Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
TRANSITION SYSTEM
ON
APPROACHES OF BRIDGES
AUGUST- 2005
1
FOREWORD
For running of trains at higher speed, say 120 KMPH or so, uniformity in elasticity of
track structure is important. Indian Railways have problems in this regard normally at
approaches of bridge, level crossing, point and crossing etc. In this report only bridge
approach has been considered. Transition system on bridge approaches at present are
not existing. Recently, certain provisions in this regard have been made which require
revision in view of World Railways practices and otherwise also.
Efforts made in this report is expected to give insight of the problem and, therefore,
more realistic and rational design of transition system to approaches of bridges.
2
PREFACE
This report is the property of RDSO and is meant essentially for official use. It
may not be loaned, reproduced in part, or in full, or quoted as an authority without the
permission of Director General, RDSO.
(Nand Kishore)
Executive Director / GE, RDSO
3
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Details for Development on the Subject 1
3. Provision at present 1
4. Provision of Transition System by world Railways 2
5. Discussion on Provision of Transition System on
Indian Railways 3
6. Practice in field in providing backfill 4
7. Features required for better transition system 4
8. Suggestions for improvement of transition system 5
9. Conclusions 6
10. References 6
4
1. INTRODUCTION:
Tract structure provides elastic support for train movement. Elastic property is
derived starting from formation to rail, including ballast, sleeper and elastic
fastenings. It is necessary that total elastic behaviour of track structure does not
change significantly from one spot to another to ensure smooth running. Indian
railways are having number of ballasted and non-ballasted bridges where elastic
behaviour of track structure changes suddenly. However, extent of change will
depend on type of bridges (i.e. ballasted, non-ballasted, earth cushion etc).
Running quality of track in approaches of most of the bridges is normally not
satisfactory. Sudden jerk is experienced for defective track parameters, which
develop for (a) impact forces on approaches for difference in stiffness of
approach formation and bridges, and (b) settlement of formation. Instructions
have been issued recently to provide R.C.C slab on approaches of non-ballasted
deck bridges having span 12.2.m or more.
Provision of approach slab for first time on Indian Railways was considered in
56th B&S S committee meeting held in April 1977 to provide relief to the
abutments etc. Wherever raising of formation was involved specially in gauge
conversion works. These slabs were supposed to rest on main abutments at one
end and on a support on the approach bank at another end. The slab was to be
placed at or near existing formation level so that additional earth column of
embankment is supported over approach slab.
The subject was again disussed in 61th meeting of B&SS committee in July 1982
and it was decided to adopt RDSO drawing no: B-1446 on trial basis on
approach of bridges having abutments in distressed conditions and watch its
performance before adopting it as a normal practice. It was mentioned that the
depth of cast in situ under reamed pile support on the approach bank was to be
suitably designed to suit local site conditions.
5
In 69th meeting of B&SS committee held in Jan - 1998, this subject, in regard to
RDSO's drawing no: B-1790 and 1791 was again discussed. The
recommendations were made to provide approach slabs on all types of bridges
having span of 12.2.m and above. The length of slab may be 4m for 12.2m span
and for larger span, the length of slabs would be decided by RDSO. Provision of
support for the approach slab on the formation etc. was dropped. After
deliberations, RDSO issued a modified drawing (No. 10059) and earlier drawings
i.e. B - 1790 and 1791 were withdrawn.
4. PROVISIONS AT PRESENT
6
Railway Board (CRB inspection note no: 11-A) to have study on the subject
considering the practices being followed by world railways.
6.1 German Railway: Transition System consists of three different types of backfill
materials having different elastic modulus. There is also provision of suitable
drainage behind abutments etc (Fig.1). This railway runs traffic of maximum
22.5T axle load. Maximum speed of trains is 230 kmph.
6.2 Italian Railway: This Railway provides transition system with five types of
different back-fill materials of varying length and thickness. The system tries to
provide almost impervious layer on top of formation in the approach of bridge
(Fig 2). Maximum axle load of traffic is 20T Maximum speed of trains is 230
kmph.
