NOTIFICATION NO.

53 dated the 28 May 2009

Subject: Amendments to Clause No. 202.3, 208, 209.7, 218.5 and 222 of IRC:6-2000 “Standard Specifications
and Code of Practice for Road Bridges” Section : II Loads and Stresses (Fourth Revision)

Fourth Revision of IRC:6-2000 “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges” Section :
II Loads and Stresses was published in December, 2000 and reprinted in April 2006 incorporating uptodate amend-
ments till that time.

The Indian Roads Congress has decided to further amend the above document. Accordingly, the
Amendment No.8 is hereby notified.

These amendments shall be effective from the 1 June 2009.

(R.P. Indoria)
Secretary General

Encl: As above

Clause No. For Read

202.3 The load combination shown in Table 1
shall be adopted for working out the stress-
es in members. The permissible increases of
stresses in various members due to these com-
binations are also indicated therein. These
combinations of forces are not applicable for
working out base pressure on foundations for
which provisions made in relevant IRC Bridge
Code shall be adopted.
The load combination shown in Table 1 shall be
adopted for working out the stresses in the mem-
bers. The permissible increase of stresses in mem-
bers. The permissible increase of stresses in vari-
ous members due to these combinations are also
indicated therein. These combinations of forces
are not applicable for working out base pressure
on foundations for which provisions made in rel-
evant IRC Bridge Code shall be adopted. For cal-
culating stresses in members using working stress
method of design the load combination as shown
in Table 1 shall be adopted.

The load combination as shown in Appendix 3

shall be adopted for working out the stresses in
members using limit state design approach.

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 91

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

208 Note: However, it should be ensured that the Note: However, it should be ensured that the re-
reduced longitudinal effects are not less sever duced longitudinal effects are not less severe than
than the longitudinal effect, resulting from the longitudinal effect, resulting from simulta-
simultaneous load on two adjacent lanes. neous load on two adjacent lanes. Longitudinal
effects mentioned above are bending moment,
shear force and torsion.
209.7 P-1 Normal Bridges carrying 15kN vehicle P-1 Normal Bridges carrying 150 kN vehicle
Containment Expressway, or at 110 km/h Containment Expressway, or at 110 km/h
equivalent and 200 equivalent and 20o angle of
angle of impact
impact
P-2 Low Con- All other bridges 15kN vehicle P-2 Low Con- All other bridges 150 kN vehicle
tainment except bridge at 80 km/h tainment except bridge at 80 km/h and
over railways and 20o over railways 20o angle of
angle of impact
impact
P-3 High Con- At hazardous 30kN vehicle P-3 High At hazardous and 300kN vehicle
tainment and high risk at 60 km/h Containment high risk loca- at 60 km/h and
locations, over and 20o tions, over busy 20o angle of
busy railway angle of railway lines, impact
lines, complex impact angle complex inter-
interchanges, etc. of impact changes, etc.
218.5 Permissible Increase in Stresses and Load Permissible Increase in Stresses and Load
Combination Combinations

Tensile stresses resulting from temperature ef-
fects not exceeding in the value of two third
of the modulus of rupture may be permitted
in prestressed concrete bridges. Sufficient
amount of non-tensioned steel, shall, howev-
er, be provide to control the thermal cracking.
Increase in stresses shall be allowed for calcu-
lating load effects due to temperature restraint
under load combinations.
Tensile stresses resulting from temperature
effects not exceeding in the value of two third
of the modulus of rupture may be permitted in
prestressed concrete bridges. Sufficient amount of
non-tensioned steel, shall, however, be provide to
control the thermal cracking. Increase in stresses
shall be allowed for calculating load effects due to
temperature restraint under load combinations.
Note:
Permissible increase in stresses and load
combinations as stated under Clause 218.5 is not
applicable for limit state design of bridges.

92 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Appendix 3

COMBINATION OF LOADS FOR LIMIT STATE DESIGN

1 Loads to be considered while arriving at the appropriate combination for carrying out the necessary checks
for the design of road bridges and culverts are as follows:
1) Dead Load
2) Snow load (See note i)
3) Superimposed dead load such as hand rail, crash barrier, footpath and service loads.
4) Surfacing or wearing coat
5) Back Fill Weight
6) Earth Pressure
7) Primary and Secondary effect of prestress
8) Secondary effects such as creep, shrinkage and settlement.
9) Temperature including restraint and bearing forces.
10) Carriageway live load, footpath live load, construction live loads.
11) Associated carriageway live load such as braking, tractive and centrifugal forces.
12) Accidental effects such as vehicle collision load, barge impact and impact due to floating bodies.
13) Wind
14) Seismic Effect
15) Erection effects
16) Water Current Forces
17) Wave Pressure
18) Buoyancy
Notes:
i) The snow loads may be based on actual observation or past records in the particular area or local
practices, if existing.
ii) The wave forces shall be determined by suitable analysis considering drawing and inertia forces
etc. on single structural members based on rational methods or model studies. In case of group of
piles, piers etc., proximity effects shall also be considered.
2 Combination of loads for the verification of equilibrium and structural strength under ultimate state
Loads are required to be combined to check the equilibrium and the structural strength under ultimate limit state.
The equilibrium of the structure shall be checked against overturning, sliding and uplift. It shall be ensured that the
disturbing loads (overturning, sliding and uplifting) shall always be less than the stabilizing or restoring actions.
The structural strength under ultimate limit state shall be estimated in order to avoid internal failure or excessive
deformation. The equilibrium and the structural strength shall be checked under basic, accidental and seismic
combinations of loads.

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 93

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

3. Combination Principles
The following principles shall be followed while using these tables for arriving at the combinations:
i) All loads shown under Column 1 of Table 3.1 or Table 3.2 or Table 3.3 or Table 3.4 shall be combined to carry
out the relevant verification.
ii) While working out the combinations, only one variable load shall be considered as the leading loads at a time.
All other variable loads shall be considered as accompanying loads. In case if the variable loads produces
favorable effect (relieving effect) the same shall be ignored.
iii) For accidental combination, the traffic load on the upper deck of a bridge (when collision with the pier due to
traffic under the bridge occurs) shall be treated as the leading load. In all other accidental situations the traffic
load shall be treated as the accompanying load.
iv) During construction the relevant design situation shall be taken into account.
v) These combinations are not valid for verifying the fatigue limit state.

