BS-76

For Official use only

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

RECENT ADVANCES IN SEISMIC

DESIGN CRITERIA OF BRIDGES

(REPORT NO. BS-76)

DECEMBER 2005

ISSUED BY
RESEARCH DESIGNS AND STANDARDS ORGANISATION
LUCKNOW - 226011

1
 BS-76

FOREWORD

Severe earthquakes of J &K, Bhuj and Latur in recent past, which caused
widespread damages to buildings, structures and bridges, have brought the need for
upgrading seismic design codes in India. Bureau of Indian Standards came out with a
revised 2002 edition of IS: 1893 (Part-1), which only covered general provisions and
buildings. Revision of IS and IRC codes for bridges is still in process. Meanwhile, there
has been lot of advances in seismic design principles of bridges being followed in
developed countries, like in USA. In addition to developing an Indian Code of Standards
for this purpose, there is also a need of better understanding of underlying theories and
philosophies. IITs, Kanpur and Roorkee are involved in conducting short-term courses
for dissipating such knowledge. This report is an effort from B&S Doctorate in creating
such awareness among railway bridge engineers. I hope it would help in initiating
technical debate among bridge fraternity, which would help in our own research finally
lading to revision of IRS Codes.

I congratulate Mr. A.K. Gupta, Director/B&S/CB-II, who has taken personal

interest in doing the literature survey and bringing out this vital report. Contributions of
Mr. P.P. Singh, ADE/CB-II, who assisted in data collection and Mrs. Rama Jain, PA who
did the drafting & typing are also praiseworthy.
I

2
 BS-76

CONTENT

CONTENTS PAGE NO

1. BACKGROUND 5
1.1 Recent Developments 5
1.2 Existing Design Philosophy on Indian Railways 6
1.3 Response Spectrum Method as per IS: 1893-1984: 7
1.4 Need For New Seismic Design Criteria 8
1.4.1 Nature of Damages to Bridges Due to Earthquake 8
1.4.2 New Design Philosophy 9
2.0 INTRODUCTION TO NEW CONCEPTS 9
2.1 Bridge Classification 11
2.1.1 Regular and Irregular Bridge 11
2.1.1.1 Regular Bridge 11

2.1.1.2 Irregular Bridge 11

2.1.2 Ordinary Standard and Extra-ordinary Bridges 12

2.1.3 Classification for Modal Analyses 12
2.1.4 Classification for Considering Seismic Forces 12

2.2 Levels of Earthquake 12

2.2.1 Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) 13

2.2.2 Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) 13

2.3 Response Spectra 14

2.4 Design Response Spectrum 15

2.5 Matching Demand and Capacity 18

2.6 Response Reduction Factor 18

3.0 Codal Elastic Seismic Design 18

3.1 Spectral Acceleration and Natural Period 18

3
 BS-76

3.2 Damping 19

3.3 Design Response Reduction Factors 20

4.0 Equivalent Static Force Method 22

5.0 Dynamic Modal Analysis 23
5.1 Mathematical Model of Substructure 24
5.2 Foundation Springs 25
5.3 Determination of Dynamic Characteristics of Substructure 25
5.4 Design Spectra for Site 26
5.5 Modal Analysis 27
5.6 Important points to be taken care of 29
6.0 Role of Soil-Structure Interaction in Seismic Behavior 29

7.0 Ductile Design and Reinforcement Detailing 31

7.1 Importance Ductility 31

7.2 Available section ductility 32

7.3 Available structure ductility 32

7.4 Required ductility 33

7.5 Making Concrete Structure Ductile 35

Appendix-A 37

Appendix-B 38

Appendix-C 39

Appendix-D 40

4
 BS-76

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Recent Developments

Existing provisions of seismic design in IRS Bridge Rules and Substructures &
Foundations Code are based on provisions of IS-1893: 1984 which has since been revised
as IS: 1983 (Part 1): 2002 and Draft IS: 1893 (Part 3): July, 2004 on the basis of rapid
development and extensive research that has been carried out in the field of earthquake
resistant design of various structures. In keeping abreast of the growth of knowledge in
this field, the Earthquake Engineering Sectional Committee, CED 39 of Bureau of Indian
Standards decided to split 1893 in five parts, of which Part 1 covers general provisions
and buildings, Part 3 covers Bridges & retaining walls. Part 1 was published in 2002 and
Part 3 is under deliberations of the Sub-committee. The issue has recently assumed such
importance that even before Part 3 of IS: 1893 is finalized, Indian Road Congress went
ahead in drafting their own new IRC 6: November 2003, which is also under
deliberations of a committee.

