Grievance redressal of Hubli railway station : A multistorey approach

Under the auspices of Dr. V.B. Patil
B.V.Bhoomaraddi College of Engineering and Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
CAPSTONE PROJECT
GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OF HUBLI RAILWAY
STATION-A MULTISTOREY APPROACH
Submitted by :Batch - 2, 2012-2013
Nishanth Patil 2BV09CV033
Supriya Savalkar
2BV09CV057 Muhammed
Fakhruddin Ali 2BV09CV068

STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENTATION
• PROBLEM DEFINITION
• SCOPE
• PROJECT METHODOLOGY
• OBJECTIVE 1 : PLANNING
• METHODOLOGY
• FUTURE FORE-CASTS
• SPACE ALLOCATION
• THE PROPOSAL
• SALIENT FEATURES
• OBJECTIVE 2 : DESIGN
• ASSUMPTIONS
• CONSTRAINTS
• METHODOLOGY
• STRUCTURAL FORMS
• CONSTRUCTION CYCLE
• STRUCTURAL LAYOUT
• LOAD PATHS
• ROLLING LOAD PORTAL
• SPAN OPTIMIZATION
• PLATE GIRDER
• PRIMARY BEAM
• STEEL STANCHION AND CONCRETE
COLUMN
• CIRCULTAION SPACE PORTAL
• BEAM SYSTEM
• STEEL STANCHION
• FOUNDATION SYSTEM
• ESTIMATION: RESOURCES AND
FINANCE
• PRE-STRESSED GIRDERS
• OBJECTIVE 3: VENTILATION
• ASSUMPTIONS
• CONSTRAINTS
• METHODOLOGY
• CONCLUSION

PROBLEM DEFINITION
• To suggest a viable option for capacity augmentation
in Tier-I , Metropolitan and Tier-II Railway stations
catering to commuter, non-suburban and freight
traffic, considering Hubli Railway Station as Model
Station for Design Basis.

SCOPE
The scope of the proposal can be envisaged to pertain,
yet not be constrained to the following :
• To successfully replicate the proposal, in Land-crunched cities,
whilst augmenting capacity or relieving congestion;
• To serve as an alternative solution to multi-directional , multi-
focal travel alignments in transient cities;
• To serve as a model for urban planning initiatives.

Selection of Area of
Interest: RCC
incorporated in Urban
Transport Planning
Identifying urban
transport scheme,
reconnaissance.
Identifying
shortcomings of existing
urban transport scheme
Incorporating
shortcomings of
previous work and
modifying the same to
define scope of present
project
Fact-Finding and Data-
acquisition i.e.
segregation into
parameters and
constants
Preliminary Planning
and Modeling.
(Iterative)
Special provisions for
expansion, structural
modifications etc.
Preliminary Analysis to
check accuracy of
Modeling.
Final Planning, Analysis
and RCC Design,
Approximate Estimate
Feasibilty?
Conclusion
PROJECT METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVE 1 : PLANNING
To upgrade the existing Station premises and its
surroundings or build a new Station into a world class
passenger terminal in a manner which ensures:
• Superior train operations (including allied services
e.g., parcel, posts etc.) affording greater flexibility
and enhanced operational efficiency for IR;
• Smoother and safer road traffic flow to and from the
station, superior road connectivity with the city and
adequate parking within the station premises;
• Better land utilization;

METHODOLOGY
Review of city master plans : CDP 2031 for Hubli-Dharwad and
future projections of growth.
Assessment of current Rail traffic and projections for the next 20
years
Assessment of Infrastructure requirements: Sectional and
terminal requirements.
Brief study of Norms for recommended level of amenities at
various categories of stations was undertaken.
Review the current terminal availability and problems associated
with the terminal operations.
Preliminary Reconnaissance and Survey was accomplished.
Re-assess the future capacity needs for the terminals in lieu of
constraints(operations, Feasibilty and benefits), plan and make
suitable provisions for future expansion.
EXPECTED OUTCOME : Preliminary location of different
elements, ascend/descend ramp lengths, transition elements,
access and circulation pattern, and cross-section

OUTCOMES
• Hubli is presently categorized as CATEGORY A1 type of station.
• Platform Lines : 05
• Stabling Lines : 04
• Pit-lines : 05
• Passenger Traffic : 14. 97crore (2011-2012)[1]
i.e. average traffic volume of 4,10,153 passenger neglecting peak season.
• YoY passenger traffic growth : 4.7-5.5 % for the last 5 years [2]
• Annual Passenger revenue : Rs 206.91 crore (2011-2012)
• Freight Traffic : 28.4679 million tonnes (2011-2012)
• Annual Freight revenue : Rs 1874.34 crore(2011-2012)
• Number of Trains handled : 082 trains / day (2011- 2012)
058 trains : Express/ Mail trains
024 trains : Passenger Trains
• Number of Destinations : 127
[1}IMaCs, “Comprehensive Traffic and Transportation Plan – Hubli-Dharwad 2009-2030” ,July 2010
[2] INDIAN RAILWAYS ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 2010-2011

LACUNAE IN CURRENT TERMINAL
• Ill- equipped to handle freight traffic and hence the same has been
shifted to Navalur Junction, situated 13.2 km from Hubli Railway
station.
• Ill-equipped to dedicate unoccupied corridor to freight trains.
• The critical operations ratio of Trains catered to hours served stands
highest at 7.38 for Wednesday and lowest at 5.433 for Friday , hinting
that at least 6 platforms are essentially required per hour, for
smooth operation of the Railway station.
• Thus ,Frequency and number of passenger trains cant be increased due
to lack of free platforms.
• No free tracks are available for through trains, interchanges etc.
• Connectivity of Platform Lines and Pit-lines is limited requiring
reversal of engines or change in alignment during departure.
• No further scope for horizontal expansion due to close proximity
with Railway workshop and present station-complex.

• At the present alignment, there is a bottleneck at the
entry and exit ends for the rail traffic as shown in the
map and added by the station master , let alone the
congestion experienced at the single entry and exit point
for the junction!
Constraint Bare Mimimum
Required [1]
Provided (as observed on
site)
Level of criticality
Platforms 6 5 Medium
Through-lines 4 2 High
Pit-lines 6 5 Low
Right of way 30 m from extreme track
[2]
6m (uptil Railway
workshop)
High
Dedicated Freight corridor 1 along each corridor 2 only at station premises
from one shunting neck to
another
Low
Table showing constraints at the present Hubli Junction terminal.
(Source : [1]: Ministry of Railways, GoI,” Comprehensive instructions for provision of Passenger Amenities at Stations including Model Stations”,June 2007
[2]: MoR,”Indian Railways works manual – 2000”, Amended 17/02/05 )

SPACE ALLOCATION (bare minimums)
• Nmax = Average no. of passenger at any time during peak including the inward
and outward passenger (excluding mela traffic)
= 14,70,000 (2031)
• Ndb = Design figure for number of passenger for ‘A1’&’A’ stations to be
calculated as Ndb = 0.3 (Nmax) = 4,41,000 (2031)
• 1. Booking Facility (No. of counters):1 window per 800 tickets per shift (shift
with maximum number of tickets sold should be taken)
• 2. Drinking water(No. of taps) No. of taps = Nmax/25.
• Taps should be distributed so that every alternate coach gets benefit of a tap
• 3. Waiting hall :1.394 Ndb sqm
• 4. Seating arrangement (No. of seats) : 0.4 Ndb
• 5. Platform shelter (on each PF) :0.28 Nmax
• 6. Urinals:Ndb/200
• 7. Latrines: Ndb/200
SOURCE: Ministry of Railways, GoI,” Comprehensive instructions for provision of Passenger Amenities at Stations including Model
Stations”,June 2007

THE PROPOSAL :
 STEP 1 : Divide the premises into two terminals :
• The first Terminal catering to existing trains where Hubli
is an intermediate station or junction.
• The second Terminal catering to destination specific
routes where either Hubli is the origin or final destination.
• This would lead to segregation of passenger traffic and
relieve rail lines so that they can serve the DEDICATED
FREIGHT CORRIDOR, apart from relieving congestion.
 STEP 2 : Propose a multi-level railway station at the
Terminal T2 which can have increased capacity at the
same land requirements as a surface level railway station.

BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF THE PROPOSAL

PROPOSED SITE
Coordinates : 15.346107, 75.169163
i.e. 15 ⁰ 20 ‘ 46 “ N , 75⁰ 10 ‘ 9 “ E
MAJOR USP of the site : This area is presently in non-signalled territory of South Western
Railway. Therefore, execution of work does not involve obstruction to running trains. In
Railway's parlance, this is almost a green field project, thus making the execution easier and
simpler.

LONGITUDINAL SECTION FOR
CHAINAGE OF 1410 M LENGTH
621.000
622.000
623.000
624.000
625.000
626.000
627.000
628.000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
ReducedLevels(m)
Chainage (m)
Longitudinal Section
L SECTION MINUS .45 M
Formation Level
Datum : Platform No 1,Hubli Railway Station, Floor level : 626.970 m
SURVEY SHEETrevised.xlsx

OUTCOMES OF PRELIMINARY SURVEY
Gradients adopted Gradually varying from 1:400 to 1:200 for
every 200m stretch.
Minimum displacement between proposed site
and existing station
1810 m
Minimum level difference available 5.630 m
Area of proposed site 98454 m2
Area considered for proposed development 59079 m2
Width of land available for proposed alignment
with minimal disturbance to present sidings
24m (min)
Volume of earthwork in cutting 90584m3

SALIENT FEATURES
• For each multilevel Facility:
No of Platforms served 08 nos IR guidelines
No of Slabs/ Levels 02 nos
Width of Each level 72 m
Length of Level = length of platform 480 m 250 m
Clear headroom of :
Circulation Space
Underground Platform Level
3.50 m (min)
5.20 m (min)
-
-
Width of platform:
Min
Max
4.00 m
23.00m
3.5m
-
Gross leasable Space
(.30) X (3) X (4)
10368 m2 -
Projected Cost
(@ Rs 37,500/m2)
(37,500X (2) X (3) X (4) )
Rs 259 crores
Cost of Land Acquisition in Tier I City
@ Rs 6000/sq ft
= Rs 223 crores

OBJECTIVE II : DESIGN
To comment on the technical and economic feasibility
of the proposal, via :
• Adoption of a replicable , safe and executable design
approach;
• Analysis of proposed structure under the effect of
static and Rolling Loads, employing STAAD.Pro;
• Design of structural members which can be subject to
modification in the future
• Approximate Estimation of the proposal.

ASSUMPTIONS
• The scope of Design will be restricted to the combination of
static loads and Earth pressure only.
• The present design is presented for a ascend/descend ramp of
only 1800m. Further modifications are subject to this parameter.
• To facilitate better circulation, Effective spans of main trussing
elements are fixed at 13.50 m, in order to align the supports
outside the zone of no obstruction.
• The design is constrained by use of such techniques which can
provide least possible disturbance to existing traffic operations.
• The design is employed for a module of 8 plat-form lines,
which can increase frequency of commuter trains from 3min to
30 sec.
• Class of loading is approximated to RDSO Bridge Rules 2008
for preliminary modeling.
• Further changes in the same will be made upon the scrutiny of
final engine and rake parameters as adopted by IR.

CONSTRAINTS
• The design incorporates founding in expansive soil
with :
Swelling Index : 70 %
Swelling pressure : 442 kN/m2[1]
• Geological profile;
• Economical Span (and Deflection Tolerance);
• Design Life ;
• Ease of Maintenance and Repair ;
• Ease of Execution;
• Direction of travel wrt axis of member;
• Need for Progressive Failure and High degree of
redundancy.
Source: [1]: N. K. Ameta, Associate Professor, M. B. M. Engineering College,J. N. V. University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India “Characteristics,
Problems and Remedies of Expansive Soils of Rajasthan, India”

METHODOLOGY
Study of pre-dominant load transfer mechanism and
preliminary load estimates
Literature survey of different structural forms.
Identification of pros and cons of each
Selection of structural form based on constraints(and
re-assess or suitably modify the plan to suit the
condition)
Modeling of Short-listed alternative in Revit
structures/ STAAD.Pro and Analysis of the same.
EXPECTED OUTCOME: Comparative study of
short-listed alternatives in terms of adequacy and
cost.

LITERATURE REVIEW
• The literature review is done with the purpose to strengthen the belief that multi-level
railway stations are a reality and being constructed in some parts of the world ;
• Also the literature review helped us foresee the problems related to Modeling,
Analysis and Design , whilst taking practical construction considerations into view.
• The literature reviewed are:
Paper 1 : Pál Gábor ,“Construction of metro line 4 in Budapest : General design of
kelenföld metro station.”,Concrete structures , pg 26-31, 2011 issue
Paper 2: Ing. R.M. van der Ploeg, ir. J. Dorreman and ir. J.C.W.M. de Wit, Adviesbureau
Noord/Zuidlijn / Royal Haskoning ,”North/South Line Amsterdam, Underground
station CS on Station Island – Complex building techniques on an artificial island” ,
Cement 2001 no. 3, pp 32-37
Paper 3: R.K. Gupta, Executive Director, Bridge & Structures, RDSO Economics of steel
bridges v/s Concrete bridges.

OUTCOMES OF LITERATURE REVIEW
• Such multi-level structures are adopted in conditions where tolerances for
damage to historic monuments and structures are low, where disruption of
train services is unacceptable during construction phase, and where multi-
directional services have to be added like North-South and East-West
alignments.
• Diaphragm wall is the preferred choice for earth retention as it can be
constructed easily and incorporated in the load transfer mechanism of the
structure.
• Diaphragm walls are essential to proceed with the cut and cover excavation
sequence of construction, which are provided with strutting at every 4m as the
excavation proceeds.
• Milanese method of constructing a top slab is essential for early re-instatement
of disrupted services.
• The structure invariably consists of a intermediate slab or box girder tunnels or
the usual portal frame arrangement restricted to only 2 tracks.
• The system is subjected to high swelling and uplift pressures and hence is
designed to be anchored to the strata using anchor piles and grout struts.