4. Basic Combination
4.1. For checking the equilibrium
For checking the equilibrium of the structure, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 2 or 3
under Table 3.1 shall be adopted.
4.2. For checking the structural strength
For checking the structural strength, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 2 under Table 3.2
shall be adopted.
5. Accidental Combination
For checking the equilibrium of the structure, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 4 or 5
under Table 3.1 and for checking the structural strength, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 3
under Table 3.2 shall be adopted.
6. Seismic Combination
For checking the equilibrium of the structure, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 6 or 7
under Table 3.1 and for checking the structural strength, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 4
under Table 3.2 shall be adopted.
7. Combination of Loads for the Verification of Serviceability Limit State
Loads are required to be combined to satisfy the serviceability requirements. The serviceability limit state
check shall be carried out in order to have control on stress, deflection, vibration, crack width, settlement and to
estimate shrinkage and creep effects. It shall be ensured that the design value obtained by using the appropriate
combination shall be less than the limiting value of serviceability criterion as per the relevant code. The rare
combination of loads shall be used for checking the stress limit. The frequent combination of loads shall be used
for checking the deflection, vibration and crack width. The quasi-permanent combination of loads shall be used for
checking the settlement, shrinkage creep effects and the permanent stress in concrete.
7.1. Rare Combination
For checking the stress limits, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 2 under Table 3.3 shall
be adopted.

94 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

7.2. Frequent Combination

For checking the deflection, vibration and crack width, in prestressed concrete structures, partial safety factor
for loads shown in column no. 3 under Table 3.3 shall be adopted.
7.3. Quasi-permanent Combinations
For checking the crack width in RCC structures, settlement, creep effects and to estimate the permanent stress
in the structure, partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 4 under Table 3.3 shall be adopted.
8. Combination for Design of Foundations
For checking the base pressure under foundation and to estimate the structural strength which includes the
geotechnical loads, the partial safety factor for loads for 3 combinations shown in Table 3. 4 shall be used.
The material safety factor for the soil parameters, resistance factor and the allowable bearing pressure for
these combinations shall be as per relevant code.
Note: An Explanatory note will be included in a Special Publication on Limit State Design of Bridges as and when
the Concrete Bridge Code is finalized.
Table 3. 1
Partial Safety Factor for Verification of Equilibrium
Loads Basic Combination Accidental Combination Seismic Combination
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Overturning Restoring Overturning Restoring Overturning Restoring
or Sliding or or Resisting or Sliding or or Resisting or Sliding or or Resisting
Uplift Effect Effect Uplift Effect Effect Uplift Effect Effect
Permanent Loads:
Dead Load, Snow load 1.05 0.95 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
if present, SIDL ex-
cept surfacing, Backfill
weight, settlement, creep
and shrinkage effect

Surfacing 1.35 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Prestress and Secondary

effect of prestress
(refer note 5)

Earth pressure due to 1.50 - 1.0 - 1.0 -

Back Fill

Variable Loads :
Carriageway Live
Load, associated loads
(braking, tractive and
centrifugal forces) and
Pedestrian Live Load

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 95

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

(a) As Leading Load 1.5 0 0.75 0 - -

(b) As accompanying Load 1.15 0 0.2 0 0.2 0
(c) Construction Live Load 1.35 0 1.0 0 1.0 0

Thermal Loads
(a) As Leading Load 1.50 0 - - - -
(b) As accompanying Load 0.9 0 0.5 0 0.5 0

Wind
(a) As Leading Load 1.50 0 - - - -
(b) As accompanying Load 0.9 0 - - - -

Live Load Surcharge 1.20 0 - - - -

effects (as accompanying
load)

Accidental effects:
i) Vehicle collision (or)
ii) Barge Impact (or) - - 1.0 - - -
iii) Impact due to floating
bodies

Seismic Effect
(a) During Service - - - - 1.0 -
(b) During Construction - - - - 0.5 -

Construction Condition:
Counter Weights:
a) When density or self - 0.9 - 1.0 - 1.0
weight is well defined
b) When density or - 0.8 - 1.0 - 1.0
self weight is not well
defined
c) Erection effects 1.05 0.95 - - - -

Wind
(a) Leading Load 1.50 0 - - - -
(b) Accompanying Load 1.20 0 - - - -

Hydraulic Loads:
(Accompanying Load):
Water current forces 1.0 0 1.0 - 1.0 -

Wave Pressure 1.0 0 1.0 - 1.0 -

Hydro dynamic effect - - - - 1.0 -
Buoyancy 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0

96 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Notes:
1) During launching the counterweight position shall be allowed a variation of ± 1m for steel bridges.
2) For Combination principles refer Para 2
3) Thermal load includes restraints associated with expansion/contraction due to type of construction (Portal
frame, arch and elastomeric bearings), frictional restraint in metallic bearings and thermal gradients. This
combination, however, is not valid for the design of bearing and expansion joint.
4) Wind load and thermal load need not be taken simultaneously.
5) Partial safety factor for prestress and secondary effect of prestress shall be as recommended in the relevant
codes.
6) Wherever Snow Load is applicable, Clause 224 shall be referred for combination of snow load and live load.
7) Seismic effect during erection stage is reduced to half when construction phase does not exceed 5
years.
8) For repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting the load combination shall be project specific.

