Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Recommendations
for the Design of
Bridges
Synopsis
This document gives
recommendations for the design and
loading for bridges. It supports
Railway Group Standards GC/RT5110
and GC/RT5112.
Contents
Section Description Page
Part A
Issue Record 2
Responsibilities 2
Health and Safety Responsibilities 2
Supply 2
Part B
1 Purpose 3
2 Scope 3
3 Definitions 3
4 Principle 3
5 Duties and Competency 4
Recommendations
Relating to GC/RT5110
6 Intended Use and Life 5
7 Structural Adequacy 9
8 Materials and Workmanship 12
9 Adequacy of Structural Gauging, Clearances and Dimensions 13
10 Execution / Decommissioning 17
11 Future Maintenance 17
12 Compatibility with Other Infrastructure 18
13 Operational Safety 20
14 Design Control Procedures 21
15 Limitations on Use 21
16 Identification of Structures 21
17 Structures Owned by Outside Parties 22
18 Records 22
Recommendations
Relating to GC/RT5112
19 Railway Traffic Loads and Load Effects 23
20 Walkway Loads 27
21 Road Traffic Loads 28
22 Pedestrian and / or Cycle Traffic Loads 28
23 Other Traffic Loads 29
24 Aerodynamic Effects of Rail Traffic 29
25 Non-Traffic Loads and Load Effects 29
26 Bridges not Owned by Railtrack 30
27 Records 30
28 Lists of Loads and Load Effects 30
Appendices
A Loads and Load Effects Required by GC/RT5112 to be
Considered in the Loading Specification for Bridges 31
B Modifications to and clarification of BS 5400 Parts 3, 4 and 5 32
C Existing Substructures Affected by New Construction 33
D Provision for Future Traffic Developments and Selection of Traffic Mix 35
E Modifications to and Clarification of UIC Leaflet 776-3R (1989) 36
F Recommendations for Infill to Open Handrailing for Underline Bridges 37
G Profiles for the Tops of Parapets to Overline Highway Bridges 38
H Collision Loads from Railway Traffic 39
I Further Recommendations on Loading for Underline Bridges 41
J Collision of Road Vehicles with Bridge Superstructures 44
K Design Information that should be supplied by the infrastructure controller 45
References 47
RAILTRACK 1
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 2 of 48 Design of Bridges
Part A
Issue Record
This document will be updated when necessary by distribution of a complete
replacement.
Revisions in the reissued document are marked by a vertical black line in the
right hand margin adjacent to the revision.
Responsibilities
Railway Group Standards are mandatory on all members of the Railway Group *
and apply to all relevant activities that fall into the scope of each individual’s
Railway Safety Case. If any of those activities are performed by a contractor, the
contractor’s obligation in respect of Railway Group Standards is determined by
the terms of the contract between the respective parties. Where a contractor is
a duty holder of a Railway Safety Case then Railway Group Standards apply
directly to the activities described in the Safety Case.
* The Railway Group comprises Railtrack and the duty holders of the Railway
Safety Cases accepted by Railtrack.
Supply
Controlled and uncontrolled copies of this document may be obtained from the
Industry Safety Liaison Dept, Safety and Standards Directorate, Railtrack PLC,
Railtrack House, DP01, Euston Square, London, NW1 2EE.
2 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 3 of 48
Part B
1 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to give recommendations for the design of
bridges and supports Railway Group Standards GC/RT5110 and GC/RT5112.
2 Scope
The overall scope of Railway Group Standards is as specified in Appendix A of
GA/RT6001.
Specifically the contents of this document apply to bridges on, over or under
Railtrack Controlled Infrastructure.
• Infrastructure Controller.
3 Definitions
Bridge (definition as given in GC/RT5112)
A structure of one or more spans whose prime purpose is to afford passage over
an obstruction or gap. Structures where all parts are buried below the surface at
a distance greater than their diameter or span are excluded.
Design
Information in the form of drawings, electronically stored data, diagrams,
mathematical expressions, numerical quantities and / or words (including
performance, materials and workmanship specifications) which together describe
in detail what is to be constructed and, where appropriate, how it is to be
constructed; the design process includes all the activities leading to the
production of this information (including structural design as appropriate).
Structure Gauge
A description of a line inside which fixed infrastructure should not intrude.
Description will include rules for curvature, cant, speed, track fixity and
requirements for staff excess and emergency evacuation.
4 Principle
The principle of this document is to quote, verbatim and boxed, each part of
sections 5 to 18 of GC/RT5110 and sections 6 to 8 and the Appendix of
GC/RT5112, and to give recommendations which will generally enable the
requirements of these documents to be met with respect to bridges.
RAILTRACK 3
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 4 of 48 Design of Bridges
5 Duties and
Competency
5.1 Responsibilities and Duties
The responsibilities and duties of all persons responsible for the design of
structures shall be clearly defined in writing and understood by these persons.
The CDM Regulations set out requirements for those managing construction /
design work with respect to competency.
The infrastructure controller should take reasonable steps to verify that individual
designers within design organisations are suitably competent. Assessment of
competence should normally involve inspection of the designer’s CV as a
minimum, but this may not be necessary if the assessor has direct knowledge of
the designer’s capabilities. Such direct knowledge may indeed be a preferable
indicator of competence.
