Bridges Seismic

Research Project on --
Study of Seismic Design Codes for Hicl1way Bridges

A Proposed Draft For IRC:6 Provisions On Seismic Design Of Bridges

:: Code and Commentary

Sponsored by

Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing) Government of India

New Delhi

,,,

C. V. R. Murty and Sudhir K. Jain Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur Kanpur 208016

March 1997

)

... Draft (or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 20(-14

o. Introduction

The performance of bridges in India during past earthquakes has been summarised in a recent report [Murty and Jain, 1996]. The existing provisions ofIndian seismic codes [IRC:6-1966; IS: 1893-1984] on bridge structures have been reviewed in detail in light of those in countries with advanced seismic provisions in another report [Jain and Murty, 1996]. Incorporating most of the suggestions made in these reports, a draft proposal for Indian code is presented here. In order to explain these provisions and to explain the intent behind some of the clauses, this report also provides a detailed commentary. Some explanations of a few terms have been borrowed from a similar effort on codal provisions for buildings [Jain, 1995]. The objective of this draft code is to provide seismic design provisions assuming that the seismic zone map for the country is available, In line with current discussions in seismic code committee (CED:39) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), it is assumed that the revised zone map will merge the current seismic zones I and II into a single zone which will be equivalent to the current zone II.

In arriving at these draft provisions, reference has been made to seismic codes of several countries, in particular American [AASHTO, 1992; CALTRANS, 1991] and New Zealand [TNZ,' 1990] codes. Some major modifications proposed in the Indian code inlcude upward revision of the design force' level, introduction of the philosophy of different response reduction factors for different components of a bridge structure, use of the concept of capacity design, and design for controlling the. consequences of displacements at the connections between adjacent sections. Further, the clauses have been completely redrafted for more effective implementation.

In this report, the commentary is presented in a different font. To enable easy reading, the figures and tables pertaining to the commentary are numbered with prefix C. Thus, for example, ''Table 5" refers to Table 5 of the codal provisions presented in this report, while "Table C5" refers to the Table C5 of the commentary.

(

0.1 Definitions

For the purpose of this standard, the following terms are defined:

Base : It is the level at which inertia forces generated in the substructure and superstructure are transferred to the foundation.

Bridge Flexibility Factor C : It is a factor to obtain the elastic acceleration spectrum depending on flexibility of the structure; it depends on natural period of vibration of the bridge.

Centre of Mass : The point through which the resultant of the masses of a system acts.

This point corresponds to the centre of gravity of the system.

Critical Damping : The minimum damping above which free vibration motion is not oscillatory.

Damping : The effect of internal friction, imperfect elasticity of material, slipping, sliding, etc., in reducing the amplitude of vibration and is expressed as a percentage of critical damping.

Design Seismic Force : It is the seismic force prescribed by this standard for each bridge component, that shall be used in its design. It is obtained as the maximum elastic seismic force divided by the appropriate response reduction factor specified in this

standard for each component. .

Ductility : Ductility of a structure, or its members, is the capacity to undergo large inelastic deformations without significant loss of strength or stiffness.

Ductile Detailing : It is the preferred choice of location and amount of reinforcement in reinforced concrete structures to provide for adequate ductility in them. In steel structures, it is the design of members and their connections to make them adequately ductile.

c

r "

'" Draft (or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 3 0(44

(

Elastic Seismic Acceleration Coefficient A : It is a plot of horizontal acceleration value, as a fraction of acceleration due to gravity, versus natural period of vibration T, that shall be used in the design of structures.

Importance Factor I : It is a factor used to obtain the design spectrum depending on the importance of the structure.

Liquefaction : Liquefaction is state in saturated cohesionless soil wherein the effective shear strength is reduced to negligible value for all engineering purpose due to pore pressures caused by vibrations during an earthquake when they approach the total confining pressure. In this condition the soil tends to behave like a fluid mass.

Maximum Elastic Seismic Force: It is the maximum force in the bridge component due to the expected seismic shaking in the considered seismic zone.

Modes of Vibration : (see Normal Mode),

Natural Period T: Natural period of a structure is its time period of uri damped vibration. (a) Fundamental Natural Period T, : It is the highest modal time period of vibration along the direction of earthquake motion being considered.

(b) Modal Natural Period Tk : The modal natural period of mode k is the time period of vibration in mode k,

Normal Mode: A system is said to be vibrating ina normal mode when all its masses attain maximum values of displacements and rotations simultaneously, and also they pass through equilibrium positions simultaneously.

Overstrength : Strength considering all factors that may cause an increase, e.g., steel strength being higher than the specified characteristic strength, effect of strain hardening in steel at high deformations, and concrete strength being higher than specified characteristic value.

Principal Axes : Principal axes of a structure are two mutually perpendicular horizontal directions in plan of a structure along which the geometry of the structure is oriented.

Response Reduction Factor R : It is the factor by which the actual lateral force, that would be generated if the structure were to remain elastic during the most severe shaking that is likely at that site, shall be reduced to obtain the design lateral force.

Response Spectrum: The representation of the maximum response of idealized single degree freedom systems having certain period and damping, during that earthquake. The maximum response is plotted against the undamped natural period and for various damping values, and can be expressed in terms of maximum absolute acceleration, maximum relative velocity or maximum relative displacement.

Seismic Mass: It is the seismic weight divided by acceleration due to gravity. Seismic Weight W: It is the total dead load plus part of live load as per 3.2.3.

Soil Profile Factor S : It is a factor used to obtain the elastic acceleration spectrum depending on the soil profile underneath the structure at the site.

Strength: It is the usable capacity of a structure or its members to resist the applied loads. Zone Factor Z : It is a factor to obtain the design spectrum depending on the perceived seismic risk of the zone in which the structure is located.

J

This section on definitions has been particularly included to define numerous

terms that are added fresh in the code. Two of the important ones are:

(a) The term "average acceleration spectrum" used in IRC:6-1966 has now been dropped. Instead, a term "elastic horizontal acceleration spectrum" has been introduced. This is because the spectrum used in design may not necessarily be the "average" of the acceleration spectra of the recorded ground motions. In fact, the average acceleration spectrum may undergo modifications before it is prescribed for use in design to account for effects such as ductility and

... Draft tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page -I of -14

overstrength, and for concerns such as safety of very short period structures or long period structures. Further, the said spectrum is used in the estimation of the total elastic force on the structure/component. Thus, the additional word "elastic" appears.

(b) The term "response reduction factor" has been introduced. Through this factor, the actual lateral force, that would be generated if the structure were to remain elastic during the most severe shaking that is likely at that site, is reduced to obtain the design lateral force. This term has been introduced to clarify to the designer that the design lateral force is not the same as the maximum force that appears on the structure/component under the expected level of seismic shaking during the maximum credible earthquake.

(

0.2 Symbols

The symbols and notations given below apply to the provisions of this standard.

The units used with the items covered by these symbols shall be consistent throughout, unless specifically noted otherwise.

A Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient

Ak Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient of mode k

C Bridge flexibility factor

C, Hydrodynamic force coefficient

Gc Bridge flexibility factor of mode k of vibration

Cj, C2; Pressure coefficients to estimate flow load due to stream on the substructure C3,C4 D

E

F

Dead load reaction of the bridge; dead load reaction at the support Modulus of Elasticity

Hydrodynamic force on substructure

(

(

Fe Inertia force due to mass of a bridge component under earthquake shaking along a direction

{ F: } Inertia force vector due to mass of bridge under earthquake shaking along a

\.

( direction in mode k

F:et Maximum elastic force resultants at a cross-section due to all modes considered

(

,

fc Characteristic cylinder compressive strength of concrete at 28 days

fck Characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete at 28 days

fy Characteristic yield strength of reinforcement steel

g Acceleration due to gravity

H Height of water surface from level of deepest scour; height of substructure as per

8.2.2

I Importance Factor

L Length of bridge deck as per ~.2.2

M h Moment due to horizontal fluid pressure on submerged superstructures about the

centre of gravity of its base

[m] Seismic mass martix of the bridge structure

Pk Modal participation factor of mode k of vibration

p Pressure due to fluid on submerged superstructures

R Response Reduction Factor

(

(

... Draft tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 5 0(44

rj,r].fsForce resultants due to full design seismic force along two horizontal directions and along the vertical direction, respectively

S Soil Profile Factor

S E Seat length of the superstructure on the substructure (or of the suspended portion

of the superstructure on the restrained portion)

T Natural Period of Vibration

Tk Natural Period of Vibration of mode k

U Vertical force at support due to seismic force

V Lateral Shear Force

Ve Maximum elastic force resultant at a cross-section of a bridge component

Vnet Design seismic force resultant in any component of the bridge due to all modes considered

W Seismic weight, which includes full dead load and part live load as discussed in

3.2.3.

Wb Widths of seating at bearing supports at expansion ends of girders.

We Weight of water in a hypothetical enveloping cylinder around a substructure

y Height of water surface from level of deepest scour (in m)

Z Seismic zone factor

a Horizontal seismic coefficient

ah Horizontal seismic coefficient

ao Basic horizontal coefficient

p Ratio of natural frequencies of modes i and}

{ <P k } Mode shape vector of the bridge in mode k of vibration

A, Net response due to all modes considered.

A, k Response in mode k of vibration.

Pi} Coefficient used in combining modal quantities of modes i and} by CQC Method

rok Natural frequency of mode k of vibration

~ Modal damping ratio

The existing version of the IRC code, i.e; IRC:6-1966, considers variation in seismic risk in different parts of the country through "horizontal seismic coefficient a." On the other hand, the 15 code, i.e., 15:1893-1984, uses the "basic horizontal coefficient ao" for the same parameter. Hence, in the draft provisions, a new parameter "seismic zone factor" has been defined to distinguish from the earlier parameters and has been assigned the symbol "Z"

Symbol "A" has been assigned to represent the elastic acceleration spectrum arrived at after considering the relevant factors such as seismic zone factor Z, importance factor I, bridge flexibility factor C. and soil profile factor S. This spectrum value A is to be finally used for design of a bridge independent of the method of analysis to be used (i.e., s~atic or dynamic).

1.0 General Principles 1.1 Scope

This standard is applicable for the seismic design of new bridges and the seismic evaluation of existing bridges. Bridges and portions thereof shall be designed and constructed, to resist the effects of design seismic force specified in this standard as a nnrumum.

... Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 60(44

The deSigners may use this draft code both for design of new bridges and for seismic. evaluation of existing bridges in the process of their seismic upgradation. The designer may choose to design bridges for seismic forces larger than those specified in this code and but not less.

1.2 The intention of this standard is to ensure that bridges possess at least a minimum strength to withstand earthquakes. The intention is not to prevent damage to them due to the most severe shaking that they may be subjected to during their lifetime. Actual forces that appear on portions of bridges during earthquakes may be greater than the design seismic forces specified in this standard. However, ductility arising from material behaviour and detailing, and overstrength arising from the additional reserve strength in them over and above the design force, are relied upon to account for this difference in actual and design lateral loads.

The earthquake codes provide design forces which are substantially lower than what a structure is expected to actually experience during strong earthquake shaking. Hence, it is important that the structure be made ductile and that it be redundant to allow for alternate load transfer paths. Ductile design and detailing enables a designer to use a lower design force (i.e., a higher value of response reduction factor R) than for an ordinarily-detailed structure.

1.3 The reinforced and prestressed concrete components shall be underreinforced so as to cause a tensile failure. Further, they should be suitably designed to ensure that premature failure due to shear or bond does not occur. Ductility demand under seismic shaking is usually not a major concern in bridge superstructures. However, the seismic response of bridges is critically dependant on the ductile characteristics of the substructures, foundations . and connections. Provisions for appropriate ductile detailing of reinforced concrete members given in IS: 13 920-1993 shall be applicable to substructures, foundations and connections.

Provisions for ductile design and detailing for reinforced concrete structures are provided in 15:13920-1993. However, provisions for ductile detailing of prestressed concrete, steel and prefabricated structures are not yet available in the form of Indian Standards. If such structures are to be designed for high seismic zones of the country, it is expected that the designer will ensure suitable ductility following the practices of countries with advanced seismic provisions, e.g., USA, New Zealand and Japan.

1.4 Masonry and plain concrete arch bridges with spans more than 10m shall not be built in the severe seismic zones IV and V.

DeSigners are prohibited to consider masonry and plain concrete arch bridges of spans more than 10 m as structural systems for bridges in high seismic zones, since these systems are known to have a very poor behaviour under strong ground shaking.

1.5 Ground Motion

The characteristics (intensity, duration, etc.,) of seismic ground vibrations expected at any location depends upon the magnitude of earthquake, the depth of focus, distance from the epicenter, characteristics of the path through which the seismic waves travel, and

(

... Draft (or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 70(44

/ \

the soil strata on which the structure stands. The random earthquake ground motions, which cause the structures to vibrate, can be resolved in any three mutually perpendicular directions. Situations arise where earthquake-generated vertical inertia forces need to be specifically considered in design. These situations include bridges with large spans, those in which stability is a criterion for design, design of vertical hold-down devices at supports or for overall stability analysis of bridges. Reduction in gravity force due to vertical component of ground motions can be particularly detrimental in cases of prestressed horizontal girders and of cantilevered components. Hence, special attention should be paid to the effect of vertical component of the ground motion on them.

The upward seismic forces produce stresses that are usually not accounted for in the gravity design of horizontal prestressed girders and cantilevered components. The 1994 Northridge earthquake in USA has clearly shown the vulnerability of horizontal prestressed girders subjected to vertical ground motions. To check the girder for vertical component ground motions, it may be sufficient to consider the girders, except in case of large span bridges, as rigid for vertical vibrations and subjected to zero-period vertical accelerations but with no response reduction factor R (i.e., the seismic coefficient as 0.67ZIS,

since the vertical accelerations to be taken for the purposes of design are 0.67 times that of the horizontal accelerations specified in this code).

In the seismic design of bridges, vertical ground motions are particularly important. Vertical seismic forces may cause jumping of girders, and additional stress resultants and displacements, particularly in long span bridges. For this reason, this draft recommends that wherever applicable, vertical seismic forces shall be considered. Also, in the overall stability check of bridges, in the stability of superstructures or portions thereof that are not monolithic with the substructure, and in the design of vertical hold-down devices at supports, vertical seismic forces shall be considered.

(

(

1.6 The response of a structure to earthquake shaking is a function of the nature of foundation soil; materials, form, size and mode of construction; and characteristics and duration of ground motion. This standard specifies design forces for structures standing on soils or rocks which do not settle or slide due to loss of strength during shaking.

This clause warns deSigners that the provisions contained in this draft code do not provide safeguard against situations where soil underlying the structure may undergo instability due to large settlements, sliding or liquefaction.

1. 7 Assumptions

The following assumptions are made in the earthquake-resistant design of bridges:

(a) Earthquake causes impulsive ground motions, which are complex and irregular in character, changing in period and amplitude, and each lasting for a small duration. Therefore, resonance of the type as visualized under steady-state sinusoidal excitations, will not occur as it would need time to build up such amplitudes.

(b) Earthquake is not likely to occur simultaneously with wind or maximum flood or maximum sea waves.

(c) The value of elastic modulus of materials, wherever required, may be taken as for static analysis unless a more definite value is available for use in such condition.


page 80{44

The elastic modulus of concrete is difficult to specify. The value varies with the stress level, loading conditions (static or dynamic), material strength, age of material, etc. Hence, there tends to be a very large variation in the value of elastic modulus specified by different design codes even for the same grade of concrete under static conditions.

For instance, ACI-318(1989) recommends modulus of elastiCity E as -I700.[l[ (MPa), while in 15:456-1978, E is calculated as 5700P;; (MPa).

Here, f~ is the 28-day cylinder strength and fck is the 28-day cube strength; further, f~ == 0.8 fck' Thus, the value of E given by the IS code is about 1.4 times that given by the ACI code for the same grade of concrete. Further, the actual strength of concrete is more than the 28-day strength; it shows an increase with time. There are further difficulties in choosing the value of the modulus of elasticity for concrete for seismic analysis. The value of E given in codes, such as ACI-318 and 15:456, is often the secant modulus; its value is prescribed with a view to obtain a conservative estimates of deflections. i.e; lower stiffness. On the other hand, the dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete refers to almost pure elastic effects and is equal to the initial tangent modulus. which is appreciably higher than the secant modulus. When a structure is new and is subjected to low amplitude of ground motion, the dynamic modulus of elastiCity to be used in the analysis has two opposite implications on seismic design. For calculation of the design seismic force. it is unconservative to have low stiffness given by low value of modulus of elastiCity; this leads to a high natural period and lower design seismic coefficient. However, for the deflection calculations. it is unconservative to make a high estimate of stiffness.

Hence. there are no easy answers to the question of what value of modulus of elasticity to use for seismic analysis. Considering the enormous variations. this clause allows the designer to use elastic modulus as for a static condition.

2.0 Design Criteria

In the current IRC and IS codes, the design seismic forces for bridges are directly specified; this was often misunderstood as the maximum expected seismic force on the bridge under design seismic shaking. In line with the worldwide practice in this regard. the draft code now distinguishes the .actual forces appearing on each bridge component during design earthquake shaking if the entire bridge structure were to behave linear elastically. from the design seismic force for that component.

The draft code makes it clear to the designer that the design seismic forces on superstructure. substructure and foundations are only a fraction of the maximum elastic forces that would appear on the bridge. Only in connections, the design seismic forces may be equal to (or more than) the maximum elastic forces that would be transmitted through them. However, if capacity design provisions discussed under 9. become applicable. the connection design forces

... Draft {Or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 90(44

may also be less than the maximum elastic forces. This is in stark contrast with the design forces for any other loading type. For instance, in case of design for wind effects, the maximum forces that appear on the structure are designed for; no reductions are employed.

The draft code achieves this by the following step-wise procedure:

(a) Obtain the horizontal elastic acceleration coefficient due to design earthquake, which is same for all components;

(b) Obtain the seismic weight of each component,;

(c) Obtain the seismic inertia forces generated in each component by multiplying quantities in (a) and (b) above;

(d) Apply these inertia forces generated in each of the components (from (c) above) at the centre of mass of the corresponding component, and conduct a linear elastic analysis of the entire bridge structure to obtain the stress resultants at each cross-section of interest;

(e) Obtain the design stress resultants in any component by dividing the elastic stress resultants obtained in (d) above by the response reduction factor prescribed for that component.

Thus, first the maximum elastic seismic forces are estimated and then these are divided with the response reduction factors to obtain the design seismic forces.

2.1 Seismic Zone Map

For the purpose of determining design seismic forces, the country is classified into four seismic zones as shown in Figure 1.

The seismic zone map is under revision by the concerned Map Sub-Committee of the Sectional Committee on Earthquake Engineering (CED:39) of the Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. However, it is already agreed upon that the new zoning map of India shall have only four seismic zones. As an interim measure till the new zoning map becomes available, for the purpose of determining seismic forces as per this draft code, the current seismic zone map as given in 15:1893- 1984 (shown in Figure 1) is used with seismic zone I merged upwards with seismic zone II. The current IRC:6-1966 uses the same seismic zone map as in 15:1893- 1984.

2.2 Methods of Calculating Design Seismic Force

The seismic forces for bridges may be estimated by either one of the two methods, namely (a) the Seismic Coefficient Method described in 3.0, or (b) the Response Spectrum Method described in 4.0. For all bridges in seismic zones IV and V, and also for irregular bridges as defined in 2.2.1 in seismic zones ill, the Response Spectrum Method shall be adopted.

Linear static analysis of the bridge shall be performed for the applied inertia forces to obtain the force resultants (e.g., bending moment, shear force and axial force) at the different locations in the bridge. For this purpose, the analytical model of the bridge must appropriately model the stifIhesses of superstructure, bearings, piers or columns (i.e., substructure), foundations and bridge ends.

Special seismic analysis and design studies shall be performed for regular bridges with span more than 100 m and for all irregular bridges in seismic zones IV and V.


page 100(44

Both IRC:6-1966 and 15:1893-1984, currently follow a very simplistic design force calculation procedure which does not qualify under either the Seismic Coeffcient Method or the Response Spectrum Method as these methods are generally understood for buildings in the context of 15:1893-1984. In these codes, the seismic design force computation does not include consideration of flexibility of the bridge. This impiies that all bridges in a seismic zone, irrespective of their span and structural system, have the same accelration coefficient in the design; this is not considered appropriate.

This draft code includes the effect of bridge flexibility in its design force computation. Further, it permits the use of both the Seismic Coefficient Method (i.e., equivalent static method) and the Response Spectrum Method (i.e., dynamic analysis method). However, it is felt that the latter method is superior in arriving at the distribution of forces in the bridge structure. The Seismic Coefficient ~ethod described in the commentary under 3. assumes that (a) the fundamental mode of vibration has the most dominant contribution to seismic force, and (b) mass and stiffness are evenly distributed in the bridge resulting in a regular mode shape. However, in long span bridges, higher modes may be important. And, in irregular bridges, the mode shape may not be regular. Hence, this clause requires multi-mode analysis, namely Response Spectrum Method, for such bridges. The draft code also prescribes that all bridges in the high seismic zones (i.e., IV and V) shall be atlalysed as per the multi-mode (dynamic) method. This is again motivated by the fact that the a better distribution of forces is achieved by this method.

In both the methods, the accurate modelling of the bridge structure is essential, because unlike in the case of buildings where the empirical natural period is based on actual measurements of bUildings, no such benchmark is available for bridge structures. The large scatter in the bridge geometry, structural system, and the loading conditions makes the determination of an empirical benchmark for natural period of bridges very difficult.

The draft code recognises that bridges (even if they are regular) of spans around 100 m or more and ail irregular bridges in high seismic zones IV and V, require a more detailed engineering with the help of the state-of-the-art analysis and design methods.

2.2.1 Regular and Irregular Bridge 2.2.1.1 Regular Bridge

A regular bridge has no abrupt or unusual changes in mass, stiffness or geometry along its span and has no large differences in these parameters between adjacent supports (abutments excluded). A bridge shall be considered regular for the purposes of this

standard, if 5w)ctUer-

(a) It is straight or describes a sector of an arc which subtends an angle of §i"iIKif than 90° at the centre of the arc, and

(b) The adjacent columns or piers do not differ in stiffuess by more than 25% (percentage difference shall be calculated based on the lesser of the two stiffnesses as reference.).

... Draft (Or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page II 0(44

2.2.1.2 Irregular Bridge

All bridges not conforming to 2.2.1.1 shall be considered irregular.

The classification of bridges into the two categories, namely regular bridges and irregular bridges, included in the draft code is adopted from the AASHTO code of USA. While this classification is only meant to be used as a guide, the responsibility of identifying other irregularities in the chosen bridge structure still rests with the deSigner.

2.3 Vertical Motions

The seismic zone factor for vertical motions, when required, may be taken as twothirds of that for horizontal motions given in Table 2.

The existing codes IRC:6-1966 and 15:1893-1984 prescribe that the vertical accelerations be taken as one-half of the horizontal accelerations for the purposes of design. However, studies on recorded strong ground motion records in the past earthquakes indicate that the peak ground accelerations (PGA) in the vertical direction is generally about two-thirds of that in the horizontal direction. Thus, the factor of two-thirds is considered more appropriate. Now, the draft building provisions, being discussed in the Earthquake Engineering Sectional Committee (CED:39) of the Bureau of Indian Standards, include that the seismic zone factor (which reflects the PGA in the seismic zone) for vertical motions be taken as two-thirds of that for horizontal motions. The same provision is now included for the seismic design of bridges here.

2.4 Live Load

The design live loads shall be as specified in the relevant standards. 2.4.1 For Calculation of Magnitude of Seismic Forces Only

The live load shall be ignored while estimating the horizontal seismic forces along the direction of traffic.

The horizontal seismic force in the direction perpendicular to traffic shall be calculated using 50% of design live load (excluding impact) for railway bridges, and 25% of design live load (excluding impact) for road bridges.

The vertical seismic force shall be calculated using 100% of design live load (excluding impact) for railway bridges, and 5 CPA> of design live load (excluding impact) for road bridges.

The above percentages are only for working-out the magnitude of seismic force.

By the live load acting on the span, one usually refers to vehicular traffic.

Seismic shaking in the direction of traffic causes the wheels to roll once the frictional forces are overcome. The inertia force generated by the vehicle mass in this case is smaller than that produced if the vehicle mass were completely fastened to the span. Further, the inertia force generated by the vehicle mass due to friction between the superstructure deck and wheels, is assumed to be taken care of in the usual design for braking forces in the longitudinal direction. Thus, live load is ignored while estimating the seismic forces in the direction of traffic.