Table 3.2
Partial Safety Factor for Verification of Structural Strength
Ultimate Limit State
Loads Basic Combination Accidental Combination Seismic Combination
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Permanent Loads:
Dead Load, Snow load
if present, SIDL except
surfacing
(a) Adding to the effect of 1.35 1.0 1.0
variable action
(b) Opposing the effect of 1.0 1.0 1.0
variable action

Surfacing:
Effects adding to the 1.75 1.0 1.0
effect of variable action
Effects opposing the effect 1.0 1.0 1.0
of variable action

Prestress and Secondary

effect of prestress
(refer note no. 2)
Back fill Weight 1.50 1.0 1.0

Earth pressure due to

Back Fill
(a) Leading Load 1.50 - 1.0
(b) Accompanying Load 1.0 1.0 1.0

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 97

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Variable Loads:
Carriageway Live Load
and associated actions
(braking, tractive and
centrifugal forces) and
Pedestrian Live Load:
(a) Leading Load 1.5 0.75 0
(b) Accompanying Load 1.15 0.2 0.2
(c) Construction Live Load 1.35 1.0 1.0

Wind during service and

construction
(a) Leading Load 1.50 - -
(b) Accompanying Load 0.9 - -

Live Load Surcharge (as 1.2 0.2 0.2

accompanying load)

Erection effects 1.0 1.0 1.0

Accidental Effects:
i) Vehicle Collision (or)
ii) Barge Impact (or) - 1.0 -
iii) Impact due to floating
bodies

Seismic Effect
(a) During Service - - 1.0
(b) During Construction - - 0.5

Hydraulic Loads (Accom-

panying Load):
Water Current Forces 1.0 1.0 1.0

Wave Pressure 1.0 1.0 1.0

Hydro dynamic effect - - 1.0
Buoyancy 0.15 0.15 0.15

Notes:
1) For Combination principles, refer Para 2.
2) Partial safety factor for prestress and secondary effect of prestress shall be as recommended in the relevant
codes.
3) Wherever Snow Load is applicable, Clause 224 shall be referred for combination of snow load and live
load.

98 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Table No. 3.3

Partial Safety Factor for Verification of Serviceability Limit State
Loads Rare Frequent Quasi-permanent
Combination Combination Combination
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Permanent Loads:
Dead Load, Snow load if present, SIDL including
surfacing 1.0 1.0 1.0

Back fill Weight 1.0 1.0 1.0

Prestress and Secondary effect of prestress

(Refer note no. 4)
Shrinkage and Creep Effects 1.0 1.0 1.0

Earth Pressure due to Back Fill 1.0 1.0 1.0

Settlement Effects
(a) Adding to the permanent effect 1.0 1.0 1.0
(b) Opposing the permanent effect 0 0 0

Variable Loads:
Carriageway Live Load and associated loads(braking,
tractive and centrifugal forces) and Pedestrian Live Load
(a) Leading Load 1.0 0.75 -
(b) Accompanying Load 0.75 0.2 0

Thermal Loads
(a) Leading Load 1.0 0.6 -
(b) Accompanying Load 0.6 0.5 0.5

Wind
(a) Leading Load 1.0 0.60 -
(b) Accompanying Load 0.60 0.50 0

Live Load Surcharge (Accompanying Load) 0.80 0 0

Hydraulic Loadss (Accompanying Load):

Water Current Forces 1.0 1.0 -

Wave Pressure 1.0 1.0 -

Buoyancy 0.15 0.15 0.15

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 99

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Notes:
1) For Combination principles, refer Para 2.
2) Thermal load includes restraints associated with expansion/contraction due to type of construction (Portal
frame, arch and elastomeric bearings), frictional restraint in metallic bearings and thermal gradients. This
combination, however, is not valid for the design of bearing and expansion joint.
3) Wind and thermal loads need not be taken simultaneously.
4) Partial safety factor for prestress and secondary effect of prestress shall be as recommended in the relevant
codes.
5) Where Snow Load is applicable, Clause 224 shall be referred for combination of snow load and live load.

Table 3. 4
Combination for Base Pressure and Design of Foundation
Loads Combination Combination Seismic / Accidental
(1) (2) Combination
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Permanent Loads:
Dead Load, Snow load if present, SIDL except
surfacing, Back Fill earth filling 1.35 1.0 1.0

SIDL Surfacing 1.75 1.0 1.0

Prestress Effect
(Refer note 4)
Settlement Effect 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0

Earth Pressure due to back fill

(a) Leading Load 1.50 1.30 -
(b) Accompanying Load 1.0 0.85 1.0

Variable Loads:
All carriageway loads and associated loads
(braking, tractive and centrifugal) and pedestrian
load
(a) Leading Load 1.5 1.3 (0.75 if applicable) or 0
(b) Accompanying Load 1.15 1.0 0.2

Thermal Loads as accompanying load 0.90 0.80 0.5

Wind
(a) Leading Load 1.5 1.3 -
(b) Accompanying Load 0.9 0.80 0

Live Load Surcharge as Accompanying Load (if 1.2 1.0 0.2

applicable)

100 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Accidental Effect or Seismic Effect - - 1.0

Seismic effect during construction - - 0.5

Erection effects 1.0 1.0 1.0

Hydraulic Loads:
Water Current 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0
Wave Pressure 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0
Hydro dynamic effect - - 1.0 or 0
Buoyancy:
For Base Pressure 1.0 1.0 1.0
For Structural Design 0.15 0.15 0.15

Notes:
1) For combination principles, refer para 2.
2) Where two partial factors are indicated for loads, both these factors shall be considered for arriving at the
severe effect.
3) Wind and Thermal effects need not be taken simultaneously.
4) Partial safety factor for prestress and secondary effect of prestress shall be as recommended in the relevant
codes.
5) Wherever Snow Load is applicable, Clause 224 shall be referred for combination of snow load and live
load.
6) Seismic effect during erection stage is reduced to half when construction phase does not exceed 5 years.
7) For repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting the load combination shall be project specific.

