Dookie pres By bee 4 3/99 Report 3 8 ——— Research Project on . Study of Seismic Design Codes for Highway 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 by C. V. R. Murty and Sudhir K. Jain Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur Kanpur 208016 March 1997Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 2 of 44 0. Introduction The performance of bridges in India during past earthquakes has been summarised in a recent report [Murty and Jain, 1996]. The existing provisions of Indian 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 [ and II into a single zone which will be equivalent to the current zone I. 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 inloude 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 stiftness. 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16 Provisions on Seismic. of Brie Code & Comment e 3 of 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 J : 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 7’: Natural period of a structure is its time period of undamped vibration, (a) Fundamental Natural Period 7, : It is the highest modal time period of vibration along the direction of earthquake motion being considered. (b) Modal Natural Period 7, : The modal natural period of mode & is the time period of vibration in mode k, Normal Mode : A system is said to be vibrating in-a 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 IV : 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 undemeath 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. This section on definitions hae 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-I966 has now been dropped. Inetead, 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 effecte such ae ductility andfor IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bri sof t4 overetrength, and for concems 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 actval 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 4, Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient of mode k C Bridge flexibility factor C, Hydrodynamic force coefficient G _ Bridge flexibility factor of mode & of vibration C),Ce, Pressure coefficients to estimate flow load due to stream on the substructure C5Cy “ D Dead load reaction of the bridge; dead load reaction at the support E Modulus of Elasticity F F Hydrodynamic force on substructure * Inertia force due to mass of a bridge component under earthquake shaking along a direction {*t} Inertia force vector due to mass of bridge under earthquake shaking along a direction in mode Fret Maximum elastic force resultants at a cross-section due to all modes considered fe Characteristic cylinder compressive strength of concrete at 28 days ‘Fok Characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete at 28 days ty 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 1 Importance Factor L Length of bridge deck as per 8.2.2 M, Moment due to horizontal fluid pressure on submerged superstructure about the centre of gravity ofits base [m] Seismic mass martix of the bridge structure P, Modal participation factor of mode k of vibration, Pressure due to fluid on submerged superstructures R___ Response Reduction FactorDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page Sof 44 ",72,73Force resultants due to full design seismic force along two horizontal directions s Se and along the vertical direction, respectively Soil Profile Factor Seat length of the superstructure on the substructure (or of the suspended portion of the superstructure on the restrained portion) Natural Period of Vibration Natural Period of Vibration of mode k Vertical force at support due to seismic force Lateral Shear Force Maximum elastic force resultant at a cross-section of a bridge component ic Design seismic force resultant in any component of the bridge due to all modes considered Seismic weight, which includes full dead load and part live load as discussed in 323, Widths of seating at bearing supports at expansion ends of girders. Weight of water in a hypothetical enveloping cylinder around a substructure Height of water surface from level of deepest scour (in m) Seismic zone factor Horizontal seismic coefficient Horizontal seismic coefficient Basic horizontal coefficient Ratio of natural frequencies of modes / and j {ox} Mode shape vector of the bridge in mode k of vibration Net response due to all modes considered Response in mode & of vibration. Coefficient used in combining modal quantities of modes i and j by CQC Method Natural frequency of mode & of vibration Modal damping ratio The existing version of the IRC code, ie, IRC:6-1966, considers variation in seismic risk in different parts of the country through “horizontal seismic coefficient at.” On the other hand, the !S code, i.¢., |5:1893-1964, uses the “basic horizontal coefficient: aig” 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 ae selsmic zone factor Z, importance factor |, 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, static or dynamic). General Principles Lt 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 oaDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 6 of 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 seiomic 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 lover 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 (ie, 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:13920-1993 shall be applicable to substructures, foundations and connections. Provisions for ductile design and detailing for reinforced concrete structures are provided in 1S:13820-1993. However, provisions for ductile detailing of prestressed concrete, steel and prefabricated structures are not yet available in the form of Indian Standards. IF euch 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, 6g. USA, New Zealand and Japan. 1.4. Masonry and plain concrete arch bridges with spans more than 10 m 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, e/c.,) 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raft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Comment ze T of 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 girdere and cantilevered componente. 