Internationally there has been massive upgradation of knowledge and experience in

Analysis, Design and Retrofitting of existing bridges for achieving a earthquake resistant
structure. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) have carried out extensive
research and field studies in designing, constructing and retrofitting of highway bridges.
They came out with elaborate seismic design criteria in Feb. 2004.

Indian Railways has noted these latest developments in earthquake engineering and a
research project is under consideration for upgrading our IRS Bridge Codes in line with
these. However, till this is achieved, there is a need for a critical assessment of existing
provisions in IRS Codes, new provisions proposed in other Indian Codes and seismic
design criteria of Caltran.

This paper is an effort toward this direction; to make railway bridge engineers familiar
with new developments, create an awareness about issues most critical for railway
bridges and to enable them prepare scope of works for design consultancy contacts for
new major and important bridges.

5
 BS-76

1.2 Existing Design Philosophy on Indian Railways

In India Is:1893 and IRC Section-6 provides specifications for earthquake resistant
design. The existing seismic design philosophy of IRS Codes is based on 1984 edition of
IS code. It involves computing seismic forces, that each component of a bridge would
face during an earthquake at its center of mass, and carry out elastic design of the
structures based on working stress or limit states of serviceability method. This method
is known as seismic coefficient method. Basic Seismic coefficients for each of the five
seismic zones (I to V) are specified (0.01 to 0.08) and this is multiplied with an
importance factor (1 for ordinary bridge & 1.5 for important bridge) and a soil foundation
system factor (1 to 1.5) to get the horizontal seismic coefficient for a particular bridge.
Ground motion due to earthquake can be revolved in any three mutually perpendicular
directions, but the predominant direction of vibration is considered horizontal. The
design vertical seismic coefficient is taken as half of the design horizontal seismic
coefficient discussed above. Seismic force on each component of bridge is the product of
its mass and the horizontal/ vertical seismic coefficient. The horizontal force could come
from any direction but each of the two perpendicular horizontal forces is considered
separately with the vertical force. Consideration of seismic forces in design is restricted
to bridges with overall length more than 60m or spans more than 15m for Zone I to III
whereas all bridges in Zone IV and V. Slab box and pipe culverts are not needed to be
designed for seismic forces.

Above design philosophy is based on a generalization and attempts to add some extra
forces on the already available Dead Load and Live Load combinations. Hence, it does
not consider extreme earthquakes. Further, the allowable stresses in material and soil is
correspondingly increased in varying degree from 25-50%. Further, it maybe pointed out
that during the expected maximum intensity of earthquake in the various seismic zones,
structures will be subjected to a bigger force. Capacity of the structure in plastic range is
relied upon for absorbing the kinetic energy imparted by the earthquake. But its capacity
is unquantified and unanalyzed. IS:1893-1984 leaves it to just ductile detailing as per
IS:4326-1976, ‘Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of
Buildings’ In 1993 a separate code IS 13920 was developed specifically dealing with

6
 BS-76

ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures. IRS Substructure and Foundation Code
do not talk of any ductility detailing in construction.

Existing practice of IS is based on ductile approach to the bridge design. The inelastic
dynamic analysis is usually not carried out.

1.3 Response Spectrum Method as per IS: 1893-1984

IRS Codes specifically says that Response Spectrum Method need not be used for
computation of seismic forces in railway bridges (Para 2.12.3.2 of Bridge Rules). But IS:
1893-1984 laid down process for this method.

Spectrum of an earthquake is the representation of the maximum dynamic response of

idealized structure during an earthquake. The dynamic response could be any of absolute
acceleration, maximum relative velocity or maximum relative displacement. Such
response depends on the natural period of vibration of the structure and degree of
damping available. For the purpose of design, IS Code considers acceleration spectra as
the most useful as they give the seismic force on a structure directly. Ideally, the
response spectrum of a structure would depend on the intensity of the earthquake, but for
use in design, average spectra as developed by Prof. G.W. Housner of USA, was used in
IS Code in figure 2. This is a plot of average acceleration coefficient versus natural
period of vibration (in seconds) for 0-20% damping. For calculating the design value of
horizontal seismic coefficient of a particular bridge in a particular zone, the average
acceleration coefficient is multiplied by coefficient of soil foundation system, importance
factor and seismic zone factor. The only difference between seismic coefficient method
and Response Spectrum Method is that later considers the natural period of vibration of a
specific structure in finding out the dynamic response. As no formula was provided in IS
Code for determining this period for bridge components, this might be one of the reasons
of not adopting this method in IRS Codes. In any case, the difference between outputs of
horizontal seismic coefficients from the above-described two methods is hardly
significant for most bridges components.