On the contrary, under seismic shaking in the direction perpendicular to that of traffic, the rollin~ of wheels is not possible. Thus, live load is included for

... Draft tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 120(44

shaking in this direction. Here, it is assumed that at the time of the earthquake, 100% of design live load is present on railway bridges and 50% of design live load is present on road bridges. Further, since live load is friction supported on the rail or on the deck, only a portion of the live load could contribute to the seismc forces; this is taken as 50% of the live load considered. Thus, (a) 50% of design live load in case of railway bridges, and (b) 25% of design live load in case of road bridges, is recommended.

When computing the vertical seismic forces, the entire live load, which is considered to be present on the bridge at the time of the earthquake (as discussed in the above paragraph), is taken.

2.4.2 For Calculation of Stresses Due to Live Load, but to be Combined with Stresses due to Seismic Forces

F or calculating the stresses due to live load to be combined with those due to seismic forces, 100% of design live load (including impact) for railway bridges, and 50% of the design live load (including impact) for road bridges shall be considered at the time of the earthquake.

As discussed in the commentary under 2.4.1.It is assumed that at the time of the earthquake, 100% design live load is present on the span in case of railway bridges and only 50% in case of road bridges; the clause reflects the same.

2.5 Seismic Load Combinations

2.5.1 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 component resulting from the analyses in the two orthogonal horizontal directions shall be combined as below:

(a) ±r1 ±0.3r2 (b) ±0.3r1 ±r2 where

r] = Force resultant due to full design seismic force along the first horizontal direction,

r2 = Force resultant due to full design seismic force along the second horizontal direction. 2.5.2 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) ±r] ±0.3r2 ±0.3r3 (b) ±0.3r1 ±r2 ±0.3r3 (c) ±O.3r] ± 0.3r2 ± r3

where r] and r2 are as defined in 2.5.1, and

r3 = Force resultant due to full design seismic force along the vertical direction.

The design ground motion can occur along any direction of a bridge. Moreover, the motion has different directi?ns at different time instants. The earthquake ground motion can be thought of in terms of its components in the two horizontal directions and one vertical direction. For bridges that are termed regular, the two orthogonal horizontal directions (say x- and y-directions) are usually the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge. For such bridges, it is sufficient to design the bridge for seismic forces (i.e., ELx and ELy)

... Draft tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 13 of 44

acting along each of the x- and y-directions separately. During earthquake shaking, when the resultant motion is in a direction other than x and y, the motion can be resolved into x- and y-components, which the elements in the two principal directions are normally able to withstand.

However, in case of bridges which are irregular, and particularly in those with skew, design based on considering seismic force in x- and y-directions separately, leads to underdesign of the bridge components. In such a case, the bridge should also be designed for earthquake forces acting along the directions in which the structural systems of the substructures are oriented. One way of getting around this without having to consider too many possible earthquake directions is to design the structure for

(a) full design force along x-direction (ELx) acting simultaneously with 30% of the design force in the y-direction (ELy); t.e.. (ELx+O.3ELy), and

(b) full design force along y-direction (ELy) acting Simultaneously with 30% of

the design force in the x-direction (ELx); i.e., (o.3ELx+ELy).

This combination ensures that the components (particularly the substructure) oriented in any direction will have sufficient lateral strength. In case vertical ground motions are also considered, the same principle is then extended to the design force in the three principal directions.

2.6 Increase in Permissible Stresses

2.6.1 Increase in Permissible Stresses in Materials

When earthquake forces are considered along with other normal design forces, the permissible stresses in material, in the elastic method of design, may be increased by onehalf However, for steels having a definite yield stress, the stress be limited to the yield stress; for steels without a definite yield point, the stress will be limited to 80 percent of the ultimate strength or 0.2 percent proof stress, whichever is smaller; and that in prestressed concrete members, the tensile stress in the extreme fibers of the concrete may be permitted so as not to exceed two-thirds of the modulus of rupture of concrete.

2.6.2 Increase in Allowable Pressure in Soils

When earthquake forces are included, the allowable bearing pressure in soils shall be increased as per Table 1, depending upon type of foundation of the structure and the type of soil.

The increases in permissible stresses in these clauses are the same as in

IS:1893-1984.

... Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 14 of ,/4

Table 1 : Percentage of permissible increase in allowable bearing pressure of soils

25

S.No. Foundation

Type of Soil Mainly Constituting the Foundation

Type I - Rock or Type II Medium Type III Soft

Hard Soils : Well Soils : All soils Soils: All graded gravel and with N between 10 soils other than

sand gravel and 30, and SP* with N < 10

mixtures with or poorly graded

without clay sands or gravelly

binder, and sands with little

clayey sands or no fines (SP*)

poorly graded or with N > 15

sand clay

mixtures (GB, CW,

SB, SW, and SC)*

having N** above

30, where N is

the standard

penetration

value

1. Piles passing through any soil but resting on soil type I

50

50

50

2. Piles not covered under item 1

25

25

3. Raft Foundations

50

50

50

4. Combined isolated RCC footing wi th tie beams

50

25

25

5. Isolated RCC footing without tie beams, or unreinforced strip foundations

50

25

6.

Well foundations

50

25

... Draft (or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 15 of -14

Notes on Table 1

Note 3

The allowable bearing pressure shall be determined in accordance with IS:6403-1981 *** or IS: 1888-1982 ****.

If any increase in bear ing pressure has already been permi t ted for forces other than seismic forces, the total increase in allowable bearing pressure when seismic force is also included shall not exceed the limits specified above.

Desirable minimum field values of N are as follows: If soils of smaller N-values are met, compaction may be adopted to achieve these values or deep pile foundations going to stronger strata should be used.

Note 1

Note 2

Seismic Depth below
Zone ground level N Values Remark
(in metres)
III , IV :S 5 15
and V ::: 10 25 For values of depths
between 5 metres
I and II :S 5 10 and 10 metres,
(for important ::: 10 20 linear interpolation
structures is recommended.
only) - Note 4

The piles should be designed for lateral loads neglecting lateral resistance of soil layers liable to liquefy.

***

See IS: 1498-1970 Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes (first revision).

See IS:2131-1981 Method of Standard Penetration Test for Soils (first revision).

Code of Practice for Determination of Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations (first revision).

Method of Load Tests on Soils (second revision).

*

**

****


page 16 o(.l..J

3.0 Seismic Coefficient Method

3.1 Elastic Seismic Acceleration Coefficient A

The Elastic Seismic Acceleration Coefficient A due to design earthquake along a considered direction shall be obtained as

A=ZICS

where

Z = Zone Factor, given in Table 2 for horizontal motion. For vertical motion, refer to 2.3. I = Importance Factor, given in Table 3,

r 1.25 IT%

C= Bridge Flexibility Factor along the considered direction = ~

l13.15

T~

T~ 4.0 sec

T> 4.0 sec

S = Soil Profile Factor, given in Table 4, and

T= Fundamental natural period of the bridge (along the considered direction).

However, the bridge flexibility factor C need not exceed 2.5 irrespective of soil type. A plot of CS versus T is given in Figure 2.

Table 2 : Zone Factor Z for horizontal motion.

Seismic Zone Z
I, II 0.10
ill 0.16
IV 0.24
V 0.36 Table 3: I

F

I r d·fti

b 'd

Table 4:

mportance actor or I erent n Iges.
Use I
Important Bridges (e.~., Bridges on National and State Highways) 1.5
Others 1.0
Soil Profile Factor S for different soil profile types at the site.
Soil Profile Type S
Type I :: Rock or Hard Soils 1.0
Type II :: Medium Soils 1.2
Type III :: Soft Soils 1.5
Note:: The soil types are classified in Table 1 oflS:1893-1984. Several changes have been incol"?orated in this new elastic seismic acceleration spectrum:

(a) The basic horizontal seismic coefftc.ent; ao is replaced by the seismic zone factor Z, and the soil-foundation system factor P has been replaced by a

soil-profile factor S .• " __ =!!!!!!!I_,._mp: __ IRI .i!i!!

.,.m!!!I!!!!!!I)j-.-== __ ".:a. While the values for I have been retained the same, the expression fer C has been revised.

(b) The term Z now reflects realistic vah.es, as fraction of the acceleration due to gravity, of the expected peak ground acceleration in different seismic zones. For instance, the draft code s?ecifies zone IV for areas which are likely to sustain shaking of intensity VIII C11 the Modified Mercalli lntenelty (MMI)


page 170[44

\j

scale. The value of Z (=0.24) for zone IV gives the value of peak ground acceleration as 0.24g which may be reasonably expected in shaking intensity VIII. Adoption of realistic values of peak ground acceleration as the seismic zone factor Z has also rationalised the relative values of design seismic force for different seismic zones. Data from past earthquakes show that as the intensity of shaking goes up one level on the MMI scale (say from VI to VII, or from VII to VIII), the peak ground acceleration almost doubles. In the existing Indian codes [15:1893-1984; IRC:6-1966], this is not duly reflected since the seismic force in different zones varied in the ratio 1:2:4:5:8. The draft code uses a factor of about 1.5, resulting in the ratio 1:1.6:2.4:3.6.

(c) Another change introduced in the draft code is that the soil-foundation system factor f3 has been removed and the soil-profile factor S included. The factor f3, depending on the type of soil and the type of foundation, was intended to Increase the design force for systems that are more vulnerable to differential settlements. However, in real earthquake situations, bridges do not experience higher earthquake-induced inertia forces on account of vulnerability to differential settlement. Also. the problem of differential settlement cannot be addressed by increasing the design seismic force on the bridge; instead it has to be addressed by a proper choice of the foundation. On the other hand. records obtained from past earthquakes

, clearly show that the average acceleration spectrum tends to be different for sites with different soil profiles. The new soil-profile factor S considers this variation. The classification of soil as given in 15:1893-1984 is used in this draft code. The values of S are taken from AA5HTO code.

(d) The product of terms C and S shown in Figure 3 of the draft code represents the shape of the design spectrum with peak ground acceleration scaled to the value of 1.0. This shape is same as the average shape of the acceleration response spectrum. except in the range 0 - 0.1 sec. In this range. the value of CS is constant as against the response spectrum which varies from 1.0 to the maximum value (equal to 2.5 in this case) at a period of about 0.1 sec. The shape of the response spectrum is modified for design purposes in this range in view of the fact that ductility does not help in reducing the maximum forces on the stiff s~ructures with fundamental period in the range 0-0.1 sec. In developing this C versus T spectrum. 5% damping is implicitly assumed.

(e) The fundamental natural period T of the bridge along the considered direction of lateral force is required .to obtain the bridge flexibility factor C. The expression proposed for C in the draft code is taken from the AA5HTO code.

In case of buildings. experimental measurements are made on existing buildings and empirical expressions are arrived at for the fundamental natural period T of typical building structures. However. in case of bridges. there is a significant variation in the parameters of the bridge even within

\_

· .. Draft tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 18 0(..14

the same structural system. Thus, an empirical natural period cannot be arrived at. Hence, recourse to analytical methods becomes essential.

3.1.1 The fundamental natural period T of the bridge along a horizontal direction, may be estimated by the expression

T = 2.O~ IOgOF ' in which

D = Dead load reaction of the bridge in kN, and

F = Horizontal force in kN required to be applied at the centre of mass of the superstructure for one mm horizontal deflection of the bridge along the considered direction of horizontal force.

For the purposes of the seismic coefficient method, a simple procedure based on static analysis is recommended to obtain the fundamental natural period. The bridge is assumed to behave like a single degree of freedom system in the considered direction of shaking and the natural period is obtained by the expression

T= 21tt-.

Here, the mass m of the bridge is obtained from its dead load D (kN, say) by dividing with the acceleration due to gravity g. Also, in order to obtain the

. stiffness k in kNlmm, a force F is applied in the direction of the considered lateral force at the centre of mass of the bridge \3ystem such that the displacement along that direction is 1 !11m (See Figure C1). Thus, k = F /1 = F. And the expression for T modifies to

T= 27t~D; g.

To keep the units consistent, g has to be in mm/eec", t.e., 9810 mm/eec': Thus, the equation reduces to

T=27t ~.

V98lOF

Simplifying,

T= 2.O~ 10~F'

where

D = Dead load reaction of the bridge in kN, and

F = Lateral force in kN required to be applied at the centre of mass of the

superstructure for one mm deflection of the bridge along the

considered direction of lateral force.

3.2 Maximum Elastic Forces and Deformations

The inertia forces due to mass of each component or portion of the bridge as obtained from 3.2.1 shall be applied at the centre of mass of the corresponding component or portion of the bridge. A linear static analysis of the bridge shall be performed for these applied inertia forces to obtain the force resultants (e.g., bending moment, shear force and axial force) and deformations (e.g., displacements and rotations) at different locations in

· .. Draft {Or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 190[44

the bridge. The stress resultants Ve and deformations so obtained are the maximum elastic force resultants (at the chosen cross-section of the bridge component) and the maximum elastic deformations (at the chosen nodes in the bridge structure), respectively.

The inertia force is generated at the locations of the mass. This clause suggests that the entire inertia force generated in a bridge component be applied as a concentrated load at the centre of mass of that component. Clearly, when the mass is distributed along the dimension of the bridge component, the above approach may result in the incorrect estimation of force resultants due to inertia forces. DeSigners may require to subdivide such bridge components into smaller segments and evaluate the inertia force for each of these segments separately. Of course, in such a case, the inertia force generated by the mass of each segment may be proportionally distributed at the end nodes of that segment. In fact, this is already in practice in the AASHTO code, which requires that

(a) the superstructure should, as a minimum, be modelled as a series of plane frame members with nodes at span quarter polrrta, and joint elements. The lumped mass inertia effects should be properly distributed at these locations; and

(b) the substructure should be modelled as a series of plane frame members and joint elements. In case of short stiff columns having lengths less than one-

. third of either of the adjacent span lengths, intermediate nodes are not necessary. However, long flexible columns should be modelled with intermediate nodes at the third points.

The criteria for earthquake resistant design is complete only when all of the following are included: (i) the load factors and allowable stresses, (ii) the design acceleration spectrum, including the method of obtaining the natural period T, (iii) the damping ratio, and (iv) the method of analysis. The response reduction factors R to reduce the maximum elastic forces to the design forces, are calibrated keeping in mind these factors. Thus, this clause specifies that linear analysis be conducted to obtain the bending moment, shear force and axial force at different locations in the bridge.

3.2.1 Inertia Force Due to Mass of Each Bridge Component

The inertia force due to the mass of each bridge component (e.g., superstructure, substructure and foundation) under earthquake ground shaking along any direction shall be obtained from

Fe =A W

,

where

A = Elastic Seismic Acceleration Coefficient along the considered direction of shaking obtained as per 3.1, and

W = Seismic weight as discussed in 3.2.3.

The inertia force due to the mass of a bridge component under earthquake ground shaking in a particular direction depends on the elastic seismic acceleration coefficient computed for shaking along that direction. Clearly, this

... Draft/or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 20 of -14

acceleration coefficient will be different along different directions for the same mass owing to different natural periods along those directions.

3.2.2 Elastic Seismic Acceleration Coefficient for Portions of Foundations below Scour Depth

For portions of foundations at depths of 30m or below from the scour depth (as defined in 6.2), the inertia force as defined in 3.2.1 due to that portion of the foundation mass may be computed using the elastic seismic acceleration coefficient taken as O.5A, where A is as obtained from 3.1.

For portions of foundations placed between the scour depth and 30m depth below the scour depth, the inertia force as defined in 3.2.1 due to that portion of the foundation mass may be computed using the elastic seismic acceleration coefficient value obtained by linearly interpolating between A and O. 5A, where A is as specified in 3.1.

The propagation of 'waves within the body of the earth is modified at the surface of the earth owing to the wave reflections at the boundary surface. For this reason, it is generally accepted that the shaking is relatively more violent at the surface, than below the ground. Hence, the draft code permits reduction in the elastic seismic acceleration coefficient A for portions of foundations below scour depth.

3.2.3 Seismic Weight

The seismic weight of the superstructure shall be taken as its full dead load plus appropriate amount of live load specified in 2.4.1. The seismic weight of the substructure and of the foundation shall be their respective full dead load. Buoyancy and uplift shall be ignored in the calculation of seismic weight.

The dead load of the superstructure also includes the superimposed dead load that is permanently fastened or bonded with its structural self weight. Since there is a limited amount of friction between the live load and the superstructure, only a part of the live load is included in the inertia force calculations.

It is clear that the seismic forces on a bridge component are generated due to its own mass, and not due to the externally applied forces on it. The presence of buoyancy and uplift forces does not reduce its mass. Thus, the clause reqUires that buoyancy and uplift forces be ignored in the seismic force calculations.

3.3 Design Seismic Force Resultants for Bridge Components

The design seismic force resultant V at a cross-section of a bridge component due to earthquake shaking along a considered direction shall be given by

Ve

V=-

R'

where

Ve = Maximum elastic force resultant at the chosen cross-section of that bridge component due to earthquake shaking along the considered direction as obtained from 3.2, and

R = Response Reduction Factor for the component as given in Table 5.

... Draa (or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 21 0{44

Table 5: R

esponse uc Ion actor or n Ige ompon
R
Component
Superstructure 6
Substructure
(a) Reinforced Concrete
with special ductile detailing 4
with ordinary detailing 3
(b) Masonry 2
Foundation 2
Connection between
Adjacent sections of Superstructure 0.8
Superstructure and Substructure :: Hinge 0.8
Superstructure and Substructure :: In-situ 1.0
Substructure and Foundation 1.0 Red ti F

R~ B·d C

ents and Connections.

The basic philosophy of earthquake resistant design is that a structure should not collapse under .strong earthquake shaking, although it may undergo some structural as well as non-structural damage. Thus, a bridge is designed for much less force than what would be required if it were to be necessarily kept elastic during the entire shaking. Clearly, structural damage is permitted but should be such that the structure can withstand the large deformations without collapse. Thus, two issues come into picture, namely (a) ductility, i.e., the capacity to withstand deformations beyond yield, and (b) overstrength. Overstrength is the total strength including the additional strength beyond the nominal design strength considering actual member dimensions and reinforcing bars adopted, partial safety factors for loads and materials, strain hardening of reinforcing steel, confinement of concrete, presence of masonry infills, increased stength under cyclic loading conditions, redistribution of forces after yield owing to redundancy, etc; [Jain and Navin, 1995J. Hence, the response reduction factor R used to reduce the maximum elastic forces to the design forces reflects these above factors.

Clearly, the different bridge components have different ductility and overstrength. For example, the superstructure has no or nominal axial load in it, and hence its basic behaviour is that of flexure. However, the substructure which is subjected to significant amount of axial load undergoes a combined axial loadflexure behaviour. It is well-known that the latter system is less ductile than the former. Also, the damage to the substructure is more detrimental to the postearthquake functioning of the bridge than damage to the superstructure span. In the second case, the span alone may have to be replaced, while the first requires an overall rethinking of the use of the bridge; minor modifications may not help. Thus, the R factors for superstructures are kept at a higher value than those for substructures. A similar argument can be given for the R values of foundations which are even lower values than those for substructures.

An important issue is that of connections, which usually do not have any significant post-yield behaviour that can be safely relied upon. Also. there is no

... Draa tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 22 of .. /.I

redundancy in them. Besides, there is a possibility of the actual ground acceleration during earthquake shaking exceeding the values reflected by the seismic zone factor Z. In view of these aspects, the connections are designed for the maximum elastic forces (and more) that are transmitted through them. Thus, the R factors for connections take values less than or equal to 1.0.

For quite sometime now, countries with advanced seismic provisions have been using this approach of obtaining the design forces from the elastic maximum forces. For example, the CALTRANS code uses a factor Z, called the adjustment factor (similar to the response reduction factor R used in this draft code); values of the same are shown in Figure C2. Similarly, the AASHTO code uses a factor R, called the response modification factor, whose values are shown in Table C1 below.

3.4 Multi-directional Shaking

When earthquake ground shaking is considered along more than one direction, the design seismic force resultants obtained from 3.3 at a cross-section of a bridge component due to earthquake shaking in each considered direction, shall be combined as per 2.5.

3.5 Combination of Seismic Design Forces with Design Forces Due to Other Effects

The design seismic force resultant at a cross-section of a bridge component given by this draft code, shall be combined with those due to other forces, e.g., dead load, live load, wind load, and wave load.

Table C1 : Response Modification Factor R-as per AASHTO code [AASHTO, 1992J.

Substructure 1 R Connections R
Wall-Type Pier2 2 Superstructure to Abutment 0.8
Reinforced Concrete Pile Bents Expanelon Joints Within a Span
a. Vertical Piles Only 3 of the Superstructure 0.8
b. One or more Batter Piles 2 Columns, Piers or Pile Bents
Single Columns 3 to Cap Beam or Superstructure 3 1.0
Steel or Composite Steel Columns or Piers to Foundations3 1.0
and Concrete Pile Bents
a. Vertical Piles Only 5
b. One or more Batter Piles 3
Multiple Column Bents 5
1 The R-Factor is to be use~ for both orthogonal axes of the substructure.
2 A wall-type pier may be designed as a column in the weak direction of the pier
provided all the provisions for columns reqUired for ductile detailing are followed.
The R-factor for a single column can then be used.
3 For bridges classified as SPC C and D, it is recommended that the connections
be designed for the maximum forces capable of being developed by plastic hinging
of the column bent as specified in the code. These forces will often be significantly
less than those obtained using an R-factor of 1. ... Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges .: Code & Commentary

page 23 o{44

4.0 Response Spectrum Method

The Response Spectrum Method requires the evaluation of natural periods and mode shapes of several modes of vibration of the structure. This method will usually require usage of a suitable space frame dynamic analysis computer program.

4.1 Elastic Seismic Acceleration Coefficient Ak in Mode k

The elastic seismic acceleration coefficient Ak for mode k shall be determined by Ak = ZICkS,

where Z, I and S are as defined in 3.1, and Ck is the bridge flexibility factor for mode k

given !b~.~~e fOI~wing expression:

Tk% lk ~ 4.0 sec

Ck =

3.15 7'

l Tk'h lk > 4.0 sec

where Tk is the natural period of vibration of mode k of the bridge. However, the bridge flexibility factor Ck for mode k need not exceed 2.5 irrespective of soil type. For modes other than the fundamental mode, the bridge flexibility factor Ck in mode k for Tk s 0.1 sec may be taken as

c; =1+15Tk·

A plot of CkS versus Tk is given in Figure 3

Typical shape of the acceleration :-esponse spectrum when plotted with natural period on the x-axie, is shown in Figure C3(a). It starts at the value of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) at zero period, rises to about 2.5 times (for 5% damping) the PGA value at a period of about 0.1 sec, and then remains at that value upto about 0.3 sec period. However, seismic design codes usually assume the design spectrum shape to be horizcntal for the range from 0.3 sec all the way upto zero period (i.e., the codes igncre the fact that the spectrum has lower values of acceleration in the range of 0-0.1 sec, as shown in Figure C3(b)). There are several reasons for this conservatism. For instance, ductility does not help in reducing the maximum forces if natural period in this range of 0-0.1 sec [Riddel et ai, 1989J; hence, one needs to :-aise the level of spectrum in this range. Also, since the acceleration response soectrum has' a very steep slope in the range 0-0.1 sec; a small underestimation of the natural period T may lead to a significant reduction in the seismic force.

However, in multimode analysis this draft allows the designer to use the ascending part of the spectrum in the :-ange 0-0.1 sec but only for the higher modes of vibration. Since, the fundamental mode makes the most significant contribution to the overall response a-:d the contribution of higher modes is relatively small, this is now permitted by several codes [e.g., AASHTO, 1992].

4.2 Inertia Force due to Mass of Bridge at Node i in Mode k

The vector {F{} of inertia forces to be applied at different nodes in mode k of vibration due to earthquake shaking along a considered direction shall be obtained as

... Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 2-1 0(44

{ F: } = [m] {<p k} Pk Ak g,

where

[m] = Seismic mass martix of the bridge structure, as defined in 4.2.1,

{ <P k } = Mode shape vector of mode k of vibration of the bridge structure obtained from free vibration analysis,

Pk = Modal participation factor of mode k of vibration of the bridge structure for a

given direction of earthquake shaking,

Ak = Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient for mode k as defined in 4.1, and g = Acceleration due to gravity.

The above expression is part of the routine solution procedure for analysis of elastic structures subjected to seismic ground motion represented by its pseudo-acceleration response spectrum. The mathematical model of the bridge structure should properly account for all stiffnesses and masses. A suitable number of intermediate nodes are required for each bridge component to properly estimate the stress resultants caused by the seismic inertia forces generated. In doing so, guidance may be sought from current AASHTO code practices already discussed in the commentary under 3.2. Rotational moment of inertia of certain masses in the bridge structure may become important particularly in case of joint elements; the same may be incorporated in the matrix of seismic weights as mass moment of inertia times acceleration due to gravity.

4.2.1 Seismic Mass Matrix

The seismic mass matrix of the bridge structure shall be constructed by considering its seismic weight lumped at the nodes of discretisation. The seismic weight of each bridge component shall be estimated as per 3.2.3, and shall be proportionally distributed to the nodes of discretisation of that bridge component.