4 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 5 of 48
• the traffic (including type and intensity where appropriate), persons and / or
equipment that the structure is required to support and / or the level of
protection to be provided taking into account reasonably foreseeable future
traffic
The traffic, persons and or equipment that the bridge is required to support
should generally be specified as the design life (variable traffic) and / or
superimposed loading on the bridge. So far as traffic is concerned, the type,
size, weight, frequency and speed will generally need to be considered.
The level of protection mainly relates to protection against accidental loads and
should normally be expressed as the design loading due to collision of vehicles
(or waterborne vessels) passing over or under the bridge with elements of the
bridge together with any preventative and protective measures (fenders, kerbs,
level of redundancy). The design loading is normally expressed in terms of
static equivalent design forces but a more complex dynamic analysis may be
appropriate in certain cases.
In all cases, the design loading should be stated explicitly in the Approval in
Principle (AIP) submission. See section 14 of this document.
The traffic passing over the bridge and the traffic passing beneath the bridge
should be considered.
6.2.1 General
The intended life of the bridge should be stated explicitly in design
documentation and recorded in the AIP submission. It is particularly important to
state this when the intended life is short.
RAILTRACK 5
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 6 of 48 Design of Bridges
• generally for new bridges and new bridge superstructures: 120 years (as
given in BS 5400); in exceptional circumstances a shorter life may be
specified but this should be justified in the AIP submission;
• for all other situations (eg, partial superstructure reconstructions, repairs,
strengthening, remedial works etc.) The infrastructure controller should
specify both the intended life of the new elements of the bridge and the
further intended life of the existing elements to be retained.
Where the intended life is longer than 120 years, the effects of fatigue should be
treated quantitatively. Consideration, as appropriate, should also be given to the
following:
• greater than normal allowance for future increase in amount, weight and / or
speed of traffic;
• increased return period values for wind, temperature range, flood levels etc.;
• increased sacrificial thickness of steel;
• increased partial factors for materials;
• enhanced resistance to corrosion of concrete reinforcement (eg, increased
cover, less permeable concrete, stainless steel or epoxy-coated bars);
• requirement by Railtrack on the designer to submit a statement of how the
design provides for long life and appropriate maintenance.
6 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 7 of 48
6.3.4 Waterproofing
In order to achieve satisfactory durability, bridge decks should generally be
waterproofed except for:
For underline bridges carrying ballasted track, the ballast depth should generally
be at least 200mm below the underside of the sleepers at the low rail position,
regardless of sleeper type. This is in order to:
• avoid damage to the bridge deck waterproofing caused by track tampers etc;
• ensure satisfactory longitudinal distribution of wheel loads.
RAILTRACK 7
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 8 of 48 Design of Bridges
7 Structural Adequacy
The structure shall be designed with reasonable professional care to provide
adequate resistance to the intended applied loads (including its self-weight) and
the likely effects of external influences during its intended life assuming
appropriate standards of execution and maintenance.
7.1 General
In order to meet the requirement for bridges to be designed with reasonable
professional care, the infrastructure controller should ensure that:
CIRIA Report 63 gives further guidance on the duties expected of designers and
on their liabilities in law. (See particularly 5.4.4 and Appendix 4 of Report 63.)
Further advice and recommendations are given in UIC Leaflet 777-2R (but
should be ignored where they conflict with the recommendations of this
document).
8 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 9 of 48
Where the headroom is less than 5.7m, protection should be provided to the
superstructure against the effects of strikes by road vehicles as given in
Appendix J of this document.
RAILTRACK 9
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 10 of 48 Design of Bridges
Any headroom less than 5.7m should be identified and justified in the AIP
submission, taking into account the factors given in section 7.3.2.1 of this
document. In addition, the previous history of bridge strike incidents at the site
should be considered.
Kerbs may be considered as robust if they are designed to resist the horizontal
loading given in section 19.1 of this document. For half-through bridges, the
main girders may be deemed to act as robust kerbs provided that their height is
as given above.
Recommendations for the vertical loading to take account of the possible effects
of derailed trains on underline bridge superstructures are given in section 19.1 of
this document. Such loading need not be applied to secondary structural
elements such as cantilevered walkways. For certain superstructure types (eg,
trusses or bowstring arches) the possibility of a derailed train striking an above-
rail structural element such as a vertical or diagonal member should be
considered. A reasonable degree of robustness and / or redundancy should be
provided for such members.
This will generally only apply to the specification of traffic loads for road bridges.
Occasionally, however, other organisations may need to be involved (eg,
London Underground Ltd, British Waterways Board, train operating companies).
The requirements should be determined in consultation with the relevant
authority at an early stage and any decisions recorded.
Where European Standards are used, ENV versions should be used only in
conjunction with the UK National Application Document.
10 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 11 of 48
Other industry standards and advice (eg, those of the Highways Agency) may
generally be used for guidance provided they do not conflict with the
recommendations given in this document.
These standards and methods, together with the supporting justification, should
be described in the AIP submission and the design subject to an independent
(category 3) check.
a) To avoid the possibility of loss of pull-out resistance due to soil vibrations, the
top layer of reinforcement should not be less than about 1.0m below the
underside of the track ballast (this does not apply if the reinforcement is more
than 2m horizontally from the nearest rail).
a) The differential settlement between the reinforced soil elements and other
elements of the bridge should be limited so as not to cause unacceptable
irregularities in the longitudinal alignment of the track (for example, at run-on
and run-off locations).