222. Seismic Force

222.1 Applicability:
222.1.1
All bridges supported on piers, pier bents, and arches, directly or through bearings, and not exempted below in the
category (a) and (b), are to be designed for horizontal and vertical forces as given in the following clauses.
The following types of bridges need not be checked for seismic effects:
(a) Culverts and minor bridges up to 10 m span in all seismic zones
(b) Bridges in seismic Zones II and III satisfying both limits of total length not exceeding 60 m and spans not
exceeding 15 m
222.1.2
Special investigations should be carried out for the bridges of following description:
(1) Bridges more than 150 m span
(2) Bridges with piers taller than 30 m in Zones IV and V
(3) Cable supported bridges, such as extradosed, cable stayed, and. suspension bridges

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 101

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

(4) Arch bridges having more than 50 m span

(5) Bridges having any of the special seismic resistant features such as seismic isolators, dampers etc.
(6) Bridges using innovative structural arrangements and materials.
Notes for special investigations:
1. In all seismic zones, areas covered within 10 km from the known active faults are classified as ‘Near Field
Regions’. For all bridges located within Near Field Regions, except those exempted in clause 222.1.1, special
investigations should be carried out. The information about the active faults should be sought by bridge
authorities for projects situated within 100 km of known epicenters as a part of preliminary investigations at
the project preparation stage.
2. Special investigations should include aspects such as need for site specific spectra, independency of
component motions, spatial variation of excitation, need to include soil-structure interaction, suitable methods
of structural analysis in view of geometrical and structural non-linear effects, characteristics and reliability
of seismic isolation and other special seismic resistant devices, etc.
3. Site specific spectrum, wherever its need is established in the special investigation, shall be used, subject to
the minimum values specified for relevant seismic Zones, given in Fig. 13.
222.1.3
Masonry and plain concrete arch bridges with span more than 10m shall be avoided in Zones IV and V and in near
field region.

222.2 Seismic Zones

For the purpose of determining the seismic forces, the Country is classified into four zones as shown in Fig. 11. For
each Zone a factor ‘Z’ is associated, the value of which is given in Table 5.

Fig. 11 Seismic Zones of India ( IS: 1893 (Part I):2002)

102 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Note: Bridge locations and towns falling at the boundary line demarcating two zones shall be considered in the
higher zone.

TABLE 5 ZONE FACTOR (Z)

Zone No. Zone Factor (Z)

V 0.36
IV 0.24
III 0.16
II 0.10

222.3 Components of Seismic Motion

The characteristics of seismic ground motion expected at any location depend upon the magnitude of earthquake,
depth of focus, distance of epicenter and characteristics of the path through which the seismic wave travels. The
random ground motion can be resolved in three mutually perpendicular directions. The components are consid-
ered to act simultaneously, but independently and their method of combination is described in section 222.4. Two
horizontal components are taken as of equal magnitude, and vertical component is taken as two third of horizontal
component.
In zones IV and V the effects of vertical components shall be considered for all elements of the bridge.
The effect of vertical component may be omitted for all elements in zone II and III, except for the following cases:
(a) prestressed concrete decks
(b) bearings and linkages
(c) horizontal cantilever structural elements
(d) for stability checks and
(e) bridges located in the near field regions

222.4 Combination of Component Motions

1.The seismic forces shall be assumed to come from any horizontal direction. For this purpose two separate analyses
shall be performed for design seismic forces acting along two orthogonal horizontal directions. The design seismic
force resultants (i.e. axial force, bending moments, shear forces, and torsion) at any cross-section of a bridge compo-
nent resulting from the analyses in the two orthogonal horizontal directions shall be combined as below (Fig.12).
a) ±r1±0.3r2
b) ±0.3r1±r2
Where
r1= Force resultant due to full design seismic force along x direction.
r2= Force resultant due to full design seismic force along z direction.
2. When vertical seismic forces are also considered, the design seismic force resultants at any cross section of a
bridge component shall be combined as below:
a) ±r1±0.3r2±0.3r3
b) ±0.3r1±r2±0.3r3
c) ±0.3r1± 0.3r2±r3

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 103

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

where r1 and r2 are as defined above and r3 is the force resultant due to full design seismic force along the vertical
direction.

Fig. 12: Combination of Orthogonal Seismic Forces

Note: Analysis of bridge as a whole is carried out for global axes X and Z and effects obtained are combined for
design about local axes as shown.

222.5 Computation of Seismic Response

Following methods are used for computation of seismic response depending upon the complexity of the structure
and the input ground motion.

(1) For most of the bridges, elastic seismic acceleration method is adequate. In this method, the first fundamental
mode of vibration is calculated and the corresponding acceleration is read from Fig. 13. This acceleration is
applied to all parts of the bridge for calculation of forces as per clause 222.5.1.

104 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

(2) Elastic Response Spectrum Method: This is a general method, suitable for more complex structural systems
(e. g. continuous bridges, bridges with large difference in pier heights, bridges which are curved in plan,
etc), in which dynamic analysis of the structure is performed to obtain the first as well as higher modes of
vibration and the forces obtained for each mode by use of response spectrum from Fig. 13 and clause 222.5.1.
These modal forces are combined by following appropriate combinational rules to arrive at the design forces.
Reference is made to specialist literature for the same.

222.5.1 Horizontal Seismic Force

The horizontal seismic forces acting at the centers of mass, which are to be resisted by the structure as a whole, shall
be computed as follows:
Feq = Ah (Dead Load + Appropriate Live Load)
where,
Feq = seismic force to be resisted
Ah = horizontal seismic coefficient = (Z/2)*(I)*(Sa/g)).
Appropriate live load shall be taken as per Clause 222.5.2
Z = Zo ne factor as given in Table 5
I = Importance Factor (see Clause 222.5.1.1)
T = Fundamental period of the bridge (in sec.) for horizontal vibrations.
Fundamental time period of the bridge member is to be calculated by any rational method of analysis adopting the
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete as per IRC: 21-2000, and taking gross uncracked section for moment of inertia.
The fundamental period of vibration can also be calculated by the method given in Appendix-2.
Sa/g = Average response acceleration coefficient for 5 percent damping of load resisting elements depending upon
the fundamental period of vibration T as given in Fig. 13 which is based on the following equations.
For rocky, or hard soil sites, Type I soil with N >30

For medium soil sites, Type II soil with, 10<N ≤30

For soft soil sites, Type III soil with N <10

Note: In the absence of calculations of fundamental period for small bridges, the value of Sa/g may be taken as
2.5.