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 (ie, the seismic coefficient as 0.67215, ote eipeel since the vertical accelerations to be taken for ‘the purposes of design are O.67 times that of the horizontal accelerations specified in this code). ln the seiemic design of bridges, vertical ground motions are particularly important. Vertical seiomic 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 superetructures 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 stide 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 soll 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 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. (©) 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.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 8 of 44 The clastic 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, ACISI6(1989) recommends modulus of elasticity E as 41700) F; (MPa), while in 16456-1978, E is calculated as 5700/fix (MPa). Here, ff ie the 26-day cylinder strength and fy is the 28-day cube strength; further, fZ = 0.8 fz. Thus, the value of E given by the IS code io 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 ACIBIB and |S:456, is often the secant modulus; its value ie prescribed with a view to obtain a conservative estimates of deflections, ie. 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 ie 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 ie 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; thie was often misunderstood as the maximum expected seismic force on the bridge under design seismic shaking. In line with the worldwide practice in thie 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. Onlly 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 for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 9 of #4 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: (@) Obtain the horizontal elastic acceleration coefficient due to design earthquake, which is same for all components; (b) Obtain the seiemic weight of each components (©) Obtain the seismic inertia forces generated in each component by multiplying quantities in (a) and (b) above; (4) 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; (@) 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 eelemic 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:59) 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. Ae 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 IS:193- 1984 (shown in Figure 1) is used with seismic zone | merged upwards with seismic zone Il. The current IRC:6-I966 uses the same seismic zone map as in IGAB93- 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 HI, 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 resuitants (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 stiffnesses of superstructure, bearings, piers or columns (ie., substructure), foundations and bridge ends Special seismic analysis and design studies shall be performed for regular bridges with span more than /00 m and for all irregular bridges in seismic zones IV and V.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 10 of #4 Both IRC:6-1966 and |S:1693-1984, currently follow a very simplistic design force calculation procedure which does not qualify under either the Seismic Coeffcient Method or the Response Spectrum Method ae these methods are generally understood for buildings in the context of IS:s1B95-1984. 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 eect of bridge flexibility in its design force computation. Further, it permite the use of both the Seismic Coefficient Method (ie, equivalent static method) and the Reeponse 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 Method 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 (|e, V and V) shall be analysed as per the multi-mode (dynamic) method. This is again motivated by the fact that the a better distribution of forces is achieved by thie method. ln both the methods, the accurate modelling of the bridge structure is essential, because unlike in the case of buildings where the empirical natural period lo based on actual measurements of buildings, no euch 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 all 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 Regular Bridge A regular bridge has no abrupt or unusual changes in mass, stiffhess 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 ‘Smaller (a) Itis straight or describes a sector of an are which subtends an angle of geeaves than 90° at the centre of the arc, and (b) The adjacent columns or piers do not differ in stiffness by more than 25% (Percentage difference shall be calculated based on the lesser of the two stiffhesses as reference)... Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code ce Commentary page 11 of dd 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 reste with the designer. 2.3. Vertical Motions The seismic zone factor for vertical motions, when required, may be taken as two- thirds of that for horizontal motions given in Table 2. The existing codes IRC:6-1966 and \S: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-thirde 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 ie 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 502% 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 epan. 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 rolling of wheels is not possible. Thus, live load is included forDraf {C6 Provisions on Seismic Desi idges :: Code & Comment e 12 of d4 shaking in this direction. Here, it is assumed that at the time of the earthquake, 100% of design live load is present on rallway 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 seisme forces; thie Ie taken as 50% of the live load considered. Thus, (a) 50% of design live load in case of rallway 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 Stresses due to Seismic Forces For 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) 47) £0.31 (b) 20.3, try where 1 = Force resultant due to full design seismic force along the first horizontal direction, ry = 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: (@) #7) £0.31) £0.37; (©) £03r) £72 £0.373 (0) 40.371 £0.3r2 £73 where ry and ry are as defined in 2.5.1, and 13 = 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: directions at different time instants. The earthquake ground motion can be thought of in terms of ite 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-direction) are usually the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge. For such bridges, it is sufficient to design the bridge for seiomic forces (\.e, ELx and ELy)Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of 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 tthe design force in the y-direction (Ely); Le., (ELx+0.3ELy), and (b) full design force along y-direction (Ely) acting simultaneously with 30% of the design force in the x-direction (ELx); Le, (O.BELx+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 one- half. 