• Initial construction cost of PSC girder bridges is less.
• But after including operational and life cycle cost, steel girder bridges becomes
cheaper than that of PSC girder bridges. Hence, first merit about less initial
construction cost has no relevance.
• Maintenance is also required for PSC girder bridges. Keeping in view these aspects
only, corrosion protection, durability criteria etc drew significance and now are
being followed.
• Replacement of bearings in PSC bridges will not only incur extra expenditure but
will also dislocate the traffic. This will further result inconvenience to the public
and also cause revenue loss.
• Reserve stock for steel girder bridge can be maintained and its transportation is also
easier. Reserve stock of PSC girder is neither feasible nor easy since the
transportation is very difficult.
• In vulnerable location where chances of terrorist activities or washing away of the
bridge is expected, steel bridges are more preferable.
• In the zone of high traffic, steel bridges should invariably be provided which will
be cheaper than the PSC girder bridge, after considering operational cost.

STRUCTURAL FORMS
• The following structural forms are examined in brief in light of the
constraints mentioned before, keeping in purview the requirements
of railway structures:
• Box culvert;
• Diaphragm wall;
• Double T / I beam;
• U beam;
• Box girders;
• Noal type box girders;
• Portal Frame-type setups;
• Statically indeterminate bridge.

CONSTRUCTION CYCLE:
• Since the proposed site is situated in a rather soft strata
with negligible over-burden, it eliminates the use of
tunneling or blasting for excavation.
• The general method of construction involves the
installation of temporary walls to support the sides of the
excavation, a bracing system, control of ground water,
and underpinning of adjacent structures where necessary.
• In particular, CUT and COVER and COVER and CUT
construction technique is highlighted.
• However, the prominence of soft strata and heavy loads
could make the use of deep foundations a compulsion.

CUT and COVER TECHNIQUE:
Image showing the cut and cover technique being executed at Larissa Station, Greece, Athens Metro, courtesy: ATTIKO METRO S.A. Co.

COVER and CUT TECHNIQUE:
Image showing construction sequence for cover and cut technique
(Source: PB/Wong, Working Paper, Recommended Tunnel Construction Methods Study, Rev. 10, March 2004.)

COMPARISION
Parameter Cut and Cover Method Cover and Cut Method
Rate of Progress Slow Construction of retaining wall and
base-slab can only be started after
reaching final levels
Fast
Dewatering and
Influence of Ground
Water table
Frequent de-watering is required for
safer excavation and for construction of
retaining wall, water-proof base-slab etc
De-watering or bottom-plug is
required only for base-slab
Shoring and strutting Extensive shoring and strutting is
required in very unstable soil profiles
esp below GWT
Lesser or temporary strutting
is required.
No shoring is required.
Rate of re-instatement Slow Fast
Construction
Procedure
Relatively simple and straight-forward. Complex and requires higher
planning.

STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS / LOAD PATHS
• Sleepers > Stringer > Cross-Girder > Plate Girder
• Plate Girder > Portal Beam > Portal Columns >
Foundation
• Floor System > Tee Beams > Primary Beams >
Columns > Foundation
Rolling
Load Portal
Circulation
Space
Foundation

CHARACTERISTICS
1 Effective Span(m) 12.00
2 Clear Span(m) 11.50
3 Support Arrangement Continuous
4 Load Combinations 1.5 (DL + LL)
5 Dead Load 8 kN/m2
Sr
No.
LIVE LOAD CASES
1 Double Headed Diesel 25t Loco
2 Double Headed Electric 25t Loco
3 Electric Loco 22.5t(Bo-Bo Type)
4 Double Headed 25t Loco
5 Double Headed 22.5t Loco
6 Double Headed Diesel Loco with 32.5t Gondola Wagons
7 Double Headed Electric Loco with 32.5t Gondola Wagons
8 Electric Loco (Bo-Bo Type) with 32.5t Gondola Wagons
9 Double Headed 25t Loco with 32.5t Gondola Wagons
10 Double Headed 22.5t Loco with 32.5t Gondola Wagons

Source : RDSO,MoR,GoI, “Bridge rules specifying the loads for design of superstructure and substructure of
bridges and for assessment of strength of existing bridges”, 1964

HOW DID WE END UP WITH THE
OPTIMUM SPAN?

DESIGN RESPONSES OF
ROLLING LOAD ON PORTAL
FRAME PRIMARY BEAM
Sr.
No.
Span (m)
No of Girders
per track
End shear transmitted
by Plate girder on
Primary Beam
(kN)
Maximum
B.M. (kN-m)
Maximum
S.F. (kN)
1 12 2 2*800 7218 3354
2 12 4 2*450 8990 3754
3 10 2 2*750 6788 3154
4 10 4 2*380 8484 3194
5 8 2 2*600 5500 2554
6 8 4 2*305 6876 2594

STAAD.Pro ANALYSIS RESULTS
Load Combinations No of Load Repetitions
( at every 0.1m for a 44.00
m long unit)
Max B.M.
(kN-m)
Max S.F.
(kN)
Double Headed Diesel 25t Loco 442 1202.78 679.14
Double Headed Electric 25t Loco 442 1145.00 631.44
Electric Loco 22.5t(Bo-Bo Type) 442 970.30 538.18
Double Headed 25t Loco 442 1161.71 663.48
Double Headed 22.5t Loco 442 1374.70 726.12
Double Headed Diesel Loco with
Gondola Wagons
442 1742.91 815.82
Double Headed Electric Loco
with Gondola Wagons
442 1745.00 872.77
Electric Loco (Bo-Bo Type) with
Gondola Wagons
442 1742.91 945.38
Double Headed 25t Loco with
Gondola Wagons
442 1742.91 935.41
Double Headed 22.5t Loco with
Gondola Wagons
442 1745.00 952.50

ANALYSIS & DESIGN
Parameters
RDSO Bridge Rules -
2008
STAAD.Pro Analysis
1 Design Shear Force 800 kN 952.50 kN
2 Design Moments : Mzz 2135 kN-m 1745 kN-m
4 Dimensional Constraints Depth was restricted to 700mm
5 Structural Arrangement Continuous over Primary Beam
6
Maximum Limiting Displacement
(L/500 ) (mm)
24
7 Material Properties
 Fe 410 A/B/C for Structural steel sections
 M50 Concrete and 7-ply High Tensile strands
of 15.2mm diameter conforming to IS:6006 –
1983 for Pre-stressed Concrete Sections
D(mm) 700
Bf(mm) 500
Tf(mm) 50
Tw(mm) 30

PSC SECTION
Parameters
Grade of Concrete M50
Grade of Steel  Fe 415 HYSD for main reinforcement
 7-ply High Tensile strands of 15.2mm diameter
conforming to IS:6006 – 1983 for Pre-stressing tendons
No tensile stress is allowed at both Transfer and Working stage
Extra load due to Self-weight of girder as
compared to structural steel. (Considered as 40
kN/m for trial section)
480 kN
Corresponding increase in B.M. (kN-m) 480
Corresponding increase in S.F. (kN) 240
Design B.M. (kN-m) 2135 + 480 = 2615
Design S.F. (kN) 1193
Pre-stressing force, P (kN) 5269.62
Configuration of Prestressing cables  5 cables of 7K-15 type (7 strands of 15.2 mm diameter)
 Each Cable duct is of 65mm diameter.
Total depth (D) 1300 mm