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 105

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Fig. 13 Response Spectra

For damping other than 5% offered by load resisting elements, the multiplying factors as given below shall be
used.

Damping % 2 5 10
Factor 1.4 1.0 0.8
Application Prestressed concrete, Steel Reinforced Concrete Retrofitting of old bridges
and composite steel elements with RC piers
elements

222.5.1.1 Seismic Importance Factor-I

Bridges are designed to resist design basis earthquake (DBE) level, or other higher or lower magnitude of forces,
depending on the consequences of their partial or complete non-availability, due to damage or failure from seismic
events. The level of design force is obtained by multiplying (Z/2) by factor ‘I’, which represents seismic importance
of the structure. Combination of factors considered in assessing the consequences of failure,- and hence choice of
factor ’I’,- include inter alia,
(a) Extent of disturbance to traffic and possibility of providing temporary diversion,
(b) Availability of alternative routes,
(c) Cost of repairs and time involved, which depend on the extent of damages, - minor or major,
(d) Cost of replacement, and time involved in reconstruction in case of failure,
(e) Indirect economic loss due to its partial or full non-availability,
Importance factors are given in Table 6 for different types of bridges.

106 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Table 6 Importance Factor

Seismic Class Illustrative Examples Importance Factor ‘I’
Normal bridges All bridges except those mentioned in other 1
classes
Important bridges a) River bridges and flyovers inside cities 1.2
b) Bridges on National and State Highways
c) Bridges serving traffic near ports and other
centers of economic activities
d) Bridges crossing railway lines
Large critical bridges in all Seismic a) Long bridges more than 1km length across 1.5
Zones perennial rivers and creeks
b) Bridges for which alternative routes are not
available
Note: While checking for seismic effects during construction, the importance factor of 1 should considered for all
bridges in all zones.
222.5.2 Live Load components
(i) The seismic force due to live load shall not be considered when acting in the direction of traffic, but shall be
considered in the direction perpendicular to the traffic.
(ii) The horizontal seismic force in the direction perpendicular to the traffic shall be calculated using 20% of live
load (excluding impact factor).
(iii) The vertical seismic force shall be calculated using 20% of live load (excluding impact factor).
Note: The reduced percentages of live loads are applicable only for calculating the magnitude of seismic design
force and are based on the assumption that only 20% of the live load is present over the bridge at the time of
earthquake.

222.5.3 Water Current, and Depth of Scour

The depth of scour under seismic condition to be considered for design shall be 0.9 times the maximum scour
depth. The flood level for calculating hydrodynamic force and water current force is to be taken as average of yearly
maximum design floods. For river bridges, average may preferably based on consecutive 7 years’ data, or based on
local enquiry in the absence of such data.
222.5.4 Hydrodynamic and Earth pressure Forces under Seismic Condition
In addition to inertial forces arising from the dead load and live load, hydrodynamic forces act on the submerged
part of the structure and are transmitted to the foundations. Also, additional earth pressures due to earthquake act on
the retaining portions of abutments. For values of these loads reference is made to IS:1893-2002. These forces shall
be considered in the design of bridges in zones IV and V.
Additional earth pressure forces described above need not be considered on other components such as wing walls
and return walls since these elements are easily repairable at low cost.
222.5.5 Design Forces for Elements of Structures and Use of Response Reduction Factor
The forces on various members obtained from the elastic analysis of bridge structure are to be divided by Response
Reduction Factor given in Table 7 before combining with other forces as per load combinations given in Table 1.
The allowable increase in permissible stresses should be as per Table 1.

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 107

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Table 7 Response Reduction Factors

Bridge Component R with ductile R without ductile

detailing detailing
Superstructure N. A 2.0
Substructure
(i) Masonry /PCC piers, abutments - 1.0

(ii) RCC short plate piers where plastic hinge cannot develop in 3.0 2.5
direction of length, and RCC abutments

(iii) RCC long piers where hinges can develop 4.0 3.3

(iv) Column 4.0 3.3

(v) Beams of RCC portal frames supporting bearings 1.0 1.0

Bearings 2.0 2.0
Connectors and Stoppers (Reaction blocks)
Those restraining dislodgement or drifting away of bridge elements. 1.0 1.0
These are additional safety measures in the event of failure of
bearings.
Notes:
(i) Those parts of the structural elements of foundations which are not in contact with soil and transferring load
to it, are treated as part of sub-structure element.
(ii) Response reduction factor is not to be applied for calculation of displacements of elements of bridge and for
bridge as a whole.
222.6 Fully Embedded Portions
Parts of structure embedded in soil below scour level need not be considered to produce any seismic forces.
222.7 Liquefaction
In loose sands and poorly graded sands with little or no fines, the vibrations due to earthquake may cause lique-
faction, or excessive total and differential settlements. Founding bridges on such sands should be avoided unless
appropriate methods of compaction or stabilisation are adopted. Alternatively the foundations should be taken
deeper; below liquefiable layers, to firm strata. Reference should be made to the specialist literature for analysis of
liquefaction potential.
222.8 Foundation Design
Foundations subjected to seismic load from all sources (ref.222.5.3 and 222.5.4), and taking combinations and
allowable stresses as given in IRC:78 should be designed as per IRC: 78 to limit the bearing stresses within allow-
able limits and, avoiding overturning, sliding, and deep seated failure with safety factor of 1.5, 1.25 and 1.15 respec-
tively. For this verification, the seismic loads on foundations should be taken as 1.25 times the forces transmitted to
it by substructure, so as to provide sufficient margin to cover the possible higher forces transmitted by substructure
arising out of its over strength.