7
 BS-76

1.4 Need For New Seismic Design Criteria

1.4.1 Nature of Damages to Bridges Due to Earthquake
(a) Failure of Piers due to brittleness of materials like brick & plain concrete-
Shimantogawa Bridge in Nankai Earthquake Dec 21, 1946.
(b) Settlement or movement (horizontally) of soil at the base of foundation-
Liquefaction of soils. (Banyu Highway Bridge- Kanto Earthquake Sept
1923; Nehru Setu, Ahmedabad 2001).
(c) Complete collapse of spans of Masonry Arch Bridge- Koyna Earthquake
1967.
(d) Failure of girder sheets/bed blocks due to transmission of seismic forces
through bolts of bearings, severe stress concentration in the material
around (Kaliabhomra Road Bridge in Assam, 1988).
(e) Tilting of piers due to unequal settlement of foundation (Sonai Bridge,
Cachar Earthquake 1984; Kaliabhomra Road Bridge in Assam, 1988). I
cases observed, abutments pushed girders, which in turn pushed to of
piers, resulting in tilting of piers. If height of pier is more than 8m, it may
shear off in more than one section. Trestle type piers are more vulnerable,
solid column is better.
(f) Abutment failures have been noticed in various ways: Tilting, sliding,
cracking, parapet breaking, vertical & inclined cracks due to twisting,
damage or collapse of wing walls, shifting due to soft ground under
foundation, cracking of body of abutment at the base due to strutting
action from girders resulting in slanting of abutment. Failure of wing walls
to some degree protects abutment.
(g) Failure of foundation due to unequal settlement. One of the reasons for
settlement could be loss of skin friction in friction piles and wells due to
separation from the shaft. Cracking of plies and wells just below pile and
well cap respectively (Sonai Bridge, Cachar Earthquake 1984), horizontal
movement of plies and wells.
(h) Damage and Dislodging of Bearings (Gandak Bridge, Samastipur1988;
Gawana Bridge, Uttarkashi 1995).

8
 BS-76

1.4.2 New Design Philosophy

Bridges are the key to the communication link to the earthquake-affected area in case of
severe earthquake. The availability of communication link immediately after the
earthquake should be the design philosophy for earthquake resistant design. To meet this
requirement the bridge must maintain the structural integrity under severe seismic
conditions. Hence there is a need for a new approach in bridge design which is based on
different levels of earthquake for the purpose of design.

2.0 Introduction to New Concepts

Some provisions of IS: 1893 (Part-1): 2002 are significant departure from the earlier
ones. The most significant development incorporated in this code is the
acknowledgement of the importance of plastic behaviour of structure for earthquakes
causing seismic forces higher than the design forces adopted for elastic design. This has
been made possible by defining two earthquakes;

Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) is the earthquake, which can reasonably be expected to
occur at least once during the design life of the structure. The structure is designed to
withstand the forces due to such an earthquake in elastic range. Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) is the most severe earthquake that the structure must withstand
without collapse. The later design procedure involves the concept of response reduction
due to ductile deformation or frictional energy dissipation in cracks. There would still be
cases in which actual forces that appear an structures during earthquakes are much
greater than the design forces considered. Ductility arising from inelastic material
behaviour and over strength arising from additional reserve strength in structure over and
above the design strength is relied upon for this difference in actual and design loads.
First time the code recognizes that the response of a structure to ground vibrations is a
combined function of the nature of foundation soil, materials, form, size, mode of
construction and the duration/ characteristics of ground motion. Vertical seismic forces
are considered significant in bridges with large spans, and those elements in which
stability is considered significant parameter. They require special attention in prestressed
or cantilevered beams, girders and slabs. Horizontal seismic forces in both the

9
 BS-76

orthogonal directions have been considered together in various load combinations, in

certain types of bridges. When responses from the three earthquakes components are to
be considered, the response due to each component is combined using the assumption
that when maximum response from one component occurs, the response from the other
two components are 30% of their maximum, including variation in signs.

The design spectrum used in this code is based on the basic average response spectra
graph showing average acceleration coefficient as a function of natural period of
oscillation (in seconds). This coefficient is about 12.5 times the average acceleration
coefficient given in 1984 edition of the code for the same damping. Different graphs are
given for three types of soil (Rock/ hard soil, medium soil and soft soil). These three
graphs differ only for structural elements having natural period greater than 0.5 seconds.
Such higher (12.5 times) acceleration coefficient is probably due to consideration of
Maximum Considered Earthquake in the design.

