REPORT

THIRD PARTY AUDITING OF RAILWAY BRIDGES (PHASE I)

(Job No: CED/CON/TMMP/SAS/2019312)

Br. No. 1274 DN (16 × 45.72 m) Steel Girder at km. 881/600 – 882/480
between Ullal and Netravathi stations

CLIENT

SOUTHERN RAILWAY PALGHAT DIVISION

CONSULTANT

Department of Civil Engineering

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT
CONTENTS

1. Preamble 2
2. Scope and Methodology 3
3. Inspection of bridge 4
3.1. Visual examination 4
3.2. Field measurements and condition assessment 9
3.2.1 Extent of corrosion 12
3.2.2 Comments on the condition of abutments 16
4. Modelling and analysis 18
4.1. Description of loading 18
4.2. Result of Analysis 19
4.3.Demand and capacity 20
5. Measurement of camber in the bridge spans 25
6. Comments and inference 26
7. Assessment proposed in phase II 26
References 28

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 1 of 28
1. PREAMBLE

Director, NIT Calicut received a request from Chief Bridge Engineer, Headquarters office,
Chennai Works Branch, Southern Railway vide letter No. W.439/4/61/Vol.IV(W.245/I/1 Spl.
Drive)dated 18 – 09 - 2018, exploring the possibility of whether NIT Calicut can undertake a
one - time third party auditing of some selected railway bridges. This was consequent to the
instruction issued by Railway Board to various railway divisions for undertaking such
inspections of railway bridges through expert institutions. The letter was forwarded to the Civil
Engineering Department (CED) and the Structural Consultancy Group of CED followed the
matter up. The Railway Board was represented by Palakkad division of Indian Railway.
Subsequently, on 05 – 10 - 2018 railway officials came to CED, NITC for discussions. Soft
copies of the available drawings of some of the bridges were also shared by Railways to CED
for initial assessments. Subsequently, CED expressed its willingness to take up the work and
communicated the matter by letter, No. CED/CON/RLY/TPAUD/2018/1 dated 08-11- 2018.
Through this letter it was conveyed to Railways that the work could be taken up in two phases,
outlining the scope of work to be carried out in the different phases. This was accepted by
Railways and they requested the details of consultancy charges for carrying out phase I of the
work.
CED replied vide letter No. CED/CON/RLY/TPAUD/2019/1 dated 10 - 01- 2019, the
requisite details regarding consultancy charges and scope of the work. Railways replied to this
letter showing their interest to award the work to NITC and sought the signing of an MoU to
proceed further. Mutual discussions followed and an MoU was signed in the FN of 19-09-
2019.
The details of communications are given below:
i. W.439/4/61/Vol.IV(W.245/I/1 Spl. Drive) dated 18-09-2018.
ii. Meeting held on 28-09-2018 at NIT Calicut with railway officials.
iii. J/W/71/G dated 23-10-2018 from Divisional Office, Palakkad division furnishing
details of some of the bridges.
iv. CED/CON/RLY/TPAUD/2019/1, dated 10th January 2019
v. MoU between Southern Railway and NIT Calicut, dated 19-09-2019.
vi. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312, dated 3rd October 2019
vii. J/W.71/G, dated 03-12-2019
viii. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/1, dated 02-01-2020
ix. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/2, dated 02-01-2020
x. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/3 dated 23-01-2020

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 2 of 28
 xi. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/4 dated 11-03-2020
xii. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/5 dated 12-03-2020
xiii. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/6 dated 13-03-2020
xiv. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/7 dated 11-05-2020
xv. No. J/W.71/G dated 27-07-2020
xvi. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/8 dated 22-07-2020
xvii. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/9 dated 22-07-2020
xviii. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/10 dated 14-08-2020
xix. No. J/W.71/G dated 26-09-2020
xx. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/13 dated 21-09-2020
xxi. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/15 dated 17-11-2020
xxii. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/17 dated 24-12-2020
xxiii. CED/CON/HOD/TMMP/SAS/2019312/18 dated 19-01-2021

2. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

Railway bridges, which are known for their permanent resistance to heavy movable loads, are
exposed to large load ranges and severe environmental conditions that may lead to damage and
failure of the system. Keeping in mind the large risk and economic ramifications, it is
necessary to assess the health of these structures systematically by considering all loading types
namely, gravity loading, wind loading and seismic loading and effect of corrosion and fatigue.
In view of the above and based on the terms and conditions laid down in the MoU, the scopes
of the present investigation are identified as below.
i. Inspection of the superstructure of the bridge, bearings, piers and abutments and top
surface of the bridge along with load transfer mechanism.
ii. Visual assessment of corrosion in the bridge.
iii. Collection of data pertaining to the state of the bearings and water drainage.
iv. Collection of necessary data for structural modelling and analysis.
v. Preliminary analysis of the bridges to check the adequacy of the bridge to carry 25 t
axle load since the bridge was designed in the past for loads lesser than 25 t axle load.
vi. Overall assessment of the bridge and its integrity.
Analysis for earthquake loads is not carried out as dimensions pertaining to the
substructure and its condition is not completely available. This can be performed after the
underwater inspection and measurements in phase II of the audit.
In general, estimation of fatigue, corrosion, and their combined effects pose practical

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 3 of 28
difficulties. However, an attempt will be made to collect all relevant data for predicting the
residual life [4][8], as part of phase II of the audit.
Considering the above aspects, the following methodology is finalised.
i. Visual inspection of the bridge
ii. Field measurements for modelling purpose
iii. Condition assessment of various elements of the bridge and to summarize the results
in a tabular form
iv. Structural modelling and analysis of the bridge for stipulated loads
v. Assessment of the residual strength and safety based on the analysis results
3. INSPECTION OF BRIDGE
3.1 Visual Examination
The visual inspections were carried out on the bridge on 10-01-2020 (Tuesday) at 4:00 pm and
11-01-2020 (Wednesday) at 8:30 am. Officials from Kannur Railway section were also present
during the inspection. Photographs of the bridge showing various elements are shown in Figure
1 to 7. The bridge is a steel truss type through bridge with sixteen spans each of 45.72 m,
supported on Random Rubble (RR) masonry piers. Cement Concrete bed - blocks are provided
on top of the RR masonry pier. It was noted that the abutments were also of RR masonry. The
abutment at the shornur end was noted to develop some distress.
It was orally transpired during the visit that the stinger beams are replaced as and when
required. It was also reported that speed restrictions are imposed on the trains travelling through
the bridge. On 15/01/2021 one more visit was conducted at this bridge site to assess the condition
and for taking a few measurements pertaining to various members.

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 4 of 28
 Figure 1. Side view of Br.1274 DN between Ullal and Netravathi Station

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 5 of 28
 Figure 2. Inside view of the bridge

Figure 3. Steel roller type bearing

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 6 of 28
 Figure 4. Bottom chord and end diagonal members

Figure 5. Pier and Bed block

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 7 of 28
 Figure 6. End cross beam

Figure 7. Connection between truss elements

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 8 of 28
3.2 Field Measurements and condition assessment
All the missing dimensions to complete the geometry of the bridge were measured from the site.
The available drawings were also referred. Figures 8 and 9 show the details of schematic diagrams
of the bridge and typical member details. Based on a careful examination of the bridge, the results
of observations are tabulated in Table 1. The Table shows various elements of the bridge, defect
type, follow up actions required and remarks. Labels are assigned to various types of defects as
given in Table 2.

Figure 8. Geometrical details of a typical span (not to scale)

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 9 of 28
 Figure 9. Section details of each elements

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 10 of 28
 Table 1: Condition assessment of bridge
Element (Ref. Table 2 Follow-up actions Remarks
for details) required
DI Re De
Abutments 14  - -
Minor distress
Piers 14 - - -
in pier No.11
Bed-blocks 00 - - - -
Girder bearings 00 - - - -
Top chords 02, 03 -  - -
Bottom chords 03 -  - -
Diagonals 03 -  - -
Verticals 02, 03, 08  - - -
Bottom bracings 03, 08 -  - -
Top bracings 00 -  - -
Main beams 02, 03 -  - -
Cross beams 03 -  - -
Secondary beams 03 -  - -
Beam bracings 02 -  - -
* Legend: DI – Detailed Investigation; Re – Repair; De – Demolition
Table 2: Different defect types and their designation
Defect Type Label Defect Type Label
Dampness 01 Lack of redundancy 10
Loss of material due to corrosion 02 Foundation settlement 11
Percolation of water through
Staining due to corrosion 03 12
RR masonry
Buckling of plate 04 Vegetation growth 13
Tearing of steel 05 Cracks in stone masonry 14
Excessive deflection 06 Floor settlement 15
Excessive deformation 07 Signs of overloading 16
Distress in Connection 08
No visible defect 00
Cracks in concrete 09