ANALYSIS & DESIGN
1 Design Shear Force 3851 kN 4811 kN
2 Design Moments : Mzz 13642 kN-m 17047 kN-m
3 Grade of Steel Fe 410
4 Dimensional Constraints Depth was restricted to 1300mm
5 Structural Arrangement Partial to Full Fixity over Steel Stanchion
6 Maximum Displacement 23.6mm
7 Span/ Max Displacement 510 > 500
Primary Beam
Supporting
Structural
Steel Plate
Girder
PSC Girder
D(mm) 1300 1500
Bf(mm) 700 900
Tf(mm) 56 56
Tw(mm) 36 36

3. STEEL STANCHION AND CONCRETE
COLUMN

CHARACTERISTICS
Parameters Steel Stanchion RCC Column
1 Unsupported Length(m)
 8.50
 6.20
 8.50
 6.20
2 End Conditions
 Base Fixed with other end
Hinged
 Both Ends Hinged
 Base Fixed with other end
Hinged
 Both Ends Hinged
3 Effective Length(m)
 6.50
 5.00
 6.50
 5.00
4 Load Combinations  1.5 (DL + LL)  1.5 (DL + LL)
5
Minimum
Eccentricity
accounted for
Along X : ey
(mm)
100 # 42
Along Y : ex
(mm)
50 37
6 Lateral restraint
Braced using Tubular Section
of 600X600X10 mm
Braced using Tubular Section
of 600X600X10 mm
7 Material Properties Fe 4lOW A/B/C
M30 Concrete
Fe 415 reinforcement
# As per Cl 7.3.3.1, Pg 46 of IS 800:2007 “For the purpose of determining the stress in a stanchion or column section, the beam reactions or
similar loads shall be assumed to be applied at an eccentricity of 100 mm from the face of the section or at the centre of bearing whichever
dimension gives the greater eccentricity,…”

ANALYSIS OUTPUT
Beam L/C Node
Axial
Force
Shear-Y Shear-Z Torsion
Moment-
Y
Moment-
Z CATEGORY
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN-m) (kN-m)
6 1 7 4005.44 -26.213 130.956 -0.015 -525.80 -328.54 C-SS
19 1 19 3894.09 -24.842 130.957 0 -587.33 103.78 C-SS
9 1 10 3870.47 130.956 26.213 0.015 -25.34 1242.10 Cu -SS
For Moment resistant frame with Primary Beam loaded with Steel
Plate girder
For Moment resistant frame with Primary Beam loaded with PSC girder
Beam L/C Node
Axial
Force
Shear-Y Shear-Z Torsion
Moment-
Y
Moment-
Z CATEGORY
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN-m) (kN-m)
6 1 7 4965.497 -24.569 163.427 -0.015 -656.179 -307.804 C-PSC
19 1 19 4854.096 -23.267 163.428 0 -732.956 97.207 C-PSC
9 1 10 4830.521 163.427 24.569 0.015 -23.874 1550.084 Cu - PSC

Parameters Cu - SS C - SS Cu - PSC C - PSC
Cross-section I I I I
Unsupported Length
(L) (m)
5.00 8.50 5.00 8.50
Effective Length
(Leff) (m)
5.00 6.80 5.00 6.80
Eccentricity
accounted for
ey (mm) 100 100 100 100
ex (mm) 100 100 100 100
Design Axial Load (kN) 3880 4010 4840 4970
Design Muz (kN-m) 1250 590 1560 740
Design Muy (kN-m) 30 330 30 310
Additional Mu due to
eccentricity (kN-m)
Muz
(kN-m)
388 401 484 497
Muy
(kN-m)
200 200 200 200
Thickness of web (tw) (mm) 20 20 20 20
Width of flange (bf) (mm) 700 750 750 800
Overall depth (D) (mm) 700 750 800 800
Thickness of Flange (tf) (mm) 36 40 40 45

Parameters Cu - SS C - SS Cu - PSC C - PSC
Cross-section Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular
Unsupported Length (L) (m) 5.00 8.50 5.00 8.50
Effective Length (Leff) (m) 5.00 6.80 5.00 6.80
Eccentricity
ey (mm) 100 100 100 100
ex (mm) 35 45.33 38.33 38.33
Design Axial Load (kN) 4000 4150 4960 5120
Design Muz (kN-m) 1250 590 1560 740
Design Muy (kN-m) 30 330 30 310
Additional Mu
due to
eccentricity
(kN-m) #
Muz
(kN-m)
400 415 496
512
Muy
(kN-m)
140 80 190
92
Width of column (b) (mm) 800 800 850 850
Overall depth of column (D)(mm) 800 800 850 850
Area of Steel provide (Ast)(mm2)
11781
24 bars of #25
mm
11781
24 bars of #25
mm
13037.61
24 bars of #25 mm
+
13037.61
24 bars of #25
mm +

DESIGN RESPONSES
Designation Span
(m)
B.M.
(kN-m)
S.F.
(kN)
P1 12 5587 2369
P2 12 3757 1639
S1 9.70 1051 433
S2 8.75 855 391
S3 5.25 378 288

SECTIONS
Designation P1 P2
D 1000 900
Bf 600 600
Tf 50 36
Tw 32 25
Section
No of Sections per
Portal
4 16

Designation S1 S2 S3
D (mm) 600 600 450
Bf (mm) 2000 2000 2500
Tf (mm) 150 150 150
Tw (mm) 450 450 300
Ast 14 bars of #25mm
8 bars of #20mm
+
6 bars of #25mm
8 bars of #20mm
+
2 bars of #16mm
Section
No of Sections per
Portal
14 36 14

CHARACTERISTICS
Parameters
C1
(Corner
Column)
C2 C3 C4 C5
C6
(Corner
Column)
1
Unsupported
length (m)
8.50
8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50
2
End
Conditions
Base Fixed
with other
end Hinged
Base Fixed
with other
end Hinged
Base Fixed
with other
end Hinged
Base Fixed
with other
end Hinged
Base Fixed
with other
end Hinged
Base Fixed
with other
end Hinged
3
Loading
Combination
s
1.5 (DL +
LL)
1.5 (DL +
LL)
1.5 (DL +
LL)
1.5 (DL +
LL)
1.5 (DL +
LL)
1.5 (DL +
LL)
4
Effective
Length
6.80
6.80 6.80 6.80 6.80 6.80
5
Material
Properties
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
6 Cross-section
I Section
Or
I Section
Or
I Section
Or
I Section
Or
I Section
Or
I Section
Or

Parameters
C7
(Corner
Column)
C8 C9
C10
(Corner Column)
1
Unsupported
length (m)
6.20
6.20 6.20 6.20
2 End Conditions
Both Ends
Hinged
Both Ends
Hinged
Both Ends
Hinged
Both Ends
Hinged
3
Loading
Combinations
1.5 (DL + LL) 1.5 (DL + LL) 1.5 (DL + LL) 1.5 (DL + LL)
4 Effective Length 6.20
6.20 6.20 6.20
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
Fe 410
Or
M30,
Fe415
6 Cross-section
I Section
Or
Rectangular
I Section
Or
Rectangular
I Section
Or
Rectangular
I Section
Or
Rectangular