For the purpose of elastic design of structures, the above coefficient is reduced by
dividing with a factor 2R, where ‘R’ is a new concept introduced called ‘Response
Reduction Factor’. The definition provided in the code for this is, a factor by which the
actual base shear force, that would be generated if the structure were to remain elastic
during its response to the design Basis Earthquake showing, shall be reduced to obtain
the design lateral force. But in reality by comparing the respective expressions for
design horizontal acceleration coefficient of the two editions of the IS Code, it turns out
to be factor, the twice of which represents the ratio between MCE and DBE. The factor
for soil foundation system no longer exist, as different graphs have been used for
different types of soil probably the impact of type of foundation is taken into
consideration in their respective Response Reduction Factor. This factor has been
provided for each element of bridge and depending on its material and type it varies from
maxm. value of 3.0 for RCC superstructure to minimum value of 0.8 for hinge
connection within a span as provided in table 2 of draft Part (3) code. This wide variation
represents the acknowledgement of varying degree of plastic strength redundancy and
over strength in bridge components. Beyond this, there is nothing specified for plastic

10
 BS-76

design of structures. The design acceleration vertical coefficient is taken as 2/3 of the
horizontal coefficient.

2.1 Bridge Classification

Bridge classification is necessary for prescribing a set of design criteria for each standard
class. Seismic behavior of bridges depends highly on certain bridge parameters. Some of
them have significant impact on the bridge behavior while others are not so. It is not
possible to specify a global design parameter for all types of bridges with limited
knowledge available about exceptional bridges. Some bridges develop higher seismic
forces while others develop higher displacements. Hence classification is required to pay
specialized attention to such bridges. A glossary of classifications used in various codes
is presented in following paras.
2.1.1 Regular and Irregular Bridge
This is a classification proposed in IRC 6.
2.1.1.1 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 is considered regular, if
(a) It is straight or it describes a sector of an arc which subtends an angle less than 90o at
the center of the arc, and
(b) The adjacent piers do not differ in stiffness by more than 25% (percentage of the
difference should be calculated based on the lesser of the two stiffness as reference).
Further as per draft IS revision the girder bridges, T-beam bridges, truss bridges, hammer
head bridges, bridges having single or multiple simply supported spans are characterized
as regular bridges with each span less than 120m and pier height less than 30m.

2.1.1.2 Irregular Bridge

All bridges not conforming to clause 2.1.1.1 is to be considered irregular. Further, arch
bridges of span exceeding 30m, cable stayed bridges, suspension bridges, and other
bridges are also treated as irregular bridges.

11
 BS-76

2.1.2 Ordinary Standard and Extra-ordinary Bridges

This classification is used by CALTRANS, and they specify Seismic Design Criteria
(SDC) as minimum design requirements for Ordinary Standard Bridges. A structure must
meet all of the following requirements to be classified as Ordinary Standard Bridge:
• Span less than 90m
• Constructed with normal weight concrete girder, and column or pier elements
• Horizontal members either rigidly connected, pin connected, or supported on
conventional bearings by the substructure, isolation bearings and dampers are
considered non standard components.
• Foundations supported on spread footing, pile cap w/piles, or pile shafts
• Soil that is not susceptible to liquefaction, lateral spreading, scour

2.1.3 Classification for Modal Analyses

IR Bridge rules require modal analysis of types of bridges laid down in para 2.12.8 (a) &
(b). A comparison of contents in (a) would actually result in a new provision of modal
analysis for Irregular bridges defined in para 2.1.1. Further even for Regular bridges
when the height of substructure from the base of foundation to the top of the pier is more
than 30m or when the bridge span is more than 120m, modal analysis should be carried
out. Further important bridges where there is a possibility of amplification of vertical
seismic coefficient, modal analysis should be done.

2.1.4 Classification for Considering Seismic Forces

IRS bridge rules provide vide paras 2.12.5.1 and 2.12.5.2 that Slab, box and pipe culverts
need not be designed for seismic forces. For bridges in zones I to III seismic forces
should be considered if overall length more than 60m or spans more than 15m. For zone
IV & V seismic forces shall be considered for all spans.

2.2 Levels of Earthquake

For the purpose of seismic design of bridges different levels of earthquakes are specified.
New Zealand specifies three earthquake levels while in India and USA two levels are
specified. The basics concept is laid down in following sub-paras.