RAILTRACK 11
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 12 of 48 Design of Bridges
7.5.6 Bearings
For bridge superstructure reconstructions, provision should be made for deck-
end rotation in order to prevent this rotation from being transmitted to the
existing abutment tops. Bridge bearings should be designed in accordance with
the relevant part of BS 5400, except for:
8 Materials and
Workmanship
Suitable materials and standards of workmanship shall be specified for the
structure, including any processes required for the approval of new materials.
Both structural and health and safety aspects shall be considered.
The life of a bridge can be significantly affected by the choice of materials and
standard of workmanship. Of particular importance is the choice of steel grade
and quality of welding.
9 Adequacy of
Structural Gauging,
Clearances and
Dimensions
9.1 General Requirements
The location and dimensions of the structure (including any intended equipment
that it is designed to support) shall provide, where appropriate:
• for the safe movement of vehicles, persons (including those whose mobility
is impaired) and / or equipment;
The requirements for personal safety and access are given in GC/RT5203.
The clearances provided should also take into account operational safety
including electrical clearances. (See section 13 of this document.)
The provision of bridge girders in the space between tracks (the “six-foot”)
should generally be avoided where this is reasonably practicable because it
inhibits future operational flexibility and often makes access for future
examination difficult.
The position of the bridge elements relevant to the track that determine the
clearances provided for vehicles should be specified by the infrastructure
controller.
Raised walkways should be provided with ramps or steps down to cess level at
each end. Step rises and goings should comply with the recommendations of
BS 5395 Part 1 for semi-public stairways. The width of the stairway may be
reduced to 500mm provided the width of the walkway at waist height is not
reduced below 700mm.
GC/RT5203 sets out the requirements for immediate access to a place of safety
where the walkway is raised more than 500mm above the level of the ballast
adjacent to the walkway, cess or sleeper.
Where steps are provided on both sides of the track they should generally be
staggered to provide intervals not exceeding 20m.
Where the linespeed is greater than 100mph, the interval between steps should
be considered on a site specific basis, taking into account the sighting distances,
the speed of trains and the number of tracks.
RAILTRACK 13
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 14 of 48 Design of Bridges
Where use of steps would entail a vertical or near-vertical climb (eg, to the top
flange of a girder) suitable grab handles should be provided.
Choice of cover type should take into account any requirements for allowing
daylight to penetrate to below the superstructure.
Where a walkway intended for use by the public or by persons other than those
authorised to go on or about the line is attached to an underline bridge, the
walkway should be separated from the railway by a suitable barrier and should
be provided with a suitable parapet on the side remote from the railway.
9.2
The location and dimensions of the structure (including any intended equipment
that it is designed to support) shall provide, where appropriate:
14 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 15 of 48
be at least as high as the adjacent fence and should be formed such as to deter
climbing.
Where the layout of fencing is such that members of the public have access to
the top of wingwalls or abutments, suitable fences or barriers not less than
1100mm high should be set on the wingwalls / abutments to give reasonable
protection against falling.
9.3
The location and dimensions of the structure (including any intended equipment
that it is designed to support) shall provide, where appropriate:
Where separate copings are used, they should be firmly fixed to prevent
dislodgement by vandals or accidental impact.
RAILTRACK 15
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 16 of 48 Design of Bridges
should be such that a 50mm diameter sphere cannot be passed through without
distorting the mesh.
For footbridges carrying public footpaths, the width should be in accordance with
the reasonable requirements of the relevant highway authority (but need not
generally be as wide as given in Highways Agency standards: a clear width of
1400mm between handrails is considered sufficient unless heavy pedestrian
flows are likely).
In all cases the clear width between handrails should be at least 1200mm as
given in HMRI Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part 2, Section B,
Chapter 5.
Where it is not reasonably practicable to comply with the above (eg, where a
change in direction between stair flights cannot be accommodated) this should
be stated and justified in the AIP submission.
9.3.2.6 Provisions for Safe Movement of Persons (including those who are
disabled) at Footbridges
Reference should be made to the document “Meeting the needs of disabled
passengers” published by the Office of the Rail Regulator.
Parapets shall not be less than 1500mm high (1800mm where the bridge is
frequently used by equestrian traffic), shall have an inner face which is smooth
and imperforate over its full height without hand or footholds and shall be
provided with steeple copings or equivalent. In addition, parapets shall extend at
least 3000mm beyond any uninsulated overhead equipment.
Where parts of bridges (eg, road approach ramps or footbridge stair flights) run
essentially parallel to and adjacent to railways electrified on the overhead
16 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 17 of 48
10 Execution /
Decommissioning
The structure shall be designed so that there is at least one safe and feasible
method for its execution and for its subsequent decommissioning.
The method of execution envisaged by the designer should be stated in the AIP
submission. In appropriate cases a detailed description, drawings etc. should be
included.
10.2 Decommissioning
Any hazards associated with decommissioning which would not be apparent
from inspection of the bridge or from inspection of its likely design / construction
records should be stated in the AIP submission.