The seismic weight of each bridge component is proportionally distributed to its end nodes and intermediate nodes as lumped masses considering its geometry. These lumped masses are used to form the matrix of seismic weights keeping in mind that the mass lumped at a node contributes to all the translational degrees of freedom at that node.

4.2.2 Number of Modes to be Considered

The number of modes to be considered in the analysis shall be such that at least 90% of the seismic mass of the structure is included in the calculations of response for earthquake shaking along each principal direction.

This clause indirectly requires that all modes that contribute significantly to the response be included in the analysis. And, the book-keeping is done through the modal masses. Clearly, the modes with low participation in the dynamics of the bridge for earthquake shaking along a chosen principal direction, will have very small modal mass and the dynamic force carried by these modes would also be small. The clause suggests that at least 90% of the total seismic mass (as defined in 4.2.1 and 3.2.3) shall be included through the modes that are considered.

'" Draft (or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges .: Code & Commentary

page 25 of ,/4

4.3 Maximum Elastic Forces and Deformations

The maximum elastic seismic forces in mode k obtained from 4.2 shall be applied on the bridge and a linear static analysis of the bridge shall be performed. The maximum

elastic force resultants F{ (e.g., bending moment, shear force and axial force) and the maximum elastic deformations (e.g., displacements and rotations) in mode k at different locations in the bridge for a considered direction of earthquake shaking.

The maximum elastic force resultants F:et and the maximum elastic deformations, due to all modes considered, for the considered direction of earthquake shaking, shall be obtained by combining those due to the individual modes by either (a) the Complete Quadratic Coefficient (CQC) Method, or (b) the Square Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS) Method described in 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, respectively.

4.3.1 CQC Method

Let the modal response quantity due to ith mode of vibration be A;. Also, let r be the number of modes considered. Then, the net response quantity A may be estimated as:

r r

A= L LA; PijAj, i=lj=l

where

8~2 (I + 13)131.5

Pi' = ---==-~-~'-----~

!j (I -13 2 l + ~ 213(1 + 13/ '

Wj

13 =-, and Wi

~ = Modal damping ratio.

Here, it is assumed that the modal damping ratio is same for all modes considered; else, the above expression shall be replaced by appropriate equations.

4.3.2 SRSS Method

Let the modal response quantity due to ith mode of vibration be A;, and let r be the number of modes considered. Then, the maximum response A due to all modes considered may be estimated as

I r 2

A=~E}At) .

The modal response quantities (e.g., bending moment, shear force, axial force, displacements and rotations at any locationof the bridge) in each mode kneed to be combined to obtain the maximum response due to all modes considered. Studies on modal response combinations show that when modal frequenciee are well-separated, the Square Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS) Method provides reasonable estimates. If two modal frequencies are separated from each other by 10% (or Jess) of the smaller one, then the two modes may be termed as closely-spaced modes. However, ~hen modal frequencies are closely-spaced or nearly closely-spaced, the SRSS method gives poor results. In fact, the Complete Quadratic Coefficient (CQC) Method provides, in general, reasonably good estimates of net response, irrespective of whether the modal frequencies are closely-spaced or well-separated. However, the CQC method as stated in 4.3.1 assumes that the modal damping ratio is same for all considered modes of

... Draft {or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 260(44

vibration. In case it is not so, reference shall be made to literature [e.g., Chopra, 1995J for suitable expressions for modal response combination.

4.4 Design Seismic Force Resultants in Bridge Components

The design seismic force resultant Vnet at any cross-section in a bridge component for a considered direction of earthquake shaking shall be determined as

e

e:

r.: =R'

where the maximum elastic force resultant F:et due to all modes considered is as obtained in 4.3, and the Response Reduction Factor R of that component of the bridge is as per Table 5.

As discussed in the commentary under 3.3, the various components of the bridge do not enjoy the same level of ductility and overstrength. Hence, the level of design seismic force vis-a-vis the maximum elastic force that will be experienced by the component if the entire bridge were to behave linear elastically, varies for different bridge components. The values of the response reduction factor R given in Table 5 reflect the same.

4.5 Multi-directional Shaking

When earthquake ground shaking is considered along more than one direction, the design seismic force resultants obtained from 4.4 at a cross-section of a bridge component due to earthquake shaking in each considered direction, shall be combined as per 2.5.

4.6 Combination of Seismic Design Forces with Design Forces Due to Other Effects The design seismic force resultant at a cross-section of a bridge component given by this draft code, shall then be combined with those due to other forces, e.g., dead load, live load, wind load, and wave load.

4.7 Site-Specific Spectrum

In case design spectrum is specifically prepared for a structure at a particular site, the same may be used for design. However, the bridge structure shall still comply with the

minimum requirements specified in this standard. .

To ensure at least a minimum strength in the bridge structure, this clause prevents the designer from using a site-specific spectrum that results in unduly small design force resultants in comparison with those given by this draft code.

5. Superstructure

5.1 The superstructure shall be designed for the design seismic forces specified in 3. or 4., plus the other loads appearing on it, e.g., dead load, live load, wind load, and wave load.

5.2 Under simultaneous action of horizontal and vertical accelerations, the superstructure shall have a factor of safety of at least 1.5 against overturning in the transverse direction.

Since the supporting width of the span in the transverse direction is relatively small in comparison with that in the longitudinal direction, overturning of superstructures (that are rested on the substructure and not monolithically connected with it) in the transverse direction may be possible under the


page 27 of .1-/

combined action of seismic forces along transverse and vertical directions. Of course, in these calculations, the direc:ion of vertical seismic force shall be taken so as to produce the worst effect.

5.3 The superstructure shall be secured to the substructure, particularly in seismic zones IV and V, through vertical hold-down devices and/or horizontal linkage elements as specified in 5.4 and 5.5, respectively. These vertical hold-down devices and/or horizontal linkage elements shall also be used to secure the suspended spans, if any, with the restrained portions of the superstructure. However, the frictional forces shall not be relied upon in these calculations.

This clause makes it mandatory in hign seismic regions to have the following devices provided between the euperetructure (that is not monolithically connected with the substructure) and sl.;,structure, and between the suspended spans, if any, and restrained portion of tne superstructure:

(a) vertical hold-down devices to prevent -:he superstructure from lifting off from its supports atop the substructure particularly under vertical seismic forces combined with the transverse seismic ';orces, and

(b) horizontal linkage elements to prevent excessive relative deformations between portions of the euperetrucrcre or between the superstructure and substructure.

5.4 Vertical Hold-Down Devices

Vertical hold-down devices shall be provided at all supports (or hinges in continuous structures), where vertical seismic force U due to the maximum elastic horizontal seismic lateral force opposes and exceeds 50% of the dead load reaction D. 5.4.1 Where vertical force U, due to the maximum elastic horizontal seismic force, opposes and exceeds 50%, but is less than 100%, of the dead load reaction D, the vertical hold-down device shall be designed for a minimum net upward force of 10% of the downward dead load reaction that would be exerted if the span were simply supported. 5.4.2 If the vertical force U, due to the horizontal seismic force, opposes and exceeds 100% of the dead load reaction D, then the device shall be designed for a net upward force of 1.2(U-D); however, it shall not be less than 10% of the downward dead load reaction that would be exerted if the span were simply supported.

Vertical hold-down devices are consioe:-ed essential in the draft provisions to minimise the potential of adverse effec-:s of vertical seismic excitation. The provisions for design force of vertical hOQ-down devices have been adapted from the AASHTO code.

5.5 Horizontal Linkage Elements

Positive horizontal linkage elements (e.g., high tensile wire strand ties, cables and dampers) shall be provided between adjacent sections of the superstructure at supports and at expansion joints within a span.

5.5.1 The linkages shall be designed for, at least, elastic seismic acceleration coefficient A times the weight of the lighter of the two adjoining spans or parts of the structure.

5.5.2 If the linkage is at locations where relative deformations are designed to occur, then sufficient slack must be allowed in the linkage so that linkages start functioning only when the design relative displacement at the linkage is exceeded.


page 28 of .1-1

5.5.3 When linkages are provided at columns or piers, the linkage of each span may be connected to the column or pier instead of to the adjacent span.

The design seismic force for each bridge component is only fraction of the maximum elastic force that can be sustained by it, if it were to completely remain elastic during earthquake shaking. However, the deformations calculated from the linear analysis of the bridge subjected to these design forces are much smaller than the actual deformations experienced during seismic shaking.

Unseating of superstructure from the substructure or of the suspended span from the restrained portion are the possible consequences if the actual deformations are not accounted for in the design of the supports at these interface points. Sometimes, the two portions that move relative to each other are securely fastened by devices called the positive horizontal linkage elements. These devices are usually either high tensile wire strand ties, cables or dampers. For the purposes of the design of these devices, the experience from the AASHTO code is used. The design forces are stated to be reasonably conservative to provide increased protection at a minimum increased cost.

5.6 Submersible Bridges

5.6.1, The hydrodynamic pressure p (in N / m2) on a submersible bridge superstructure shall be determined by

p = 8750A.JYii,

where

A = Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient given by 3.1, Y = Depth of section below water surface (in m), and

H = Height of water surface from level of deepest scour (in m).

5.6.2 The total horizontal shear Vh (in Nlm) and moment M h (in Nmlm) per meter width about the centre of gravity of the base at any depth y due to hydrodynamic pressure are given by

2 v, =-py 3

4 ". and u, =-py~

15

Both 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 are retained as given in the existing 15:1893-1984

except for the following change. In 5.6.1, "A" has taken the place of "ah". Clearly, A may be much larger than ah' i.e., the existing expression in 15:1893-1984 uses the "reduced" accelerations while tr:is draft code uses the maximum accelerattone expected during earthCA,uake shaking. This implies that the hydrodynamic pressures calculated as :;er the expression in this draft code will be significantly higher. Again, this dra~" code clearly distinguishes the actual forces appearing on the bridge from those used in its design.

6. Substructure

6.1 Design earthquake forces and forces due to maximum flood shall not be considered to occur simultaneously. The loads specified in this standard cover general conditions. The designer shall also provide for other loads where they might be critical, e.g., vehicle or ship impact on substructure.

... Draa (or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 29 of -1-1

6.2 Scour Depth

Earthquake forces on the substructure shall be calculated based on the depth of scour caused by the discharge corresponding to the annual mean design flood. In the absence of detailed data, this depth shall be taken as 90% of the maximum scour depth.

The clause 6.2 is retained as given in IRC:6-1966.

6.3 Design Seismic Force

The design seismic forces for the substructure shall be the obtained as the maximum elastic force on it (as defined in 6.3.1) divided by the appropriate response reduction factor given in Table 5.

6.3.1 Maximum Elastic Seismic Forces

The maximum elastic seismic force resultants at any cross-section of the substructure shall be calculated considering all of the following forces on it:

(a) Maximum elastic seismic forces transferred from the superstructure to the top of the substructure through bearings (Figure 4).

(b) Maximum elastic seismic forces applied at its centre of mass due to the substructure's own inertia forces. Reduction due to buoyancy and uplift shall be ignored in the calculation of seismic weight.

(c) Hydrodynamic forces owing to stream flow .acting on piers, and modification in earth-

pressure due to earthquake acting on abutments.

6.3.1.1 When the substructures are oriented normal to the direction of the traffic and along the direction of stream flow, two separate load cases, namely seismic forces acting parallel ( a) to the current direction, and (b) to the traffic directions, shall be considered. And, when the substructures are oriented skew either to the direction of traffic or to the direction of current, the load combination as given in 2.5, shall be considered.

6.3.2 While considering the stability of the substructure against overturning, the minimum factor of safety shall be 1.5 under simultaneous action of maximum elastic seismic forces in both horizontal and vertical directions during the earthquake.

These clauses under 6.3 are retained as given in 15:1893-1984.

6.4 Hydrodynamic Force

For the submerged portion of the pier, the total horizontal hydrodynamic force along the direction of ground motion is given by

F=CeA~,

where Ce is a coefficient given by Table 6, depending on the height of submergence of the pier relative to that of the radius of a hypothetical enveloping cylinder (Figure 5); and A is the elastic seismic acceleration coefficient as per 3.1; and ~ is the weight of the water in the hypothetical enveloping cylinder. The pressure distribution due to the hydrodynamic effect on the pier is given in Figure 6; the coefficients C}>C2,C3 and C4 in Figure 6 are given in Table 7.

This clause is retained as given in 15:1893-1984, except that "A" replaces "all". Again, as stated in the commentary under 5.6, "A" is different from "cu;" Hence, the hydrodynamic forces calculated as per this code will be much higher than those estimated as per the existing code 15:1893-1984.


page 300(-1-1

Table 6 : Values of Ceo

Height o[ Submerged Portion of Pier H Ce
Radius of Enveloping Cvlinder
1.0 0.39
2.0 0.58
3.0 0.68
4.0 0.73 Table 7 : Pressure Distribution Coefficients C1, C2, C3 and c..

c, C2 C3 C-I
0.1 0.-110 0.026 0.9345
0.2 0.673 0.093 0.8712
0.3 0.832 0.18-1 0.8013
0.4 0.922 0.289 0.7515
0.5 0.970 0.-103 0.6945
0.6 0.990 0.521 0.6390
0.8 0.999 0.760 0.5320
1.0 1.000 1.000 0.4286 7. Foundations

7.1 In loose sands or poorly graded sands with little or no fines, the vibrations due to earthquake may cause liquefaction or excessive total and differential settlements. Founding of bridges on such sands shall be avoided in seismic zones III, IV and V, unless appropriate methods of compaction or stabilisation are adopted for soils.

This clause is retained as given in IRC:6-1966.

7.2 When substructures terminate on a footing which rests on rock or on piles, they may be considered rotationally fixed. Foundations on soft material may be modelled using equivalent linear spring coefficients. Also, well foundations may be analysed assuming soil springs as lateral supports.

7.3 Seismic Zones IV and V

The foundations of bridges in seismic zones IV and V shall be designed to resist smaller of the following:

(a) Design seismic forces obtained from 3.3 or 4.4, and

(b) Forces developed when overstrength plastic moment hinges are formed in the substructure, as described in 9.

Damages to foundations have vey serious implications from structural safety considerations. Also, foundation repairs are very expensive as it is very difficult to access and to make alterations in them. Hence, it is required to ensure that these are not damaged. 7his clause is intended to achieve the objective that in case of severe ground snaking, the foundation is not damaged. This is done first by requiring a much lower value or response reduction factor for foundation than for the substructure, i.e., a much higher design seismic coefficient for foundation that for the substructure. However, this is qualified through the concept of capacity design [e.g., Paulay and Priestley, 1992; and Jain and Murty, 1996].

... Draa tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 310(44

Since the seismic forces are inertia induced. the foundation can never experience a seismic force higher than what the substructure is capable of transmitting to it. In section (b) here. the attempt is to obtain this upper-bound force that can be transmitted by the substructure by calculating the overstrength plastic moment capacity of the substructure. The code requires the lower of (a) and (b) to be used in design of the foundation.

8. Connections

8.1 Design Force for Connections within Superstructure and between Superstructure and Substructure

8.1.1 Seismic Zones I, II and ill

The connections between adjacent sections of the superstructure or between the superstructure and the substructure shall be designed to resist at least a horizontal seismic force in the restrained directions equal to 0.20 times the vertical dead load reaction at the bearing, irrespective of the number of spans.

In low seismic regions. the effort in the seismic design of the bridges is reduced to some extent by this clause by requiring only a simple design force calculation for the restrained supports (e.g .• rocker or elastomeric bearings). The clause has been borrowed from the AASHTO code and is considered to provide a somewhat overestimate of the design force.

8.1.2 Seismic Zones IV and V

The connections between the superstructure and substructure, and the substructure and foundation shall be designed to resist the smaller of the following:

(a) Maximum elastic horizontal seismic force transferred through it in the restrained directions divided by the appropriate Response Reduction Factor R applicable to connections, which are given in Table 5, and

(b) Maximum horizontal force that develops when overstrength plastic moment hinges are formed in the substructure.

The most common cause for earthquake disasters in case of bridges is the failure of connections. particularly those between superstructure and the substructure. Hence. extra caution is needed to ensure the safety of connections. This is done in this draft code by requiring the value of response reduction factor for bridges as 0.8 or 1.0 (See Table 5); this implies that the design force for connections obtained by (a) above is equal to (or more than) the maximum expected elastic force. However. by allowing the designer to use the lower of (a) and (b) above for design of connections, the code brings in the capacity design concept. Force obtained by (b) above provides an upper-bound on the inertia force that can be developed in the superstructure before the substructure becomes plastiC. Once the substructure becomes plastiC. the bridge will not be able to sustain higher inertia forces.

8.2 Provisions to Account for Displacements at Connections where Motions are Permitted

8.2.1 Separation Between Adjacent Units

When relative movement between two adjacent units of a bridge are designed to occur at a separation joint, sufficient clearance shall be provided between them, to permit


page 32 of .J4

the calculated relative movement under design earthquake conditions to freely occur without inducing damage. Where the two units may be out of phase, the clearance to be provided may be estimated as the square root of the sum of squares of the calculated displacements of the two units under maximum elastic seismic forces given by 3.2 or 4.3.

When two adjacent units are designed such that relative movement between them is expected to occur at their separation joint, then adequate clearance is necessary between them to avoid pounding and the consequential damage. To provide the cumulative sum of the displacements of the two units as the separation would be too conservative. Thus, this clause proposes that the square root of the sum of squares of the calculated displacements of the two units under the earthquake forces may be provided as the clearance.

8.3 Minimum Width of Seating at Supports of Superstructure on Substructure, or of the Suspended Span Portion on the Restrained Portion of the Superstructure

The widths of seating W (in mm) at supports measured normal to the face of the abutment/pier/restrained portion of superstructure from the closest end of the girder shall be the larger of the calculated displacement under the maximum elastic seismic forces estimated as er 3.2 or 4.3, and the value specified below:

500 + 1.5L + 6H for seismic zones I, Il and ill

W=

800+2.5L+IOH

for seismic zones IV and V

where

L = Length (in meters) of the superstructure to the adjacent expansion joint or to the end of superstructure. In case of bearings under suspended spans, it is sum of the lengths of the two adjacent portions of the superstructure. In case of single span bridges, it is equal to the length of the superstructure; and

For bearings at abutments,

H = Average height (in meters) of all columns supporting the superstructure to the next

expansion joint. It is equal to zero for single span bridges.

F or bearings at columns or piers,

H = Height (in meters) of column or pier. For bearings under suspended spans,

H = Average height (in meters) of the two adjacent columns or piers. Graphical representation of seating widths are shown in Figure 7.

The connections between superstructures and substructures are designed for forces specified under 8.1. Even though these are conservative values, there still will remain possibilities of the actual seismic force in the connections exceeding the actual strength of the connections. Also, in bridges the substructures are liable to large displacements due to dynamic earth-preseures. Under these conditions, it is possible that the superstructure span may be separated from the connection. At this instance, if adequate width is available on top of the substructure for the eureretructure span to rest (despite being separated from the connections), then at least the superstructure span is prevented from being dislodged from its support. Clearly, if the superstructure span is still resting atop the substructure, the cost of repairing the connection and restoring the superstructure span to its desired position is far more


page 33 of44

economical than having to rebuild the superstructure afresh if it falls off from the substructure.

Hence, this clause attempts that even under maximum expected deformations, possibility of collapse or loss of span are minimised through conservative provisions of minimum seating widths. The values of seating widths recommended for high seismic regions are about 66% higher than those for low seismic regions; this is because of higher potential of connection failures in high seismic zones. The above provision for minimum seating widths Wb (in mm) is similar to that adopted in the the AASHTO code. given by

I 203 + 1.67L + 6.66H for low seism ic performa nce categories

Wb =

l305+ 2.5L+ 10H for high seismic performance categories

where Land h are as defined in the draft code. Clearly, this draft code requires a higher seating width than the American practice. This is motivated by the Japanese practice; the Japan code [JRA, 1990J requires that the seat length S E (in mm) from edge of superstructure to the edge of the substructure shall be longer than the value estimated by the expression

j 700+5L L~ 100m

SE=

l800+4L L> 100m

where L represents the span length (in tri).

9. Capacity Design of Bridge Components

The design seismic force for bridges is lower than the maximum expected seismic force on them. However, to ensure good performance at low cost, the difference in the design seismic force and the maximum expected seismic force shall be accounted for through additional cautions. The provisions given under 9. shall be applicable to seismic zones IV and V only.

This clause requires some additional provisions which ensure that brittle failure modes do not precede the ductile failures. In a structure having both brittle and ductile e'emerrts, if it can be ensured that the ductile elements will yield prior to failure of brittle elements, the post-yield behaviour of the structure will be ductile. The concept of capacity design is used to ensure post-yield ductile behaviour of a structure having both ductile and brittle elements. In this method. the ductile elements are designed and detailed for the design forces. Then, an upper-bound strength of the ductile elements is obtained. It is then expected that if the seismic force keeps increasing, a point will come when these ductile elements will reach :heir upper-bound strength and become plastiC. Clearly, we now need to ensure that even at that level of seismic force. the brittle elements remain safe. This procedure is referred to as the capacity design procedure [Paulay and Priestley, 1992].

... Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 34 of 44

9.1 Single-Column or Single-Pier Substructure

Provisions given in IS: 13920-1993 for the ductile detailing of RC members subjected to seismic forces shall be adopted for such components of the bridge. In particular, the design shear force for a single colurrm type substructure (as against the frame type substructure) shall be the higher of the following:

(a) Maximum elastic shear force at the critical section of the bridge component divided by the response reduction factor for that components as per Table 5, and

(b) Maximum shear force that develops when the substructure has maximum moment that it can sustain (i.e., the over strength plastic moment capacity as per 9.4).

The locations for the critical sections are at the bottom of the colurrm or pier in a singiecolumn substructure as shown in Figure 8a.

The clause is meant to ensure ductile behaviour of the columns or piers. In R.C. members, flexural failure can be ductile if the member is detailed appropriately. On the other hand, shear failure is brittle. Hence, the columns are designed and detailed for flexure first. Then, using the principle of capacity design, one calculates how much is the maximum possible earthquake force that this column can sustain in the event of strong shaking. Since the shear failure is a brittle failure, shear design for columns is carried out for this upper bound load. Note that a similar provision for shear design of beams in RC frame bUildings is already in practice for many years for buildings, e.q., clause 7.2.5 in 15:4326-1976 and clause 6.3.3 in 15:13920-1993.

9.2 Multiple-Column or Multiple-Pier Substructure

Provisions given in IS: 13920-1993 for the ductile detailing of RC members subjected to seismic forces shall be adopted for such components of the bridge. In particular, the design shear force for a multi-colurrm frame-type or multi-pier substructure shall be the higher of the following:

(a) Maximum elastic shear force at the critical section of the bridge component divided by the response reduction factor for that components as per Table 5, and

(b) Maximum shear force that is developed when plastic moment hinges are formed in the substructure so as to form a collapse mechanism. Here, the plastic moment capacity shall be the overstrength plastic moment capacity as per 9.4.

The locations for the critical sections are at the bottom and/or top of the colurrms/piers in multi-colurrm frame-type substructures or multi-pier substructures as shown in Figure 8b.

This clause attempts to achieve the same objectives as discussed earlier in commentary to clause 9.1, but for the multiple-column or multiple-pier substructures.

9.3 Design Force for Connections

Connections at the restrained ends shall be designed for the lower of the following: (a) Maximum elastic shear force transferred through them at the critical section of the bridge component divided by the response reduction factor for that components as per Table 5, and

(b) Maximum shear force that develops when the substructure has maximum moment that

it can sustain (i.e., the overstrength plastic moment capacity as per 9.4). .

... Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 35 of -1-1

9.4 Overstrength Plastic Moment Capacity 9.4.1 Limit State Method of Design

The overstrength plastic moment capacity at a reinforced concrete section shall be taken as 1.4 times the ultimate moment capacity based on the usual partial safety factors for materials and loads, and on the actual dimensions of members and the actual reinforcement detailing adopted.

The factor arises from the following. The partial safety factor used in limit state design [IS:456-1978J for reinforcing steel is 1.15, t.e; the yield stress in steel used in design is O.87fy Further, in estimating the overstrength capacity, it is assumed that 25% increase in steel stress is possible owing to strainhardening in it; thus, the maximum stress in reinforcing bars for design purposes can be up to 1.25fy, as against O.87fy used in calculating moment capacity as per 15:456. Since sections are necessarily under-reinforced for ductile behaviour, the ultimate moment carrying capacity is influenced primarily by the stress in steel, and only very marginally by the grade of concrete. Thus, the ultimate moment capacity of the section can be scaled-up proportional to the ratio of the maximum stress in steel in the two cases, to obtain the plastic moment hinge capacity. Thus, 1.25 X (1/0.87) = 1.437, which is rounded off to 1.4. Similar factor of 1.4 is in practice in the ductile deatiling provisions of 15:13920-1993 for reinforced concrete members

9.4.2 Working Stress Method of Design

The overstrength plastic moment capacity at a section shall be based on the permissible stresses mentioned below, and on the actual dimensions of the members and the actual reinforcement detailing adopted.