DESIGN : STRUCTURAL STEEL SECTIONS
Parameters C1 = C6 C2 = C5 C3 = C4 C7 = C8 C9 = C10
Cross-section I I I I I
Unsupported Length (L) (m) 8.50 8.50 8.50 6.20 6.20
Effective Length (Leff) (m) 6.80 6.80 6.80 6.20 6.20
Eccentricity
ey (mm) 500 500 500 500 500
ex (mm) 100 100 100 100 100
Design Axial Load (kN) 6850 8500 3500 3500 3200
Design Muz (kN-m) 350 550 400 650 550
Design Muy (kN-m) 180 110 10 180 110
Additional Mu
due to eccentricity
(kN-m)
Muz (kN-m) 510 720 440 510 470
Muy (kN-m) 120 80 80 200 200
Thickness of web (tw) (mm) 25 28 20 25 25
Width of flange (bf) (mm) 700 700 500 750 700
Overall depth (D) (mm) 900 1000 750 750 700
Thickness of Flange (tf) (mm) 36 36 28 40 36
Outstand of flange (b) (mm) 337.5 336 240 362.5 336
Depth of web (d)(mm) 828 928 694 670 628

Parameters C1 = C6 C2 = C5 C3 = C4 C7 = C8 C9 = C10
Cross-section Rect Rect Rect Rect Rect
Unsupported Length (L) (m) 8.50 8.50 8.50 6.20 6.20
Effective Length (Leff) (m) 6.80 6.80 6.80 6.20 6.20
Eccentricity
ey (mm) 500 500 500 500 500
ex (mm) 42 42 37 42 42
Design Axial Load (kN) 7100 8500 3500 3500 3200
Design Muz (kN-m) 350 550 400 650 550
Design Muy (kN-m) 180 110 10 180 110
Additional
Mu due to
eccentricity
(kN-m) #
Muz (kN-m) 720 440 440 470 440
Muy (kN-m) 360 150 80 150 135
Width of column (b) (mm) 750 750 600 750 750
Overall depth of column (D)
(mm)
750 900 750 750 750
Area of Steel provide (Ast)
(mm2)
10799.25
22 bars of #25
mm
12271.88
24 bars of #25 mm
+
2 bars of # 20 mm
8835.75
18 bars of #25
mm
10799.25
22 bars of #25
mm
10799.25
22 bars of #25
mm
DESIGN : RCC SECTIONS

CHARACTERISTICS
Sr No Parameters
1 Predominant Soil Type Expansive clay with silt content
2 Founding Level (m) (wrt G.L.) -8.40
3 S.B.C at Founding Level (Saturated state) (kN/m2) 150
4 Modulus of Elasticity (kN/m2) (IS 8009-1976) 15000
5 Poisson’s Ratio (µ) (IS 8009-1976) 0.4
6 Influence Factor (IS 8009-1976) 1.06
7
Maximum Permissible Settlement (∆) (mm) (IS 1904-
1986)
50
8 Swelling Index 70 %
9 Swelling pressure (kN/m2) 442
M30 Concrete
Fe 415 Reinforcement

SCHEMES USED FOR EVALUATION
Circulation Space Portal Train Load Portal
Variables
Scheme
Primary Beam
Compression
Member
Girder Primary Beam
Compression
Member
1 SS SS SS SS SS
2 SS SS SS SS RCC
3 SS SS PSC SS SS
4 SS SS PSC SS RCC
5 SS RCC SS SS SS
6 SS RCC SS SS RCC
7 SS RCC PSC SS SS
8 SS RCC PSC SS RCC
Where SS : Structural Steel section
RCC : Reinforced Cement Concrete section
PSC : Pre-stressed Concrete sections

ANALYSIS RESULTS
Axial Force -
X
Axial
Force -Y
Shear-
Z
Moment-
X
Moment-
Y
Moment-
Z CATEGORY
Node L/C (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN-m) (kN-m)
WHEN STRUCTURAL STEEL IS USED FOR COMPRESSION MEMBERS
24.00 3.00 -88.23 8403.37 -19.15 -53.00 0.00 227.86 C2 FOOTING
29.00 3.00 -85.98 7760.52 15.47 43.08 0.00 220.21 C5 FOOTING
21.00 3.00 -55.81 6839.59 28.98 84.01 0.00 150.64 C1 FOOTING
32.00 3.00 -52.90 6194.19 -25.21 -72.28 0.00 141.53 C6 FOOTING
25.00 3.00 -62.73 3161.17 -1.53 -4.20 0.00 162.91 C3 FOOTING
28.00 3.00 -62.74 3157.63 1.26 3.58 0.00 162.92 C4 FOOTING
WHEN RCC IS USED FOR COMPRESSION MEMBERS
24.00 3.00 -73.23 8645.44 -19.09 -53.73 -0.04 207.50 C2 FOOTING
29.00 3.00 -68.90 8007.63 13.15 36.72 -0.16 194.86 C5 FOOTING
21.00 3.00 -41.27 7068.68 32.72 97.58 -0.05 118.85 C1 FOOTING
32.00 3.00 -37.45 6430.58 -26.38 -78.49 -0.06 107.84 C6 FOOTING
25.00 3.00 -49.15 3300.11 -3.52 -9.99 0.05 138.77 C3 FOOTING
28.00 3.00 -55.87 3275.80 2.99 8.34 -0.04 155.26 C4 FOOTING
Table depicting support reaction of the Circulation space portal and their variation upon the adoption of structural steel
and RCC compression member

Table depicting support reaction of the Train Load portal and their variation upon the adoption of structural steel and
PSC girders, Whilst using structural steel compression members
Axial
Force -X
Axial
Force -Y
Shear-Z Moment-X Moment-Y Moment-Z
CATEGORY
WHEN STRUCTURAL STEEL IS USED FOR GIRDER
13 1 1780.11 8258.6 253.84 1203.19 60.45 -187.74
BRACING SYSTEM
FOOTING
21 1 24.41 4157.24 130.96 525.81 0 -308.48 COLUMN FOOTING
WHEN PSC SECTION IS USED FOR GIRDER
13 1 1789.72 9218.44 291.79 1355.95 42.61 -199.72
BRACING SYSTEM
FOOTING
21 1 22.85 5117.19 163.43 656.19 0 -288.9 COLUMN FOOTING
Table depicting support reaction of the Train Load portal and their variation upon the adoption of structural steel and
PSC girders, Whilst using RCC compression members
Axial
Force -X
Axial
Force -Y
Shear-Z
Moment-
X
Moment-
Y
Moment-
Z CATEGORY
WHEN STRUCTURAL STEEL IS USED FOR GIRDER
13 1 1780.11 8108.6 253.84 1203.19 60.45 -187.74
BRACING SYSTEM
FOOTING
21 1 24.41 4007.24 130.96 525.81 0 -308.48 COLUMN FOOTING
WHEN PSC SECTION IS USED FOR GIRDER
13 1 1789.72 9068.44 291.79 1355.95 42.61 -199.72
BRACING SYSTEM
FOOTING
21 1 22.85 4967.19 163.43 656.19 0 -288.9 COLUMN FOOTING