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 161893-1984,Table 1 : Percentage of permissibl Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 14 of 14 crease in allowable bearing pressure of soils 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 50 50 so through any soil but resting on soil type I 2. |Piles not - 25 25 covered under| item 1 3. Raft 50 50 50 Foundations 4. |Combined isolated RCC 50 25 2s footing with tie beams 5. [Isolated RCC footing 50 25 - without tie jbeams, or unreinforced strip foundations 6. | Weil 50 25 25 foundationsDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 15 of 44 Notes on Table 1 Note 1: The allowable bearing pressure shall be determined in accordance with IS:6403-1981 *** or IS: 1888-1982 ****, Mote 2; If any increase in bearing pressure has already been permitted for forces other than seismic forces, the total increase in allowable bearing pressure when seisaic force is also included shall not exceed the limits specified above Note 3; 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. Seismic Depth below Zone ground level | N Values Remark (in metres) III, Iv = 5 15, and V = 10 25 For values of depths between 5 metres I and II <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)Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentar page 16 of 44 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, T< 40sec C= Bridge Flexibility Factor along the considered direction T> 40sec 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 Tis given in Figure 2 Table 2 : Zone Factor Z for horizontal motion. Seismic Zone |_Z 11 0.10 i 0.16 1V 0.24 Vv 0.36 Table 3 : Importance Factor / for different bridges. Use 7 Important Bridges (¢.g., Bridges on National and State Highways) | 1.5 Others 1.0 Table 4 : Soil Profile Factor S for different soil profile types at the Soil Profile Type Ss Type I_:: Rock or Hard Soils 10 ‘Type II :: Medium Soils 1.2 | Type Hil :; Soft Soils 15 ‘Note :: The soil types are classified in Table 1 of I8:1893-1984. Several changes have been Incorsorated in this new elastic seismic acceleration spectrum: (a) The basic horizontal seismic coefficient ay Is replaced by the seismic zone factor Z, and the soll-foundation system factor B has been replaced by a sol-profile factor 5, “enmmmenensenasetessesirsommtersoumiae ES RENNER While the values for | have been retained the same, the expression fcr C has been revised. (b) The term Z now reflects realistic values, as fraction of the acceleration due to gravity, of the expected peak ground acceleration in different selemic zones. For instance, the draft code ezecifies zone IV for areas which are likely +0 sustain shaking of intensity Vill ca the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI).. Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 17 of 44 scale. The value of Z (=0.24) for zone V gives the value of peak ground acceleration as 0.249 which may be reasonably expected in shaking intensity Vill, 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 seiemic zones. Data from past earthquakes show that as the intensity of shaking goes up one level on the MMI scale (say from VI to VIl, or from YI to Vill), the peak ground acceleration almost doubles. In the existing Indian codes [1S1895-1984; IRC:6-1966], this is not duly reflected since the seismic force in different zones varied in the ratio 1: The draft code uses a factor of about 15, reaulting in the ratio 116:2.4:3.6, (6) Another change introduced in the draft code ie that the soll-foundation system factor Phas been removed and the soil-profile factor S included. The factor B, depending on the type of soll 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 thé 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 soll-profile factor S considers this variation. The classification of soll ae given in 1S:1893-1984 is used in this draft code. The values of S are taken from AASHTO code. The product of terms Cand 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 O - 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 O.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 tiff structures with fundamental period in the range 0-0. 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 Cin the draft code is taken from the AASHTO 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 for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 18 of #4 the same structural eystem, 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= 20, 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 eystem in the considered direction of shaking and the natural period is obtained by the expression Im VE 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. Alco, in order to obtain the - stiffness k in kN/imm, a force F is applied in the direction of the considered lateral force at the centre of mass of the bridge system such that the displacement along that direction io 1 mm (See Figure Cl). Thus, k= F/I=F And the expression for T modifies to [Dig T= 2 To keep the units consistent, g has to be in mm/sec’, ic, 9810 mm/sec”. Thus, ‘the equation reduces to D Pa 28 I0F Simplifying, D P= 2NTo90F” where D F Dead load reaction of the bridge in kN, and Lateral force in kN required to be applied at the centre of mass of the superstructure for one mm ‘semis 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1 IRC:6 Provisions. ic ‘ode de Comment 19 of 44 the bridge. The stress resultants ”° 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 ie already in practice in the AASHTO code, which requires that: (2) the superstructure should, as a minimum, be modelled as a series of plane frame members with nodes at span quarter pointe, and joint elements. The lumped mass