The permissible stresses applicable for materials under gravity load conditions shall be first multiplied by 1.5 (as specified in 2.6.1, to account for the instantaneous application of the maximum earthquake forces) and then by 1.4 to account for overstength 10 materials.

The entire framework of capacity design is really applicable only to the limit state design. It is difficult to extend it to the working stress method of design. However, considering that the Indian professionals will continue to use working stress method for design of bridges for many years to come, this clause provides a crude way to implement the capacity design concept for such situations. The factor 1.4 is kept same as in limit state method.

10. Summary and Conclusions

A draft proposal for the seismic design of bridges is presented for the next revision ofIRC:6. Many of the issues raised in the earlier reports on the performance of bridges in India during past earthquakes [Murty and Jain, 1996] and on the state-of-the-art review of IRC:6-1966 provisions [Jain and Murty, 1996] have been incorporated.

The following is a brief summary of some major and important modifications made in this proposal:

• Relative values of seismic zone factor have been changed; these are the same as the ones included in the draft provisions ofIS:1893, which is under revision.

• Two methods, namely Seismic Coefficient Method and Response Spectrum Method, are given for estimating design seismic forces; this is in line with the draft Indian code for buildings and .codes of some other countries for seismic design of bridges. These

... Dratt tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 36 of -14

methods replace the existing methods in the IRC:6-1966 and IS: 1893-1984, which do not recognise the flexibility of the bridge.

• The concept of ductility and overstrength is brought into the code explicitly, by introducing the response reduction factors in place of the performance factor.

• Different response reduction factors have been proposed for the different components of the bridge, depending on the expected ductility and overstrength in them.

• The design force level for bridges has been raised from the existing levels and brought . in line with the current international practices.

• The concept of capacity design is introduced in the design of connections, substructures and foundations.

• The soil-foundation system factor is dropped. A soil profile factor depending on the soil profile has been introduced for obtaining the design spectrum.

• Design for displacements in the structure is introduced.

• Use of vertical hold-down devices and horizontal linkage elements to account for the large displacements generated during seismic shaking, is made mandatory in certain bridges.

• A minimum width of seating of superstructure over substructures to avoid collapse of spans from the atop the substructures, is required for all bridges.

The proposed draft includes significant improvements over the IRC: 6-1966 and the IS: 1893-1984. However, there are still a number of areas that needs to be further improved. These include detailed clauses on the design and detailing of individual components of foundations and abutments, of all structural steel bridge components, and of all reinforced concrete bridge components.

11. References

AASHTO 1992, 1992, Standard Specifications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA.

CALTRANS 1991, 1991, Bridge Design Specifications, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, c.A., USA.

Calvi,M., and Priestley,M.J.N., 1991, Seismic Design and Retrofittting of Reinforced Concrete Bridges, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofittting of Reinforced Concrete Bridges, 2-5 April 1991, Bormio, Italy.

Chopra,A.K., 1995, Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, USA.

IRC:6-1966, 1985, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges:

Section II : Loads and Stresses, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.

IS: 1893-1984, 1984, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

IS:4326-1976, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

IS: 13920-1993, 1993, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

Jain,S.K., and Murty,C.V.R., 1996, "Review of the State-of-the-Art in Seismic Design of Bridges," Report submitted to Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, October.

Jain,S.K., and Navin,R., 1995, "Seismic Overstrength in Reinforced Concrete Frames," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V01.121, No.3, March 1995, pp 580- 585.

... Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design o(Bridges .: Code & Commentary

page 370(44

JRA, 1990, Design Specification for Highway Bridges, Part I: General, Part II: Steel Bridges, Part III: Concrete Bridges, Part IV: Foundation, Part V: Seismic Design, Japan Roads Association, February.

Murty,C.V.R., and Jain,S.K., 1996, "Seismic Performance of Bridges in India During Past Earthquakes," Report submitted to Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, March.

NZS:3101-1982, Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures, Standards . Association of New Zealand, Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.

NZS:4203-1991, Code of Practice for General Structural Design and Design Loadings

for Buildings, 2IDZ 4203/2 Draft for Comment, Standards Association of

New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.

Paulay,T", and Priestiey,M.J.N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA.

Riddel,R., Hidalgo,P., Cruz,E., 1989, ''Response Modification Factors for Earthquake Resistant Design of Short Period Buildings," Earthquake Spectra, EERI, CA, USA, Vol. 5, No.3., pp 571-590.

TNZ Bridge Manual, 1991, Bridge Manual: Design and Evaluation, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, for the financial support, which made this work possible.

· .. Draft tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page 38 of ,/4

List of Tables

Table 1 : Percentage of permissible increase in allowable bearing pressure of soils Table 2 : Zone Factor Z for horizontal motion.

Table 3 : Importance Factor I for different bridges.

Table 4 : Soil Profile Factor S for different soil profile types at the site.

Table 5 : Response Reduction Factor R for Bridge Components and Connections. Table 6: Values of Ceo

Table 7: Pressure Distribution Coefficients C1, C2, C3 and C4.

Table C1 : Response Modification Factor R as per AASHTO code [AASHTO, 1992].

. .

List of Figures

Figure 1 : Seismic zone map of India.

Figure 2: Plot ofCS versus natural period T to be used in the Seismic Coefficient Method Figure 3 : Plot of CiS versus natural period TIr; in mode k of the bridge to be used in the

Response Spectrum Method.

Figure 4: Transfer of Forces from Superstructure to Substructure.

Figure 5 : Hypothetical Enveloping Cyclinders to Estimate Hydrodynamic Forces on

Substructures.

Figure 6 : Hydrodynamic Pressure Distribution on the Substructure due to Steam Flow. Figure 7 : Minimum Width of Seating of Spans on Supports.

Figure 8: Potential location of plastic hinges in (a) single column substructures, and (b) double column substructures.

Figure C1 : Deformed geometry of bridge deck (a) when earthquake force is normal to the direction of traffic, and (b) when earthquake force is along the direction of traffic. The full circle shows the location of the centre of mass of the bridge system before application of the force F, and the hollow circle that after the application of the force F.

Figure C2 : CALTRANS adjustment for ductility and risk assessment factor Z.

Figure C3 : Acceleration response spectrum (a) actual (but smoothened), and (b) idealised for design purposes.

... Draft tor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design ({Bridges:: Code & Commentary

page 39 of ,/4

LEGEND
c:::::J ZONf I
c::J ZONE"
c:::J lONE III \f
Ii'!!!I ZONE IY
.. ZONE Y Figure 1 Seismic zone map of India.


page -100(-1-1

3 ~-----------------------------------------------,

2.5 +---,~""' 2

/ Soil Type ~I

00 U 1.5

1 0.5

o +--------------------+----------------------------~

o

1

2

3

4

5

Natural Period T (sec)

Figure 2 : Plot of CS versus natural period T to be used in the Seismic Coefficient Method

3 ~------------------------------------------------~

I

2.5 +-:---,~""' I

I I

Soil Type III II

;I

/ f

o

1

3

4

5

Natural Period Tk (sec)

Figure 3 : Plot of C,s versus natural period Tk in mode k of the bridge to be used in the Response Spectrum Method

'" Draft (or IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary

page -11 of 44

Figure 4: Transfer of Forces from Superstructure to Substructure

L Direction of Seismic Force

Figure 5 : Hypothetical Enveloping Cyclinders to Estimate Hydrodynamic Forces on Substructures

H

• __ C3F

(Resultant pressure on C1H)

-> k

1 1

Ph = 1.2FIH

Figure 6 : Hydrodynamic Pressure Distribution on the Substructure due to Steam Flow'

... Draft {or JRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentarv

page ./2 of 44

L

w~

(a) Abutment

/

'---- I ...__I __ ----I

(b) Column or Pier

/

I

w· •

(b) Suspended Span on Restrained Portion of Superstructure

Figure 7 : Minimum Width of Seating of Spans on Supports


page ./3 of ,/4

SeismiC

J==;;=:::;~

Potential ptasuc hmgE' f'E'glons

~

Column

Pile

Section A-A

(a)

BridgE' . superstructure

not shOwn ::,

Setsrrvc Action

-

Potentlat otast «: hingE' regions

-

(b) Section A-A

Figure 8 : Potential location of plastic hinges in (a) single column substructures, and (b) double column substructures.

/

Direction of Traffic

(a)

• •

Sei6mic Force F

L

Direction of Traffic

(b)

Figure CI : Deformed geometry of bridge deck (a) when earthquake force is normal to the direction of traffic, and (b) when earthquake force is along the direction of traffic. The full circle shows the location of the centre of mass of the bridge system before application of the force F, and the hollow circle that after the application of the force F.


page -1,/ of 44

o 0.2 0..<1 0.11 0:. t.O 2.0

Period 0' SlrUClUre (Sec) T

~.O

Figure C2 : CAL TRANS adjustment for ductility and risk assessment factor Z.

PGA

Natural Period T

Natural Period T

2.5 PGA

o

(a) (b)

Figure C3 : Acceleration response spectrum (a) actual (but smoothened), and (b) idealised for design purposes.

Enclosure A

2

1. Introduction

The behaviour of bridge structures under strong seismic conditions is very different

from that under normal gravity loads (dead loads and moving live loads). Further, the seismic

design of bridges draws great significance since bridges come under the category of "life-line

structures." The implications of disruption in the transportation network due to distress or

collapse of bridge systems, particularly during the immediate post-earthquake relief and

rehabilitation operations, demand that special attention be paid in their design and

construction. The seriousness of the matter has been recognized by many countries over the

last two and a half decades. Major initiatives, in the form of comprehensive revision of design

codes, stricter quality control at construction, and an exhaustive retrofit program for existing

deficient bridge structures, have been undertaken in those countries.

India is, indeed, an earthquake country. More than 50% of the country lies in seismic

zones Ill, IV, and V; while, the remaining area also cannot be considered aseismic as was very

graphically illustrated by the 1993 Killari (Latur) earthquake in seismic zone 1. It is therefore

important to evaluate how the modem bridges being built in the country have been performing

in the past earthquakes with a View to modify the design and construction procedures

appropriately. This paper reviews the damages incurred by bridges in India during past

earthquakes and lists the lessons learnt from them .

.

2. Background on Earthquake Magnitude and Intensitv

When reviewing the performance of bridges in the past earthquakes it is important to

have the correct perspective with regard to the strength of shaking that the bridge concerned

experienced during the earthquake. In a damaging earthquake, if a major bridge is located in

the area which did not sustain strong shaking, then no-damage performance of the bridge is of

no consolation as .far as review of seismic performance of bridges is concerned. It is therefore

important that when reviewing the performance of a bridge during the earthquake, the

intensity of shaking in the area be kept in perspective. Considering the prevalent confusion on

3

account of intensity and magnitude. in this section background is provided on earthquake magnitude and intensity.

Earthquake magnitude is simply a measure of the size of the earthquake reflecting the elastic energy released by the earthquake. It is usually referred by a certain real number on the Richter scale (e.g., magnitude 6.S earthquake). On the other hand, earthquake intensity indicates the extent of shaking experienced at a given location due to a particular earthquake. It is usually referred by a Roman numeral on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, more recently on the MSK scale (e.g., intensity VIII on MMI scale). To draw a parallel, consider a lOOW light bulb used for illumination purposes. It dissipates energy of 100 Watts, say. However, the brightness of light at different distances from it, referred in candlelights, is different. The former is magnitude and the latter is intensity. Whether or not there is adequate light at a given location to enable one to read a book, depends on what is the intensity of light at that location; intensity itself depends on the magnitude of bulb (i. e., Watts) and the distance of the bulb from the location under consideration. Similarly, intensity of shaking at a location depends not only on the magnitude of earthquake, but also on the distance of the site from the earthquake source and the geology / geography of the area. Isoseismals are the contours of equal earthquake intensity.

The Indian seismic code (IS: 1893-1984) divides the country into five seismic zones based on expected intensity of shaking in future earthquakes. The five seismic zones I, II, IlL IV and V correspond to areas that have potential for shaking intensity on the MMI scale of V or less, VI, VII, VIII, and IX or more, respectively. Insofar as benchmarking the seismic performance of bridges is concerned, it is not the magnitude of the earthquake but the intensity at the location of the bridge that must be used. For example, during an earthquake of magnitude 6.5, the maximum intensity area experiences a shaking of VIII, say, but has no bridges. The bridges of interest may be located in areas that lie in seismic zone IV but that

sustained shaking intensities of VI and VII. Then, the performance of these bridges will only answer the following question: how did the bridges designed for seismic zone IV perform

when subjected to earthquake shaking similar to what is expected in seismic zones II and IIL

respectively.

3. Jabalpur Earthquake of 1997

An earthquake of Richter magnitude 6.0 occurred on 22 May 1997 at 04:22 hours

(1ST) centered about 8 km southeast of the city of Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh). The maximum

intensity of shaking experienced during the earthquake was VIII on the MSK scale at the

villages ofKosamghat and Kudaria in the Jabalpur district. The intensity of shaking in the city

of Jab al pur varies between VII and V. The area affected by this earthquake lies in seismic zone

III as per the Indian codes [IR:6-1966; IS: 1893-1984], and hence the level of shaking was

indeed expected.

The strong earthquake shaking was experienced over a relatively large area covered by

the districts of Jabalpur, Mandla, Sivni and Chhindwada. There are a good number of highway

. and railway bridges in the area. All the bridges except one major railway bridge performed

very well [Jain et al, 1997]. The two lane bridge across the Narmada river at Mandla, 95 km

southeast of Jabalpur, consists of two-span prestressed concrete superstructure supported on

non-prismatic RC piers founded on base rock. The bridge has RC restrainers to prevent the

superstructure from dislodging transversely from the elastomeric bearings from the pier top.

This bridge performed very well (Figure 1). The damage sustained by the buildings in the

neighbourhood suggests an intensity of shaking around VI. Another, nine-span bridge across

the river Gaur near Kosamghat sustained no damage.

The damaged bridge was a steel through-truss bridge consisting of six simply-

supported spans, across the river Narmada between Tilwara and Gwarighat in the Nagpur

Division of the South Eastern Railway (Figure 2). In the roller and rocker bearings of this

bridge, one 32 mm diameter pin connects the knuckle pin to the saddle cover plate (Figure 3).

5

These pins were fractured at several of the supports, and the spans were dislodges transversely

by about 100 mm. Fortunately, none of the spans was dislodged from the piers. The fractured

pins were replaced and the bridge was restored to working condition in about two days. The

weight of the superstructure span of this steel bridge is about 200 {annes. The tensile strength

of each of these 32 mm diameter mild-steel pins is about 20 {annes. The transverse load of one

span is resisted by four such pins. Hence, the total transverse load carrying capacity is around

80 {annes. The pin failures indicate that, at the top of the piers, the peak acceleration may have

exceeded O.4g.

4. Killari Earthquake of 1993

The quake measuring 6.4 on the Richter scale struck at 03:53 hours (1ST) on

September 30, 1993, and was centred around village Killari in Latur district (Maharashtra)

[Jain et al., 1994]. The maximum intensity of about IX on the MMI scale was experienced in

villages Killari and Talni; Figure 4 shows the isoseismals for this earthquake in the worst-

affected region. The entire area affected by this quake falls in the seismic zone I as per IRC

code [IRC:6-1966] and BIS code [IS: 1893-1984] (i.e., area having potential for shaking

intensity of V or less on the.MMI scale).

An important feature of this earthquake was that the affected area was very small; even

less than about 20 Ian x 20 Ian sustained severe shaking. This is a common feature for

earthquakes having very low focul depth. The meizoseismal area (area of strongest shaking)

had no major bridges, except for one aqueduct. Only culverts or small bridges on R. C. T-

beams or R.C. slabs are in use in the area; most of them sustained no damage or very minor

cracking at the abutments. The area also has no rail network; hence, the performance of

railway bridges cannot be inferred from this earthquake.

The RC aqueduct bridge for the left bank canal over a tributary to the Tima river near

the village Ganjankhed suffered the most significant damage. The intensity in this area may be

estimated to be around IX on the .MMI scale. The aqueduct consisted of 7 spans, each of 16.5

6

metres (Figure 5). The bearings over the first pier towards village Talni were found damaged. The damage consisted of shearing and pulling-out of the anchor bolts connecting the steel bearings to the pier (Figure 6). Also, the bottom plates of the bearings were damaged. The post-earthquake location of the bearings indicates that the pier has moved away from the abutment by about 4 to 5 em. Fortunately, the spans were not unseated from the bearings and dislodged on to the piers. The bearings (sliding and rocking) are welded to steel plates at top and bottom, and these plates are then bolted to the soffit of the girder and to the concrete pedestal on top of the pier. The details of these steel plates used are shown in Figure 7(a). The configuration of the plate with reduced size and thickness at the location of bolt holes and the lack of welding on the second side between the plates of different thicknesses, demonstrate poor detailing. Figure 7(b) shows a schematic of the failure at these bearing plates due to the horizontal displacements generated during the earthquake.

A reinforced concrete box-culvert (Figure 8) supporting the above canal and located between villages Ganjankhed and Talni, very close to extension of the observed fault scarp towards the west side, was itself not damaged. However, the wing walls of the embankment at the box culvert tilted outwards by about 5 to 7 em (Figure 9).

Reports from two independent surveys of bridges in the neighbouring districts of Sholapur, Osmanabad and Beed provide the following observations. A survey of 15 major bridges, in the Sholapur district, of varying age (20-125 years) and construction types (masonry arches, RCC arches, RCC T -beam, RCC solid slab) concludes that no significant distress was observed which could be attributed to the 1993 Killari earthquake [Ghosh, 1996]. It may be recalled that this region was subjected to shaking intensity V and VI (on the MM1 scale) during the earthquake. In another survey of bridges [Tandon, 1996], three masonry arch bridges in the Osmanabad district and one masonry arch bridge in the Beed district were found to have cracks in the arch barrels, separation of spandrels walls, and displaced stones. Two

7

RCC solid slab bridges in the Osmanabad district, one 128 m long (14 spans @ about 9 m) and

another 90 m long (10 spans @ about 9 m), had no bearings provided under the spans. The

expansion joints were found to have malfunctioned. In another bridge in the Osmanabad

district, a 45 m long RCC T -beam and slab bridge (3 spans of about 15 m), the elastomeric

bearings were found embedded in concrete. Fine cracks in webs of girders were also recorded.

This bridge is located in the region which experienced shaking of intensity around VI or VII.

5. Uttarkashi Earthquake of 1991

The earthquake occurred at 02:53 hours (1ST) on October 20, 1991 in the Garhwal

Himalayas in northern India [Jain et aI., 1992]. Strong shaking was experienced in the districts

of Uttarkashi, Tehri and Chamoli of the state of Uttar Pradesh. The quake measured 6.6 on

the Richter scale [GSI, 1992]. Tehri and Chamoli are in the seismic zone V as per the current

code, while Uttarkashi comes under seismic zone IV. The intensity of shaking was estimated

to be about VIII in Uttarkashi area, and about VII in Tehri and Chamoli. Peak ground

acceleration (pGA) of about 0.3g each along the horizontal and vertical directions have been

recorded by strong motions instruments at Uttarkashi [Chandrasekaran and Das, 1992].

The transportation system (predominantly a road network) of the area was throttled

due to extensive damage to roads, slopes, retaining walls and bridges. The area has a number

of single-span RC T -beam bridges of up to 20 meter span, and steel truss bridges of larger

span. In a few bridges, cracks appeared between abutments and wing walls. There is no rail

network. in the affected area and hence the performance of railway bridges cannot be inferred

from this earthquake.

The rather important Uttarkashi-Harsil-Nelong road link was paralyzed for several

days due to a large number of landslides and collapse of a major bridge. The Gawana bridge,

located 6 km north ofUttarkashi towards Maneri, was a 56 m span steel truss bridge built in

1974. Under the shaking of intensity VIII or IX experienced in the area, the entire bridge span

was unseated from its abutments and fell into the river below (Figure 10); road access to areas

8

north of Uttarkashi was cut-off from the rest of the country. No permanent displacement or

damage to the bridge abutments was noticed. The superstructure was supported on two

rocker bearings at one end and two roller -cum-rocker bearings at the other. The anchor bolts

of one of the roller-cum-rocker bearings were found sheared-off and the base plate was found

rotated from its original position (Figure 11). However, the anchor bolts at the other bearings

were found to be in place and intact. The top and bottom plates of the bearings were

separated; the top plates were still attached to the superstructure. The evidence at site

suggests that inadequate design of bearings and anchor bolts, as well as lack of positive

mechanisms to hold the dislodged spans from falling off the abutments seats, were responsible

for this failure.

The Uttarkashi-Lumgaon road link was lost due to collapse of embankments on the

approach road to the bridge near Kishanpur. The approach to the bridge is on a 8 meter high

embankment with retaining walls in "banded" stone masonry. Under the intensity VIII shaking·

experienced in the area, these walls on both sides collapsed resulting in the failure of the

embankment. The reduced road width enabled the transit of pedestrian traffic only; vehicular

traffic was suspended for over 10 days.

The area has a number of pedestrian suspension bridges providing access to villages

located across the river Bhagirathi. The main tower and anchor blocks of these bridges are in

unreinforced stone masonry. Table 1 shows the list of damages sustained in some of them. The

failure of the anchor block. of the suspension bridge near Harsil (about 73 km north of

Uttarkashi) may be attributed to poor quality of construction rather than the intensity of

shaking (Figure 12); the intensity of shaking in this region was only about VI on the 11l'.fI

scale.

6. Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of 1988

On August 21, 1988, a quake measuring 6.6 on the Richter scale rocked the states of

Bihar, West Bengal and Sikkim in India and the neighbouring country of Nepal in the morning

9

at 04:39 hours (1ST). The quake centred in NepaL but close to the Indian, caused significant damage to life and property in both the countries [Jain et al .. 1991]. It occurred in the same region which was visited by the great earthquakes in the past (Bihar-Nepal earthquakes of 1833 with M 7.0 to 7.5 and of 1934 with M 8.4). The isoseismal map of the region shows maximum intensities upto IX in northern Bihar and upto VIII in Sikkim (Figure 13).

In the state of Bihar, damage to road bridges was generally reported from all areas but specific information on bridge performance is not available area wise (e.g., Thakkar et al .. 197?). There were many small bridges of simple spanned steel beam supported on piers of steel pipes. Such bridges seemed to have behaved well. The 5.6 Ian long bridge over the Ganges river near Patna (shaking intensity of VI; constructed for seismic zone IV which corresponds to intensity VIII) did not show any apparent damage. The damage to oridges along the rural roads were in the form of cracks in the piers, abutments, wing walls, and RC deck slab. At some places, subsidence in the embankment caused damage to culverts.

In Sikkim, two bridges which experienced intensity VII shaking were affected due to failure of hill slopes. The problem was compounded by incessant rains before and after the earthquake, making the hill slopes more prone to damage [Jain and Tripathi, 1989]. The then newly constructed 67 m span prestressed concrete Legship Bazar bridge (Figure 14) on river Kalej Khola near Legship Bazar town (about 93 Ian from Gangtok) was damaged due to landslides. The hill slope on the Legship Bazar end failed and soil including huge boulders fell on the bridge deck smashing a portion of the deck slab near the abutment (Figure 15). The bridge however was opened for traffic after clearing the debris. There was no apparent dEitnage to piers and abutments. About 3 km upstream from the Legship Bazar on the LegshiptMhiding road, the 135 m span Tashiding suspension bridge across river Kalej Khola was under construction; the towers and cable anchors were completed by the time of the earthquake. The RC abutment-cum-suspension tower on the Legship end was situated just by

10

the side of a high hill-cliff During the quake, a huge soil-cum-boulder mass from the cliff came dO\vTI due to slope failure and washed away the whole construction at this end. The other end was however intact. An old suspension bridge with wooden decking situated very near to the Tashiding bridge, was not damaged.