108 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

222.9 Ductile Detailing

Mandatory Provisions
(i) In Zones IV and V, to prevent dislodgement of superstructure, “reaction blocks” (additional safety measures
in the event of failure of bearings) or other types of seismic arresters shall be provided and designed for the
seismic force (Feq/R). Pier and abutment caps shall be generously dimensioned, to prevent dislodgement of
severe ground–shaking. The examples of seismic features shown in Fig, 14 to 16 are only indicative and
suitable arrangements will have to be worked out in specific cases.
(ii) To improve the performance of bridges during earthquakes, the bridges in seismic zones IV and V may be
specifically detailed for ductility for which IS: 13920 or any other specialist literature may be referred to.
Recommended Provisions
(i) In order to mitigate the effects of earthquake forces described above, special seismic devices such as Shock
Transmission Units, Base Isolation, Seismic Fuse, Lead Plug, etc, may be provided based on specialized
literature, international practices, satisfactory testing etc.
(ii) Continuous superstructure (with fewer number of bearings and expansion joints) or integral bridges (in which
the substructure or superstructure are made joint less, i.e. monolithic), if not unsuitable otherwise, can possibly
provide high ductility leading to better behavior during earthquake.
(iii) Elastomeric bearings with arrester control in both directions may also be considered.
Note: A Background Note for ‘Seismic Force’ Clause is given in Appendix-4

Fig. 14 Example of Seismic reaction blocks for continuous superstructure

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 109

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Fig. 15 Example of seismic reaction blocks for simply supported bridges

Fig. 16 Minimum dimension for support

110 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Appendix 4
CLAUSE: 222 SEISMIC FORCE
(Background Note)

1 INTRODUCTION
A Sub-Committee comprising Late Dr. T.N. Subba Rao, S/Shri S.G. Joglekar and D.K. Kanhere was formed by B-2
Committee to carry out a detailed review of the interim provision in Clause No. 222 relating to Seismic Forces in the
existing IRC: 6 (post January, 2003 revision of the code) and compare the same with the provision in the pre-January
version of the code and submit its findings and views to the B-2 Committee for deliberation. The first interim report
of the Sub-Committee was discussed in B-2 Committee meeting on 8th & 9th December 2006. After a series of
detailed discussions and deliberations in B-2 committee, the draft Document titled ‘PROPOSED REVISION OF
CLAUSE 222: SEISMIC FORCE in IRC: 6 – 2000’ was approved by the B-2 committee in its 9th Meeting held on
3rd November, 2008 for submission to the BSS committee. It was felt that a background note explaining the rationale
and approach behind the proposed revision of clauses will be useful for appreciating the various provisions in the
Clause. This report is accordingly prepared to provide an informative background to the proposed revision.
The following documents have been referred to in preparation of this Background Note:-
• IS: 1893 (Part-1) -2002– General provisions and buildings.
• Draft of IS: 1893 (Part 3) -2005 ‘Bridges and Retaining Walls’ (under consideration of BIS Committee).
• The draft of long version of ‘Seismic Design Guidelines’ under finalization by B 2 Committee.
• Eurocode: 8 – Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures.
Part-1: General rules, - Part-2: Bridges
• Fundamentals of Seismic Protection for Bridges: by Yashinsky and Karshenas.

2 BASIS OF RECOMENDATIONS
2.1 Force Based and Performance Based Approaches
Approach of the present IRC code (post January, 2003 revision), like BIS standard IS: 1893 is based on force
based approach, for achieving safety of bridges in seismic event. In this approach, the effect of earthquake is
represented by a set of forces, which should be considered in the design. Internationally, as well as in India, the
force based approach has worked well in regions of low seismicity. However, it is found to be woefully inadequate
in high seismicity zones (refer Fig 1). Most of the international codes dealing with regions of high seismicity have
now adopted a new approach known as ‘Performance Based Philosophy’, which basically attempts to specify
the response viz. the desired performance of the bridge during and after the earthquake and achieve the same by
formulating suitable design rules. A detailed description of this approach and the performance criteria adopted in
this method is outside the scope of this note. It is realized that at this stage, it is not possible to fully adopt this
approach, till the Indian National Standards i.e BIS also change over to this approach, when Limit State Codes are
introduced by IRC and Long Version of IS 1893 (Part 3) is finalized.
However, it is possible to adopt the underlying concepts, and some of the methods, while continuing with the force
based approach, in order to target at the desired seismic behavior of bridges during and after the Design Basis
Earthquake. The targeted behavior shall be stated in terms of aims to be archived. The use of force based methods
will have to be supplemented by prescriptive recommendations so that the performance targets (aims) of the design
are at least qualitatively taken into account, if not precisely calculated. This has to be done, using engineering
judgment, on the basis of the observations of damages suffered by bridges in seismic events.

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 111

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Fig.1: Total collapse of flyover during the Kobe earthquake of 1995

2.2 Combination of Force Based Approach and Targets of Performance
From the above point of view the following mixed approach is suggested:-

 Desirable functional and structural behaviors of bridges during and after earthquake are stated as aims to be
achieved. These are:
 The expected levels of service in terms of the full or partial availability of bridge for use after the
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE).
 No significant structural damage and may be some non-structural damage in the event of chosen level
of earthquake for design. This level is described in terms of Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), as defined
by IS: 1893-2002 (Part 1). This DBE level is chosen as 50% of the Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE), which is considered as the maximum potential seismic event in the zone.
 Targeted structural response is described in terms of permissible stresses, permissible overloading
in plastic region of material strains, residual deformations after the event, types of acceptable but
repairable damages of various components and extent of the same, when combined with other loads in
combinations as per IRC: 6-2000.
 Since it is not economical to design bridges to remain fully functional in the event of MCE, an overall
balance is sought between the safety in DBE event, limiting risk of damage to the bridge due to
earthquake and consequential indirect economic loss, on one hand; and the cost of repair, temporary
diversion, or complete reconstruction and time involved in partial or full closure of the bridge at higher
level of earthquake, on the other hand. For the present, this balance is necessarily based on the overall
engineering judgment.
 In application of these concepts (in order to keep the cost and time of design effort within practical limits),
simplified prescriptive rules are to be given by the Codes of Practice, covering normal types of structures.
This is achieved by :-
 Keeping the analytical and design efforts within the capabilities of normally available design tools,
and
 Giving prescriptive detailing recommendations to achieve enhanced behavior of the bridge, based on
the national and international experience of major seismic events.
 These simple rules should be reviewed from time to time to keep pace with the experience of using the rules
and the newly developing knowledge and methods.