11 Future Maintenance
The structure shall be designed so that future foreseeable maintenance
requirements can be carried out safely including, where appropriate:
• the disruption to traffic (this should include the traffic using the bridge and the
traffic passing beneath the bridge);
RAILTRACK 17
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 18 of 48 Design of Bridges
It is likely that the bridge will need to be jacked up to permit the removal and
insertion of replacement bearings; provision may therefore have to be made for
additional stiffening to take the high local forces from the jacks and associated
eccentric load effects. If such provision is made, the location and safe capacity
of jacking points should be recorded and should preferably also be shown
physically on the structure.
Where there is no provision for jacks on the abutments or piers, the likely effects
of the temporary support structures on restricting traffic and on services adjacent
to or beneath the temporary supports should be taken into account.
12 Compatibility with
Other Infrastructure
The structure shall be designed so that:
• the structure itself and any equipment it supports does not affect the safe
functioning of any adjacent, proposed or existing structure or equipment
• adjacent proposed or existing structures or equipment will not affect the safe
functioning of the structure or the equipment it supports.
Track / bridge interaction is likely to be most significant for bridges with long
expansion length carrying CWR track. GC/RT5021 specifies the requirements
for assessing the need for and providing adjustment switches.
In the following cases track / bridge interaction effects may be deemed covered
by the design loading given in this document:
• all bridges carrying jointed track. (However, rail joints should be kept clear of
bridges as set out in GC/RT5020.)
Where run on / run off slabs are provided at the ends of bridges, particular care
should be taken to provide for maintaining the depth and integrity of the ballast
supported by such slabs.
RAILTRACK 19
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 20 of 48 Design of Bridges
13 Operational Safety
Other influences or requirements which may affect the safety of railway
operations or the safety of persons whose duties take them on or near the line
shall be considered and taken into account, including:
• the safety of train operations of other railway infrastructure owners that are
likely to be affected by the structure
• sighting of train control equipment or other lineside signs
• the safety of staff on platforms
• provision for staff on or about the track including the provision of positions of
safety
• aerodynamic effects from passing trains
• potential arcing of electric power equipment
• ground water where this has the potential to affect train control or other
safety critical equipment (for example, in tunnels).
) Metal underline and overline bridges should be bonded to the traction return
rail or earth wire.
b) Exposed metal parts of underline and overline bridges (eg, handrails and
bearings of concrete bridges) should be connected together and bonded as
above.
20 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 21 of 48
) Concrete, timber and masonry overline bridges should have a bonded metal
plate attached to the underside in certain cases.
14 Design Control
Procedures
The design control procedures for the structure are given in GC/RT5101,
Technical Approval Requirements for Changes to the Infrastructure.
• remit
• approval in principle (AIP)
• design and checking
• execution (construction, erection) and commissioning.
Other than in very straightforward cases, the AIP submission should include
evidence that alternatives to the type of structure proposed have been
considered and approximately costed.
15 Limitations on Use
Any limits on the use of the structure shall be stated, recorded and controls put
in place for the limitations to be observed (for example, notices and / or physical
restrictions.
Methods for ensuring that any limits on the use of the bridge are observed could
involve restricting the type and speed of traffic or, in the case of bridges carrying
pedestrian or road traffic, preventing the use of a the bridge by heavier traffic by
means of suitable barriers or raised kerbs or weight restriction plates.
16 Identification of
Structures
GC/RT5100 sets out the requirements for the identification of structures.
RAILTRACK 21
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 22 of 48 Design of Bridges
17 Structures Owned by
Outside Parties
Procedures shall be in place to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable,
the requirements of this document are applied to intended structures that fall
within the scope of this this document and that are owned by outside parties.
18 Records
Procedures shall be in place for records of the drawings, calculations, risk
assessments, limits on use and other relevant information which relates to the
fitness for purpose of the structure to be prepared and retained for the life of the
structure by the Railway Group member responsible for the safety of the
structure. Copies of the records shall be made available to the person or
organisation responsible for maintaining the structure as required.
22 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 23 of 48
19 Railway Traffic
Loads and Load Effects
19.1 Normal Railway Traffic Loading
Bridges carrying railway traffic of standard gauge shall generally be designed for
full RU type loading as specified in BD 37/88 “Loads for Highway Bridges”.
The RU load model should be deemed to include the following associated loads
and load effects, all as specified in BD 37/88 except as otherwise given in this
document:
() Derailment loads.
() Loading for fatigue investigations (based on the intended life of the bridge
as given in the AIP submission, not necessarily 120 years as is specified
in BD 37/88). The fatigue loading set out in BS 5400 Part 10 is only valid
for speeds up to and including 200km/h.
• the maximum design speed of rail traffic (for centrifugal force effects and for
clearances);
• the total annual design tonnage per track (for fatigue effects);
RAILTRACK 23
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 24 of 48 Design of Bridges
• the design traffic mix: heavy, medium or light, as given in BS 5400, Part 10
(for fatigue effects),
Guidance on provision for future traffic developments and selection of traffic mix
is given in Appendix D of this document.
The factor to be applied to the full RU type loading shall not be less than 0.75.
Written approval to the use of a loading other than full RU type loading shall be
obtained from Railtrack at the Approval in Principle stage of the project under the
procedures identified in Railway Group Standard GC/RT5101 “Technical
Approval Requirements for Changes to the Infrastructure”.
Reduced loading should be considered only where both the following apply:
Where factored RU loading is used, items (c), (g), (h) and (j) listed in section
19.1 of this document should all be calculated using the same factor.