The worst-affected area of the earthquake does not have major broad-gauge railway line, but meter and narrow gauge lines. A number of railway bridges were damaged: information could be obtained on the performance of railway bridges in the Samastipur Division of N.E.Railway [NERly, 1989]. Eight of these bridges were restored to normal working condition after minor repair work. The most significant damage was to the five-span (two of 12.2 m and three of 30.5 m) bridge between Samastipur and Muktapur in the Samastipur-Darbhanga section. A shaking intensity around VII or VIII was experienced in this area. The rocker bearings on pier 1 and 3 broke and fell down. Seven numbers of these damaged saddles of the rocker bearings had to be replaced. Another bridge of seven spans (four of 12.2 m and three of 30.5 m) in the same area between Hayaghat and Thalwara experienced a longitudinal movement of the girder between piers 4 and 5 by about -I em. The girder had to be pulled back to its original position. A fifteen-span (each of 12.2 m) bridge in the Manasi-Saharsa section was also seriously affected. The girder of the fourth span shifted laterally by 2 em. Eight piers developed horizontal cracks. The wing walls of a bridge, between Naya Nagar and Ruseraghat stations, bulged out. Piers of a three-span (each of 6.1 m) steel girder bridge between Janakpur Road and Bajpatti stations, developed cracks. A six-span (each of 6.1 m) steel girder bridge between Kamtaul and Jogiara stations, received severe damages. The bed blocks below the girders cracked and the masonry piers and abutment of the bridge developed wide cracks. The wing walls and the return walls of a three-span (each of 6.1 m) steel girder bridge between Kakarghatti and Trasarai stations, developed cracks. Some portions of the wall masonry cracked and fell down causing the abutment masonry to bulge.

11

The parapet wall of approaches of a ten-span (each of 6.1 m) bridge between Manigachi and

Lohna Road stations, cracked and collapsed. Another seven-span (each of 12.2 m) bridge

between Dhamaraghat and Koparia stations received damages. The existing cracks in the bed

block of two piers widened. One pier of a three-span (each of 12.2 m) bridge in Jhanjharpur-

Laukaha Bazar section tilted and was found to be out of plumb by 5 em, immediately after the

earthquake. Beyond the above twelve bridges, approaches of two other major bridges located

in intensity VIII area (in the Forbesganj-Saharsa and Saharsa-Purnia sections) subsided and

caved-in leading to distortion of the tracks.

7. Burma-India Border Earthquake of 1988

A strong earthquake of magnitude 6.8 (some sources attribute the magnitude as 7.3)

rocked the north-eastern states on August 6, 1988 at about 6 AM. The quake was centred

close to the Indian border in Burma. Some damages were reported in India [Kumar, 1992]

where maximum intensities of upto VII were experienced in Imp hal, Kohima, Jorhat and

Tejpur. The stations at Berlongfer and Diphu recorded the highest peak ground accelerations

of about 0.34g [Chandrasekaran and Das, 1990]. Damage survey also indicated maximum

intensity in this area.

Three bridges, namely the Kaliabhomora bridge across river Brahmaputra near T ejpur

[Prajapati, 1990], the single-span Metong bridge on National Highway 37 between Jorhat and

Sibsagar, and the prestressed concrete box girder bridge on river Barak near Silchar [Prajapati.

1989], are reported to have been damaged during this earthquake. Information on the damage

to the Metong bridge is incomplete.

The Kaliabhomora (Tejpur) bridge is 3015 m long, with 2-1 typical spans of 120 m each

and two shore spans of 67.5 m each. It is 7.5 m wide with 1.5 m footpaths on either side.

(Figure 16). The typical span consists of two balanced cantilevers 52.5 m each from the

supports with a central suspended span of 15 m. The suspended span is a girder-slab system in

RCC, while the cantilever span is a segmental tapered box girder system in prestressed

12

concrete. The north end of the suspended spans are fixed to the cantilever span, and the south

end are let free for longitudinal translation. The bridge was about one year old at the time of

the earthquake. Due to the earthquake, pier 3 from the north end was observed to have tilted

by about 6-8 em [Prajapati, 1990; Sharma, 1990]. It is suspected that differential settlements

under the pier may have been responsible for the tilt. The elastomeric bearing pads at the fixed

end were displaced and deformed. Cracks were also recorded on the free surface of these

pads. About 123 anchor bolts holding the steel plates on either side of the bearings are

recorded to have been bent and pulled out. This is attributed to the fouling of the projected

portions of the bolts with the movement of the steel plates. Over 26 concrete rail posts at the

ends of the suspended spans were found to have been damaged due to the relative longitudinal

movement along the bridge spans. The footpath portion adjoining these rail posts were either

cracked or broken.

The prestressed concrete box girder bridge across river Barak at Sadarghat, Silchar.

was about 20 years old at the time of the earthquake. The 234.7 m long 7.5 m wide bridge has

two central piers and two end trestles (Figure 17), with a hinge at the centre of the bridge.

Cracks were noted at the trestle supports on the top and bottom faces of both the lower and

upper flanges of the box girder [Prajapati, 1989].

8. Dharmsala Earthquake of 1986

The hill town of Dharmsala, Himachal Pradesh, was rocked by a quake (M 5.7) at

13:05 hours (1ST) on April 26, 1986. The earthquake drew considerable attention because of

the proximity of Dharmsala to Kangra, the seat of the great Indian earthquake in 1905 (M 8).

The quake caused a maximum intensity of VII on the MMI scale in the area. The affected area

classifies under seismic zone V. Even though significant damage is reported on buildings, no

mention of performance of bridge structures is available [Arya et al., 1986].

9. Cachar Earthquake of 1984

The northeast region of India was shaken by a magnitude 5.6 tremour at 23:33 hours

on December 31, 1984. The epicentre of this shallow focus earthquake was centred around the banks of the Sonai river ] km east of Baramuni village in Assam. The affected area falls in seismic zone V of the country.

Two, somewhat similar, well-designed and well-constructed RC bridges were within about 10 km focal distance. These bridges, namely the Sonaimukh bridge and Rukni bridge, suffered different levels of repairable damage [Agarwal, 1986]. Unfortunately, information 011 the intensity of shaking in these areas is not available.

The reinforced concrete Sonaimukh bridge is 100 m long .+.8 m wide supported on six 8.5 m to 12 m high piers, which rested on well foundations of 12.8 m to 16.3 m height (Figure 18). The bridge consists of three identical supported spans of about 18 m and two suspended spans of about 9 m. The supported spans resting on the piers had rocker and roller bearings. The damage incurred by the bridge included the following. One well cap developed cracks and was relatively transversely displaced with respect to the well. The bridge deck was no longer straight in plan after the shaking (Figure 18). The final displaced locations of the five pieces of the bridge deck suggests that there was a relative transverse displacement (right lateral) between the two abutments. Some superstructure spans were dislodged from the bearings resulting in upto .+5 em relative horizontal relative displacement between the superstructure and the pier. The dislodged spans were precariously held over the piers/supported spans. The clear \\ idth of seating of the spans at the bearings was insufficient. A slightly increased shaking intensity or duration may have manifested into the collapse of, at least, a few spans.

The Rukni bridge has an identical design as the Sonaimukh bridge, but with a reduced length of 65 meters. The bridge is composed of two fixed spans on four piers and one centrai suspended span. The abutments had RC retaining walls to support the embanked soil mass. The damage was in the form of pounding of the longitudinal superstructure span against the retaining wall at the abutments on the north end of the bridge, and separation at the south end.

l~

Further, at the intermediate junctions between the fixed and suspended spans. the pounding

effect was observed. Residual longitudinal displacements upto 5 em have been measured along

the direction of the bridge at these locations.

10. Implications of Past Performances on Seismic Design of Bridges

The seismic shaking intensity experienced by the various bridges discussed above can

be only termed moderate. And even under these moderate amounts of shaking, the

performance in the bridges is scattered over a wide range, from minor cracks to complete

collapses (Table 1). A number of lessons are obvious from these performances which have

significance insofar as seismic design of bridges is concerned. The following sub-sections

present a summary of the same.

10.1 Level o(Design Seismic Force

The Gawana bridge episode during the 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake is a landmark in

the seismic history of bridges in India. The peak ground accelerations of about 0.3g recorded

in the region, that is classified to be in seismic zone IV, is in contrast with the design seismic

coefficient of 0.05g to 0.075g specified for bridges in zone IV. Considering the typical shape

of response spectrum with 5% damping (Figure 19) implies a response reduction factor of

about 10 to 15. This is too large for bridges where the beneficial effects of ductility and

redundancy are small. The experiences from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in U.S.A.

immediately lead to a sharp increase in the design seismic force for bridges in the United States

of America. However, the level of design seismic force for bridges is too low in the Indian

code.

10.2 Inadequate Connections Between Superstructures and SUbStlilctures

The failures of the railway bridge bearings during the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake,

the Gawana bridge bearings during the 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake, and the aqueduct bridge

bearing during the 1993 Killari earthquake are clear indicators of the inadequate design

provisions in the Indian seismic code for bridges vis-a-vis the bearings. A glance at Table 1

clearly shows the poor performance of bearings in almost all the past earthquakes. This is a

15

major problem that needs to be tackled for Indian bridges. The issue is explained in the

following.

Different components In a bridge have different capacities to undergo inelastic

deformations. The ductility and redundancy in structures is usually relied upon in reducing the

design seismic force from the maximum elastic forces. Amongst the bridge components

(superstructure, substructure, foundation and connection between the superstructure and

substructure), the connections have little or no capacity to undergo inelastic deformations. In

earthquake-resistant design of the bridge superstructure and substructure, usually the design

force is only a fraction of the maximum elastic forces; response reduction factors of 3 or more

are normally used. However, in the design of bearings which transfer earthquake forces,

necessarily the full maximum elastic force, or even more, has to be considered. This is essential

because bearings are determinate elements with no or marginal reserve strength beyond yield.

In fact, international practice is to design th~ connection elements (bearings), with a response

reduction factor of about 0.8, i.e., for 25% more than maximum elastic forces.

10.3 Deformation Design at Connection Regions

The damages to the railway bridge bearings in the Samastipur Division ofN.E.Railway

during the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake, the Kaliabhomora bridge bearing damage at Tejpur

during the 1988 Burma-India Border Region earthquake, and the Rukni and Sonaimukh bridge

bearing damage during the 1984 Cachar earthquake, are but some examples of the need for

controlling the displacements along and transverse to bridge spans.

The connections between the superstructure and substructure and between the adjacent

sections of superstructure (e.g., suspended span and supporting span elements), undergo

relative motions during seismic shaking. These connections must be so detailed that they can

indeed allow the required deformations without themselves being damaged. There are three

major aspects to this:

.

• Longitudinal and lateral translational movements of the superstructure facilitated by the

16

connection elements

• Stability of superstructure against uplifting and possible overturning

• Adequate widths atop the substructure or supporting span to permit large movements of

superstructure components without dropping-off from the supports

10.-+ Substructure and Foundation Design

Bridge substructures of the old bridges in India are usually of masonry type. Lately

there is trend towards the use of reinforced concrete substructures and foundations. The

aqueduct bridge pier during the 1993 Killari earthquake and the Kaliabhomora bridge pier

during the 1988 Burma-India Border region earthquake are two examples of tilting of

foundations. Since the damages in foundations usually remain undetected, it is not easy to

evaluate the performance of foundations during the past earthquakes. Further, there are

numerous bridge pier, abutment and wing-wall damages reported during earthquakes

discussed above. In all, there IS a clear need for more scientific design and detailing of

foundations and substructures.

11. Concluding Remarks

Most of the recent earthquakes in India have been of moderate size and have caused

only moderate intensity of shaking. Moreover, the meizoseismal areas (worst-affected areas) in

most of these earthquakes did not have many major bridges. Nevertheless, damage to bridges

in these earthquakes provides very clear pointers to what one would expect considering that

the Indian bridge codes are not in line with the current seismic design philosophy. Our country

has clear potential of great earthquakes (of magnitude larger than 8.0) causing significantly

higher level of shaking inrensity (upto XII on !v1MI scale). Figures 20 shows the performance

of railway lines during the Great Assam earthquake of 1897; this is a grim reminder of what

can be expected of our major road and rail lines in the event of a strong earthquake taking

place at just the right location (i.e., wrong location for the society).

12. Acknowledgements

The work reported here was carried out with financial support from the Ministry of

17

Surface Transport, Government of India; the authors are grateful for this support. The authors

also sincerely thank Mr. Mahesh C. Tandon and Mr. A R. Ghosh for generously sharing

information on damage to bridges in the Latur earthquake.

13. References

Agarwal,P.N., 1986, "Damage to Two RCC Bridges During December 31, 1984 Cachar Earthquake, Northeast India," Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Vol.23, No.1, March 1986, pp 1-16.

Arya,AS., Gupta,S.P., Lavania,B.v.K., and Kumar.A; 1986, Report on Dharmasala, Himachal Pradesh, Earthquake April 26, 1986, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University ofRoorkee, Roorkee, July 1986.

Chandrasekaran,AR., and Das,J.D., 1990, "Strong Motion Arrays in India: Characteristics of Recent Recorded Events," Bulletin of the Indian SOCiety of Earthquake Technology, Vol.27, No.1, pp 1-66.

Chandrasekaran,AR, and Das,lD., 1992, "Analysis of Strong Motion Accelerograms of Uttarkashi Earthquake of October 20, 1991," Bulletin of the Indian SOCiety of Earthquake Technology, Vol.29, No.1, pp 35-55.

Ghosh,AR, 1996, personal communication

GSI, 1992, Uttarkashi Earthquake October 20, 1991, Special Publication No.30, Geological Survey ofIndia, Calcutta.

GSI, 1993, Bihar-Nepal Earthquake August 20, 1988, Special Publication No.31, Geological Survey of India, Calcutta.

GSI, 1995, A collection of papers presented at the Workshop on the 30th September, 1993 Killari Earthquake, Maharashtra, 24 December 1993, NG.Rl., Hyderabad, Special Publication No.27, Geological Survey ofIndia, Calcutta.

IRC: 6-1966, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section II:

Loads and Stresses, The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, 1985.

IS: 1893-1984, 1984, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Deaign of Structures, Bureau ofIndian Standards, New Delhi.

Jain,S.K., Tripathi,R.P., and Agarwal,AK., 1991, "Geotechnical Damage Due to Bihar Earthquake of August 1988," Proceedings of Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, March 11-15, 1991, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A, pp 519-524.

Jain,S.K., and Tripathi,RP., 1989, "Damage to Roads and Bridges in Sikkim and West Bengal," Proceedings of Workshop on Bihar-Nepal Earthquake, December 28-29, 1988, 1.1. T.Kanpur, Kanpur.

Jain,S.K., Singh,R.P., Gupta, V.K., and Nagar.A; 1992, "Garhwal Earthquake of October 20, 1991," EERI Special Eanhquake Report, EERI Newsletter, Vol.26, No.2, February 1992, pp 1-4.

Jain,S.K., MurtY,C.V.R., Chandak,N., Seeber,L., and Jain,N.K., 1994, ''The September 29, 1993, M6.4 Killari, Maharashtra, Earthquake in Central India," EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter, Vol.28, No.1, pp 1-8.

Jain,S.K., Murty,C.V.R, Arlekar,lN., Jain,C.K., Sinha,R., and Goyal,A, 1997, "Some Observations on Engineering Aspects of the Jabalpur Earthquake of22 May 1997," EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter, Vol.31, No.8, August 1997, pp 1-8.

Kumar,B., 1992, "Isoseismals of Burma-India Border Region Earthquake of August 6, 1988," Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Vol.29, No.1, pp 57-67.

N.E. Railway, 1989, personal communication.

Oldham,R.D., 1899, Report all the Great Earthquake of 12th June 1897, Memoirs of the

Geological Survey of India, Vol.XXIX, Calcutta.

Prajapati,G.I., 1989, "Damage to Barak River Bridge at Sadarghat, Silchar, Assam Due to Burma-India Border Region Earthquake of August 6, 1988," Proceedings of National Seminar on Concrete Admixtures and Repair Material, December 28-29, 1989, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, pp 48-57.

Prajapati,G.I., 1990, "Performance of Kaliabhomora Bridge on River Brahmaputra During Burma-India Border Region Earthquake of August 6, 1988, ,. Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Vol.27, No.3, September, pp 151-159.

Sharma,V.C., 1990, "Tejpur Bridge Across River Brahmaputra : Special Features of Superstructure, Earthquake Effects and Present Thinking," Proceedings of the National Seminar on Bridge Superstructure, Bombay, Vol. 1 , pp 121-134.

Tandon,M.C., 1996, personal communication.

Thakkar,S.K., Paul,D.K., Mukerjee.S.; Bandopadhyay,S., Kumar,A., and Lavania, B.V.K.. 19??, Damage Survey Report on Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of August 21, 1988, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University ofRoorkee, Roorkee.

19

List of Tables

Table 1 : Summary of Damages to Bridges in India During Past Earthquakes.

List of Figures

Figure 1 : View of the RCC bridge across river Narmada at Mandla showing the RC seismic restrainers at the piers.

Figure 2 : View of the steel through-truss bridge across river Narmada between Tilwara and Gwarighat in the Nagpur Division of the S.E.Railway, which sustained damage.

Figure 3 : View of (a) the rocker, and (b) the roller bearings, showing the knuckle pin and

the saddle cover plate fastened together with a 32 mm mild steel pin.

Figure 4 : Isoseismals for 1993 Killari earthquake in the worst-affected region [GSI,1995]. Figure 5 : Aqueduct near Ganjankhed along left bank canal of Tima river over a tributary. Figure 6 : Damage to the steel bearings at pier 1 of the aqueduct (a) pulling of the anchor

bolts, and (b) shearing-off of the anchor bolts.

Figure 7 : Details of the steel bearing plate used at the supports in the aqueduct. Figure 8 : Box culvert supporting the earthen embankment for the canal.

Figure 9 : Tilting of the wing wall at the box culvert during 1993 Killari earthquake. Figure 10 : View of the collapsed Gawana bridge during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake. Figure 11 : View of the displaced bearing plates at the supports of the collapsed Gawana

bridge during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake.

Figure 12 : View of the severely damaged anchor blocks of the suspension bridge near Harsil during .1991 Uttarkashi earthquake.

Figure 13 : Isoseismal map of the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake [GSI, 1993]

Figure 14 : View of the Legship Bazaar bridge in Sikkim after the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake [Jain and Tripathi, 1991].

Figure 15 : View of the damaged deck of the Legship Bazaar bridge in Sikkim during the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake [Jain and Tripathi, 1991].

Figure 16 : Details of typical cantilever span ofKaliabhomora (Tejpur) bridge across Brahmaputra river [prajapati, 1990].

Figure 17 : Line diagram showing elevation of the prestressed concrete box girder bridge on the river Barak at Sadarghat, Silchar [Prajapati, 1989].

Figure 18 : Details of the Sonaimukh bridge damage during 1984 Cachar earthquake [Agarwal, 1986].

Figure 19: Current Design Spectrum vis-a-vis Recorded Motion in Uttarkashi Earthquake (Seismic Zone IV)

Figure 20 : View of the distorted railway lines at a bridge severely damaged during the Great Assam earthquake of 1897 [Oldham, 1899].

20

Table 1 :: Summary of Damages to Bridges in India During Past Earthquakes

Earthquake

Earthquake Information

Comments

1997 Jabalpur

Magnitude 6.0 Max.Intensity VIII (in a very small area)

• Good number of highway and railway bridges in I

the area perfomed well !

• One major railway steel through-truss bridge I

between Tilwara and Gwarighat on

S.E.Railway sustained damage to its bearings I - Nine simply supported spans on rocker and I

roller bearings, with one 32 mm diameter pin connecting the knuckle pin and saddle cover I plate at each bearing i

- 32 mm diameter pins fractured at many! supports I - spans transversely displaced by about 100 mm I

- pins replaced and bridge restored in 2 days .

1993 Killari

Magnitude 6.4 Max.Intensity IX

• Very small meizoseismal area

• No rail network in affected area

• Bearing failure and movement of pier in RCC I

aqueduct bridge I

• No other major bridze in meizoseismal area

1991 Uttarkashi

Magnitude 6.6 Max. Intensity IX

• Meizoseismal area in hilly terrain .-No rail network in affected area

• Collapse of 56m span steel truss bridge at Gawana

- Failure of bearings

• Severe damage to anchor blocks of suspension '1 bridges

1988 Bihar-Nepal

Magnitude 6.6 Max.Intensity IX

• Damage to 12 railway bridges 1\


\ I

I

!

- Excessive transverse movements at

supports

- Cracks in abutments / wing walls

• Damages to bridges in Sikkim due to landslides

1988 Burma-India Border Region

Magnitude 6.8 Max.Intensity VII

• Movement of pier and bearing failure in Tejpur I

bridge across BrahmaQutra river i

1986 Dharmsala

Magnitude 5.7 Max.Intensity VII

• No information available on seismic i

performance of bridges I

1984 Cachar

Magnitude 5.6

M I .?? ax_ ntensity ..

• Two RC girder-slab bridges damaged I


- Excessive relative displacement along and I

transverse to span direction between span and I piers, and between suspended and supported I spans

21

Figure 1 : View of the RCC bridge across river Narmada at Mandla showing the RC seismic restrainers at the piers.

Figure 2 : View of the steel through-truss bridge across river Narmada between Tilwara and Gwarighat in the Nagpur Division of the S.E.Railway, which sustained damage.

22

I ...... ··?

--,._,.."

_-

Figure 3 : View of Ia) the rocker, and (b) the roller bearings, showing the knuckle pin and the saddle cover plate fastened together with a 32 mm mild steel pin.

23

/ /

05'

::::;;;..r o

Kanegaon o

Kasti

Jawalga __ 0 Lamjan

/' "",-

// . Li~.aladaU "Kumpti

o T alni \ 0 Jeuri

I Na~durga . 0- " Sangvi 0

Ganjankhe Y.:i::\..,,"_~, .HHat tttar 9 0

o Sarni / Mangrul ~ a J -----

/ -M-a""'k-ni ilrn 0 R. Y ~undi lKawtha

Karasgaon '/ 0 o. 't 0 I .

I 0 lSastur 0 Rajegaon / Mudgar 0 Sar ori

o Chincholi Rebe I . /

Chincholi Kate 0 IX Narangwadl

\ Tausigarh <\ Hulli Y . o. / Chakur/

m <, ~ Sangvlpey 0

\ Salegaono - S;;udrahal Bet Jawalga /

: 0 /0

. 0

"Toramba ./

<, K dd o/HunsaL ./

............. ~ra 0 /'

\ Jaoli . Koral - 0 Ekarga

o 0 Kaldeonimbala 0 0 /

\ ,Jelsur

"- ""."'"

"'-W ---- ..........

Lohara o

Hasturi o

o

5

10

15

Km

Umarga o

(£) MAIN SHOCK

Figure 4: Isoseismals for the 1993 Killari earthquake in the worst affected region [GSI, 1995].

TO TALNI

-

BEARING FAILURE

TO GANJANKHED

--

\ \

SOIL-- I MOVEMENT I ~ I ,

\ I"

'\ 1

·1"1 __ ,

, ,

, I

I ,

I

I EMBANKMENT

I

I

I~ABUTMENT WALL

AQUEDUCT - BRIDGE

ALONG LEFT BANK CANAL OF TIRNA RIVER OVER A TRIBUTARY

. :. A' .... p .' <2 .' : 0 .'. A '. A' .. A· •• ~

.. ' .. ~. p' ... PIER Do '.1.,.

, ' " ,', '~" s..>

: ~,' '0': p'::c:t:~: ~: I>',~,~,:o

: f>.. . '" _ .

CROSS-SECTION OF AQUEDUCT-BRIDGE

WATER

.... ' ..

"t>" ,e>. "~,,, D

, ttl '" ,.t:>'., .. ' PIER' , ., '

'c' ,',e> b

b' ,~, :~" ,c;,'. 'C>"

- .

'A,.". .. ~ .. .' .. 0'::' ..... ~. ..0. I ~. ' .. '0: - : ~

~ '...... ...,.. , .. ' . .e:::.,c:.

.'::' .:. -_:.: :: ~ ',., ' PIE R' <; .', -:-. ' ~: ' .: ~

: ' ~ -~ ~ " ~ ~ ", _:: 'A._;' .. .; ."' . ~' .. ~ : ~ ", '.1>',': 4 '~

SLIDING BEARING

ROCKING BEARING

Figure 5 : Aqueduct near Ganjankhed along left bank canal ofTirna river over a tributary,

25

Figure 6 : Damage to steel bearings at pier 1 of the aqueduct (a) pulling of the anchor bolts, and (b) shearing-off of the anchor bolts.

26

<1>12

bolt hole">,

ciM

fillet wel~ ,

. ~i"

no welding _)

Elevation

··0·

200

Plait

I +25 10 t-+

150

(Note: All dimensions are in mm and approximate.)

Figure 7 : Details of the steel bearing plate used at the supports in the aqueduct.

27

EARTHEN EMBANKMENT

CULVERT

-

-

EARTHEN EMBANKMENT

-

~N

WALL

WING WALL

---

EARTHEN EMBANKMENT

-

CANAL

EARTHEN EMBANKMENT

WING WALL

TRANSVERSE MOVEMENT

Figure 8 : Box culvert supporting the earthen embankment for the canal.

28

Figure 9 : Tilting of the wing wall at the box culvert during 1993 Killari earthquake.

29

Figure 10 : View of the collapsed Gawana bridge during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake.