12
 BS-76

2.2.1 Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)

It is the earthquake, which can reasonably be expected to occur at least once during the
design life of the structure. The DBE is derived on the basis of historical earthquakes that
have affected the site, expressed as ground motion having a defined probability of not
being exceeded during its service life and may be derived using probabilistic approach or
the approach may include seismotectonic consideration. An alternative to this rigorous
probabilistic analysis for evaluation of DBE, when data on earthquake is meager or not
available, is to take a fraction (e.g. 0.4 ) of MCE, where MCE is determined by rigorous
application of seismotectonic method. The structure has to be designed on limit state of
serviceability for this earthquake.

2.2.2 Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE)

It is the maximum level of earthquake, which is potentially possible at the site based on
seismotectonic geology of the area. This level of ground motion has a very low
probability of being exceeded and represents the maximum level of ground motion on the
basis of estimates of upper threshold magnitude of seismic sources. Structure is designed
for limit state of collapse for this level of seismic forces. MCE is derived on the basis of
maximum earthquake potential inside the seismotectonic province of the site, history,
tectonic maps, recent tectonic movement, surface landform indicators, lineament maps
from remote sensing, abrupt change in ground water level, steep gravity gradient,
magnetic gradient, difference in seismic wave velocity in the region, local topography,
properties of soil, area of subsidence and or settlement etc.

MCE estimate provides Peak (horizontal) Ground Acceleration (PGA), Peak Ground
Displacement, and Peak Ground velocity, which are the basic seismic inputs in bridge
design. Indian codes so far uses only acceleration input. Caltrons uses acceleration and
displacement both as inputs. Zone coefficient given in ISO 1893:2002 is the average
design ground acceleration to be taken in a seismic zone. This reflects the surface
motions and may tend to give overly conservative answers when applied to rock spectra.
Peak rock acceleration in a zone would be different and is likely to be higher. Further

13
 BS-76

peak rock acceleration near a causative fault would be much higher than normal value.
Hence, while using zone coefficient for important and unusual bridges, site-specific peak
rock acceleration should be developed based on seismic characteristics of the site.
Strictly speaking, zone coefficients are to determine surface acceleration which have a
particular possibility of being exceeded in a particular number of years. Peak Rock
Acceleration map considers only the MCE earthquakes regardless of frequency of
occurrence.
Maximum credible event should be independent of frequency of occurrence. This is
important when evaluating collapse mechanisms and failure potentials. However,
probabilistic MCE has merit in evaluating the short-term seismic response of the air. For
example; the importance of many lifelines may require that certain structures remain
operational imprediately following a ‘probable” event.

2.3 Response Spectra

Interaction between ground acceleration and structural system is reported through

response spectrum as proposed by Housneri. It reflects frequency & amplitude content of
ground motion and effect of subsequent filtering by the structure. Acceleration spectrum
is a plot of natural period of vibration of a single degree oscillator with a specific value of
damping vs peak absolute acceleration of oscillator mass when subjected to a base
acceleration equal to the PGA. The value of the spectral acceleration at zero periods,
known as zero period acceleration (ZPA), is the PGA because the oscillator is composed
of infinitely stiff linear spring. The relative displacement response spectrum
asymptotically approaches maximum ground displacement for highly flexible structure.
This implies that the mass remains stationary for all practical purposes, and only the
ground moves as the linear elastic SDOF system is composed of spring with negligible
stiffness. In between the two extreme periods, the value of spectral acceleration at a
particular period is a constant multiplier, known as amplification factor, of peak ground
acceleration. The amplification factor at short period increases with increase of period
and reaches a maximum at the subsoil period and then it decreases with increase of
period in general. The amplification factor of rocky site condition is higher than that of
alluvium site condition at short periods and vice versa. The amplification factor reduces

14
 BS-76

with increase of hypocentral distance from the site and peak amplification occurs at
higher period.

2.4 Design Response Spectrum

The design response spectrum is a smooth response spectrum specifying level of seismic
resistance required for design. It is a specification of the required strength of structure.
The strength is frequency dependent and also dependent on maximum velocity,
maximum displacement and maximum acceleration in various ranges of frequencies.
Three straight lines bound the general shape of the smooth spectra on a logarithmic
tripartite graph as shown in figure 1.

This is the spectrum for alluvial soil recommended by Newmark for 1g ZPA. At low
frequency range, the spectral displacement is equal to the maximum ground
displacement; and in the high frequency range, the spectral acceleration is equal to the
maximum ground acceleration.