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 11 of 28
3.2.1 Extent of corrosion
The corrosion process of steel is affected by many factors, such as the kind of steel and surface
protection; environmental impact; and the presence of pollutants, cracks, and stresses. The loss
of material may result in reduction in the cross-sectional area and subsequent increase in the stress
level for a given load or increase the stress range for cyclic loads [5]. Besides, it can lead to a
reduction in the buckling resistance of elements or the initiation of fractures. In general, the loss
of cross-sectional area results in a decrease in geometric parameters such as the moment of inertia
and radius of gyration and overall stiffness degradation of the structure.
In the present bridge, it is seen that the main beams were corroded at several locations
and at some places head of the rivets were fully deteriorated as shown in Figure 10 and 11. At
all other places, the rivets were intact and seen with aluminium paint coating. As shown in Figure
12 and 13, bottom bracings were corroded at many locations. Corrosion in the main truss elements
is minimal, but in verticals, it is observed that considerable amount of loss of material is observed
at the bottom as shown in Figure 14 and 15. It was informed that at many instances in the past,
distressed members were replaced, mainly owing to the corrosion and subsequent material loss
occurring in members. This accelerated corrosion is attributed to the close proximity of the bridge
to the Arabian sea.

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 12 of 28
 Figure 10. Corrosion in bottom flange main beam

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 13 of 28
 Figure 11. Corrosion in main beam

Figure 12. Loss of material in bottom bracing

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 14 of 28
 Figure 13. Corrosion in bottom bracing

Figure 14. Corrosion in the bottom of verticals

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 15 of 28
 Figure 15. Corrosion in the vertical

3.2.2 Comments on the condition of the abutment

The stone masonry abutment at the southern side (Shornur End) has a crack originating from the
top identically on both sides (West and East) and exteniding downward (at approximately 450 to
the horizontal) as shown in Figure 16. A close up image is shown in Figure 17, which shows that
the crack width is ranging from 5 mm to 10 mm and hence it is not negligibly small. Vegetation
growth in the crack is also noted which can widen the crack further. This is a matter requiring
immediate attention and repair/strengthening.
The abutment at the northern side (Mangalore end) is observed to be intact and will only
require frequent inspection and routine maintenance.

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 16 of 28
 Figure 16. Cracks and vegetation growth in the abutment

Figure 17. Cracks in the abutment

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 17 of 28
4. MODELING AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Description of loading
It is presumed that the design of the bridge is as per Bridge rules 1941. In the present work, one
of the requirements is to check the adequacy of the bridge to carry 25-ton axle loading. In this
report, the specification of loads is based on the first revision of Bridge rule 1964. Accordingly,
equivalent uniformly distributed load (EUDL) specified for 25-ton axle load (Cl. 3.6) has been
used for calculations. Also as per clause 2.4.1.1 of Bridge Rules, the augmentation in load due to
dynamic effect is considered. Also racking load and wind load are calculated as per clause 2.9.2.

DESIGN LOADS
Dead load
2.5m MCP [email protected]/m sleepers are placed at a spacing of 40cm
weight of sleeper per meter on each girder = 0.515 kN/m
Weight of rail per meter = 0.43 kN/m
weight of corrugated sheeting per meter = 0.10 kN/m
self weight of the structural elements were taken by default by the modelling software

Live Load (From IRBM Appendix-XXIII )

EUDL for bending moment for span 47.85m = 4379 kN
EUDL for Shear force for span 47.85m = 4823 kN
Impact factor CDA = 0.298
Total EUDL for bending moment on each girder = 2842 kN
Total EUDL for shear force on each girder = 3130 kN

Live Load (From IRBM Appendix-XXIII )

Basic wind pressure as per IS 875 part 3 = 0.85 m/s
Wind acting in the windward direction = 3.27 kN/m
Wind acting in the leeward direction = 0.81 kN/m
Wind acting on the train = 3.15 kN/m
Racking force = 5.88 kN/m

Load combinations are taken as per IS 800:2007

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 18 of 28
4.2 Result of Analysis
The modelling and analysis were done in STAAD Pro. 2008 using the measured geometry and
calculated loads. Model of the typical single span of 45.72 m is shown in Figure 18 and 19.