Figure 11 : View of the displaced bearing plates at the supports of the collapsed Gawana bridge during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake.

30

Figure 12 : View of the severely damaged anchor blocks of the suspension bridge near Harsil during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake.

- _ ~!' -r"-~~ .,.. .

31

82

8

86

K .... 20 0 20 40 60 110 Kia.

UUU

SCALE

/ I

.if 4

DJ.(

.. Y 4

a

ct.

24

22

110

8

8

88

Figure 13 : Isoseismal map of the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake [GSI, 1993].

32

Figure 14 : View of the Legship Bazaar bridge in Sikkim after the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake [Jain e t al, 1991].

':." ;~.-',; ';- . .. ~~~: -

, ':-J_ .-

-~ .....

. -.--~~ ..

~. ~.;~~(.,..;. ,.

_ .

Figure 15 : View of the damaged deck of the Legship Bazaar bridge in Sikkim during the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake [Jain and Tripathi, 1991].

33

RL 11.00m .L RL 5.00m _J_

120m

SUSPENDED SPAN

j4.21m-1 A B SECTION

SEISMIC SCOUR LEVEL

F;L 2.9.03~

t:;m yJ

r==l().3m

fo.4.nm-j SECTlON_C

Figure 16 : Details of typical cantilever span ofKaliabhomora (Tejpur) bridge across Brahmaputra river [Prajapati, 1990].

CENTRAL HINGE

SILCHA" END

P·IER

CONCRETE TRESTLE _ ...

KUh!8HIRGRAM· EWO

---56.39m

------------121.!l2 m

Figure 17: Line diagram showing elevation of the prestressed concrete box girder bridge on the river Barak at Sadarghat, Silchar [Prajapati, 1989].

RAILING -

..