(t) The static load effects of the actual train types should be multiplied by the
appropriate dynamic factor (1 + ϕ) obtained from UIC Leaflet 776-1R
((1979 Edition with 1987 amendments) - Commentary on Dynamic factors.
(t) If the dynamic loading derived from factored RU loading (DLRUfac) is less
than the dynamic loading derived from actual train types (DLactual), the RU
factor should be increased sufficiently so that DLRUfac ≥ DLactual.
In all such cases an appropriate traffic mix for fatigue shall be established taking
account of the design life of the structure and the proposed rail traffic and any
reasonably foreseeable changes to the rail traffic using the structure.
The standard load spectra specified in BS 5400 Part 10 for use with RU loading
are not applicable to reduced loading; hence Table 4 of BS 5400 Part 10 is not
24 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 25 of 48
applicable. The fatigue effects in such cases should be based on the actual
reasonably foreseeable traffic. The traffic mix may be based on the appropriate
train types given in Figure 19 of BS 5400 Part 10.
On multi-track Bridges, only one track shall be loaded with the SW/0 Load
Model.
The SW/0 Load Model does not have to be considered in any fatigue check.
Load Model SW/0 covers certain abnormally heavy vehicles. It consists of two
lengths of 133kN/m UDL each 15.0m long, separated by an unloaded length of
5.3m (as shown in Figure 1 of GC/RT5112).
Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 referred to above are quoted verbatim in sections 19.1,
19.2 and 19.3 of this document.
RAILTRACK 25
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 26 of 48 Design of Bridges
19.8 Deformations
Deformations for Bridges carrying rail traffic shall be in accordance with UIC
Leaflet 776-3R “Deformation of Bridges”. In section 8 of Leaflet 776-3R, the
values in Table 5 shall apply.
19.8.1 General
All bridges should be designed so that the deflections under load do not
encroach on any required clearances.
Specialist advice should be sought for speeds greater than 200km/h and the
requirements agreed at the AIP stage.
It is important that the twist (cant gradient) of the track is considered on skew
bridges. Twist effects are likely to be particularly severe at the intermediate
support positions of multi-span simply-supported skew bridges.
Where the bridge carries more than one track, identification of the most severe
load case should be considered carefully.
Where the track on the bridge is curved, the calculated twist should include the
twist due to the loading on the bridge and the twist due to any designed track
geometry (eg, in transition curves).
In all cases the twist (cant gradient) of the track due to the loading on the bridge
and to any designed track geometry should not exceed 1 in 400 under the actual
existing and foreseeable rail vehicles using the bridge.
For vertical deflections, in place of the values given in section 8 Table 5 of UIC
Leaflet 776-3R, Railtrack should consider specifying more onerous criteria as
follows:
In addition, the natural frequency of the bridge should be limited to the values
given in UIC Leaflet 776-3R. These limits are intended to ensure that the
dynamic effects are covered by the dynamic factors given in BD 37/88.
In assessing the natural frequency of the bridge, the method identified in UIC
Leaflet 776-3R may be used. For half through bridges, the effect of the deck
may be included if appropriate (with due allowance for shear lag effects) so that
the bridge is considered as a large channel section.
steel deck plates). For bridges with open or non-continuous decks, lateral
deformation effects should be taken into account as follows:
19.8.4 Camber
Bridges with span greater than 12m should preferably be cambered to improve
their appearance. Camber should generally be equal to the dead load deflection
plus half the serviceability live load deflection.
For multi-span bridges and skew bridges with constant-depth main girders, the
levels of the bearings should generally be such that all parts of the main girder
soffits lie in a continuous circular curve when viewed in elevation square to the
girders.
The effects are likely to be more severe on lightweight, small span structures
and on the cross girders of through or half through bridges. It is recommended
that the methods for analysing these effects currently being developed by UIC
should be used but specialist advice should be sought.
20 Walkway Loads
Walkways to underline bridges should be designed for nominal loading as
follows:
2
• a uniformly distributed load of 4kN/m
• for local elements, a patch load of 2kN applied to a circle 100mm diameter or
a point load of 1kN, whichever has the more severe effect
• where the walkway supports a cable route, an allowance of 1kN/m or the
actual weight of the cables, whichever is greater
• horizontal handrail loading of 0.74kN/m or a horizontal force of 0.5kN applied
at any point to the top rail, whichever has the more severe effect.
RAILTRACK 27
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 28 of 48 Design of Bridges
For all public highway Bridges, the number of units of HB loading and any
requirements for abnormal indivisible loads shall be determined in conjunction
with the Highway Authority.
For occupation and accommodation Bridges, a lesser load than that specified in
BD 37/88 for accommodation Bridges may be permitted as long as the safety
and the safety of interworking are not adversely affected and all other legal
obligations are met. Any lesser loading shall be suitably justified.
Reconstructed bridges should be designed to carry the heaviest traffic that may
reasonably be expected to use them, or else positive means should be provided
to prohibit traffic of excess weight.
For Bridges designed to carry other types of road or vehicular traffic the loading
shall be specified by Railtrack.
22 Pedestrian and / or
Cycle Traffic Loads
For Bridges supporting footways and / or cycle tracks open to the public, the
loading shall generally be designed in accordance with the requirements of
BD 37/88.