Figure 18. STAAD Pro. Model of the truss bridge

Figure 19. 3D rendered view of the bridge

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 19 of 28
Analaysis was done and the design forces in each member is found out. The design forces in all
elements of bridge is given in Table 3 and 4.
Table 3: Design Forces of the truss members
Forces (kN)
Member Type

Top chord members (A) 3846 compression

Bottom chord members(A1) 1158 tension

End diagonals (B) 2748 Compression

Diagonals (D) 1966 tension

Diagonals (E) 1179 Compression

396 tension
Vertical members (C) 581 Compression
Bottom bracings (G) 380 Compression
Top Bracings (F) 145 Compression

Table 4: Design Forces in beams

Moment (kNm)
Beam Shear force (kN)

Main beam (B1) 752.5 563

Stinger beam (B2) 375 278

Bracing (H) 43kN (axial compression)

4.3 Demand and Capacity

Here the integrity and safety of the bridge are assessed by the parameter ‘Demand to Capacity
Ratio’ (DCR) of various elements. The capacity of various elements of the superstructure is
evaluated considering the effective section incorporating the material loss due to corrosion,
judged conservatively, during the condition assessment.

DESIGN CHECK OF TOP CHORD MEMBER (A)

Check for compression

Design force in the member = 3846 kN compression

Area = 18815 mm2
Moment of Inertia , IXX = 4.8E+08 mm4
Radius of gyration, ryy = 159.34 mm
As per Table 2 IS 800:2007, the section is plastic.
Effective length of member, Leff = 5.265 m

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 20 of 28
 Slenderness ratio, λ = Leff/ r
= 33.04
buckling class 'c' of table 9(c) of IS800:2007,

Maximum permissible compressive stress, Fcd = N/mm2

207
Load carrying capacity = fcd x A
= 3894.705 kN Safe
DESIGN CHECK OF BOTTOM CHORD MEMBER(A)
Check for Tension
Design Force = 1158 kN
Area = 12586 mm2 Fy = 250 N/mm2

Load carrying capacity = Agfy/γmo

= 2860.45 kN Safe

DESIGN CHECK OF END DIAGONAL (B)

Check for compression

Design force in the member = 2748 kN compression

Area = 15815 mm2
Moment of Inertia , Iyy = 2.4E+08 mm4
Radius of gyration, ryy = 122 mm
As per table 2 IS 800:2007, the section is plastic.
Effective length of member, Leff = 8.352 m
Slenderness ratio, λ = Leff/ r
= 68.46
buckling class 'c' of table 9(c) of IS 800:2007,

Maximum permissible compressive stress, Fcd = N/mm2

156
Load carrying capacity = fcd x A
= 2467.14 kN Low FOS
DESIGN CHECK DIAGONAL (D)
Check for Tension
Design Force = 1966 kN
Area = 12586 mm2 Fy = 250 N/mm2

Load carrying capacity = Agfy/γmo

= 2860.45 kN Safe
DESIGN CHECK OF END DIAGONAL (E)
Check for compression

Design force in the member = 1179 kN compression

Area = 9128 mm2

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 21 of 28
 Moment of Inertia , Iyy = 1.3E+08 mm4
Radius of gyration, ryy = 118 mm
As per table 2 IS 800:2007, the section is plastic.
Effective length of member, Leff = 8.352 m
Slenderness ratio, λ = Leff/ r
= 70.78
buckling class 'c' of table 9(c) of IS800:2007,

Maximum permissible compressive stress, Fcd = N/mm2

151
Load carrying capacity = fcd x A
= 1378.328 kN Safe
Check for Tension
Design Force = 396 kN
Area = 9128 mm2 Fy = 250 N/mm2

Load carrying capacity = Agfy/γmo

= 2074.55 kN Safe

DESIGN CHECK OF VERTICAL MEMBER(C)

TENSION MEMBER
Design Force = 581 kN (Tension)
Area = 11871 mm2 Fy = 250 N/mm2

Load carrying capacity = Agfy/γmo

= 2697.95 kN Safe

DESIGN CHECK OF BOTTOM BRACING (G)

COMPRESSION MEMBER
section 2ISA 100X100X10, Properties of the section from steel tables:

Design force in the member = 380 kN

Effective Length = 3.56 m
Area = 4518 mm2
ryy = 30.3 mm
Slenderness ratio, λ = Leff/ r
= 117.49
buckling class 'c' of table 9(c) of IS800:2007,

Maximum permissible compressive stress, Fcd = N/mm2

124
Load carrying capacity = fcd x A
= 560.232 kN Safe

DESIGN CHECK OF TOP BRACING (F)