112 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

2.3 Identification of Seismic Hazards

Although acceleration of various parts of the structure and resulting inertial forces is the main concern of force
based seismic design, other hazardous situations associated with seismic events do also arise. These need to be taken
into account. The code dealing with seismic design in an overall way has to cover these aspects. IRC: 6 deals with
Loads and Stresses alone and has limited coverage. It should, however, include near field effects also. Other hazards
mentioned bellow will have to be covered elsewhere :
1. Liquefaction.
2. Landslide
3. Tsunami
4. Structures which unavoidably cross a seismically active fault zone and those exposed to danger of relative
permanent ground movement.
5. Flooding due to dam failure in upstream of the bridge

3 CHOICE OF DESIGN FORCES

3.1 Methods and Some Observations
1) Design Earthquake.
IS: 1893 (Part1) divides the country in four zones. The basic philosophy and approach for zoning is best described
in ‘Foreword’ of IS: 1893 (Part 1) and reference is made to the same. Briefly, the maximum ground acceleration
anywhere in each zone is described by the Zone Factor ‘Z’. This acceleration is independent of the location of
structure in relation to the locations of seismically active faults.
In any seismic zone, except in the near field regions, the maximum seismic hazard of ground acceleration is defined
in terms of Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) in each zone (described by the Zone factor). Designing
bridges for this level of hazard and keeping them within elastic range is expensive. It is international practice to
allow formation of plastic deformations in the structure without reaching failure limit, and to repair the damaged
portions in case of MCE event. In many countries, more than one level of earthquake are used to achieve different
levels of performances at the specified levels of earthquakes. The performance levels are usually defined to avoid
complete collapse, to limit damage to specific repairable parts, or to have higher capacity for dead load and live load
combination, but accept damage for dead load condition only and so on.
In IS: 1893, this is achieved by choosing a lower level of hazard for the design, termed as Design Basis Earthquake
(DBE), which the IS: 1893 has recommended as 50% of MCE. IRC: 6 follow the same method. To account for the
relative economic consequences of non-availability/failure of the structure, a factor termed as seismic Importance
Factor I is recommended, use of which effectively changes the level of seismic design forces (increases, if I >1), or
in other words, the risk of damage/failure in actual seismic event is reduced. The MCE is not used for any design
checks.
Internationally, Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and Operating Basis Earthquake are based on the
statistical probability. As explained in Foreword of IS:1893, due to lack of adequate statistical data, this kind of
rationalization and achieving even a semblance of uniformity of risk levels for different structures in different zones
is not yet possible, and a simple reduction factor of 2 is used.
2) Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and Design Basis Earthquake (DBE).
Although the seismic potentials of the zones as described by maximum considered earthquake (MCE) are large,

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 113

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

only 50% of MCE acceleration has been recommended by IS: 1893 as design basis earthquake (DBE). This has
been chosen, as stated in IS: 1893, on the basis of accepting certain level of damage in the event of DBE, based on
the past experience of building damages (described by MSK-64 scale) and in view of achieving economy in design.
For events larger than Z/2, certain risk of significant damage exists and is accepted. This apparently over simplified
uniform treatment for all structures across the zone (by use of common value of Z/2 ) is corrected by means of a
multiplying factor ‘I’ which modifies the design level of acceleration (and forces) for different types of structures as
explained above. Part 1, and other published parts of IS: 1893, recommend the values of ‘I’ factors varying from 1 to
2 for structures being used for different purposes. The choice seems to depend partly on the need of immediate post
earthquake availability and partly upon the consequential economic implications due to loss of service. Apparently,
although not stated explicitly, it seems to have been assumed that the loss of life will be avoided (or minimised) by
engineering design of the structures, as per the codal recommendations.
3) Acceptable Risks as per IRC: 6
The performance targets, or aims, of the seismic provisions of this code are :-
(a) to ensure that the bridge does not collapse under the action of design level of earthquake,
(b) its components may suffer minor or major damages depending upon the extent to which it enters in a plastic
deformation stage,
(c) damages to minor and replaceable elements like expansion joints, hand rails etc., are permitted.
(d) Serviceability of bridge can be restored after repairs,
(e) the increased cost to meet the above targeted performance is reasonable.
For some critical bridges, consequences of structure entering in plastic regions, such as residual deformations, or
damage extending to many members, or to inaccessible foundation elements, etc. will lead to long period of closure,
and vary high cost and time of repair. In such cases, the likely damages may be directly verified by special analyses.
If found unacceptable, the design forces can be upgraded (by using higher I factor) to control the damage.
4) Estimation of Design Forces Acting on Structure
When subjected to ground motion described by Z/2, the accelerations and the inertial forces experienced by various
parts of the structure depend on their overall dynamic characteristics, which in turn depend on the distribution of
mass and stiffness of various components. Two methods of calculating the response are permitted by the code:
In the analysis, two methods are permitted depending on the complexity of the structure, as described bellow:
(a) The Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method is more commonly used for bridge structures which are on straight
alignment and which have regular structural arrangement in each direction. The natural period of vibration for
each of the two (or three) directions is calculated for the first (fundamental) mode of vibration. These periods are
used to calculate the acceleration ‘A’ seen by the bridge as a whole, with help of the response spectra. The response
spectra expresses acceleration responses of single degree of freedom oscillators having different time periods of
natural vibration as a function of time period. The accelerations are expressed in non dimensional form (Sa/g) and
are normalized to the zero period ground acceleration, taken as 1. In this method the maximum acceleration (Ah)
seen by the mass of oscillator is given by [Z* /2] *[Sa/g], which is further modified by multiplying by the importance
factor ‘I’.
(b) The Elastic Response Spectrum Method which is a general method suitable for more complex structural
systems; such as continuous bridges, bridge with large difference in pier heights, and bridges which are curved in
plan.