Table depicting variation in support reactions with varying schemes for the Footing F1.
Scheme
Maximum Axial Load
Fy(kN)
Maximum Axial
Load
Fx(kN)
Moment-X
(kN-m)
Moment-Z
(kN-m)
1 19860 1800 1261 579
2 20010 1800 1231 519
3 20820 1800 1413 681
4 20970 1800 1383 612
5 20260 1800 1268 551
6 20410 1800 1240 490
7 21220 1800 1420 653
8 21370 1800 1360 594
Table depicting variation in support reactions with varying schemes for the Footing F2.
Scheme
Maximum Axial Load
(kN)
Moment-X
(kN-m)
Moment-Z
(kN-m)
1 6840 85 151
2 6840 85 151
3 6840 85 151
4 6840 85 151
5 7100 98 120
6 7100 98 120
7 7100 98 120
8 7100 98 120

ANALYSIS & DESIGN
Sr No Parameters
Footing F1
(Isolated)
Footing F2
(Strip)
1 Maximum Axial Load (kN) 7100 21370
2 Mzz (kN-m) 151 681
3 Mxx (kN-m) 98 1420
4 Size of Footing (m) 7.0 * 7.3 13.0 * 10.0
5 Depth of Footing (m) 1.1 2.75
6 Ast Provided
Fe 415 #16 @ 100 mm
c/c in X & Z
 Fe 415 #20 @ 100 mm c/c in
Z upto z= 3.00m
 Fe 415 #20 @ 150 mm c/c in
Z from z=3.00m to z=13.00m
 Fe 415 #16 @ 100 mm c/c in
X.

FATIGUE ASSESSMENT
• Fatigue assessment is not normally required for building structures except as follows:
• Members supporting lifting or rolling loads,
• Member subjected to repeated stress cycles from vibrating machinery,
• Members subjected to wind induced oscillations of a large number of cycles in life, and
• Members subjected to crowd induced oscillations of a large number of cycles in life.
• Hence, it becomes imperative for this study to encapsulate the fatigue assessment of the various
structural components subjected to rolling loads and oscillations.
Design Life(1) 60 years
Operational Days in a year (2) 365 days
Operational hours per day per railway track (3) 20 hours ( 5am to 1am)
No of trips per hour per railway track (4) 3
Design stress cycles per railway track (1X2X3X4) 1.314 X 10^6 Cycles

FATIGUE ASSESSMENT RESULT
Parameters Plate Girder Primary Beam Upper Column Lower Column
Cross-section Welded I Welded I Welded I Welded I
Elastic Section Modulus
(Zez) (mm3) 22709524 67775815 23235200 27172796
Design B.M. (kN-m) 2135 17047 2044 1237
Design S.F. (kN) 953 4811 200 450
Actual Number of Stress Cycles
(Nsc)
1.314 X 10^6 2.628 X 10^6 2.628 X 10^6 2.628 X 10^6
Detail Category (= ffn = Tfn ) 92 92 92 92
Design Fatigue strength in flexure
(ff) (N/mm2)
156.05 126.90 126.90 126.90
Actual Maximum stresses due to
design B.M
(fmax= B.M./Zez) (N/mm2)
62.67 111.787 58.65 30.34
Design Fatigue strength in shear (Tf)
(N/mm2)
120.20 104.63 104.63 104.63
Actual Maximum stresses due to
design S.F.
(Tmax= V/d*tw) (N/mm2)
104.51 89.99 13.88 31.69
Design Life
( if design is optimized so that fmax =
ff )
(years)
474 84 580 4100

COMMENTS
• The least design life if the design is optimized is obtained for the
Primary Beam section. Thus, the least service life of the structure
is 84 years.
• The assumed design life of the structure is 60 years < 84 years,
and hence the design is on the conservative side.
• If elaborate arrangements are made to replace only the primary
beams every 80 years, then optimum utilization of the various
structural components can be accomplished.
• However, this would lead to disruption in normal functioning of
the terminal for at least 180 days, EVERY 80 YEARS.

ESTIMATION : RESOURCE AND
FINANCES
REFERENCE : “Schedule of Rates : 2012-2013”. PW,
P&IWT Dept, Dharwad Circle, Dharwad.

SCHEMES USED FOR FINANCIAL
EVALUATION
Circulation Space Portal Train Load Portal
Variables
Scheme
Primary
Beam
Compression
Member
Girder Primary Beam
Compression
Member
1 SS SS SS SS SS
2 SS SS SS SS RCC
3 SS SS PSC SS SS
4 SS SS PSC SS RCC
5 SS RCC SS SS SS
6 SS RCC SS SS RCC
7 SS RCC PSC SS SS
8 SS RCC PSC SS RCC
Where SS : Structural Steel section
RCC : Reinforced Cement Concrete section
PSC : Pre-stressed Concrete sections

A. CONSTANT ITEMS : APPROACH + DESCENT RAMP,
EARTHWORK IN EXCAVATION, EARTH RETAINING SYSTEM & FLOOR
SYSTEM
Earthwork including
refilling, compaction
with moorum
(Mechanical Means)
M30 grade Concrete TMT Fe 415 bars
(Supplying, Cutting and
Placing)
53 mm Nominal size
Railway Ballast
INR 171 / cum INR 5000 / cum INR 63000/ Tonne INR 1000 / cum

B. VARIABLE SCHEMES : SCHEME 1
Description Material
Cross
Sectional
Area
(mm2)
No of
Sections
Length
Of
Section
Density
Total
Quantity
Unit of
Measuremen
t
Rate/Measurement
(INR)
Total Rate
(10% wastage
included)
(INR Crore)
CIRCULATION SPACE PORTAL
Compression
Members
SS
664428.0
0
12.00 7350.00 7850.00 460.03 Tonne 70000.00 3.54
∑ 3.54
TRAIN LOAD PORTAL
Girder SS
272000.0
0
2.00
44000.0
0
7850.00 187.90 Tonne 70000.00 1.45
Primary Beams
(Supporting
SS Girder )
SS 121168 10 13500 7850.00 128.41 Tonne 70000 0.99
Compression Members
(When PB is
supporting
SS PG)
SS 125920 10 5000 7850.00 49.42 Tonne 70000 0.38
SS 146800 10 8500 7850.00 97.95 Tonne 70000 0.75
∑ 3.57

B. VARIABLE SCHEMES : SCHEME 3
Description Material
Cross
Sectional
Area
(mm2)
No of
Section
s
Length
Of
Section
Density Total Quantity
Unit of
Measurement
Rate/Measurement
(INR)
Total Rate
(10% wastage
included)
(INR Crore)
CIRCULATION SPACE PORTAL
Compression
Members
SS 664428 12.00 7350 7850.00 460.03 Tonne 70000.00 3.54
∑ 3.54
TRAIN LOAD PORTAL
Girder
Concrete
M30
2146120 2 44000 2500.00 188.86 m3 5000.00 0.09
PSC
Pre-stressing
Tendons
(5nos)
19600 2 52000 7850.00 16.00 Tonne 70000.00 0.12
Primary Beams
(When
supporting
PSC girder)
SS 143568 10 13500 7850.00 152.15 Tonne 70000.00 1.17
Compression Members
When PB is
supporting
PSC PG
SS 148800 10 5000 7850.00 58.40 Tonne 70000.00 0.45
SS 172400 10 8500 7850.00 115.03 Tonne 70000.00 0.89
∑ 2.72