For other Bridges, the loading to be considered for pedestrian traffic shall
generally be in accordance with the requirements for service walkways given in
UIC Leaflet 776-1R.
Further to UIC Leaflet 776-1R (1979 Edition with 1987 amendments), the loading
for bridges intended to be used only by pedestrian railway staff should be as
given for walkways in section 20 of this document.
Where Bridges are designed to carry pedestrian or cycle traffic only, suitable
provision shall be made to prevent use of the Bridge by vehicular traffic which
could affect safety of train operations.
28 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 29 of 48
24 Aerodynamic Effects
of Rail Traffic
For most underline bridges and overline bridges carrying roads, the aerodynamic
effects due to passing rail traffic may be deemed negligible. However, such
effects should be considered for:
• footbridges
• bridges supporting station canopies or similar structures;
• parapets of underline bidges
• cladding panels attached to bridges
• for other bridges where the line speed of rail traffic is greater than 160km/h
(100mph).
25 Non-traffic Loads
and Load Effects
25.1 General
Except as otherwise given in this document, loads and effects other than traffic
loads and their effects should be taken into account for all bridges as given in
BD 37/88.
Where substructures / foundations are in such water, all likely resulting loads
should be allowed for, taking into account the:
• hydraulic loads (including uplift effects), where water levels could be higher
than the underside of the superstructure
• impact from waterborne vessels
• impact form waterborne debris.
RAILTRACK 29
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 30 of 48 Design of Bridges
In all cases the design water levels and flows should be taken as the greatest
reasonably foreseeable during the intended life of the bridge, unless reliable
procedures are put in place to ensure that the bridge is closed to traffic when
hydraulic conditions reach a predetermined level.
Where this is not the case, the details shall be recorded and the relevant
authority notified.
27 Records
Railtrack shall ensure that:
• the loading, together with any risk/reliability analyses used to specify the
loading of Bridges, is fully documented and retained in accordance with
GC/RT5142 “Management of Infrastructure Records”;
• such information shall be made available to the person or organisation
responsible for maintaining the Bridge.
30 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 31 of 48
APPENDIX A
RAILTRACK 31
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 32 of 48 Design of Bridges
APPENDIX B
MODIFICATIONS TO AND CLARIFICATIONS OF BS 5400 PARTS 3, 4 AND 5
PART 3
The draft modifications to BS 5400 Part 3 dated May 1997 (or later) may be
used. However, either a single dated set of such modifications should be used
complete or they should not be used at all.
Until such time as the new revision of BS 5400 Part 3 is published officially, the
intention to use draft modifications should be indicated in the AIP submission.
PART 4
Clause 4.1.1.1 (b)
Prestressed concrete beams should be designed as Class 2 members but with
no tensile stresses under permanent loads (serviceability limit state).
Clause 4.2.2
In sub-paragraph (a), all live loading should be ignored.
Clause 4.7
The last paragraph should be deleted and replaced by the following:
“For unwelded reinforcing bars the limiting stress ranges for fatigue should be as
follows:
(xi) for bridges carrying railways, in accordance with Part 10, where in Table 8:
(the simplified procedure given in Part 10 Clause 9.2 may be used where the
loading is the standard railway bridge loading);
(xi) for bridges carrying highways, in accordance with current practice of the
Highways Agency.”
PART 5
BS 5400 Part 5 should be replaced in its entirety by the Department of Transport
document dated December 1987 entitled “Design of composite bridges. Use of
BS 5400 Part 5: 1979 for Department of Transport structures” (commonly known
as the “yellow document”), with the following modifications to that document:
32 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 33 of 48
APPENDIX C
EXISTING SUBSTRUCTURES AFFECTED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION
(2) IF conditions (i) and (v) above are satisfied, but effects of dead and / or
live loading on the existing substructures or their tendency to sliding /
overturning will be significantly greater than existing,
RAILTRACK 33
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 34 of 48 Design of Bridges
(3) IF conditions (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) above are satisfied but the existing
substructures are showing significant signs of distress,
34 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 35 of 48
APPENDIX D
PROVISION FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENTS AND SELECTION OF
TRAFFIC MIX
Speed
Where there are known proposals to increase the speed, the design speed for
loading purposes (eg, centrifugal force effects) should take this into account.
In assessing any future increase in train speed, the possible introduction of tilting
trains should be considered. These have the potential for travelling round
curves at higher speeds (enhanced permissible speeds) than conventional
trains.
The design speed for loading purposes should be specified by the infrastructure
controller. BD 37/88 specifies a design speed equal to vt+10)km/h in the
calculation of centrifugal loads (vt is the greatest speed envisaged on the curve
in question), but is only valid generally for speeds up to 200km/h
Where the design speed is in excess of 200km/h and there is a risk of increased
dynamic effects due to resonance, the design speed should be specified by
means of a range of speeds. The range of speeds should take into account
overspeeding where this is likely to result in significantly higher dynamic effects
due to resonance.
Tonnage
In the absence of known proposals regarding traffic developments, annual
tonnage for design purposes should be taken as the existing annual
tonnage x 1.3.
