See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330360455

Study of loading specifications for Railway Underpass bridge

Conference Paper · December 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 1,268

2 authors:

Raghava kumar Vanama Ramakant Ingle

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
15 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   236 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Analysis of Pile foundation View project

Finite Element Analysis of Skew Box Underpass Bridge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raghava kumar Vanama on 28 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Conference on Advances in Civil and Mechanical Engineering Systems, 23-24 Dec.2014
Government College of Engineering, Amravati in association with SVNIT, Surat, India
Study of loading specifications for Railway Underpass Bridge
V. Raghava Kumar1, R.K.Ingle2
1
M.Tech. Scholar, Department of Applied Mechanics, VNIT, Nagpur, India
2
Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, VNIT, Nagpur, India

ABSTRACT : In urban areas, construction of an underpass, Road Under Bridge (RUB), below railway tracks
using a system of pushing a precast reinforced concrete box structure using jacks is an optimal solution over
Road Over Bridge (ROB). Underpass is subjected to a complex loading system. This paper illustrates the
loading specifications given by IRC, IRS, AASHTO LRFD, and Reynolds Reinforced Concrete Designer's
Handbook through a numerical example, considering all possible loadings that will act on the structure, soil
arching effect, the diminishing effect of live load with increasing soil fill depths etc. and compare the same.

Keywords: Loads (forces), Specifications, Soil arching, Underpass

Conference Stream: Civil Engg.

1. Introduction
At most of the level crossings of railway, either Road Over Bridge (ROB) or Road Under Bridge
(RUB) is being proposed. To maintain the adequate gradients on the access ramps, the ROB requires more space
because of overhead catenary wires and also the high level embankment of railways. At such situation, the
optimal solution is to construct an underpass below railway tracks using a system of pushing a precast
reinforced concrete box structure using jacks. Thus the vehicular load is allowed inside to pass the boxing
structure whereas train over the box. Implementing the system proved that normal rail traffic can be maintained
throughout the construction of the underpass. The possible loadings coming on to the structure can be assessed
by looking at the construction process stage by stage. Ramirez Chasco et al. [1] described, in detail, the
construction of an underpass under railway tracks using a system of pushing a structure consisting of a ready-
built reinforced concrete box using jacks. The most important aspects of the construction process viz.
Excavation and preparation of the jacking shaft, construction of the sliding bed and the thrust wall, construction
of the box and the preparation of the railway tracks, repeated jacking-cutting procedure, final operations on the
track-bed, dismantling of auxiliary structures and items were described clearly. In order to provide the reliable
basis of design for the boxing structure of Underpass Bridge, the study should simulate the prevailing
conditions. So it becomes necessary to consider the boxing structure of the underpass bridge as a complex
system.
Abdel-Karim et al. [2] experimentally studied the pressure distribution in concrete box culverts with
varying amounts of soil fill and then driving a test truck across the culvert. Researchers found that the stress in
the soil decreases with fill depth. Abdel-Karim et al. also commented on the suitability of 1.75 for LLDF in the
AASHTO LFD standard. They found that 1.75 is valid and the AASHTO procedure reasonably represents the
pressure distribution in the soil for fill depths of 2 ft. to 8 ft. Abdel-Karim et al. further say that the effect of the
live load diminished considerably beyond 8 ft. of fill. The point at which to ignore the live load could be when
the live load effect is less than 5 percent of the total load effect. Acharya [3] also investigated the effect of
pavements on distributing the load on culverts with low depth soil fills. The research involved testing of two
existing culverts with rigid and flexible pavements and fill depths around 2 ft. as well as computational
modelling. The research found that the current AASHTO live load distribution factors over-predicted the
vertical live loads especially at low fill depths due to, in part, the additional distribution of load provided by the
pavements. Orton et al. [4] explained the effects of live load (truck loads) on bridge (spans greater than 20 ft.)
reinforced concrete box culverts under soil fills of different thickness. The results of the testing show that live
load effect does diminish with increasing fill depth. The AASHTO LRFD and LFD Standard Specifications
were both overly conservative in predicting strains and displacements compared to the field data for fill depths
http://acmes2014.in 1 | Page
Study of loading specifications for Railway Underpass Bridge
less than 8 ft. At above 6 ft. of fill the measured effect of the live load was less than 10% of the dead load effect.
This could be considered as a point at which to ignore the live load effect and therefore not load rate the culvert.
In this paper it is proposed to study calculations for various load cases by different codes and compare
the same.
2. Load calculations
2.1 Numerical example
A 20 m long underpass box structure of cross section as shown in Fig.1 is considered with 2 m soil fill
above the structure. Density of soil is 20 kN/m3 and angle of internal friction is 300. Railway line is assumed to
be Broad Gauge line. The possible loads that will act on structure are train load above the box, Dead load (Track
load, Ballast cushion load), Load due to soil above the structure, Earth pressure on vertical walls (Due to LL
surcharge, DL surcharge and soil), Live load inside the box (Class A, Class 70R), Pressure due to water inside
the box, Self-weight of the structure, Jacking force and Temperature variations.