Figure 1- Design Spectra Recommended by Newmark

15
 BS-76

As we proceed from low to high frequency, there exist five different regions as
following:
• A transition from maximum ground displacement to amplified spectral
displacement.
• Amplified displacement in .015 to .3 Hz range
• Amplified velocity in .3 to 1.8 Hz range
• Amplified acceleration in 1.8 to 6.0 Hz range
• Transition from amplified acceleration to ground acceleration at 33 Hz

Newmark proposed transition from amplified ground acceleration to ground acceleration

to start at 6 Hz for all damping values and end at 40, 30, 20, 20 Hz, for critical damping
ratios 0.5, 2.0, 5.0 and 10.0 percent, respectively. The design acceleration, displacement
and velocity spectra for any structure could be obtained from the maximum ground
acceleration a, maximum ground displacement d, and maximum ground velocity v, if the
corresponding amplification factors are known. Moharz has given relationship between
various peak ground motion parameters in terms of v/a, ad/v2 which could be used for
calculating d and v if a is given. The amplification factors depend on degree of damping,
soil type and percentile of occurrence. One such table given by Moharz is shown in Table
1 below.
Table 1-Amplification factors for 5% damping for larger horizontal component, by Moharz
Percentile
Site Condition 50 84.1 50 84.1 50 84.1
Displacement Velocity Acceleration
Rock 1.83 2.71 1.28 1.9 1.98 2.82
Alluvium underlain by
2.53 3.3 1.33 2.09 2.6 3.38
rock<9m deep
Alluvium underlain by rock
1.85 2.73 1.47 2.19 2.29 2.94
between 9-61m deep
Alluvium 2.07 2.78 1.44 2.08 2.01 2.58

He also proposed a site design coefficient as shown in table 2 for use over and above the
values shown in table 1. Further Moharz found that for 84.1 percentile (mean + one std

16
 BS-76

deviation) values both horizontal components are almost equal and vertical component is
approximately 2/3 of horizontal component.
Table 2- Site Design Coefficient by Moharz
Coefficients
Site Category
Displacement Velocity Acceleration
Rock 0.5 0.5 1.05
Alluvium underlain by rock 0.75 0.75 1.2
Figure 2 shows average spectra normalized to 1 ZPA for 2% damping. As may be seen it

Period, Sec
Figure 2- Average Design Spectra by Moharz for 2% damping, showing acceleration

varies with the soil type. Different seismic source has a different spectrum, which can be
seen from figure 3.

17
Figure 3: Acceleration Spectrum For MCE For
10% Damping , Susanta Basu (2005)
 BS-76

2.5 Matching Demand and Capacity

The modern concept of seismic design is the matching of structural capacity with the
earthquake effects, known as seismic demand on the structure. When expressed in terms
of displacement this could be represented as following equation
ΔD < ΔC (2.5)
Where, ΔD Is the displacement generated from the modal analysis of the framed
structure
ΔC Is the frame displacement when any plastic hinge reaches its ultimate
capacity
In a similar manner the seismic force generated in a structure must be less than the
structural strength of the structure.
2.6 Response Reduction Factor

It is a term introduced in the IS1893 (Part I): 2002. It is a factor by which the actual shear
force, that would be generated if the structure were to remain elastic during its response
to the Design Basis Earthquake shaking, shall be reduced to obtain the design lateral
force. This represents the response reduction due to ductile deformation or frictional
energy dissipation in the cracks when the structure deforms beyond yield limit Δy but
within the maximum displacement Δmax up to which the structure retains the seismic
loads. The ratio of Δmax and Δy is also known as ductility of the structure. Hence reduction
of elastic force is justified by expected ductility of the structure.

3.0 Codal Elastic Seismic Design

3.1 Spectral Acceleration and Natural Period

Recent proposals in IS 1893 and IRC 6 provide for computation of seismic forces based
on zone factors provided in table 2 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002. These factors vary from
0.36 for zone V to 0.1 for zone II. These reflect the PGA for MCE in the respective
zones. It is multiplied by a factor 0.5 for obtaining PGA for DBE. Structural response
factors, which is nothing but response spectra for 1g PGA, is given figure 2 of the code
for three types of soil; rock or hard rock, medium soil, soft soil. This is reproduced in
figure 5 here.