Traffic Mix
The traffic mixes (traffic types) for fatigue design purposes are described in BS
5400 Part 10. They may alternatively be approximated as follows:
RAILTRACK 35
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 36 of 48 Design of Bridges
APPENDIX E
MODIFICATIONS TO AND CLARIFICATIONS OF UIC LEAFLET 776-3R (1989)
Section 1
Delete the first paragraph and replace with: “All deformations due to permanent
loading should be calculated under all permanent loads; those due to live loads
should be calculated under the specified design loading, including dynamic
effects, with a partial factor for loads of 1.0.”
Section 3
The fixed load should include an allowance for future increase in ballast depth.
This allowance should normally not be less than 100mm; in particular local
circumstances a greater allowance may be appropriate.
Section 4 (Comments)
For camber, see section 19.8.4 of this document.
Section 7
The applicable speed range (1, 2 or 3) should be appropriate to the design
speed for loading as given in the AIP submission.
Fig. 1
The notes should be amended as given in Appendix I.2 of this document.
36 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 37 of 48
APPENDIX F
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INFILL TO OPEN HANDRAILING FOR
UNDERLINE BRIDGES
Open handrailing should have, in addition to a continuous top rail and a raised
kerb or kicker plate, one of the following:
(a) at least one intermediate rail or wire parallel to the top rail such that the
clear distance between any two rails / wires or between a rail / wire and the
kerb / kicker plate does not exceed 550mm;
(b) vertical or near-vertical infill bars or wires such that the clear distance
between bars / wires does not exceed 150mm;
RAILTRACK 37
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 38 of 48 Design of Bridges
APPENDIX G
PROFILES FOR THE TOPS OF PARAPETS TO OVERLINE HIGHWAY
BRIDGES
(a) where the width of the parapet top is greater than 100mm but does not
exceed about 250mm (eg, reinforced concrete construction):
(b) where the width of the parapet top significantly exceeds 250mm (eg, brick
sandwich construction):
Profile (c) should preferably be used for brick sandwich type parapets up to
about 350mm thick but for greater thickness this profile results in very large
copings.
38 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 39 of 48
APPENDIX H
Collision Loads from Railway Traffic
H.1 General
With reference to paragraph 8.6 of BD 37/88 this section gives
recommendations for accidental loading on bridge supports near railway lines.
The hazard zone should be assumed to extend for a width of 4.5m from the
nearest rail. All supports located between railway tracks should be considered
to be inside the hazard zone. Where individual columns are used within the
hazard zone, the design of the bridge above them should incorporate a degree of
continuity such that the removal of any one column will not lead to the collapse
of the remainder of the structure under the permanent loads and primary and
secondary live loads in accordance with combination 1 of Table 1 of BD 37/88;
the ultimate limit state partial factors should be as specified in Table 1 but limited
to 1.0 on live loads.
To provide robustness against the effect of light impacts, all piers or columns
within the hazard zone should be designed to withstand without collapse a single
horizontal design force of 2000kN acting at a height of 1.2m above the adjacent
ground level and a single horizontal design force of 500kN acting at a height of
3m. The two forces may act in any direction but need not be considered to act
simultaneously. These forces should be combined with the permanent loads
and the appropriate primary and secondary live loads as given above.
The connections between columns and their bases should be such that they can
resist a horizontal design force of 2000kN at the ultimate limit state without being
dislocated. Pin jointed connections should be avoided.
RAILTRACK 39
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 40 of 48 Design of Bridges
When designing such an end impact wall, suitable allowance may be made for
the restraint provided by the track where this is securely connected to the wall
(eg, by means of a concrete slab to which the rails are fastened directly).
For tracks serving passenger traffic, the end impact walls should be designed for
a horizontal design force of 5000kN at a height of 1.0m above the top of the rail
where a buffer stop with a minimum braking capacity of 2500kNm is provided.
In shunting and marshalling areas where a buffer stop with a minimum braking
capacity of 2500kNm is provided, the end impact walls should be dimensioned
for a horizontal design force of 10000kN at a height of 1.00m above the top of
the rail.
The column base should be structurally separated form the protecting plinth or
platform by means of an air gap or compressible material surround the column
base.
40 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 41 of 48
APPENDIX I
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON LOADING FOR UNDERLINE BRIDGES
I.1. Simply Supported Main Girder and Rail Bearers (BD 37/88 Figure 21)
In Figure 21 of BD 37/88 the reference to shear force at point X should be
corrected as follows:
• The shear force at point X is the end shear for span ‘a’ multiplied by a
L
I.2. Dynamic Effects (BD 37/88 Tables 16 and 17)
The dynamic effect created in the structure by the movement of vehicles at
speed is covered by multiplying the static RU load model by dynamic factors.
= 2.16 + 0.73;
0.5
(L) - 0.2
= 1.44 + 0.82.
0.5
(L) - 0.2
These dynamic factors are applicable to full RU type loading where the
deflection of the bridge is within the limits given in UIC leaflet 776-3R (in Fig1 of
which the expression for δu for spans between 20 - 100 metres should be
corrected to read δu = 0.56L
1.184
) and when the permissible or enhanced
permissible speed is not greater than 200km/h. Where these conditions are not
met, allowance for dynamic effects should be based on the recommendations
given in Appendix H of ENV 1991-3.
RAILTRACK 41
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 42 of 48 Design of Bridges
The patch loading at the underside of the sleeper should be taken as follows:
Below the underside of the sleeper, each patch load should be taken as
distributed through the ballast at an angle of 1 horizontal to 4 vertical.