« u

ii

- III

% >II>

HFL 10')0

"-

~~~~~~====rt __

:r a: w :r

-

o

(bl TRANSVERSE

~ __ ....:.r SECTION

IQI LONGITUDINAL SECTION

o

1.S

Figure 18: Details of the Sonaimukh bridge damage during 1984 Cachar earthquake [Agarwal, 1986].

Typical 5% Spectrum of .. ~ Recorded Ground Motion

-

~O.2

~ ..

~ 0 f,.=~~~~~!!!"!!!!!!!!!~---~--o

Design Spectrum for /~ Seismic Zone IV

1

2

3

5

Natural Period T (sec)

Figure 19: Current Design Spectrum for Seismic Zone IV Vis-a-vis Typical 5% Spectrum of Recorded Ground Motion.

35

/

It.D.Oltlham

r.Kapp I: C'- photo.

l'hoIo-.!.hing·Sur .. ,. 0( IndiaOtll .... Cok=a.Jan.~.

Figure 20: View of the distorted railway lines at a bridge severely damaged during the Great Assam earthquake of 1897 [Oldham, 1899].

Enclosure B

A state-of-the-art review on seismic design of bridges - Part I : Historical development and AASHTO code

I Sudhir K. cJ.~ and~.v.R.J\lurtYI

The basic philosophy of seismic design is the same for all structures. Hotoeoer, there are certain significant and necessary_ differences in the design calculations for bridges as agaznst those for buildings. For instance, the American codes employ different response reduction factors for different bridge components. The distinctly different calculations have arisen after evaluating the performance of the bridges during past earthquakes in the USA, Japan and other countries. In this paper, the historical .deoelopment of the American seismic code provisions for design-of bridges is reviewed to highlight the departure from the method of calculations usually adopted for. buildings and the origin of the special calculations for bridges. Further, the paper shows how the seismic performance obseroed in the bridges in USA has been translated into Code provisions in the AASHTO code of USA.

Rather poor performance of bridges in the 1971 San Femando earthquake in California, USA, and the 1978 Miyaji-Ken Oki earthquake in Japan clearly revealed that the usual seismic desi~ procedures applicable to buildings cannot be applied to bridges. Bridges pose their own unique problems vis-a-vis seismic performance. As a result, in the last twenty years, the state-of-the-art of earthquake-resistant design of bridges has undergone significant changes and major modifications have taken place in the bridge codes of US.-\. Japan and New Zealand.

On the other hand, the provisions on the seismic design of bridges in the Indian cedes'> continue to remain rather

Dr Sudhir K. J ain, Professor, Department of Civil E."1gineering. Indian Institute of Technology. Kanpur 208016.

Dr C. V.R. Murty, Assistant Professor; Department of Gvil Engineering. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 208016.

simplistic and in line with what is perhaps adequate for buildings. This is reflected in the poor performance of bridges in India-", In this paper, the current provisions in AASIITO c~de5, USA are reviewed. A companion paper' presents a review of provisions in another American code, namely CALTRANS code" together with those in the draft New Zealand code" and the current Indian codes.

Background on earthquake-resistant design

Earthquake-resistant design is fundamentally very different from the design for other dynamic effects, such as wind loads and vehicle loads. This section reviews some of the basic issu~s involved in seismic design,

. Since the size of a future earthquake and shaking intensity expected at a particular site cannot be determined accurately, the seismic forces are difficult to quantify for the purposes of design. Further, the actual forces that can be generated in the structure during an earthquake are-very large, and designing the structure to respond elastically against these forces makes the structure too expensive. Therefore, in the earthquake-resistant design, post-yield inelastic behaviour is usually relied upon to dissipate the input seismic energy. Thus, the design earthquake force may be only a fraction of the maximum (probable) forces generated if the structure is to remain elastic during the earthquake. For instance, the de'sign seismic force may at times be, say, 8 percent of the maximum elastic seismic force. Thus, earthquake-resistant design and construction does not aim to achieve a structure that will not get damaged in a strong earthquake having low probability of occurrence; it aims to have a structure that will perform appropriately and without collapse in the event of ~ch a shaking.

February 1998· The Indian Concrete Journal

79

~ 1

<

4

5

Natural period T. sec

Fig 1 A typical average acceleration response spectrum (5 percent damping) of recorded ground motions ( in units of Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA).

L"1 seismic design, 5 percent-damped elastic acceleration response spectrum S,.is often used. A typical average shape of acceleration response spectrum is shown in Fig 1. The spectral value S. corresponding to zero natural period T = 0 is the peak ground acceleration (PGA). The horizontal PGA may be about 0.3' g in area sustaining ground shaking or intensity VIII on the Modified Mercali Intensity (MMI) scale. Also, the maximum S. value (for natural period of about 0.1 s to 0.3 s) is about 2.5· times PGA in case of 5 percent damped spectrum. Thus, a building, located in seismic zone IV (which corresponds to M:MI VIII) and having natural period of 0.2 s may sustain maximum lateral force ( if it were to remain elastic)' of about 75 percent of its self weight. As against this, Indian seismic code provides the design coefficient as 0.05 g for a typical building with fundamental period of 0.2 s and located in seismic zone IV The difference in the two numbers, which involves a factor of about 10 to 15, is accounted for by overstrength and ductility in the building.

Overstrength is the actual strength of the structure which is usually much higher than the design strength; the difference is inherently introduced in the code-designed structures. Numerous factors contribute to this. For example, load factors and strength reduction factors used in design, lower gravity loads present at the time of the earthquake than assumed in the design, actual strengths of materials which are often larger than characteristic values used in design, larger member sizes and higher reinforcement provided than required

. from strength considerations, material strengths under cyclic earthquake conditions being higher than under static conditions, and contribution of non-structural and structural nonseismic elements to lateral resistance. The value of overstrength in buildings varies widely. For instance, values in the range of 2.8 to 15.0 have been reported for one type of reinforced concrete (RC) moment resisting frames?

Ductility is the capacity of a structure (or a member) to undergo deformation beyond yield without losing much of its load carrying capacity. Higher the ductility of the structure, more is the reduction possible in its design seismic force

• over what one gets for linear elastic response. In well-designed buildings, a ductility reduction factor of up to 4-5 can be achieved.

One can now define the response reduction factor :( as the product of overstrength and ductility reduction factor. The design seismic force for the structure can be taken as the maximum seismic force expected, if the structure responds elasticallv, divided by the response reduction factor. Thus, with an overstrength of 3.0 and the ductility reduction ractor of 4.0, one could design the building for one-twelfth of the maximum elastic force.

The design horizontal force of the order of five to twelve percent of the weight of the building, originally came zrom the actual performance of buildings during the damaging earthquakes in Japan in the early part of this century. The actual ground motions, caused by strong earthquake snaking, were recorded only later. Only recently it has become possible to explain why design based on such a small rraction Of the maximum elastic forces was sufficient in buildings. As will be seen subsequently, the earlier bridge codes adopted seismic design criteria similar to that for buildings: this required that the bridge as a whole be designed for 5-12 percent of its weight acting in the horizontal direction. Failures of bridges in the US and Japan in the seventies clearly showed that this was not sufficient. The bridges do not nave same amount of ductility and overstrength U; all parts 0: the structure as in case of buildings. For instance, the overstrength available at.the connections between the superstructure and substructure is only nominal and there is hardly any ductility available at the connections. Therefore, the connections in bridges are to be designed for much higher levels of seismic force. The concept of capacity design is extensively used in the design of individual bridge components. A brief renew of the principal of capacity design is given in the next section.

Capacity design

Consider a structure having both brittle and ductile elements. As load on this structure is increased, if the brittle elements fail while the ductile elements are still below vield, the structural failure will be brittle. However, if it can be ensured that the ductile elements will yield prior to failure of brittle elements, the post-yield behaviour of the structure will be duetile. The concept of capacity design is used to ensure 7Jstyield ductile behaviour of a structure having both ductile and

brittle elements. .

The concept can be explained with the example of a c_:'.ain under tensile load, Fig 2. One obvious way to ensure ductile behaviour of the chain is to simply ensure that all the links in the chain are ductile. Let us say that it is too expensive. or simply infeasible, to have all the links as ductile. Assume one link is made of a ductile material (say, mild steel) and the rest are of a brittle material (say, cast iron). The conventional design of the chain is as follows.

• The most reasonable assessment of required

Fig 2 A chain under tensile loading

80

The Indian Concrrte Journal· February 1998

-L-. -

strength of the ,chain is made.

• Some factors of safety are applied on this force and on strength of the two types of links, and the links are designed.

The actual strength of the individual links may be different from the calculated strength. As load on the chain goes beyond the design load, there is a possibility that failure may occur in any of the links and once anyone link fails, the entire chain fails. If one of the brittle links fail first, the chain will fail in a brittle manner and Vice-versa.

However, to ensure that the chain behaves in a ductile manner, it can be designed as follows:

• assess the required strength of the chain

• apply suitable factors of safety on this load and material properties, and design the ductile link carefully so that it will behave in a ductile manner

• assess the upper bound on load that the ductile link can sustain before failure, considering factors of safety overstrength in the link, its strain hardening, etc.

• ' design the brittle links for theupper-bound load calculated in the previous step.

This design will ensure that the brittle elements will remain elastic at all loads prior to the failure of the chain. Thus, the brittle failure mode has been prevented. This procedure is referred to as the capacity design procedure".

Historical developments of seismic bridge codes of USA

It is of interest to review the development of bridge codes in the United Slates. There are two major US codes of interest for seismic design of bridges, namely, Standard Specification for Highway Bridges by the American Association of State Highway and Transport Officials (AASHTO), and the Bridge Design Specifications of the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). The following review is based on an unpublished note" and section 12 "background" in the AASHTO code', .

The first provisions in USA for considering aseismic design of bridges appeared in theAASHTO 1958 standard specification for highway bridges. These required that irrespective of the location of the bridge and seismic risk, the design earthquake force V be taken as:

V =Uv, where

W = total weight of the structure, and

k = 0.02 for bridges supported on spread footings on soils having an allowable bearing capac~ ity greater than 3.5 tons/ ftl,

= 0.04 for the spread footings on soils having an allowable bearing capacity less than 3.5 tons/ ftl, and

"" 0.06 for pile footings;

On the other hand, prior to the 1971 San Fernando (California) earthquake, the California State Division of Highways specified that all structures, except underground structures and retaining walls, shall be designed to resist earthquake forces EQ applied horizontally at their centre of gravity. Further, this force shall be distributed to supports according to their relative stiffness. Here, the design earthquake force EQ was specified as ;

EQ = KCD:<: 0.02D, (2)

where

K = 1.33 for bridges where a wall with a height-tolength ratio of 23 or less resists horizontal forces applied along the wall.

= 1.00 for bridges where single columns or piers with a height-to-length ratio of 2.5 or less resist horizontal forces.

= 0.67 for bridges where continuous frames resist horizontal forces applied along the frame.

C = -W-~0.1O r and

T = 0.32~· (for single storey structures).

In the above, coefficient K reflectS the energy absorption capability of the structure depending on its substructure; C is a coefficient representing the structures stiffness; T is the natural period of the structure; D is the dead load reaction of the structure; and P is the lateral force required for one inch horizontal deflection of the structure. Further, it was also addai that special consideration be given to structures founded on soft materials capable of large earthquake movements, and to large structures having massive piers.

The poor performance of bridges constructed with the above criteria during the San Fernando (California) earthquake of 1971caUSi!d so much concern that as an interim and immediate measure the California State Division of Highways increased the design seismic load for bridge columns by 200-250 percent pending a more rational design approach. This interim measure required bridge columns to be designed for seismic forces as follows

EQ = 2.0 KCD for frames on spread footings EQ = 2.5 KeD for frames on pile footings

(3)

(1)

In 1973, the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) introduced a new design criteria for bridges, It considered the relationship bet" ... reen the bridge site and active faults, the seismic response characteristics of soils at the bridge site, and the overall dynamic response characteristics of the bridge. In 1975, these CALTRANS provisions were slightly modified and enforced in all parts of the USA. by

AASHTO. '

February 1998 • The Indian Concreee Journal

81

--~-

In 1977 the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funded the Applied Technology Council (ATC) to identify the research studies related to highway bridges, to develop and recommend new seismic design guidelines fo: bridges, and to "evaluate the probable impact of these recommended guidelines on bridge design, construction and COS""_ In 1978, CALTRANS revised its design criteria. The risk and ductility factors were removed from the design spectrum; :..~ese factors, however, were included in the design on a member component basis. In 1981, the ATC publication "seismic design guidelines for highway bridges, ATC-{i"11 became available. In 1983, AASHTO adopted this document as a guideline specification.

Since then, a lot of developments have taken piace in this field and codes are being revised regularly. In addition to lessons from 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the bricce failures in other earthquakes in California, Alaska, Japan. Cuatemala and New Zealand have significantly contributed :0 the development of improved seismic design in several countries, including USA, New Zealand, Japan and China.

Review of AASHTO code (USA) Design philosophy

The elastic forces in the members and connections go.Jlerated under the maximum probable earthquake are first obtained. Then, different reduction factors are used to arrive at the design forces for each component, whether a member or a connection. The reduction factor used is different for different members I connections. Thus, the superstructure may be designed for altogether different "design seismic coefficient" than, say, the substructure; and, the connections between the superstructure and the substructure may be designed for altogether different forces. In the design of foundations, the concept of capacity design is used, wherein the foundations are designed to withstand the smaller of:

(i) the maximum elastic forces, and

(ii) the forces resulting from the formation of plastic hinges in the columns of the substructure.

The code provides the minimum support leng-_:'_ of girders over substructure (abutments I columns) to avoid loss-ofspan type of failures. It also requires, where appropriate, the vertical hold-down devices and positive linkage elements,

Design force level and reduction factors Acceleration coefficient

The seismic risk at a site is represented by the acceleration coefficient A at the location of the bridge. This is given by a contour map, as against the more commonly used zone map. The term acceleration coefficient here represents tne effective peak velocity-related acceleration coefficient Av as defined in the ATC-3-0613; it basically represents the value 0: expected peak ground velocity in the units of acceleration. The recommended values are arrived at on the basis that there is a 90 percent probability that these values will not be exceeded during a 50-year period. The seismic coefficient A takes val-

ues as large as 0.80 for the most severe seismic areas; that is, it is recognised that peak ground acceleration can be as high . as 0.80 g.

Importance of bridge

The code accounts for importance of bridge by providing for" more complexity and sophistication in the analysis and design, and not by increasing the design seismic force. All bridges located in area having acceleration coefficient A greater than 0.29 are assigned an importance classificaricn Ie as follows:

Ie = I for essential bridges Ie = II for other bridges

Essential bridges are those that must remain funcconal after an earthquake. This is to be decided based on so;:iall survival and security I defence requirements as well as C~ average traffic on the bridge. For bridges located in area; ::aving acceleration coefficient A equal to or less than 0.:';'. the importance of the bridge does not affect the seismic anaivsis

and design procedures. .

Seismic performance categories

Depending on the acceleration coefficient A and the imoortance classification Ie, the bridge is assigned a seismic ?erformance category (SPC) denoted by A,B,C, or D, Table 1. Category D denotes the most stringent seismic requiremer.:s.

Table 1: Seismic performance categories (SPCi

Acceleration coefficient. A

lmporrance ciasrificariQn {C

I II

A:S: 0.09

0.09 < A:S: 0.19 0.19<A:S: 0.29 0.29<A

A B C o

A

B C C

Soil classification

The effects of site conditions on the basis of the elastic response spectrum are included through the site coefficient 5, Table 2. These coefficients apply irrespective of the type of foundation. In the absence of sufficient information 0;: the soil profile at the site, or when the soil profile does not match the ones listed here, the site coefficient for soil profile 11 may be used.

Response modification factor

Using the value of acceleration coefficient and the site ceefficient, the maximum elastic force on the structures is calculated by considering the typical shape of design spectrum, The maximum elastic force thus arrived at is then divided by the response modification factor, Table 3, to obtain the design force. It is noted that R is different for different components of the same bridge (as against buildings where the building as a whole is assigned a value of R, and this factor remains

. same for all components of that building). Also note that R is as low as 0.8 for the connections, meaning thereby that the connections are to be designed for more than the maximum expected elastic design force.

82

The Indian Concrete Journal • Feb..-uary-l998

--4-

Table 2 Site coefficient S (AASHTO, 1992)J'

Soil nrofile r.p~

s

rI.O

L5

[If'-

1.2

Note: • AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (5.1. Units), FIfSl Edition. 1994. provides ,,-'lOliIersoil profile type (Typ~ IV) withS factorof~o.A profile with soft clays or ;tiL< zrearer than 12.000 mm in depth shall be taken as Tvpe IV. These rnaieriais "'-lV-be characterised by a shear wave velocity of less ~'un )50 kmlhr and mightlnc,u<le loose natural deposits or man-made, non-engmeered fill.

"Soil profile Type I is a profile with either

(iJ roc;': oi any characteristic. either shale-like or crystalline in nature [such rnater.:!.I may be characterised by a shear wave velocirv g:-...!!er than 2500 frls (/6: ,",sec. or by other appropriate means of classitlcarioo]: or

(ii) stiff soil conditions where the soil depth is less than 200 it (61 rn) and the

sou types overtying rock are stable deposits of sands. gravels, and surf clays.

"'Soil ""tile type II is a protile with stiff clav or deep cohesionless conditions where tIle;"li depth exceeds 200 ft (61 rn) and the scil types overtying rock are stable derosus of sands. gravels. or stiff clays.

····Soil oroflie type I[[ is a profile with soft to medium-scfi clays and sands. characterised bv 30 ft (9 m) or more of soft to medium-stitf ciavs WIth or without

iruervemng iayers of sand or other cohesionless soils. .

Method of analysis

The code provides two analysis procedures, namely the "single mode spectral method" (procedure 1) and the "multi-mode spectral method" (procedure 2) as given in Table 4. Procedure 1 is acceptable for regular bridges with two or more spans, while the latter is required for irregular bridges in seismic performance categories C and D. Detailed seismic analysis is not required for a single-span bridge or for bridges classified as SPCA.

Table 3: Response modification factor R (AASHTO, 1992)

Substructures R Connections

R

Wall-type pier-

Reinforced concrete pile bents (a) Verticai piles only

(b) One or more batter piles Single columns

2 Superstructure to abutment 0.8

Expansion joints within a span

3 . of the superstructure 0.8

2

3 Columns, piers or pile i:-ents

to cap beam or superstrUcture'" 1.0 Columns or piers to

foundations'" 1.0

Steel or composite steel and concrete pile bents (a) Verticai plies only

(b) One or more batter piles Multiple column bents

5 3 5

Note : "The R·fac-dlr is to be used for both orthogonal axes of the subs!rncture.

•• A wall-type pier may be designed as a column in the weak ~on o.f the pier provided aJ :be provisions for columns required for ductile ~g are followed, The R·fac:oriorasingle column can be used.

···For 00':"'= classified as SPC C andD. it is recommended t:::!.t connections be designed [ct'-the maximum forces capable of beins developed by :oiastic hinging of the colurna cent as specified in the code. These [orees will oftea De signihcamly less than oose obtained using an R·faclor of 1.0.

1·2
<:
0
0
~ 0·8
'"
..
u
u
..
c 0·4
u
"
Q.
'"
a Ootted line shows form of spec~~"m used for soil type III when A. is tess !"-an a·)

2·0

),0

1·0

1·5

0·5

Period

Fig 3 Design spectrum used in Procedure 1 for A = 0.4 as per AASHTO 1992

Elastic response coefficient and spectrum

The code provides the maximum elastic force using the standard shapes of the response spectrum for the three types of soil profiles. These shapes basically correspond to 5 percent damping.

Procedure 1: When only one mode of vibration is being considered (procedure 1), the elastic seismic response coefficient C, is given by:

1?1S C=-==-~25A

s T:3

(5)

~ 20 A when soil type is III and A;:: 0.30

The plot of C, versus fundamental natural period. T of the bridge for A=OAO is shown in Fig 3.

Procedure 2 : When more than one mode of vibration are being considered in analysis (procedure 2), the elastic seismic response coefficient C,m for the mlh mode of vibration is given by:

C =1.2AS

5'" T~ 3

(6)

Where T m is the natural period of the m" mode or vibration. However, the following conditions are applicable:

The value of C need not exceed 2.5 A.

,.",

•

•

For soil type III in areas where A;:: 03, Csm need not .exceed 2.0 A.

'When soil type is III, for modes other than the fundamental mode, which have periods less than 0.3 5, C may be determined in accordance with the followir:g formula:

•

C"" = A(0.8 + 4.0T m)

(7)

•

For structures in which anv T exceeds 4.0 s, the value of C for that mode mav ~ determined in accordanc~~th the following f~rmula:

(8)

Fig 4: shows the response spectrum shapes for different soil conditions as per the above.

Combination of orthogonal seismic forces

The elastic seismic forces and moments resulting from analyses in the two perpendicular direction are combined by the "100 percent + 30 percent rule".

Design forces for SPC A

The connections of the superstructure to the substructure are to be designed to resist in the restrained directions a horizon-

February 1998·'!be Indian Concrete Journal

83

-~-

tal seismic force equal to 020 times the dead load reaction force. Thus even though the bridges in SPC A do not require detailed seismic analysis, their connections are still to be designed for 0.2 g coefficient.

Table.t: Analysis procedure AASlITO 19923

Seismic performance category

R,;0::r" bridges Irregular" bridges

<Lith '"'ith

~ or r.:ore spans

2 or mo~ spans

A B C o

2

2

\"ote :orA "rezular" bridce has no aorum 0':" unusual changes in mass. stiffness or eeomelr\" along iis soan and has no large' differences in these parru:nelers i?et\\'een"'adl'ac~~t supports (abutmerus excluded I. For example. a bridge may De considered regu at If II 15 straisht or describes a sector of an arc not exceedinz 900' and has adiaceru columns. or piers. that do nOI differ in stiii;;oss by more Ihan 25 percent, (The percentage difference is 10 be based on the lesser of the IWO adiacent quantities as the reference.i

•• An "irregular" bridge is any bridge that does not satisfy the definition of a regular bridge.

Design' forces for SPC B

All elements of the bridge, except the foundation. are to be designed for force obtained by dividing the maximum elastic force by the response modification factor for that element. Foundations (except the pile bent) are to be designed for the maximum elastic force divided by half the R factor for the substructure (column or pier) attached to the foundation. This means that design seismic force for the foundation is twice the seismic force for the coluinn/pier that it supports. For pile bents, the foundation is to be designed for the same seismic force as the column or the pier that it is supporting.

Design forces for SPC C and D

For SPC C and D, two sets of design forces are specified. The first set is based on the maximum elastic force divided by the response modification factor for the concerned element (except for foundations for which the response modification factor is taken as 1.0 for this calculation; that is, maximum elastic force is taken for the foundation). And, the second set is based on the maximum seismic force that can be developed in the element considering the capacity design principles. The code then specifies either of the two for design of a particular component. Usually, the capacity design forces are lower than the alternative forces, and are recommended for design. These two sets are first described followed by the specifications for different components.

I· 2

Dotted line shews form of spectrum used tor soil type tIl when Aa is !~SS than 0-3

! c I 0 ! ".=

For higher modes only

o

0·5 ',0

2·5

2·0

'·5 ;leriod

Fig 4 Design spectrum used in Procedure 2 for A = 0.4 as per AASHT01992

(i) Design force set 1

For all the elements of the bridge, except for the foundation, this force is obtained by dividing the maximum elastic force bv the response modification factor for that element. For the- foundation, the design force for this set is calculated using R=l, that is, maximum elastic force.

(ii) Design force set 2'

The design force for this set is that resulting from plastic hinging at the top and / or bottom of the column (capacity design concept). The code provides detailed procedure for both single column/pier situations and bents with two or more columns.

Single column/pier situations: The capacity design force is to be calculated for the two principal axes of a column and in the weak direction of a pier or bent.

(i) The overstrength plastic moment capacity of the column is determined.

(ii) The shear force in column corresponding to the overstrength plastic moment capacity is' calculated.

(iii) The axial force in the columns is the unreduced maximum and minimum seismic axial load plus that due to the dead loads.

Multiple columns/piers situations: For bents with two or more columns, forces are to be calculated both in the plane of the bent and perpendicular to the plane of the bent. Perpendicular to the plane of the bent, the forces shall be calculated as for single columns discussed above. In The plane of the bent, the forces are to be calculated in the following manner.

(i) Overstrength plastic moment capacity of the columns is determined. This is assessed assuming that the columns are carrying only the dead loads and there is no axial load due to seismic condition.

(ii) The shear force in individual columns of the bent is calculated corresponding to the overstrength plastic moment capacity.

(iii) Column shears calculated above are summed to obtain the maximum shear force that the bent can take.

(iv) The bent shear force calculated above is applied to the top of the bent (that is, at the centre of mass of the superstructure above the bent). For this condition, the axial force in the columns is determined.

J·o

(v) Using the above axial force in the columns plus the axial load due to dead loads, a revised overstrength moment capacity of the columns is calculated. Now steps (ii) to (v) are repeated

The Indian Concrete Journal e February 1998

-b-

until the bent shear force value has converged (to say within 10 percent)

(vi) Now the forces in the individual columns in the - plane of the bent corresponding to column hinging are:

1. Axial force in the columns is that due to the dead loads plus the converged values under seismic loads as calculated above.

2. Moment in the columns are gi\'en by the column overstrength plastic moments corresponding to the axial force in (1) above.

3. Shear in the columns is calculated corresponding to the moment obtained in (2) above.

Column and pile bent design force

(i) Axial force: The maximum and minimum design force is either (i) maximum elastic design values plus that due to dead loads, or (ii) value corresponding to plastic hinging calculated in design force set 2 plus that due to dead loads. Lower of these two can be used; the latter values will generally be lower.

(ii) Moments: Design moments in columns will be as per design force set 1, that is, maximum elastic moment divided by the response modification factor.

(iii) Shear: Design shear will be either (a) maximum elastic shear force (calculated taking response modification factor of 1.0), or (b) that corresponding to plastic hinging of the column as calculated in design force set 2. Lower of the two values can be used -in design; usually the latter value will be lower.

Note that the column is being designed for the reduced moment, but the axial and shear forces on the column are being calculated by the capacity design principles. This is because shear failure is to be prevented as it is brittle failure. Similarly, column failure under axial load is brittle, and must be avoided.

Pier design forces

Design forces for the piers will be as per the design force set 1; that is, maximum elastic forces divided by the response modification factor. However, if the pier is being designed as a column in its weak direction, then all design requirements of the columns discussed above will be used for the weak direction.

Connection design forces between superstructure and columns, and between columns and foundations

These will be lower of (i) those as per design force set 1, _ and (ii) forces developed at the top and bottom of the columns

• Expansion joint or I!'nd of bridge deck

Abutment

• L 1 L 2

~I'__--'_'O"'---'-----IHI'____- -~-___,-

CJcn===u"---- i____.

• I I. • I N

Hinge within a. span

Fig 5 Dimensions for minimum support length requirements (AASHTO, 1992)

due to column hinging as determined in design force set 2. Of course, the forces in (ii) here are to be calculated only after the column design is complete and the overstreng6 moments are calculated. Here, while forces as per (i) are :::igher than the maximum. elastic force (because the response ziodification factor is less than 1.0 for the connections), these in (ii) are as per capacity design, Usually those by the capacity design being lower will govern.

Longitudinal linkage forces

Positive linkage is to be provided by means of ties, cables, dampers or an equivalent mechanical means between the adjacent sections of the superstructure at supports and expansion joints within a span. Friction is not to be considered a positive linkage. Where linkage is provided at columns or piers, the linkage of each span may be attached to the column or pier rather than between adjacent spans. Linkages are to be designed for a minimum force of acceleration coefficient A times the weight of the lighter-of the two adjoining spans or parts of the structure.

Design force for hold down devices

In continuous structures, hold-down devices are to be provided at all supports or hinges if the vertical seismic rorce due to longitudinal horizontal seismic load opposes ana exceeds 50 percent of the dead load reaction. The minimum design force for the hold down device is greater of (i) 10 percent of the dead load reaction that would be exerted '.i the span were simply supported, and (ii) 1.2 times the net ::.plift force (that is, vertical upward seismic force minus the dead load reaction)

Foundation design forces

The foundation (including footings, pile caps and piles} are to be designed for the either (i) forces calculated as per design force set 1 (which is equal to the maximum elastic force), or (ii) forces that develop at the base Of the column corresponding to column plastic hinging (calculated as per G??acity design principle in design force set 2)_ The lower or the two can be used, usually the latter forces will be lower,

February 1998' Tbe Indian Concrete Journal

85

-+-

Relative displacements and seating widths

The structural configuration of bridges in the USA fall into two general categories, namely monolithic systems and girder bearing systems. While both systems appear to be equally seismically resistant, engineers accept that monolithic superstructures are preferable to reduce the joint pull apart and subsequent collapse. In girder bearing systems, relative displacements between sucerstructure and substructure require three aspects to be carefully attended to.

Firstly, under seismic forces acting transverse to the longituciinal girders, uplift forces may be generated at the supports. Special vertical hold down devices are necessary to increase stability of the superstructure against overturning.

Secondly; under seismic forces acting along the longitudinal girders, adjacent superstructure units at supports and at expansion joints within the span may move away from each other by undesirable amounts. Special horizontal linkage elements are necessary to keep these units together.

Thirdly, under seismic forces acting along the longitudinal girders, the relative longitudinal motion between the superstructure and substructure may be larger than the available width of support on top of the substructure (that is, pier or column). At least, a minimum seating width atop the substructure for the superstructure must be ensured in accordance with the actual displacements envisaged during the maximum credible earthquake, and not in accordance with the displacements calculated under the design loads which could be smaller. In girder bearing systems, the need for minimum seating width specifications draws importance from numerous loss-of-span type of failures experienced in the past earthquakes. The code requires that at the expansion ends of the girders, at least a minimum support length (in mm) measured from the end of the girder to the face of the pier or abutment, Fig 5, shall be provided, given by

N = 203 + 1.67 L + 6.66 H for low seismic performance categories A and B

N = 305 + 2.50 L + 10.00 H for high seismic per-

formance categories C and D (9)

where L is the total length of superstructure between expansion joints (in m) and H is the height of the column or pier (in m).

Conclusions

It is necessary to recognise that redundancy is rather low in bridges unlike in buildings. For this reason, the seismic design lateral force is kept higher for bridges than that for buildings. Further, the experiences of bridge failures during earthquakes show that strength criteria alone is insufficient in assuring good seismic performance; deformational aspects are as important as the strength criteria. Since bridges are composed of a set of components that are serially connected to each other with relatively very few support points on the ground, a strength hierarchy is required to be developed in these components based on the concept of capacity design. It

is ensured that ductile modes of failure precede the brittle modes of failure. The force transfer from superstructure to substructure through the connections (bearings) are accounted for keeping in mind that bridge components resist the forces during an earthquake through inelastic action, and hence they are designed for only a fraction cf the actual forces appearing on them during seismic sha.."6,g. However, connections do have their responsibility of ::-a..'1.Sferring the actual forces generated in the superstructure to the substructure. Thus, the connections have to be designed iot the actual forces (or more) and not reduced forces. TI1e A;5:-1'1'0 code has very nicely translated the experiences of performance of bridges during past earthquakes into practical design provisions.

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out with financial support from the Ministry of Surface Transport, Covemment of India; the authors are grateful for the support,

(To be continued)

References

___ 15:1893-1984, Indian standard crzsria for eJlrthquake resistant design of structures, Bureau of Indian Standards. 19St New Delhi.

2 IRC:6-1966, Standard specifia::>..""r!S and code of practice for road bridges:

Section II lDads and stresses, Indian Roads Congress, 1985, New Delhi

3 MURTY, C V.R, and JAIN, S.K, Seismic:>e.dormance of bridges in India during past earthquakes, Report submiHeD '" .\jinistrY of Surjace Transport, New Delhi. March 1996.

4 MURTY C VR, and JAIN, S.K, Seismic performance of bridges in India during past earthquakes, The Bridge and S:r~ctura1 Engineer, Journal of INGIABSE. New Delhi, Vol. '2J, no 4, December 1997, pp 45-79.

5 AASHTO, Standard specificatiorsi» seismic design ojhighway bridges,

American Association of State Highway 2IId Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C, USA, 1992.

6 JAIN, S.K, and MURTf, C VR, A state'of the art review of seismic design of bridges - Part II: CALTRANS, TNZ ana Indian codes, a companion paper under publication in The Indian Cancra jaurnal, 1998.

7 CA.LTR.A...1'JS, Bridge design ~.cD.tionsl California Department of

Transportation. Sacramento, CA, USA.. 1991. .

S. TNZ Bridge Manual, Bridge mznual : Design and eoaluation, Transit

New Zealand, Wellington. New Zealand, 1991.

9. JAm, S.K. and NAVIN, R, Seismic oveseength in reinforced concrete frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, A5CE. \"01121, No 3,1995, pp 580-585.

10. PAlH...AY. T., and PRIESTLEY, M.)'!\!., s,,-:smic design of rein/arced concrete and T7U!50nry buildings, John "'"lIe}' and Sons New York, 1992.

11. IMBSTh, RA., Seismic design of bridges - r...;tory, unpublished note.

12. ATC-6, Seismic design guideiines /OT highway bridges, Applied Tech-

nology Council. 555 Twin Dolphin Drive. Suit 550, Redwood G~\ CA 94065- 2101. USA. 1981.

13. ATC-3-06, Tentatiue provisions .'" the development of seismic regula-

tions for buildings, Applied Technology Council, 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suit 550, Redwood City, C"-.. 94065-2101, L"s",;_ 1978.

14 15:456-1978, Code of practicef~;-:':in and reinforced concrete, Bureau of

Indian Standards, New Delhi. 1978.

15 15:13920-1993, Indian stantiJmj a>ie of practice for ductile detailing of

. reinforced omcme members subjected to =--".qw>ke forces, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 1993.

•••

86

The lndi:m Concrete Journal " February 1998

--~--

A state-of-the-art review on seismic design of bridges - Part II :

CALTRANS, TNZ and Indian codes

Sudhir K. Jain and C.V.R. Murty i

I

III a companion paper', the historical development of the seismic design protnsions for bridges in USA are studied and it is shown how :he experience of the performance of bridges during past earthquakes has been translated into the A.-iSHTO code. In this paper, code provisions on seismic design ofbridg~ in Calijornia, USA (CALTRANS code) and NC'J.) Zealand 'TNZ code) are reoietced in detail, together with those in the Indian codes (IS : 1893-1984 and IRC : 6- 1966). In the American and New Zealand codes, more realistic ground accelerations are explicitly considered in design, suitable response reduction factors are used to account for ductility and oterstrengih, and the principle of capacity design is liberally used. This results in a bridge structure which is likely to dispiay ductile behaviour in the event of very strong shaking. Moreover, these codes provide specifications for vertical hold-doum devices and horizontal linkage elements; these detices provide positive anchorage and stability against lateral and longitudinal displacements and against vertical uplift. Finally, to prevent loss-of-span type of collapses, these codes require minimum seating widths. It is seen that, generally, the seismic design force for bridges in the current Indian codes is extremely low, particularly for the connections (such is not. the case for the buildings). TIle Indian codes require major changes regarding (i) more realistic earthquake ground accelerations (ii) consideration of flexibility of structure in design force calculation, and (iiij provision of proper response reduction factors for differen: elements of the bridges to account for ductility and oterstrength. Also, there is an urgent need to incorporate provisions on uertical hold-down devices and horizontal linkage elements, und minimum seat widths.

Dr 5udhir K Jain. Deeartment of 0\-;1 Engineering, Indian Institute of Technol~:, Kanpur Kanpur :!J8016

Dr C. v.R. Murty, Decartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute oi Technology, Kanpur Kanpur 208016

The historical development of the seismic design codes ror bridges in USA has been presented in a companion paper' along with a review of the AASHTO code or USA 2. This ?aper presents a review of the CALTRAt'JS code) of USA. the Transit NZ code'' of New Zealand, and the Indian codes'", This paper shows that the New Zealand code has the least gap between state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. For instance, it uses an inelastic design spectrum to specify the seismic design force. Such an approach is currently nor being followed in the design codes of USA Also, the use of a soil amplification factor as a function of the natural perioci of the bridge system is a special feature in the C .... LTRANS code; in the AASHTO code, the site coefficient which reflects the type of soil is independent of the natural period of the bridge system. In light of the performance of bridges in India curing the past earthquakes" and the above mentioned renew of the design codes of USA and New Zealand, the paper raises the relevant issues for consideration in the next revision of the Indian code provisions for seismic design of bridges.