COMPRESSION MEMBER

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 22 of 28
 section 4 ISA 75X75X8, Properties of the section from steel tables:

Design force in the member = 145 kN

Effective Length = 3.56 m
Area = 4552 mm2
Moment of Inertia , Iyy = 4549656 mm4
ryy = 40.4 mm
k3= 20
Slenderness ratio, λ = Leff/ r
= 88.12
buckling class 'c' of table 9(c) of IS800:2007,

Maximum permissible compressive stress, Fcd = N/mm2

91
Load carrying capacity = fcd x A
= 414.232 kN Safe

DESIGN CHECK OF MAIN BEAM B1

Span of Beam, l = 5.18 m
BM and SF
Bending Moment ,Mu = 752.5 kNm
Shear Force,SF = 563.0 kN

Zpz = 7399228 mm3

Web area, Aw = 11400 mm
SECTION CLASSIFICATION
Neutral axis mid depth = d/tw
= 79.167 <84ε
Hence the section is plastic
Cross beams are provide connecting two beams , hence it is laterally supported beam

Moment Capacity, Md = βZpfy/γmo

= 1681.64 kNm Safe
Shear Capacity, SF = dtwfy/γmo√3
= 1495.86 kN Safe

DESIGN CHECK OF CROSS BEAM B2

Span of Beam, l = 5.98 m
BM and SF
Bending Moment ,Mu = 375.0 kNm
Shear Force,SF = 278.0 kN

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 23 of 28
 Zpz = 4615690 mm3
Web area, Aw = 7500 mm
SECTION CLASSIFICATION
Neutral axis mid depth = d/tw
= 75 <84ε
Hence the section is plastic
Cross beams are provide connecting two beams , hence it is laterally supported beam

Moment Capacity, Md = βZpfy/γmo

= 1049.02 kNm Safe
Shear Capacity, SF = dtwfy/γmo√3
= 984.12 kN Safe

DESIGN CHECK OF BOTTOM LATERAL BETWEEN CROSS BEAMS (H)

COMPRESSION MEMBER
section ISA 90x90x10, Properties of the section from steel tables:

Design force in = kN
43
the member
Effective Length = 3.55 m
Area = 1703 mm2
Moment of Inertia = 516000 mm4
, Iyy
ryy = 17.4 mm
Slendernessratio,λ = Leff/ r
= 204.02
buckling class 'c' of table 9(c) of IS800:2007,
Maximum permissible = N/mm2
34.5
compressive stress, Fcd
Load carrying capacity = fcd x A
= 58.75 kN Safe

From the visual inspection, it was noted that the effect of corrosion was minimal in the
connections when compared to the members. Therefore, connections are excluded in DCR
calculations.Table 5 gives a summary of the DCRs for various elements.

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 24 of 28
 Table 5: Demand capacity ratio for various elements
Demand Capacity
Sl No Element/Section force DCR
(kN/kNm) (kN/kNm)
1 Top chord members (A) - compression 3846 3894 0.99
2 Bottom chord members(A1) - tension 1158 2860 0.41
3 End diagonals (B) - compression 2748 2467 1.11
4 Diagonals (D) - tension 1966 2860 0.69
5 Diagonals (E) - Compression 1179 1378 0.86
6 - tension 396 2074 0.19
7 Vertical members(C) - 581 2697 0.22
8 Bottom bracings (G) - compression 380 560 0.68
9 Top Bracings ( F ) - compression 145 414 0.35
10 Main beam (B1) - moment 752.5 1681 0.45
-Shear force 563.0 1496 0.38
11 Stinger beam (B2) - moment 375.0 1049 0.35
-Shear force 278.0 984 0.28
12 Bracing (H) - Compression 43 58 0.74
Important notes
i. The demand includes load factor and capacity includes partial safety factors
ii. Here the analysis is performed for the superstructure alone presuming that the foundations
are intact.
5. MEASUREMENT OF CAMBER IN THE BRIDGE SPANS
It was informed that an upward camber of 50 mm is provided at the centre of each
span. A loss of this camber can give a quick measure of any kind of degradation in the structure
such as stiffness degradation. In view of this, two spans were chosen arbitrarily and the camber
was measured using a Total Station unit. Measurements revealed that in one of the spans, the
camber was intact (no loss) while in the other the camber was only 20mm, which means a loss of
60% in camber. This is indicative of an overall stiffness reduction which may be due to the
material loss in members due to corrosion, yielding of joints, support movements etc. It is inferred
that more systematic assessment in this direction is required as part of the investigations in the
Phase II of the audit.