Figure 1. Cross section of Underpass

2.2 Vertical load on top of slab due to live load above the box – Train Load
The dispersion of Railway live load under the sleeper shall be assumed to be dispersed by the fill
including ballast at a slope not greater than half horizontal to one vertical as per IRS Bridges rules, (1V:0.5H).
Also in Reynolds’s Reinforced Concrete Designer’s Handbook [5], it is mentioned that the dispersion of the
wheel loads may be taken to occur from the contact area on the carriageway to the top of the structure at a slope
of 2 vertically to 1 horizontally. The dispersion of live load through soil is as shown in Fig. 2. IRS bridge rules
specifies six types of railway loadings viz. 25t Loading-2008, DFC loading (32.5t axle load), Broad Gauge
Standard of 2006, Revised Broad Gauge (RBG) Loading of 1975, Modified Broad Gauge (MBG) Loading of
1987, Broad Gauge Heavy Mineral (HM) loading of 2000. Among all DFC loading gives the maximum for
Broad Gauge line Group A for 300 mm depth of cushion and 7 m of carriage way width. EUDL for both
bending moment and shear force criteria are given.

Figure 2. Dispersion of Live load Figure 3. Dispersion of Dead load

Coefficient of Dynamic Augment (CDA) decreases to zero within 3 m as per IRS bridge rules, whereas
AASHTO LRFD considers up to 2.44 m (8 ft.). The effect of these parameters on LL is as shown in Table 1.

http://acmes2014.in 2 | Page
Study of loading specifications for Railway Underpass Bridge
Table 1. Vertical live load as per IRS and AASHTO
Reference Vertical load on top of slab due to LL
IRS Bridge Rules (137.07 x 1.32) / 5.05 = 35.83 kN/m2
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual (137.07 x 1.875) / 5.05 = 50.89 kN/m2

2.3 Vertical load on top of slab due to dead load – Track and ballast
As per IRS Bridge Sub-Structures and Foundation Code, the earth pressure due to surcharge may be
assumed to be dispersed below the formation level at a slope of one horizontal to one vertical as shown in Fig. 3.

2.4 Vertical load on top of slab due to Soil fill

Vertical load on top of slab due to Soil fill above the structure is γH. But, Jan Vaslestad [6] says that
the vertical earth pressure on a rigid culvert is greater than the calculated overburden pressure above the
structure which results in negative arching effect. Spangler and Handy [7] says that it is very important to take
the property of arching into account when designing an underground conduit. In Reynolds’s Reinforced
Concrete Designer’s Handbook, for buried box type structures, an allowance for this effect is made, by
considering a minimum load based on the weight of material directly above the structure, and a maximum load
equal to the minimum load multiplied by 1.15. In AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual, to approximate the
arching effects of some of the overburden soil a factor has been introduced. The factor is Fe=1+0.2(H/Bc) where
H is Depth of backfill (in ft.) and Bc = Outside width of culvert (2 sidewall thickness + span) (ft.). The effect of
these parameters on overburden pressure is as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Vertical live load as per Reynold’s Hand book and AASHTO
Reference Vertical load on Top of slab due to Soil fill
Reynolds’s RC Designer’s Handbook 40 x 1.15 = 46 kN/m2
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual 40 x 1.05 = 42 kN/m2

2.5 Earth pressure on vertical side walls

IRS Bridge Sub-Structures and Foundation Code specifies to use the coefficient of static active earth
pressure condition i.e., Wall is assumed to be deformable whereas AASHTO LRFD specifies to use at rest earth
pressure coefficient, i.e., Wall is assumed to be non-deformable. Apart from the earth pressure due to back fill,
its effect due to LL surcharge, DL surcharge are also taken into account.

2.6 Live load inside the box

As per IRC: 6, for two lane bridges two type of load combinations are to be considered. First case is
two lanes are loaded with Class A. Second case is one lane is loaded with Class 70R.

