only a small change in R value and
Live Load factor. The provisions of ductile detailing as given in the Appendix A is
also the same as in IS 1893. The Railways Seismic Code for all practical purpose
shall be same as IS 1893-(Part 3) with all the references to related IS-codes such
as IS-1893 (part-1) for Zone map and IS code 13920-1993 for ductile detailing
etc remaining intact.
In due course of time the IS code 1893 (part 3) may get revised based upon
Railway’s Seismic code and then in that case there will be no conflict in the
railways and IS codes.
*************
couple of years prior to that. RDSO has issued guidance to field units
through report no BS-111, which has been regularly updated to reflect the
latest knowledge in this respect.
5. There are few reports of problems due to use of HSFG bolts and most of
the problems referred are due to use of non-standard
procedure/equipment for tightening and due to non-usage of Direct
Tension Indicator (DTI) washers. The performance of HSFG bolts
depends on proper tightening of bolts on properly prepared surface.
6. 3.0 The surface preparation for new applications has been specified as
“Metallising without overcoating”. The specifications for metallising are as
per IRS B1, para 39.2.1. Checking the thickness of metallising is a simple
procedure using elcometer and the quality of surface preparation ca be
easily ensured. Some old tenders did not have metallising provisions but
newer tenders are all having this provision.
7. 4.0 Therefore, proper tightening of bolts is the only variable that needs
proper care in field. The procedure given in IRS Steel Bridge code is
simple and can ensure proper tightening if the field officials take care in
inspections. But the quality still depends on the diligence of the field
officials.
8. 5.0 There is another class of bolts whose action is similar to HSFG bolts
but the quality control is easier. These bolts, called lock bolts, are provided
on slightly different principle than HSFG bolts. The HSFG bolts require
proper torque to be given to the bolt so that proper axial tension is induced
in the same, whereas the lock bolts are pulled axially to directly give the
requisite tension in the shank of the bolt before the collar is pressed to
complete the bolt installation. Certain bolts have an additional feature
wherein the extended leg of bolt is broken by twisting off the same.
9. Advantages of Lock bolts:
a. The axial load in bolt shank is directly given, so the chances of axial
load being correct are higher. Unlike HSFG bolts, these bolts are not
dependent on the condition of surface of threads to determine the
amount of torque that is transmitted as axial force in bolt.
b. The installation is faster than HSFG bolts as reliable single stage
installation is possible.
c. There are certain bolts in which the indication of desired axial load
being given to the bolt is provided in bolt itself. These bolts will not
require DTI washers to be used.
d. With close fitting bolts, these can be used as a replacement of rivets in
repair applications. Since the rivets have been phased out in new
construction, it is likely that, in few years, the riveting equipment and
skilled persons will not be available at all for carrying out the repair
works. This was also a recommendation no 2(iv) of committee of CBEs
for review of maintenance practices for bridges.
Item No 1024 Page 65
84TH BRIDGE AND STRUCTURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING
*************
*************
*************
*************
Item No. 1042/84th: Periodicity of changing of oil in oil bath for roller
bearing.
contamination etc. The service life of Oil will also depend on Span of the
Bridge and Traffic. Water may remain well mixed in the oil through
emulsification and still appear perfectly clean oil. However, water
contamination acts as catalyst for oil degradation in the form of resin and
sludge formation. The Oil film breaks down under heavy pressure if water
gets mixed in the oil through emulsification. Even the best type of oil will
have a finite and limited service life under such high pressure surface
sliding asis the case in large bridge bearings.
3. There are no clearly established OIL cleanliness standards for Railway
bridge bearings. Therefore, rejection or acceptance of the Oil after a
certain years of service life based upon chemical& filtration analysis is a
complicated issue.
4. There are NO official records of OIL testing of existing Oil bath bearings
and no one can say for sure that the OIL contamination level is within
acceptable range or not. Even Oil filtration standards have not been
defined in any of our manuals for Bridge Bearings.
5. The Cost of replacement of Oil for Bridge Bearings are quite insignificant
even if it is thrown away after 5 years as a waste product. However, the
Oil need not be thrown away as a waste product and its recycling
elsewhere will reduce the cost of wastage even further. The OIL after
filtration can be very well used in other equipment’s and machines such as
small and large track machines, mobile cranes and Vehicles etc.
6. Once the oil replacements starts, we can get it tested and create a record
which may help us in arriving to any revised frequency of oil replacement
in future.
*************
*************
*************
*************
*************
*************
*************
*************
*************