114 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

(i) In the rigorous method, the bridge structure is modeled as a multiple degree of freedom system consisting of
lumped masses connected by mass-less members characterized by their elastic stiffness for bending, shear
and axial forces. The structure is analysed for obtaining its response in different modes of vibration, which are
combined giving appropriate weights to participating modes. This is repeated for other directions of motion
and suitable combinational rules are used to obtain the integrated response for design verifications.
The response obtained is in elastic domain and is used directly in the design if the structure is designed to remain
within elastic limits, (below yield).
(ii) A simplified analysis is permitted for regular bridges with simple foundations, more or less uniform piers and
beam type superstructure. This is called “Seismic Coefficient Method’ in which a single coefficient Ah is used
to convert structure’s mass into horizontal seismic force. Coefficient Ah is based upon the fundamental natural
period of the structure as a whole, and the response spectrum, as in case of the more rigorous method.
5) Response Reduction Factor
(a) Designing bridges to remain elastic at MCE level is not economical. It is expensive even at the DBE level, as
compared to the designs based on methods recommended by IS: 1893-1984. IS: 1893 – 2002 has considered
it adequate to ensure that at chosen design level Z /2, the structure is subjected to minor damage, but can be
allowed to reach yield at load factor of 1.2, yield being defined by the codal methods of assessment (concrete/
steel codes), using characteristic strengths of materials and the partial material factors as per the relevant
codes. In the working load/allowable stress method, as followed presently by IRC, the basic aim remains
the same as that of IS: 1893, but without the load factor of 1.2. In order to permit plastic deformation of the
structure, and verifying the same without using non linear analysis, a method of Response reduction factor is
used, basis of which is explained below :

(b) Fig. 2 shows actual non linear response of the structure, its
idealized bi-linear response, and the fully elastic response assuming
that the structure remains elastic till failure. Δmax and Δe represent
the maximum displacements of inelastic and elastic systems, which
are assumed to be about equal. The research shows this assumption
to be reasonable for moderate to long period structures. The elastic
ultimate moment Me (forces in general) is obtained by performing
elastic analysis and is reduced by dividing by response reduction
factor ‘R’, to obtain Mb. Mb is then used in design of the structure
using linear analysis and combining results with moments (forces
in general) resulting from other loads. In effect, the seismic force
considered in the analysis is reduced from [Z.I/2]*[Sa/g] arrived in
3(a) to a lower value of [Z.I/2R]*[Sa/g], which is the familiar codal
expression for Ah.

Fig. 2. Elastic and inelastic forcedeformation
relationships (ATC/MCEER 2001).
(c)
Choice of response reduction factors
The choice of R factor depends on the performance
objectives of the bridge. If one intends to keep the bridge
within more or less elastic limits, a value of 1 is indicated.
If full plasticity is to be exploited, large value is chosen. If
partial plastic development is preferred, leaving margins for
uncertainties, or for a larger seismic event, some intermediate

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 115

 NOTIFICATION NO. 53

value of R is chosen. The choice is also influenced by the extent of built-in indeterminancy, which leads to
extra (reserve) capacity of deformation after development of the first plastic hinge before complete collapse
takes place. The overstrength of the member is another margin to be kept in mind while choosing the value
of R factor. Overstrength is the actual extra built-in strength over and above the design strength, arising out
of the conservative estimation of material strengths and detailing practices. Correct calculation of R factor
is a complex issue. Much research has gone in this and more is needed. While choosing R factors for Indian
conditions on the basis of international codes and practices, the fundamental differences between design
philosophies, reliability of data base, and more importantly, the performance targets should be carefully
considered.
6) Consideration of depth of scour and combination with the average yearly maximum flood.
The present practice of considering 0.9 times maximum scour depth for seismic checks is rational, and is recommended
to be continued. The logic of not reducing scour depth further is based on the fact that the scour holes filled up
during receding floods are filled with the loose deposits and cannot be relied upon to provide lateral support against
large earthquake forces.
The recommendation to consider design level of earthquake with maximum average yearly flood is to provide for
a rare, but reasonable, combination and avoid combining two extremely rare events of high flood of 100 or more
years of return period and earthquake.
7) Recommendations of Draft of IS: 1893(Part 3) 2005 on Bridges
Draft of the above code which was under discussion in BIS committee was made available by Prof.Thakkar. This
code generally follows the philosophy of IS:1893 (Part-I) and is similar to the presently proposed IRC:6 clauses,
with deviations in applicability of hydro-dynamic forces and earth pressure forces.. IS recommends the same for all
zones, whereas proposed clauses of IRC:6 limit their application in Zones IV and V, and in near field regions. This
is based on the more or less satisfactory performance of bridges in Zones II and III in the past.
4 PAST PERFORMANCE OF BRIDGES
On the basis of past experience of last 50 years or so of earthquakes, which has been well documented, it can be seen
that very few bridges have collapsed under action of earthquake. In fact, major damages have been in the region of
bearings, dislodgement of superstructure, damage to expansion joints, handrails etc. In very few cases, foundations
have been damaged in the regions of severe soil disturbance, such as liquefaction, and displacement of soil mass
just below the foundations. By and large, such situations are exceptional and highly localised. These can be avoided
with proper identification of seismic hazards. Briefly, it can be stated that, in spite of having been designed for
the lower seismic forces than those presently proposed in IRC: 6, the structures have generally performed well
requiring attention to mainly bearings, dislodgement of superstructure etc.
Two or three reasons could be behind this satisfactory performance. First, most of the bridges have been designed
using static equivalent forces without considerations of flexibility and long period of vibration. This resulted in extra
built-in strength for bridges with tall piers and long spans. For medium to small span bridges, the seismic design
forces had been underestimated, but they have also survived. This could be because of built-in margin obtained by
combining water current forces at high flood levels with earthquake forces, and these floods being absent when large
earthquakes took place.
However, in spite of the above considerations, a large gap still exists between the recommended higher forces by the
present IS:1893/IRC: 6 and unexplained but satisfactory performance of the existing bridges, especially that of the
foundations. Therefore, while accepting more up-to-date knowledge about seismisity of the Indian sub-continent
and adopting new scientific methods, it is necessary to give due credence to satisfactory performance of the bridges
designed earlier for lower forces.

116 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009