2.6.1 Two lanes of Class A

Heaviest axle load i.e., 114 kN is considered and the load dispersion through slab is taken at 45 0.
Ground contact area of 114 kN axle wheel transverse to the direction of motion is 500 mm. Impact factor is
calculated by 4.5/ (6+L). The passing or crossing vehicles can be arranged in two ways with minimum clearance
between outer edge of the wheel and the roadway face of the kerb i.e., 150 mm as shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 4. Wheel arrangements with minimum clearance between outer edge of the wheel and the roadway face
of the kerb and load dispersions lengths for Class A

http://acmes2014.in 3 | Page
Study of loading specifications for Railway Underpass Bridge

Second way is to arrange Passing or crossing vehicles with minimum clearance in between. Wheel
arrangements and load dispersions lengths for this case are as shown in Fig. 5.

Figure 5. Wheel arrangements with minimum clearance between passing or crossing vehicles and load
dispersions lengths for Class A
2.6.2 One lane of Class 70R
Maximum single axle load of 200 kN of L type is considered with 450 of load dispersion through slab.
Impact factor for Class 70R loading is taken as 1.25. Vehicle is assumed to be running with a minimum
clearance between the road face of the kerb and the outer edge of the wheel, i.e., 1.2 m. Wheel arrangements and
load dispersions lengths for this case are as shown in Fig. 6.

Figure 6. Wheel arrangements with minimum clearance between the road face of the kerb and load dispersions
lengths for Class 70R

2.7 Water load inside the box, jacking force and temperature changes
Box structure may be subjected to unexpected floods during the box pushing. Its effect can be
considered while analysing the structure. The jacking force that is applied at the front of the box should be
considered as it affects the behaviour of the box. In order to provide the reliable basis of design for the boxing
structure of Underpass Bridge, the study should simulate the prevailing conditions. So it becomes necessary to
consider the temperature changes that can occur.

2.8 Abstract of loads

Abstract of loads coming on to the box structure of specified dimensions as per IRS specifications is as
shown in Fig. 7.

Figure 7. Abstract of loads as per IRS specifications

http://acmes2014.in 4 | Page
 Study of loading specifications for Railway Underpass Bridge

Abstract of loads coming on to the box structure of specified dimensions as per AASHTO
specifications is as shown in Fig. 8.

Figure 8. Abstract of loads as per AASHTO specifications

It can be observed that AASHTO LRFD bridge design manual specifies higher live loads compared to
IRS bridge rules. The effect of negative soil arching is considered in AASHTO; thereby the vertical earth
pressure due to soil fill above the structure is greater than the calculated overburden pressure as per IRS. As wall
is assumed to be non-deformable, lateral earth pressure due to live load, dead load and back fill as per AASHTO
shows higher values compared to IRS.

3. Conclusions
Live load effect reduces with increasing soil fill depths. AASHTO LRFD bridge design manual
specifies higher live loads compared to IRS bridge rules. Vertical earth pressure is greater than the calculated
overburden pressure above the structure due to soil arching. Reynold’s RC hand book and AASHTO standard
considers this soil arching effect, whereas IRS does not. Wall is assumed to be deformable as per IRS code,
whereas it is assumed to be non-deformable in the case of AASHTO. To simulate the prevailing conditions,
effect of water load inside the box, jacking force, and temperature variations shall also be considered for the
boxing structure of Underpass Bridge.

References

[1] Ramírez Chasco, F. D. A., Meneses, A. S., & Cobo, E. P. (2010). “System for Construction of a Railway Underpass” Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 16(2), 82-88.
[2] Abdel karim, A. M., Tadros, M.K., Benak, J. V. (1990) “Structural response of full scale concrete Box culvert” J. Struct. Eng., ASCE,
119(11), 3238-3234
[3] R. Acharya, Improved Load Distribution for Load Rating of Low-Fill Box Structures, University of Kansas, 2012.
[4] Orton, S., Loehr, E., Boeckmann, A., & Havens, G. (2013). “Live Load Effect in Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts under Soil Fill”
(No. cmr14-009).
[5] Reynolds, Charles E., James C. Steedman, and Anthony J. Threlfall. Reinforced concrete designer's handbook.(Book, Eleventh edition
CRC Press, 2007)
[6] Vaslestad, J., Johansen, T. H., and Holm, W. (1993). “Load reduction on rigid culverts beneath high fills: Long-term behavior.”
Transportation Research Record 1415, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 58–68.
[7] M.G.Spangler and R.L. Handy, Soil Engineering (Book, 4th edition, Harper & Row Series in Civil Engineering, 1982)

http://acmes2014.in 5 | Page

View publication stats