CALTRANS code (USA)

This standard specification is published by the California Department of Transportation (CALTRA..!'\iS) for the PUI?Jse of seisrnic design of freeway /highway bridges in the Stare of California, USA. This code has been a modal code for rr.any others in the profession of code development.

Design philosophy

In this code, the design force is obtained in two steps. Fi:sdy, the elastic forces generated in the members and connections under the maximum credible earthquake are obtained. Then, depending on the capability of a component to provide duetile behaviour, the above maximum elastic forces are divided by the reduction factor of that component to arrive at its design forces. Thus, different components of a bridge are recognised to have different ductility and overstrength in them. Since inelasticities are expected in substructures, the concept

\Iarch 1998 • The Indian Concrete Journal

129

-3'--

of capacity design is used in the design of substructures and foundations.

The CALTRA..l\JS code is primarily based on the strength criteria. There are no provisions to control the lateral displacements (drift) in bridge structures. However, provisions accounting for relative displacements between adjacent components of the superstructure and between the superStructure and supports are available. These specifications focus on the design of horizontal linkage elements between adjacent spans or on the design of vertical hold-down devices at the supports, be it piers or abutments.

Seismic forces are required to be determined for two independent loading conditions in perpendicular directions, usually along longitudinal and transverse axes, of the bridge.

Design force and reduction factors

The elastic response spectra (5 percent damping) at the site for the maximum credible event(s) are obtained by the product of peak rock accelerations A, acceleration spectra in rock R, and soil amplification factor S, described in the following sub-sections.

Peak rock accelerations, A

Seismic risk at different locations in California is specified in CALTRANS code through contour maps where the contours join all locations of equal peak rock acceleration, that is, maximum expected acceleration A at bedrock or rock-like material. Since local soil conditions will influence the acceleration at a site, these contours are prepared assuming rock strata. The effect of local soil conditions is incorporated in design through soil amplification factor. The peak rock acceleration _ contours are drawn up to 0.7g at O.lg intervals.

Acceleration spectra in rock, R

The code provides normalised acceleration spectra R in rock, for the different ranges of peak rock accelerations, Fig 1, as a function of the natural period of the bridge T. Note that the maximum spectral amplification used in these curves is 2.6. Also, the shape of spectrum appears different from usual because (i) the natural period is plotted on a log scale, and (ii) the natural period axis starts at 0.1 s. The elastic spectrum for 5 percent damping on rock can thus be obtained for any location in California by multiplying the peak rock ac-

5

a:

~ 4

.!!

..

~ )

o 0-

'" ..

ro.ck ~Cc.ele-r.:ion

o

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2·0 )·0 4.0 5.0

0.1

Pe riod of s t r ce ture., sec

Fig 1 Normalised rock spectra R'

celeration, A with the normalised rock spectra, R.

Soil amplification factor, S

Depending on the type and depth of soil over bedrock, motions at the ground are modified :rom what is produced at the rock level. Thus, the soil ampiiiication factor S, which is the ratio of the peak acceleration at the ground to that at the bedrock, has been developed. The CAL1RANS code categorizes soil sites into four categories: thickness of alluvium of 0-10 feet, 10-80 feet, 80-150 feet, ad > 150 feet. For alluvium thickness of 0-10 feet, 5 = 1.0. Fer the three categories, the plots of 5 versus T for different values of peak rock acceleration (ranging from O.lg to 0.7g) are given in Fig 2.

Fundamental natural period of bridge, T

While using the equivalent static :nethod, the fundamental natural period, in seconds, of the bridge as a whole in any direction may be estimated by the relation

T=0.32ff

(1)

2.8

Soil ampliflc .... \ion spec~ral r.~lo .. S

for ",alues 01 pe.;a.k rock .cceleratlon~ 9 C:rpth of .illluvium to rock-like- maleri.ill- 11·-80"

Soil amplification spc-ctral raHo ... S

for v .... lues of pe.ilk rocll acceleratlo"~ 9 drpth of alluvium to rock-like rn.ate-rial- 81·-1~l"

2.8

Soil amplification spe-c:':ral ra~lo ... S

10r values of pe .. k rock .acc e r er atlo" , 9 C:ep1h of alluvium to rock-Ilke- rnateria'> 1!SO'

2.2

1.6

1.0

0.4 0.& 1.0 1.5

"2-0 2.5 J.O

Period of stucturr.s

Fig 2 Normalised rock spectra R'

130

The Indian Ceserete Journal • March 1998

-ro -

where W is the dead load of the bridge and P is the total uniform force applied to the superstructure which will cause one-inch maximum horizontal det1ection in the considered direction of loading. Thus, P represents the total stiffness of the superstructure, supporting members and surrounding soil.

Ductility and risk reduction factor, Z

Seismic design forces and moments iot individual members as per the C\LTR.-\.J'JS code shall be determined by dividing the individual elastic seismic member forces with the appropriate ductility and risk reduction factor, Z. This factor, which is similar to the response reduction factor discussed earlier in this report, is shown in Fig 3 for the different components of the bridge. Factor Z accounts for ductility and risk to damage as seen in the past earthquakes .. It was seen that lowlevel bridges with periods less than 0.6 s were much less vulnerable to collapse than the more flexible bridges.

The Z factor is taken to be a higher value for low-height bridge superstructures owing to favourable experiences in past earthquakes. Hence, the Z factor is gradually reduced with increase in T beyond 0.6 s. This implies higher design force for bridge superstructures that are higher. For a singlecolumn bent,

Z=\6[1- ~~0.6 '

~.4

)

if T ~ 0.6 s

if T> 0.6 s

and for a multi-column bent

J [ 8 -J. if T s 0.6 s

2=1' 1_r;~6 if T>0.6,

The Z factor for substructures, that is, piers, abutment walls and wingwalls, is taken as 20. These elements have

''''t'11 con1ined d\:c;ti:e mo.:lti-COiumn ben~s

u ..

Si:"t'5le column ~ent

te es. ~butment walls. wln-;_<iIlS (%.:2)

.., -e

c.a.bles (r = 1)

o ~~ 0.8 1

Peri od of s truc t cr e, T, S

Fig 3 Ductility and risk reduction factor Z'

much less ductility and no redundancy. Hence, the Z values are lower than those used in case of superstructures. The Z factor for restraining devices is also independent of the natural period of the structure. The value of Z for hinge restrained cable is taken as 1.0 and that for well-restrained concrete shear keys is taken as 0.8. These values indicate that restrainers and shear keys are being designed for the maximum expected elastic forces or more. These low values ensure that the components are not stressed beyond vield, Failure of these components may lead to collapse conditions and thus lower Z values are used.

Method of analysis

The C\LTRANS code permits two methods of analysis, namely, equivalent static analysis and dynamic analysis, depending on the nature of the bridge. ThE design iorces may be estimated by using the ARS spectra and reducing the moments and forces by the ductility and risk reduction factor. Z. However, the deflections determined by using the ARS spectra can be assumed to be realistic and are not to be reduced.

(2)

Equivalent static analysis

In case or relatively simple bridges, which have well-balanced stiffness, supporting bents (or substructures) of approximately equal stiffness, little or no skew; tangent or very large radius of alignment, relatively light substructures and no intermediate expansion joints, the equivalent static analysis may be used even though the dynamic analysis method is preferred. When using this method of analysis, a minimum value of ARS equal to 0.4 is imposed. However, there is no such minimum force requirement when using dynamic analysis. On the other hand, the equivalent static analysis is the preferred method to obtain forces in hinge restrainers.

(3)

. The seismic load may be assumed as an equivalent uniform static load equal to ARS times W, applied at the vertical centre of gravity of the total bridge structure. The distribution of this seismic force to individual members shall be in accordance to the stiffness of the superstructure, substruc~ and the restraint at the abutments. The elastic forces computed in the different bridge components are then divided by the adjustment factor Z; the forces so obtained are to be used as design forces.

Dynamic analysis

Bridge structures with irregular configuration or support stiffnesses are required to be analysed by this method. The method employs modal analysis of the lumped mass space frame of the bridge subjected to g:ound motion. The ground motion may be given by the given response spectrum (ARS spectrum) or it may be an equivalent site-specific elastic response spectrum (5 percent damping). The model of the bridge structure shall also include the restraint offered by the soil. This dynamic analysis technique is particularly preferred to ascertain the forces and moments in column members and transverse keys.

The corrurientary on the CAL"'"RANS code clearly states that the assumption that the usually recommended dynamic analysis procedure (which is an elastic procedure) will allow

I

Marcb 1998 * The Indian Concrete Journal

131

-)1 -

the prediction of earthquake forces very accurately is not correct At best, elastic dynamic analysis can provide a good distribution of the forces in the bridge structure and a general estimate of deformations that can be expected. However, issues like cumulative damage need to be included to refine the dynamic analysis to give "reasonable" results.

Combination of orthogonal seismic forces

To account for the directional uncertainty of the earthquake ground motion. two load cases are recommended. The seismic loads are calculated individually along two orthogonal directions. Usually, one may consider the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis of the bridge as these orthogonal directions. These forces are then combined by "100 percent + 30 percent rule" to obtain design forces. This rule is explained in the following and illustrated in Fig 4.

The forces and moments resulting from the two analyses of the bridge system subjected to the seismic load along the two orthogonal directions, say direction 1 and direction 2, shall be combined as below:

(i) Seismic load case 1 : Combine the forces and moments resulting from the analysis with seismic load along direction 1 with 30 percent of the corresponding forces and moments from the analysis with seismic load along direction 2.

II

I

Bridge pl .. n

gobal X"X and Z-Z axes

Transverse load r e s urts

casel

Lon9i~udinol.' loa.d ee s ctts case 2

... ~ , ~ • O.J"~

... ~ = ~. O.3"~

... ~ , ",~. O.]M~ ... ~ , "'~ • o·J"'i

Where My .nd ).42 are .iilDSOlu~e momcn ts aboul reca ou:es

Case I &. Usc 2 are e:amples o~h.:"" to combine seismic rnomon!S fr=:..-o ortIK¥ooaI arectlms to re;:r= the effects of an eanhquaI;<~, _ direcnms. Correspondulg t!lC<Il<nS and forces must be Stmilady ~ The most severe of Case I a Case 2 tS then ~ to the plastlC ~ values. Tho: least..-.... of OIt!>:r the tnecb:cd AItS faces a ;Usac hinge fcroes are used tei tcuhaaDcri 0CStgJl.

Fig 4 Combination of orthogonal seismic forces"

(ii) Seismic load case 2 : Combine the forces and moments resulting from the analysis with seismic load along direction 2 with 30 percent of the corresponding forces and moments from the analysis with seismic load along direction 1.

Special cases

The code requires that all bridge structures at sites adjacent to faults, at sites with unusual geologie conditions, unusual bridge structure types, and bridges whose fundamental natural periods are greater than 3 s, be treated as special cases. The design forces for such bridges shall be based on approved site-specific soil response and dynamic analysis.

I -I 1 I

Restraining features to limit relative displacements

Monolithic superstructures are preferable to reduce the joint pull-apart and subsequent collapse. However, when girderbearing systems are used, protection against reiative displacements between the superstructure and substructure is provided for through special vertical hold-down devices, horizontal hinge restrainers and fixed restraining devices by "design force" clauses. Interestingly, despite the numerous loss-of-span type of failures in California, there is no requirement of minimum seating width in the CALTRANS code. However, Memo to Designers of CALTRANS on abutments mentions AASHTO requirements .on minimum seat widths. Further, CALTRANS uses a 24 inch minimum seat on all bridges, and additional seat width at abutments on high skew",

Restrainers along longitudinal and transverse directions

Positive longitudinal restraint is required to be provided between adjacent sections of superstructure at all intermediate expansion joints. These restraints, for example, hinge restrainers or flexible single-direction restraining devices, are expected to limit the superstructure displacement. The forces in these restrainers are to be determined using the equivalent static method. When estimating the total stiffness of the frame moving away from the joint, the longitudinal stiffness of one adjacent superstructure frame, restraint at the abutment, gaps at the joints and gaps at the restrainers are to be considered. Further, in case of simple multiple spans, only one span is required to be considered at a time. However, the code requires that forces in shear keys and other types of fixed restraining devices be determined by using the dynamic analysis .

In single span bridges, detailed analysis is not required to estimate the forces in restrainers. The forces in the connections between superstructure and substructure are required to be evaluated as per equivalent static method. When superstructures are fixed to abutments in the transverse direction. their natural period of vibration may be taken as zero.

Restrainers in vertical direction

Where the vertical seismic force opposes and exceeds 50 percent of the dead-load reaction at any support or intermediate

132

The Indian Concrete Journal • Marcb 1998

- IJ__-

hinge, the CALTRANS code requires that vertical hold-down devices be provided at that support. The minimum design force for such devices shall be the greater of (i) 10 percent of the dead load reaction, and (ii) 1.2 times the net uplift force.

Substructure design

The design of the substructure components is based on the capacity design concept In calculating the probable plastic moment capacities at the base of the column, the possible overstrength in materials beyond their specified nominal characteristic strengths are to be used. For reinforced concrete columns, a strength reduction factor of 1.3 is recommended for use in the calculation of overstrength plastic hinge capacity from the nominal moment capacities. This strength re-

MT' MW MT • 101

.,: __ or v:-' _s

Lw cs

Assume tlArts Assume

fatl ot! flares effective

101.·101", V:~ r

W

or

transverse

f +.
?= i
n
I i L,
liN -t
G;J v=~or '(:~,!".M ...

La ~

tor.si ludln.1

Fig 5 Potential platic hinge locations and the method for calculating the design shear"

duction factor of 1.3 for reinforced concrete columns increases the ultimate strength, as against the values less than 1.0 normally used in design. In the CALTRANS code, this method of determining the plastic hinge capacities is uniformly applicable to all bridges in the State of California.

The code specifies that columns in substructures be designed for the following loads.

DeSign moment

The design moment for column is obtained by dividing the seismic member forces by the appropriate factor, Z.

Shear force

The design shear force is determined from the probable piastic moment of the column section and the distance between the plastic hinges. Some examples of potential plastic hinge locations are also discussed in the commentary of the code, Fig 5. The length of the plastic hinge region may be assumed to be the largest of (i) largest lateral dimensions of the prismatic portion of the column, (iii one-sixth the length of the column. and (iii) 24 inches. In case of flared columns, the length of plastic hinge regions may be assumed to be the above quantity enhanced by the flare length.

Axial force

The design axial force is the unfactored dead load axial force plus or minus the axial force developed resulting from the formation of the plastic hinges in the substructure.

Foundation design

Damages in foundations are not easily detectable. Hence, unfavourable brittle failures in them, if any, are avoided by designing them for forces which are envisaged corresponding to the structure undergoing the maximum possible ductile response (that is, the concept of capacity design). The CALTRAt"1S code requires that the design forces for foundations of bents and piers shall be the smaller of (i) the maximum elastic force, and (ii) the force at the foundation due to formation of plastic hinge at the base of the column in the substructure.

The code specifies that the ultimate soil or pile capacity be used for resisting the seismic foundation loads.

TNZ Bridge Manual (New Zealand)

This draft specification' is published by Transit New Zealand (the organisation in-charge of national roads), for the purpose of seismic design of highway bridges in New Zealand. The Bridge Manual of Transit New Zealand, here-in-after called the TNZ code, today stands as the design code with the least gap between the states-of-the-art and of - the-practice in so far as the seismic design of bridges is concerned.

Design philosophy

The TNZ code is a strong advocate of the concept of capacity design. The design approach involves the choice of an intended mode of structural behaviour during strong shaking. followed by design and detailing of members to ensure that

March 1998 • The Indian Concrete Journal

133

- I?'-

the structure behaves as intended. Sufficient strength capacity is provided elsewhere in the structure to ensure that the chosen energy dissipation mechanism does indeed develop in the event of a major earthquake. The TNZ code recognizes the need to calculate the design force due to ground motion in the two orthogonal directions to the bridge to account for the directional uncertainty of the ground motion. However, no combination of these forces is specified.

Importance categories and risk factor, R

The TNZ code defines three importance categories for bridges depending on the average number of vehicles per day expected at the time of design. on location vis-a-vis motorwavs and railways, ana on whether on a national or provincial highway. Based on this importance category, a factor to be used in detennining the design force is introduced keeping in mind a different seismic return period for each of the categories. This factor, named the risk factor R, takes a value of 0.9, 1.1 and 1.3, the last one being the value for the most important bridges, implying higher design seismic force for them.

Zone factor, Z

A zone factor Z, which reflects the peak ground acceleration at the site, is given in the form of a contour map for the New Zealand islands. The TNZ code takes a minimum value of Z as 0.4 and a maximum value of 0.8. This implies that peak ground accelerations in the range of 0.4 g to 0.8 g are envisaged in the country.

Ductility, inelastic design spectra and soil type

The TNZ code discusses in detail the different types of structures from the point of view of ductility. It requires designers to use the actual characteristic of the structure to evaluate the design displacement ductility factor JL Here, indirect reference is made to the use of nonlinear analysis in obtaining JL The maximum allowable design displacement ductility factor J1 is shown in Table 1 as a function of the different rein-

Table 1 : Maximum allowable values of design displacement ductility factor [TNZ code)

EMT dissipatior: system ~

Ductile or partially ductile structure (Type I), in which plastic hinges 6

fonn at design load intensity, above ~und or normal (or mean tide) water level

Ductile or partially ductile structure 'Type I), in which plastic hinges 4

fonn in reasonably accessible positions, example, less than 2 m below • ground. but not below normal (or mean tide) water level

Ductile or partially ductile structure IType I), in which plastic hinges 3

are inaccessible. formmg more tha:-.':: m below ground or below nor-

mal (or mean tide) water level, or a: a level reasonably predictable

Partially ductile structure (Type II)

Spread footings designeci to rock (unless a larger value can be specifically justified)

Hinging in racked piles in which earthquake load induces large axial 2

forces

'Locked-in- structure (T = 0)

Elastic structure

Note: The design ductility factor for structures of limited capacity or demand is to be deternined from actual structure characteristics

forcement detailing schemes recommended in the reinforced concrete code'", Fig 6 gives examples of maximum value of ductility allowed by TNZ.

The T;\Z code specifies the basic acceleration coefficient C", which ret1ects the response amplification (due to the structure flexibility) and the response reduction factor (due to ductility and overstrength). This coefficient C" is given for design displacement ductility factor J1. values of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, for two soil types and for a given. fundamental natural period T of the bridge structure in the considered direction of design earthquake. This coefficient C" in the form of smooth spectra is shown in Fig 7 for two soil types: namely, normal soils and flexible soils. Foundations resting on soils that can liquefy are to be treated as special cases, ana detailed studies are required to ascertain the likely ground response. The spectrum CUI\'es in Fig 7 show in the low period range (i) dotted lines, and tii) solid line plateau. The code requires that the ordinates for first mode response should not be less than the plateau values. For higher mode responses, the dotted portion of the curves may be used instead of the plateau. It is interesting to note that TNZ is amongst the few codes to use inelastic spectra in design as given in Fig 7.

Design force level

The seismic analysis is performed by constructing the basic design spectrum given by the product of basic acceleration coefficient C", zone factor Z, the risk factor R. Notice that no response reduction factor is being used in the process. The main component of response reduction factor, namely ductility reduction factor and the overstrength, are accounted for through C". The effect of ductility reduction factor comes directly bv means of different curves for C for different val-

, "

ues of ductility. Even though TNZ code does not mention it

as such, it is apparent that the overstrength comes into de-

• Plastic hin~9. ..

!:: ,..:

\\\\. ~:!:z

- . rr

Fig 6 Examples of maximum value of J1 allowed by TNZ'

134

The Indian Conerese Journal • Man:h 1998

Ilf-

sign through the fact that the ordinate of Cp curves at zero period is 0.4 and not 1.0; this implies an overstrength of 2.5 being assumed. The code allows three types of analysis, namely (i) equivalent static force analysis, (ii) modal analysis (response spectrum method. of analysis) and (iii) inelastic time history analysis. The code provides detailed specifications on material properties to be used in analysis (as against most other codes which leave out this and thereby provide ample scope for large variations in material properties and hence in natural period calculations).

The TNZ code specifically states that the design forces and moments in individual members calculated bv the response spectrum analysis shall be at least 80 percent of the values obtained by the equivalent static analysis method.

Equivalent static force analysis The design lateral force is given by

where, W is the total seismic weight (dead weight plus part of superimposed weight). The other parameters are as described in the previous sections.

Modal analysis

The modal analysis is to be performed with the design inelastic response spectrum C" for the specific soil condition

C.u

I I

I

I I I

I

I

r

I

I

I

r.s

b.f t e xl bt e 50115

0.'

T ,5

Fig 7 Variation of basic acceleration coefficient C with natural period for different soil types and different ductilfty'

(4)

and the chosen level of ductility factored by the zone factor Z and the risk factor R described in the previous sections. The code specifiesi:Rat sufficient number of modes shall be taken in the analysis to ensure that the effective mass so included is at least 90 percent of the total bridge mass.

Inelastic time history analysis

Inelastic time history analysis is permitted wi.th synthetic acceleration ground motions appropriate to the site conditions. These synthetic acceleration time histories shall be such that the 5 percent damping inelastic response spectra factored by Z and R factors shall be comparable with the design spectra given by C"ZR. In fact. the ordinates of the synthetic ground motion spectra are required to be wi.thin 90 percent of the corresponding design spectra ordinates over the range of the first three natural periods of the bridge in the considered direction of motion. Further, the duration of strong shaking in the ground motions records is required to be the larger or 15 s or 5 times the fundamental natural period of the structure.

Vertical seismic response

The TNZ code requires the bridge superstructure to remain elastic under both positive and negative vertical acceleration. The peak vertical acceleration is specified as

a, = O.67C~Rg

(5)

where, CE is the basic elastic force coefficient for elastic structures (that is, C for ductility of 1 taken from the curves

p •

of Fig 7, for T given by the natural period of vertical vibra-

tion), Z and R are as defined earlier; and g is acceleration due to gravity.

Design of substructures and foundations

The TNZ code uses the capacity design principle in the design of substructures and foundations. For calculating the overstrength capacities of members, reference is made to the design code for buildings". No reduction factors or increase in permissible stresses is stated in the TNZ code.

Design for relative displacements

Relative deformations between superstructure and substructures, and between adjacent sections of superstructure are to be provided for through special vertical hold-down devices at the substructure (that is, piers or abutments) and horizontal linkage elements between adjacent spans. In addition to these, the code also specifies minimum seating widths of the superstructure spans over the substructure. Some of the important provisions of the TNZ code regarding structural integrity and relative displacements are given below.

• The code provides clear specifications regarding structural clearances at locations where relative movement between structural elements is designed to occur,

• Horizontal linkage elements, either tight or loose. are required between all simply supported span ends and their piers and between the two parts of the superstructure at a hinge in the longitudinal beam system. Acceptable means of linkages include linkage bolts, shear keys and bearings specifically designed for the

~larch 1998 • The Indian Concrete Journal

135

t~-

5 = ,"i' .. ~m cl ff

I I I

I 5;>.n Is upper: o"~",:' I

2.C'Uir:g

overlap I B

Fig 8 Overlap definition'

purpose.. Elastomeric bearings with shear dowels are not acceptable means.

The horizontal linkage elements are required to have a dependable strength not less than the forces generated under design seismic conditions, nor less than 0.2 times the dead load of the smaller of the two superstructure elements. In case of a suspended span between two longer lengths, the strength is based on the longer of the two superstructure elements.

The vertical hold-down devices are required to be provided at all supports and structural hinges where the vertical upward seismic reaction under design earthquake conditions is more than 50 percent of the dead load reaction. These devices shall have sufficient strength to prevent uplift of span from its support or separation of the two hinged members under design earthquake conditions and shall have a minimum dependable strength (strength considering the factors

of safety) of 20 percent of dead load reaction. -

The TNZ code has requirements of minimum seating widths of the spans over the top of substructure (that is, piers and abutments). These are specified in Table 2 as minimum overlap requirements. The code distinguishes between the span-support overlap lengths and bearing overlap lengths, Fig 8. "The former addresses the dislodging of the span from the support while the latter only covers the dislodging of the

Table 2: jl,linimum overlap requirements [TNZ Code]

Span support overlap

Bearing overlap

No linkage system

20E+ 100= (;00 mm minimum)

125 E

Loose linkage syste:n

1.5 EI + 100 mm (300 mm minimum)

1.0 El

TIght linkage svsten

200mm

Note:

E - Relative movement between span and support, from median temperature position at cons:ruction time, under design earthquake conditions.

TP EQ+SG +-3-

El - Equivalent reia:ive movement at which the loose Linkage operates, that is, EI ~E

EQ. SG and TP are displacements resulting from load conditions described in the code

bearings (which are fixed to the span) from the support. The relative horizontal movements between superstructures and substructures are required to be occurring simultaneously along both longitudinal and transverse directions.

Review of IS : 1893-1984 Desiqn philosophy

This standard is published by the Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, for the purpose of seismic design of several types of structures including bridges. In this section, the reference to the IS code refers to oniy the part corresponding to bridges (there are some internal inconsistencies in the code between different sections).

The code discourages the use of masonry and plain concrete arch bridges with spans more than 10 m in the severe seismic zones IV and V. Furt.>"€!; it states that seismic forces need not be designed for in case of (ij slab culverts. box culverts and pipe culverts; and (iii bridges of length less than 60 m with spans less than 15 m in seismic zones I, II and III.

The code mentions that the modal analysis is necessary for the following bridges in seismic zones IV and V (however, the code provides no information on the speciiications for the modal analysis): (i) suspension bridge, bascule bridge, cable stayed bridge, horizontally curved girder bridge, arch (RC and steel) bridge (ii) bridge with substructure height from foundation base to pier top more than 30 m and (iiii bridge with span more than 120 m.

In the design of the substructure, earthquake forces are to be calculated based on the depth of scour caused by the discharge corresponding to the annual flood. It is assumed that the design earthquake forces and forces due to maximum flood do not occur simultaneously.

Design force level

The IS code, while referring to the seismic coefficient method, suggests that the seismic design force F shall be computed by

F = {f3 I a 0 W m for horizontal force

0.5 f3 I a 0 W m for vemcal force,

(6)

where, ~ is the soil-foundation system factor, I is the importance factor, and ao is the basic horizontal seismic coefficient which reflects the seismic zone. The soil-foundation system factor p takes value of 1.0 to 1.2 and 1.5 depending on type of foundation and type of soil. The importance factor 1 assumes a value of 1.5 for important bridges and 1.0 for regular bridges. The basic horizontal seismic coefficient ao takes the values of 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.05 and 0.08 for seismic zones I, II, III, IV and V, respectively. W'" is the seismic weight (dead weight plus part of superimposed weight) considered, excluding buoyancy or uplift. The code provides details on what fraction of design live load is to be considered, Note that there are two major omissions in this equation, which appear to be inadvertent: the above equation does not incorporate a term reflection the variation in design spectrum. with the natural period of the structure, and the performance fac-

136

'The lndiaD Concrete Journal • ~farch 1998

tor. Both these factors are provided in the same code for the case of buildings.

As far as the strength design of the bridge is concerned, the above is the most significant provision of the code. It is obvious that the design force is same for all elements of the bridge irrespective of the ductility of the element. Moreover, the magnitude of the design force is extremely low for most elements, particularly for the connections; just about 8 percent of gravity in the most severe seismic zone.

Deslqn considerations Superstructure

The code requires the consideration of vertical acceleration in design. Under the simultaneous action of horizontal and vertical acceleration, the code requires superstructures to have a factor of safety of at least 1.5 against overturning in the transverse direction.

. The IS code draws attention to an important aspect of relative displacements between superstructure and substructure. It requires that superstructures of bridges be "properly secured to the piers" by suitable methods, particularly in the severe seismic zones IV and V, to prevent them from being dislodged off the bearings during earthquake shaking. However, the code does not provide guidelines on how to do it "properly" .

Hydrodynamic forces due to earthquake motion

The IS code provides some specifications on the consideration of hydrodynamic forces on the submerged portion of the piers. Also, provisions are given for hydrodynamic pressure on the submerged superstructure of submersible bridges ..

Review of IRC: 6-1966

This standard is published by the Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, for the purpose of seismic design of highway bridges in India The IRC: 6-1966 specifications (1985 print), hereinafter called the IRC code, are identical (except for some editorial changes) to the IS: 1893-1984 provisions discussed above with regard to the design seismic force calculations. However, IRC code does not have provisions on hydrodynamic forces under earthquake excitation.

The IRC code provides that (i) all bridges in zone V shall be designed for seismic forces (ii) major bridges, that is, with total length of more than 60 m, in zones ill and IV are to be designed for seismic forces and (iii) bridges in zone I and II need not be designed for seismic forces. However, there is no mention in the IRC code of minimum seating width, vertical hold down devices and horizontal linkages.

Conclusions

The IS code in its current form. requires major modifications to bring it at par with the bridge code of countries with advanced seismic provisions. The following is a critical discussion of the most important aspects; possible areas where changes are to be made immediately are also indicated. Comments made in this section on IS code are equally applicable to the IRC code.

Design philosophy

The IS code specifications for bridges closely mimic the specifications for buildings not withstanding the well-known differences in the seismic behaviour of buildings and bridges. Further; on some issues, the bridge specifications are even poorer than the clauses for buildings, perhaps because more attention has been paid to the past revision of building provisions. The design force specifications for bridges in the IS code do not follow a clear philosophy. All the components in a bridge structure are to be designed for the same level of force with respect to the maximum elastic force. While the IS code focuses on the strength design aspect, no regard is shown to the deionnationsin the structure. This is in stark contrast to the numerous experiences in India and abroad during past earthquakes, where failures are attributed to deformationai aspects of the structure than the strength. This factor was recognized by advanced seismic codes more than two decades ago. This is a major lacuna in the IS code.

Design force level and design spectrum

It is now well understood internationally that the level of seismic design coefficient is generally higher for bridges than for buildings. This is because, unlike in buildings, bridges do not havenon-structural components and have little or no redundancy. For example, it is of interest to note that ti) the peak ground acceleration used in the US bridge codes is about twice as high as the value used in the US building codes, and (ii) the response modification factor used in the US bridge code is much lower than that in the case of buildings. The net result is that in the US, bridges are designed for much higher seismic coefficient than the buildings. This experience has somehow not found place in the IS code. We continue to provide for unrealistically low levels of seismic design force for bridges (the level of design seismic force for buildings in the IS code are quite reasonable). The basic horizontal seismic coefficient ao of 0.08 for the most severe seismic zone V, is too small. In the US and New Zealand, the peak ground acceleration used in the bridge codes is as high as 0.8 g together with a response amplification factor of about 2.5 in low period range! The IS code does not recognize these issues.

The calculation of design seismic force does not incorporate the response amplification due to the structure flexibility (even though the structural flexibility is properly accounted in the IS code provisions for buildings; both in static as well as dynamic methods) In fact, the code does not use any design spectra for the purpose of estimating the seismic design force. The fundamental natural period T of the structure is not used in the design force computations.

In the 1984 revision of the IS code, a new factor named performance factor K, (to account for different seismic behaviour of structures with different ductility, different overstrength, and different redundancy) was added in the building provisions. Unfortunately no consideration for the same was included in the provisions on bridges. As a result, Indian code continues to provide for the same level of design force for different components of the bridges irrespective of the different expected performances of such components.

Man:h 1998 * The Indian Concrete Journal

137

The design force for the connections between the superstructure and the substructure in the Indian code remain extremely low. This, together with the absence of any holding down and other devices, will be disastrous in the event of strong shaking; this .... ill lead to collapse of superstructure similar to what was seen in the collapse of Gawana bridge in the Uttarkashi earthquake of 19911::"5.

There is a need that the current soil-foundation factor ~ in the IS code be replaced by a soil factor depending on the type of soil at the site.

In the IS code, the importance factor I is 1.5 for important bridges and 1.0 for others. However, the distinction between important bridges and ordinary bridges is left to the discretion of the designer. It is preferable if the code can define the important bridges for this purpose. The IS code does not recognize the variation in possible detailing in RC structures. Hence, there is no mention of ductility provision in this code. It may be noted here that a separate IS code is now available for ductile detailing of RC structure", and the code must distinguish in seismic design force between bridges detailed as per this code and those not detailed as per this code.

Capacity design of columns, piers, and foundations

Even though the IS code is based on strength design criteria, proper attention is not paid to preventing brittle failures in the structure. In the sequence of load transfer from the superstructure to the foundations, it is possible that under a given lateral force, the brittle modes of failure may take place _ prior to the hinging in the ductile regions. The American and New Zealand codes cover this possibility through the approach of capacity design. Similar provisions should be added in the IS code.

Relative displacements and seating widths

Indian codes remain very much deficient with regard to provisions on relative displacements and seating widths. There is a need to provide in the Indian code specific clauses on requirements of vertical hold-down devices and horizontal linkage elements. Provisions need to be added on minimum seat widths to prevent collapse of superstructures.

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out with financial support from the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India; the authors are grateful for this support.

References

1. JAL'I, S.K., and ~rLlrrY, C \:R., 1997, A state of-the-art review on seismic design of bridges - Part I : Historical development and AASHTO Code, The irraian Concrete loumal, VoL72. February 1998, pp.i9-86

2. AASHTO, Standard Specifiaztions for Srismic Design ofHiglrway Bridg<'S.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. t:SA. 1992.

3. CALTR.-\.\:S, Bridg« Design Speafications, California Department of

Transportation, Sacramento. CA. USA, 1991.

4. __ Draft 1XZ Bridge Manual, Bridge MRnWll : Design and Evaluation, Transit New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand. 1991.

5. IS: 1893-1984. lrdian standard criteria far earths .... ,;i;uesistant do;g1l of

structures , Bureau oi Indian standards, New Delhi. 195-L

o. __ IRC: 6-1966. S:':nd.;rd specifications and code oj prr.a for road bridges: section II Loads and Stresses. Indian Roads Congress, :--:ew Delhi, 19S5.

i. IS: ~56-1978. Ccd: of practice for J'",in and rcinir:rcei concrete. Bureau

of Indian standards. Sew Delhi, 1978.

s, :-'fl,lUY. CY.R.. and J.~ S.K., 1996, Seismic perjo"'rr'.:;~.zofbridgl'S i" india dunng pas: earthquakes. Report submitted to rnirustrv oi surface transport,

\"ew DeL'U. March, -.

9. GAITS. J .. and BUCkLE. LG., Basic Design Concepts: ;:;;_.~ Seismic Design and Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridges. Edited by G.;\1. Calvi and ~J..l.I\.Pristle\~ Proceeding« of the international irorksno» '"' ~.smic di'Sl;:>: and ,etrofithllg of~cmforccd Clmerete bridges. 2-5 April 1991. Bormio, Italy. ,

10. :\ZS : 3101-1952. Code of practiceior the design ~ amcrete structures,

Standards Association of :-':ew Zealand. Wellington, :-..'~- Zealand. 1952.

II. :-\Z5 : 4203-1991. Code of practice for genera; structural d<'Slf1: and

design io.uiillgfor bllildings. 2/DZ 4203/2 Draft for Comment. Standards Association of New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand. :991.

12. :-'fUR1Y. C VR, and JArI: S.K, 1997. Seismic performance of bridges in Indiaduring past earthquakes, Bridge and Structural Enf!'""-=_ Journal of NGIABSE. \"ew Delhi. VoL2J, NoA, December ;997, pp.4S-79.

13. IS: 13920-1993. Indian standard code of practice.7 auctile detciung oj

reinforced concrete members subjected to earthlj1Ulke forces, B=eau of Indian stand. ards, New Delhi, 1993.

• • •

138

The Indian Concrete JCIIIU1l8I • March 1998

Bridges Seismic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridges Seismic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Project on --

Study of Seismic Design Codes for Hicl1way Bridges

You might also like

Bridges Seismic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridges Seismic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

﻿Research Project on --

Study of Seismic Design Codes for Hicl1way Bridges

You might also like

Research Project on --