18
 BS-76

Figure 4: Response Spectra for 5% Damping (Source IS 1893:2002)

For obtaining the response factor for a particular bridge, first its natural oscillation period
is determined from following formula,
T = 2√δ

Where δ= horizontal displacement at the acting position of the inertial force of the
superstructures when the force corresponding to 80% of the weight of the substructure
above ground surface for seismic design and all weight of the superstructure portion
supported by it is assumed to act in the acting direction of inertial force. The elasticity of
substructure and foundation should be accounted for in evaluating the displacement.
Above expression is for simply supported bridges where the vibration unit of substructure
can be idealized as a single cantilever pier carrying the superstructure mass, resting on
well, pile or open foundation. Alternatively, the fundamental natural period T1 (in
seconds) of pier/ abutment of the bridge along a horizontal direction may be estimated by
the following expression:
T1 = 2√W/1000F
W= Appropriate dead load of the superstructures, and live load in kN. F= Horizontal
force in kN required to be applied at the center of mass of superstructure for one mm

19
 BS-76

horizontal deflection at the pier/abutment along the considered direction of horizontal

force.
3.2 Damping

Damping has a significant impact on the response spectrum. Smaller damping results in
higher response and vice versa. Figure 5 shows the graph, taken from IS 1893: 1984, of
average acceleration coefficient vs natural time period.

Figure 5: Average Acceleration Spectra (Source IS 1893: 1984)

Normally a 5% damped response curve should be used for determining the acceleration
for regular bridges and for those, which do not need modal analysis. Following
characteristics are typically good indicators that higher damping may be anticipated:
• Total length less than 90m
• Three spans or less
• Abutment designed for sustained soil mobilization
• Normal or slight skew (less than 20 degrees)
• Continuous superstructure without hinges or expansion joints

20
 BS-76

3.3 Design Response Reduction Factors

Design horizontal seismic coefficient is calculated by multiplying the DBE PGA with the
response factor derived above and importance factor of the bridge, which is same as
existing in IRS codes. This when multiplied with the seismic mass of the structural
component it gives the inertia force. Maximum elastic force resultant at the chosen cross-
section of that bridge component due to earthquake shaking along the considered
direction is then divided by the appropriate response reduction factor to get the design
seismic force resultant at that cross section. Table 3 gives the response reduction factor R
for various bridge components.
Table 3: Response Reduction Factors
Sl. No. Structure, Component or connection R
(i) Superstructure, RCC 3.0
(ii) Superstructure, steel, PSC 2.5
(iii) Substructure
(a) RCC piers with ductile detailing, cantilever and 2.5
wall type
(b) RCC piers w.o. ductile detailing, cantilever and 2.0
wall type
(c) Masonry piers 1.5
(d) RCC framed construction in piers with ductile 3.0
detailing
(e) Steel Framed piers 2.5
(f) Steel cantilever piers 2.0
(g) Steel trussed arch 2.5
(h) RCC arch 2.0
(i) Abutment of mass concrete, masonry 2.0
(iv) Bearings 0.8
(v) Expansion joints and connections 0.8
(vi) Structure hinge 3.0
(vii) Stoppers in bearings and all types of 1.0
foundations

There is definitely an upward revision of seismic coefficients in the latest IS code as

compared to 1984 edition. For soil foundation coefficient of 1, and importance factor 1
the horizontal seismic coefficient as per IS 1893: 1984 for zone V was 0.08 whereas for

21
 BS-76

response reduction factor of 3, importance factor of 1, the maximum seismic coefficient

would be 0.15, almost 100% more. For foundation, such coefficient would be 6 times and
for ordinary RCC pier it would be 4 times. This provides an insight to the importance of
new codal provisions.

4.0 Equivalent Static Force Method

This is based on development of a realistic simplified equivalent static load model of
simple bridges that could be used for the dynamic analyses. This could suffice for the
final design of simple bridges and could even be used for preliminary design on the more
complex bridges. This method is simple, quick, easy and doesn’t require a computer.
The analysis involves following three steps:
i) Calculating the period of the first mode of vibration in the direction under
consideration.
ii) Obtaining the corresponding response coefficient
iii) Distributing the resulting equivalent static earthquake force to the
substructure elements.
The natural undamped period of vibration for the bridge could be obtained by formula
3.1.2. For a simply supported span bridge the vibration unit of substructure can be
idealized as a single cantilever pier carrying the superstructure mass and resting on well
pier or open foundation. For a continuous span bridge, following step could be used:
1) Apply a uniform horizontal load q (usually taken as unity) to the structure
in the direction of vibration.
2) Resulting displacements and member forces should be calculated.
3) Maximum displacement should be adjusted to 1mm with a factor and that
factor should be used to obtain the causative uniform distributed load.
4) The adjusted uniform load should be multiplied by the length of structure
to get the value of F in expression 3.1.2 in KN.
The natural time period so obtained should be used to get the response
acceleration coefficient from design response spectrum for the site.
After multiplying with zone factor or the PGA and the suitable responses reduction
factor, and importance factor, the seismic coefficient could be obtained. By multiplying

22
 BS-76

with the total dead load (W), the total horizontal earthquake force acting on the structure
could be obtained. The total earthquake force is then converted into equivalent uniform
load. To determine the forces in the members due to this uniform earthquake loading, the
forces in the members from the original uniform loading is prorated.