The nominal nosing load set out in BD37/88, may be distributed over three
adjacent sleepers in the proportions 1 : 1 : 1 .
4 2 4
Walkways and similar secondary structural elements which are outside the
robust kerb (see section 9.1.2 of this document) need not be designed to carry
derailment loading. If, however, such an element is designed to carry derailment
loading, the design of the bridge as a whole should be such that it will not
overturn when the derailment loading for overturning and instability set out in
BD37/88 is applied along the outer edge of the element.
Where bridges carry curved track, centrifugal effects should be taken into
account in determining the proportion of vertical load carried by each rail.
Several factors are involved:
42 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 43 of 48
For additional ballast depth or fill γfL should be taken as 1.20 at ULS and 1.00 at
SLS.
For track, γfL should be taken as 1.20 at ULS and 1.00 at SLS based on the
heaviest likely future track type. This should generally be assumed to be UIC 60
rail with full-depth concrete sleepers at 600mm spacing unless the construction
of the bridge is such that track of this weight could not reasonably be laid.
• where live load is present, the superimposed dead load (ballast) can be
reduced by up to half over the full length of the bridge;
where live load is not present, the superimposed dead load (ballast and
track) can be removed partially or completely over the full length or part
length of the bridge;
• whether or not live load is present, for a multi-track bridge the superimposed
dead load (ballast and track) can be removed partially or completely over the
full length or part length of the bridge for one or more tracks.
RAILTRACK 43
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 44 of 48 Design of Bridges
APPENDIX J
COLLISION OF ROAD VEHICLES WITH BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURES
44 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 45 of 48
APPENDIX K
DESIGN INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE SUPPLIED BY THE
INFRASTRUCTURE CONTROLLER
(This Appendix sets out the information that should be supplied by the
infrastructure controller as a minimum when preparing a remit for bridge
design. Particular bridges may require additional items to be specified)
• number of HB units;
• special types of road or vehicular traffic (only where not otherwise
covered in BD 37/88).
1.3 Deflections:
1.5 Intended life of new bridge or new bridge superstructure if other than 120
years.
RAILTRACK 45
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 46 of 48 Design of Bridges
• track components;
• signalling equipment;
• overhead electrification equipment (including requirements for
bonding);
• lineside access;
• telecommunication equipment;
• plant.
1.10 Any site specific hazards (eg, mineral workings, disused mine shafts,
services).
46 RAILTRACK
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two
Recommendations for the Date August 2000
Design of Bridges Page 47 of 48
References
Railway Group Standards
GA/RT6001 Railway Group Standards Change Procedures
GC/RT5014 Track Standards Manual: Section 6 – Ballast and Formation
GC/RT5020 Track Standards Manual – Section 3: Rail Joints
GC/RT5022 Rail and Rail Joints (to be issued Autumn 2000)
GC/RT5021 Track System Requirements
GC/RT5023 Categorisation of Track
GC/RT5101 Technical Approval Requirements for Changes to the Infrastructure
GC/RT5110 Design Requirements for Structures
GC/RT5112 Loading Requirements for the Design of Bridges
GC/RC5142 Management of Infrastructure Records
GC/RT5201 Lineside Security
GC/RT5203 Infrastructure Requirements for Personal Safety in Respect of Clearances
and Access
GM/TT0101 Clearance Requirements for Electrified Lines and T&RS (to be superceded by
GM/RT8025 Electrical Clearance Requirements for Electrified Lines).
GE/RT8029 Management of Clearances and Gauging
GI/RT7001 Management of Safety Related Records of Elements of the Infrastructure
The Catalogue of Railway Group Standards and the Railway Group Standards
CD-ROM give the current issue number and status of documents published by
the Safety & Standards Directorate.
British Standards
BS 6779 Highway Parapets for Bridges and Other Structures
BS 5400 Steel Concrete and Composite Bridges (inc. BD 37/88)
BS 5268 Structural use of Timber
BS 8118 Structural use of Aluminium
BS 5628 Approved Code of Practice for use of Masonry
BS 8006 Approved Code of Practice for Strengthened / Reinforced Soils and their Fills
BS 8002 Approved Code of Practice for Earth Retaining Structures
BS 8004 Approved Code of Practice for Foundations
BS 5395 Stairs, Ladders and Walkways
RAILTRACK 47
Document Withdrawn as of February 2009
Uncontrolled When Printed
Railtrack Approved Code of Practice
GC/RC5510
Issue Two Recommendations for the
Date August 2000
Page 48 of 48 Design of Bridges
UIC Leaflets
776-1R Loads to be Considered in Railway Bridge Design
(1979 Edition with 1987 amendments)
774-3R General Principles for Calculating Longitudinal Forces in a Bridge,
its Bearings and its Sub-structure.
Recommendations for a simple case
776-3R Deformation of Bridges (1989 Edition)
777-2R Structures Built over Railway Lines
(Construction Requirements in the Track Zone)
CIRIA
Bridges - Design for Improved Buildability (Report 155)
Rationalisation of Safety and Serviceability Factors in Structural Codes
(Report 63)
EUROCODE
ENV 1991-3 Traffic Loads on Bridges (including UK National application
document when published)
48 RAILTRACK