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 25 of 28
6. COMMENTS AND INFERENCE
 Table 5 shows that all the elements of bridge superstructure have a DCR value less than
unity except the end diagonal from which it can be inferred that the condition of the super
structure is by and large satisfactory.
 The DCR value of 1.11 in the end diagonal implies that the margin of safety available
for that member is lower than that required by the code.
 As mentioned earlier, the condition of the abutment at the southern side (Shornur end) is
a matter of concern.
 The measurement of camber in two arbitrary spans indicates that in one of them there is
no loss of camber while in the other there is a loss of camber of 60%. This points to the
need for conducing investigations to assess the possible stiffness degradation of the bridge
spans which is envisaged in the Phase II of this audit.
 It is informed that speed restrictions are imposed on this bridge. At present, adequate data
is not available to conduct studies and to make recommendations on restricted speed.
Hence this aspect is kept out of the scope of the present study.

On the basis of the above points it is felt that conclusions on the stability and safety of the
bridge can be made only after conducting phase II of the audit. Till then it is recommended
to continue the safety precautions being followed currently including the restricted speed
of trains through the bridge.

Comment on the maintenance and repair practices

It is observed that repair works are being carried out by Railways to rectify the issues especially
due to corrosion. It is also informed that member replacements are occasionally done when the
need arises. However,looking at the present condition of the bridge with regard to corrosion it is
felt that there is a delay in implementing the maintenance works. It is suggested to conduct more
regular and systematic maintenance. Moreover, the need for a record-keeping of the member
replacements performed at various instances is felt. This can be achieved by maintaining the as-
built drawing and recording the interventions as and when it is performed. This will help in
assessing the overall integrity of the bridge at any point of time during its life span.
7. ASSESSMENT PROPOSED IN PHASE II
It is proposed to do the underwater inspection and condition assessment of the substructure in
phase II. This will also provide necessary data for performing analysis for earthquake loads.
Assessment of corrosion-fatigue strength of components and their life expectancy is required as

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 26 of 28
there can be strength degradation due to corrosion and repeated loadings. Tests required for the
above assessments as well as forecasting of residual life of the bridge are planned to be carried
out in phase II. Dynamic testing and tests for assessing the stiffness degaration, if any, of the
super structure also are envisaged in the Phase II of the audit.

Members of the Investigation team

1. Dr. T.M. Madhavan Pillai ( Coordinator)

2. Dr. P.V. Indira

3. Dr. A.P.Shashikala

4. Dr. Robin Davis P.

5. Dr. Sajith A.S.

Professor & Head

Department of Civil Engineering

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 27 of 28
REFERENCES
1. Bridge Rules, 1964. Rules Specifying the Loads for the Design of Super-Structure and
Sub-Structure of Bridges and for Assessment of the Strength of Existing
Bridges. Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board).
2. RDSO, 2017. Indian Railway Standard Code of Practice for the Design of Steel or
Wrought Iron Bridges carrying Rail, Road or Pedestrian Traffic.
3. Standard, I.R., 2013. Code of practice for the design of sub-structures and foundation of
bridges. Research Designs and Standards Organisation, Lucknow.
4. Macho, M., Ryjáček, P. and Matos, J., 2019. Fatigue Life Analysis of Steel Riveted Rail
Bridges Affected by Corrosion. Structural Engineering International, 29(4), pp.551-562.
5. Landolfo, R., Cascini, L. and Portioli, F., 2010. Modeling of metal structure corrosion
damage: A state of the art report. Sustainability, 2(7), pp.2163-2175.
6. Standard, Bureau Indian. "General Construction in Steel-Code of Practice." 3rd Revision,
Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, India, IS (2007): 800-2007.
7. Calgaro, J.A., Tschumi, M. and Gulvanessian, H., 2010. Designers' Guide to Eurocode 1:
Actions on Bridges: EN 1991-2, EN 1991-1-1,-1-3 TO-1-7 and EN 1990 Annex A2.
Thomas Telford Ltd.
8. Zuraski, P.D. and Johnson, J.E., 1990. Fatigue strength of deteriorated steel highway
bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, 116(10), pp.2671-2690.

Report-Third party auditing of railway bridges (Phase I)--Br. No. 1274 DN Page 28 of 28