6.3 Hungarian State Railway: Transition system being provided by this railway is
quite complex. It includes about 6 different types of backfill materials having
different elastic modulus. There is a provision of protective layer and drainage
layer beyond abutment (Fig 3). Maximum axle load of traffic is 22.5 T. Maximum
speed of trains is 160 kmph.
7
6.4 Swiss Federal Railway: This Railway provides transition system having three
different types of backfill material. They also provide a layer of geo-textile (Fig.
4A). Maximum axle load of traffic is 22.5T. maximum speed of trains is 230
kmph. There is another system being adopted where only two types of backfill
materials are placed along with a layer of non-woven geo-textile (Fig. 4B).
6.5 French National Railway: This railway has transition system of five different
types of backfill materials that are laid in different slope. These materials are
compacted to very high degree specially in adjacent to abutment. Top layer
formation is almost impervious of length more than 5m or equal to height of
abutment. There is also provision of drainage layer near abutment (fig 5). In this
railway, trains have maximum of 22.5T axle load. Maximum speed of trains is
320 kmph.
a) Well-designed multi type of back fill materials for various length are
provided.
b) These are provided for ballasted box type bridges
c) Types of back fill material is far superior.
Para 7.5 of Bridge sub-structure and foundation code, revised in 1985 (including
correction slip no:12 dated: 22.9.2000) contains details of backfill behind
abutment etc of 600 mm (min) thick filling of boulders and cobbles and behind
that filing with granular materials of GW, GP & SW i.e., well/poorly graded
gravel and well graded sand types of soil as per IS: 1498 - 1970. Alongwith
this backfill, approach slab of minimum 4m length are to be provided for non-
ballasted deck bridge having span, 12.2.m or more. This provision of Indian
8
railways is compared with the provision of World railways (Para 5) with following
observations.
9
not providing backfill material, as per specifications. Details in these regards are
placed at Annexure-1.
As discussed above (para 7), for ballasted deck bridges also, certain extent of
transition system is essential which is less than what is provided for non-
10
ballasted deck bridges. Accordingly, suggestions for ballasted as well as non-
ballasted deck bridges are made as follows.
11
12. CONSIDERATION FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENT TO PROVISION OF
BRIDGE APPROACH RCC SLABS.
RCC slabs are rigid structures, and so, there will be sudden increase in rigidity of
formation in approach of bridges. Therefore, as explained above in detail,
provision of Dry lean concrete and coarse granular material in approach of
bridges would be technically appropriate. This has been shown in Fig -6.
13. INFERENCES.
a) Except for back filling behind abutments of bridges, there has been no
provision of transition system.
b) Latest provision of only RCC slab is a deficient system when compared
to world railways practices. There is no mean to increase stiffness in
gradual manner.
c) Appropriate transition system is required for ballasted deck and other
bridges where bridge slab is not below 1300mm from bottom of sleeper,
for span 12.2m and above.
d) Transition system with rounded gravel of 20/80 size may be easily
provided under running traffic with help of aluminum alloy girder, C.C.crib
or rail cluster.
14. CONCLUSION:
Provision of new transition system shown in Fig 6&7 should be included in new
construction as well as gauge conversion works. On existing lines also where
maintenance problem is faced, it may be provided. Feedback regarding
performance of the system in case of new construction as well as on existing
lines should be communicated to RDSO for judging its effectiveness and further
improvement.
12
15. REFERENCES:
i) Notes of bridge and Structures Standards Committee held in April, 1977
(56th meeting), July, 1982 (61st meeting) and January, 1998 (69th meeting)
ii) RDSO letter no: CBS/DCS dated 29/30.8.2000.
iii) Addendum and Corrigendum slip no: 12 dated 22.9.2000 of B&S
Directorate
iv) Indian Railway Bridge Manual - 1998
v) UIC Code 719 R, 2nd edition, 1.1.94
vi) CRB's inspection note no: 11-A circulated vide Board's letter no:
2001/CRB/IN/11-dated: 20.12.2001
13
14
15
16
17