SUMMARY :
Length of Circulation Space Portal Units (Ls)=60.00m
Length of Train Load Portal Units (Lt)=44.00 m
Scheme
Particulars
(1)
Length of
Terminal
(L) (m)
(2)
No of
Circulation
Space Portal
Units
(3)
Construction Cost per
Circulation
Space Portal unit
(INR Crore)
(4)
No of
Train
Load
Portal
Units
(5)
Construction
Cost per Train
Load Portal
unit
(INR Crore)
(6)
Total Portal
Units
Construction
Cost
(INR Crore)
((3)*(4) +
(5)*(6))
Scheme 1 550.00 9.00 3.54 13.00 3.57 78.27
Scheme 2 550.00 9.00 3.54 13.00 2.69 66.83
Scheme 3 550.00 9.00 3.54 13.00 2.72 67.22
Scheme 4 550.00 9.00 3.54 13.00 1.68 53.70
Scheme 5 550.00 9.00 0.73 13.00 3.57 52.98
Scheme 6 550.00 9.00 0.73 13.00 2.69 41.54
Scheme 7 550.00 9.00 0.73 13.00 2.72 41.93
Scheme 8 550.00 9.00 0.73 13.00 1.68 28.41
Table depicting scheme-wise variation in Construction cost of portal units only per terminal.

Scheme
Particulars
(1)
Total Portal
Units
Construction
Cost
(INR Crore)
(2)
Cost of
Embankment
i.e. Ascend and
Descend
Ramps
(INR Crore)
(3)
Extra Cost of
Embankment
due to
increase in
Formation
Level
(INR Crore)
(4)
Cost of
Earthwork in
Excavation
(INR Crore)
(5)
RCC works
(Tee Floor
System +
Retaining
Wall)
(INR Crore)
(6)
Total Construction
Cost
(INR Crore)
((2)+(3)+(4)+(5)+(
6))
Scheme 1 78.27 16.32 0 1.99 17.18 113.76
Scheme 2 66.83 16.32 0 1.99 17.18 102.32
Scheme 3 67.22 16.32 0.99 1.99 17.18 103.70
Scheme 4 53.70 16.32 0.99 1.99 17.18 90.18
Scheme 5 52.98 16.32 0 1.99 17.18 88.47
Scheme 6 41.54 16.32 0 1.99 17.18 77.03
Scheme 7 41.93 16.32 0.99 1.99 17.18 78.41
Scheme 8 28.41 16.32 0.99 1.99 17.18 64.89
Table depicting scheme-wise variation in Total Construction cost of each Terminal of the Multi-level Station.

HOLISTIC APPROACH TOWARDS
ESTIMATION
• Though it was anticipated that Construction adopting pure Structural steel sections, will be an
expensive proposition as compared to a RCC alternative, the reduced construction cycles and hence
faster rate of reinstatement of services due to the former cannot be neglected.
• Hence, a holistic approach is adopted to paint a rather practical picture of the variation in cost
pertaining to different construction schemes, taking in account even the loss in revenue due to
disruption in services and probable passenger revenue.
• To undertake the same, the following assumptions with respect to the construction cycles is considered :
1. Construction is undertaken piece-wise, executing each Circulation space portal unit ( L=60.00m)
and Train Load Portal unit (L=44.00m) in a single sequence;
2. Erection of Steel sections is undertaken in a single, continuous operation, with maximum length
of member being 9.00 m
3. Each lift of concrete pour for the compression members can be placed for a maximum member
height of 4.50m per 12 hours (> Final setting time of Concrete). For eg : A 8.00 m high column can
only be poured in 2 successive pours, each of 4.00 m height.
4. A Pres-stressed section, can undertake erection stresses only after 7days post casting.
5. The daily revenue of the Hubli-SWR division is Rs 60 lakhs/ day during the financial year 2011-
2012. It is assumed that due to disruption in services, nearly 50% of the passenger traffic is
shifted to the other transit systems like air-travel, bus services, taxi services, private
transportation etc.

Scheme
Particulars
(1)
Total
Construction
Cost
(INR Crore)
(2)
Delay in Construction Cycle
(considering Scheme 1 as the datum)
(days)
Total delay
in
Constructio
n Cycle
(days)
Loss due to
delay in
resumption of
services @
INR 0.30
Crore /day
(INR Crore)
Total
Holistic
Cost
(INR
Crore)
Circulation
Space Portal
Train Load Portal
Erection of
columns
Erection of
girders
Erection
of
columns
Scheme 1 113.76 0 0 0 0 0 113.76
Scheme 2 102.32 0 0 39 39 11.7 114.02
Scheme 3 103.7 0 78 0 78 23.4 127.10
Scheme 4 90.18 0 78 39 117 35.1 125.28
Scheme 5 88.47 27 0 0 27 8.1 96.57
Scheme 6 77.03 27 0 39 66 19.8 96.83
Scheme 7 78.41 27 78 0 105 31.5 109.91
Scheme 8 64.89 27 78 39 144 43.2 108.09

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE
PROJECT
Maximum Cost
(Scheme 3)
Minimum Cost
(Scheme 5)
Basic Structural Cost
Per terminal (A)
(INR Crores)
127.1 96.57
Cost of providing Floor Finishes, Partition
Work, HVAC, MEP, etc
Assume 40% of (A)
(B) (INR Crores)
50.84 38.63
Security and Surveillance Costs
Assume 5% of (A+B)
(C) (INR Crores)
8.9 6.76
TOTAL PROJECT COST
(P) = 1.1(A+B+C)
(include 10% Contractor’s Profit)
(INR Crores)
206 157
Total Area Developed
(T) (m2)
550 m * 66 m * 2 levels
= 72600
Cost of Development (INR/sqft)
(D) = P * 10^7 / (T *3.281*3.281) 2400 1650

• Since, the project dealt with enhancing the capacity of an existing Railway
station, thus the additional capacity added is 50% of the total new capacity,
OR
• Actual cost of development of additional capacity = 2 * Cost of development of
Total capacity
• Thus, Cost of Development = 2 * 2400
= INR 4800 /sqft
• Considering the cost of development of a conventional Railway station as INR
600/sqft
• Thus, Actual Cost of Development = INR (4800-600) = INR 4200/sqft.
Thus, the project is economically a better alternative in all
cases wherever capacity augmentation necessitates the
acquisition of land costing INR 4200 / sqft or more.

MULTILEVEL PLATFORMS
CROSS SECTIONS

WHY VENTILATION???
• Ventilation and Circulation are paramount in under-
ground structures owing to the claustrophobic feeling
which these structures can induce. Thus, we would aim
to improve the travel experience by:
• Maintaining a comfortable ambience With respect to the
temperature, luminance and aesthetics;
• Facilitating cross-circulation via responsive planning;
• To aid in faster dispersion of smoke
(inconducive/uncomfortable stimuli) in case of
emergencies.