inertia effects should be properly distributed at these locations; and (&) 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 flexiblé columns should be modelled with intermediate nodes at the third pointe. The criteria for earthquake resistant design is complete only when all of the following are included: (i) the load factors and allowable stresses, (il) the design acceleration spectium, including the method of obtaining the natural period T, (ii) 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 F°=AW, 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 for 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 mags 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 0.54, 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 0.54, 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 eelemic 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 superstructufe 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 caiculations. It le 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 a =F, where V°= 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Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Comment of 4 Table 5 : Response Reduction Factor R for Bridge Components and Connections. 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 08 Superstructure and Substructure :: Hinge | 0.8 Superstructure and Substructure :: In-situ | /.0 Substructure and Foundation 10 The basic philosophy of earthquake resistant design io that a structure should not collapse under strong earthquake shaking, although it may undergo some structural as well ae 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 withetand the large deformations without collapse. Thus, two Issues come into picture, namely (a) ductility, i. 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, partlal safety factors for loads and materials, strain hardening of reinforcing steel, confinement of concrete, presence of masonry infils, increased stength under cyclic loading conditions, redistribution of forces after yield owing to redundancy, etc, (Jain and Navin, 1995]. 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 ie subjected to significant amount of axial load undergoes a combined axial load- flexure 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 post earthquake 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Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Comment page 22 of 14 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 Ct 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, 1992]. Substructure! Connections Wall-Type Pier” Superetructure to Abutment Reinforced Concrete Pile Bents Expansion Joints Within a Span a. Vertical Piles Only of the Superstructure b.One or more Batter Piles Columns, Piers or Pile Bents Single Columns to Cap Beam or Superstructure” Steel or Composite Steel Columns or Piers to Foundations” and Concrete Pile Bento a. Vertical Piles Only One or more Batter Piles "the R-Factor is to be used for both orthogonal axes of the substructure. * 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 columh can then be used. ° 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 Bri 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 Code & Commenter 23 of 4 4,1 Elastic Seismic Acceleration Coefficient 4, in Mode k The elastic seismic acceleration coefficient 4, for mode k shall be determined by Ay = ZIC,S, where Z, / and S are as defined in 3.1, and C, is the bridge flexibility factor for mode k given by the following expression: 25 i < 40sec 1% Cee , Ty > 4.0 sec (a where 7, is the natural period of vibration of mode & of the bridge. However, the bridge flexibility factor Cz for mode & need not exceed 2.5 irrespective of soil type. For modes other than the fundamental mode, the bridge flexibility factor Cy in mode & for Ty $0.1 sec may be taken as Cy 14 1ST. A plot of CyS versus 7; is given in Figure 3 Typical shape of the acceleration sesponse spectrum when plotted with natural period on the x-axis, is shown in Figure C3(a). It etarts 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 O3 sec period. However, seismic design codes usually assume ‘the design spectrum shape to be horizontal for the range from 0.3 sec all the way upto zero period (le, the codes igncre the fact that the spectrum has lower values of acceleration in the range of O-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 O-O.1 sec [Riddel et al, 1989]; hence, one needs to raise the level of spectrum in this range. Also, since the acceleration response soectrum has‘ a very steep slope in the range O-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 dratt allows the designer to use the ascending part of the spectrum in the range O-0.1 sec but only for the higher modes of vibration. Since, the fundamental mode makes the most significant contribution to the overall response ard the contribution of higher modes is relatively small, this is now permitted by several codes [¢.g, AASHTO, 1992}, 4.2 Inertia Force due to Mass of Bridge at Node i in Mode k The vector {re 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,Pe A g IRC:6 Provisions on Seismi of Bridges :: Code & Comment {rt\=tmi fo} des, seismic mass martix of the bridge structure, as defined in 4.2.1, Mode shape vector of mode & of vibration of the bridge structure obtained from free vibration analysis, = Modal participation factor of mode & of vibration of the bridge structure for a given direction of earthquake shaking, = Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient for mode & as defined in 4.1, and = 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 ite 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 resultant caused by the seismic inertia forces generated. In doing 60, 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 seiomic weight of each bridge component is proportionally distributed to its end nodes and intermediate nodes ae 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 tthe bridge for earthquake shaking along a chosen principal direction, will have very small modal maes and the dynamic force carried by these modes would alo be small. The clause suggests that at least 90% of the total seismic mass (as defined in 4.2.1 and 3.23) shall be included through the modes that are considered.