CONSTRAINTS
• Ventilation openings are to be provided at least 5m away from
buildings and 3m above pedestrian level.
• Ventilation openings must be raised above possible flood level .
• Inlets and outlets must be at least 5m away to avoid exhausted air
not to be drawn back to the system
• Minimum air delivery should be 30000 cfm per outlet
• Minimum diameter of suction pipe should be 20 inches.

Full Transverse Ventilation
Reverse Action Jet Fan Longitudinal Fans Placed

FEATURES ADOPTED
• Full transverse and longitudinal ventilation has been adopted keeping
in the mind the amount of exhaust air produced in tunnel.
• Adopting 40 inch diameter fans for railway tunnels considering the
total heat released due to diesel locomotives.
• For longitudinal ventilation 3 fans spaced at 50m ,have been placed
at both ends of tunnel.
• Jet fans are to be used working at volumetric rate of 8.9m^3/s with
a flow velocity of 34m/s.
• Maximum motor for 40inch diameter is 35kw having a motor speed
of 1440rpm.
• Reversible fans (in case of emergency) have been adopted

• For transverse ventilation , the duct height has to be 2m above the
structure.
• Transverse ventilation at every 100m-150 m spacing having same
fan capacity as that of longitudinal fans, are provided.
• With these ventilation properties smoke can be withdrawn from the
tunnel in 90s.
• Automatic detectors to be used @ an interval of 70m.

SPRINKLER
• For tunnels up to 500m , Sprinklers are provided at every 4m
interval.
• Discharge rate of sprinkle is 2.8 to 3.5mm/min per sprinkler.
• At every 50m ,1 sprinkler of discharge density 35mm/ min is
provided for extreme cases.
• With this set up it is possible to control the fire spread over a plan
area of 12x30m in 3-4 mins.

CONCLUSION
• All the 8 schemes are both technically and financially feasible (during the financial
year 2012-13);
• Scheme 1 comprising of structural steel sections used for fabrication of
compression members, girders, and primary beam is the most expensive, but has
the least construction period and highest salvage value.
• This scheme can be adopted if the cost of land acquisition exceeds INR 4200/sqft.
• Scheme 5 comprising of structural steel sections used for fabrication of primary
beams, girders, primary beam and compression members of Train Load portal and
RCC section for compression member of Circulation space portal, works out to be
the cheapest alternative and has an intermediate salvage value, moderately high
construction period.
• This scheme can be readily adopted if the cost of land acquisition exceeds INR
2700/sqft.

• Scheme 8 comprising of structural steel sections used for fabrication of primary
beams, RCC sections for compression members and PSC section for the girder
seems to have the lowest construction cost. However, owing to complex and
cumbersome construction cycles leading to disruption in services and slowest
rate of reinstatement of services, the total cost of the proposal is on par with that
of Scheme, with a high uncertainty in quality assurance and project scheduling.
• Scheme 1 is the fastest in terms of execution time and least complex in
construction methodology.
• Scheme 8 is the slowest in terms of execution time and the most complex in
terms of construction methodology.
• Other intermediate schemes can as well be adopted depending on the financial,
technical and time constraints.
• All the members designed have a utilization ratio in the range of 0.72-0.77 and
thus a reserve strength of at least 23%.

FUTURE SCOPE
• Analysis incorporating secondary effects and support settlement;
• Effect of residual stresses generated during erection, manufacturing etc on the
design process;
• Analysis of transfer of responses at connections.
• Validating design of Connections and splices with experimental results for
Concrete-Steel Connections;
• Analysis under dynamic loads : EQ, Blast Loads, Vibration loads;
• Further iterations with higher grade of materials (M50,M60 for columns, Fe
550 for structural steel);
• Design of appropriate construction cycle for faster rate of reinstatement.

REFERENCES
• Plain Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice, IS 456:2000, Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
• Code of Practice For Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake)for Buildings And Structures, Is 875 :1987 Part1 Dead Loads
,Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
• Code of Practice For Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake)for Buildings And Structures, Is 875 :1987 Part2 Imposed
Loads ,Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi
• General Construction In Steel - Code Of Practice, IS 800:2007, Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi
• Ductile Detailing Of Reinforced Concrete Structures Su'bjected To Seismic Forces - Code of Practice, IS 13920:1993,
Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi
• Handbook For Structural Engineers,structural Steel Sections, SP 6(1):1964, Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi
• Design Aid To Reinforced Concrete To IS 456-2000, SP 16:1980, Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi
• Handbook on Concrete Reinforcement And Detailing, SP 34:1987, Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
• Code of Practice For Prestressed Concrete, Is 1343:1980, Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi
• Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlements of Foundations , Part 1 - Shallow Foundations Subjected to Symmetrical
Static Vertical Loads, Part 2 - Deep Foundations Subjected to Symmetrical Static Vertical Loading, IS 8009:1976
• Steel Tables- S. Ramamrutham, Dhanapat Rai Publishing Company(p)ltd
• Economics Of Steel Bridges V/S Concrete Bridges, R.K. Gupta, Executive Director, Bridge & Structures, RDSO, Lucnow
• USAGE PATTERN OF JET FANS FOR VENTILATION OF RAILWAY TUNNELS, Gendler S.G., Sokolov V.A., Savenkov
E.A., Russia. St. Petersburg State Mining University
• “Safety In Railway Tunnels - Requirements For Lighting.”, Railway Group Standard GI/RT7019 , Issue One, Date
December 2007
• Active Fire Protection In Tunnels ISTSS 2010 , Fourth International Symposium On Tunnel Safety And Security, Frankfurt
Am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
• Tom Paige, Outdoor Noise Barriers:design And Applications, Kinetics Noise Control, Inc.Mississauga, Ontario

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS : VII SEM
Particulars Tentative start Time Required
Initial Brain-storming August 28th, 2012 10 days
Reconnaissance:
Identification of short-comings of
Existing railway station,
Interaction with stake-holders,
Railway Officials.
September 7th, 2012 15 days
Problem Formulation September 9th , 2012 04 days
Procurement of Civil drawings, Study
of Modernization plans and DPR
Preliminary Survey : Leveling and
Area Computation and transfer to
AutoCAD
Literature Survey September 25th , 2012 05 days
Preliminary Planning September 28th , 2012 15 days
Final planning conforming to RDSO
standards
October 20th , 2012 30 days
Interaction with Sr DEN , SWR and
scrutiny of final plans
November 25th ,2012 7 days

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS : VIII SEM
Particulars Tentative start Time Required
Parameters for Design : Study of
execution and construction
patterns.
January 21st , 2013 10 days
Adoption of appropriate Design
Process, study of Codal
Provisions
February 1st , 2013 10 days
Analysis : Iteration with different
Load cases
February 10th , 2013 15 days
Feed-back and brainstorming February 18th, 2013 02 days
Design of structural elements
(Iterative)
February 20th, 2013 35 days
Modeling of Proposed Structure
in Revit Structures (Iterative)
February 22nd, 2013 10 days
Technical Feasibilty April 22th , 2013 15 days
Approximate estimate April 25th , 2013 04 days

Grievance redressal of Hubli railway station : A multistorey approach

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Grievance redressal of Hubli railway station : A multistorey approach

Similar to Grievance redressal of Hubli railway station : A multistorey approach (20)

More from Nishanth Patil

More from Nishanth Patil (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Grievance redressal of Hubli railway station : A multistorey approach