Uniform load method explained above is a simple approach employing a seismic

coefficient in a static analysis. It can yield accurate results for continuous structures on a
straight, non-skewed alignment provided the stiffness index is 2 or less. For structure
with a stiffness index greater than 2, only those with balanced span lengths and equal
column stiffness could be accurately analyzed. Stiffness index relates the relative
contribution of the columns to the transverse stiffness of the entire structure. It is the
ratio of the transverse stiffness of the entire structure, including the columns, to the
stiffness of the superstructure alone, acting as a simple beam.

Another static force method is called ‘Generalised Coordinate Method’ in which two
modes of vibration (longitudinal & transverse) are considered separately and virtual work
done by external forces and internal member forces, as the structure vibrates through a
unit virtual displacement is equated to zero and the natural period is computed.

In each of the above equivalent static force method of analysis, maximum generalized
displacement and individual column or member forces should be determined without the
use of response reduction factor (or ductility factor). This factor should be applied later
on to design the member. Hence the full bridge structure analysis should be done without
any ductility reduction factor.

5.0 Dynamic Modal Analysis

Modal analysis is required for all bridges classified in para 2.1.3 above. The dynamic
response of bridge to earthquake motion depends upon the foundation-structure
interaction, dynamic characteristics of structure (frequencies, modes and damping) and
characteristics of ground motion. Such analysis enables following information which is
not possible by the equivalent static (seismic coefficient) approach:

23
 BS-76

(a) Forces developed in the various parts of structure considering dynamic effect of
earthquake
(b) Displacements in various parts of structure, particularly at the level of bearings.
Which are susceptible to damage
(c) Forces developed in the foundation due to dynamic effect
Following steps are involved in dynamic analysis of simply supported girder type bridge
on rocker and roller bearings;
• Mathematical model of substructure
• Determination of dynamic characteristics of bridge substructure
• Design spectra for site
• Modal Analysis for dynamic response
While performing dynamic model analysis of bridges, the engineer is forced to make
modeling assumptions at the abutment supports and hinges, which lead directly to forces
and deformations in theses areas. Response spectra without using any reduction factor
should be used to get a more realistic picture of the actual deformations the system.
Reduction to the design level can then be made depending on the component under
consideration. For example, an abutment key is more brittle than a ductile column. This
component then would require a much lower reduction factor (ie higher design force).
However, if it is determined that failure of the key would not contribute to a collapse
condition, it could be designed to fail before excessive forces reached the abutment. This
refinement in the arrangement of the criteria puts examination of collapse mechanisms,
relative component importance, system deformations and energy absorbing
characteristics of each structural element in the hands of the engineer.

5.1 Mathematical Model of Substructure

The mathematical model consists of a lumped mass system of the structure. In the
lumped mass system, the distributed mass of the structure is lumped at discreet points and
these masses are connected with each other by mass less elastic segments. There should
be enough number of lumped masses in the model in order to represent the dominating
frequencies (lower two or three) of the real structure. A typical mathematical model of
structure is shown in figure 6 below.

24
 BS-76

Figure 6: Substructure and its Mathematical Model (Fig 1 chapter9)

Any lumped mass should consist of self weight, in filled water, and virtual mass of water.
The top mass should include dead weight of superstructure if it is rocker bearing. The
mass should also include live load as per IS:1893.

5.2 Foundation Springs

For analytical computations of dynamic response the lateral and base resistance of soil
can be represented by springs, which are called soil springs. The stiffness of soil springs
depend upon the type of soil and soil properties like shear modulus, Poisson’s ratio and
soil modulus nh. It is computed by modulus of subgrade reaction method or Elastic half
space formulations method. The spring representation is usually made by linear and
rotating spring. The replacement of well and soil by springs enables the consideration of
soil-structure interaction effect on the response.
Each part of the bridge must be designed to meet the limit state of serviceability under
DBE. But the overall bridge system should be designed for MCE for ultimate limit state
of collapse.

5.3 Determination of Dynamic Characteristics of Substructure

The method of transfer function is used for determining dynamic characteristics of
substructure.

25
 BS-76

5.4 Design Spectra for Site

Intensity of ground shaking during earthquakes and the associated damage to structures
are greatly influenced by local geologic and soil conditions. Two methods have been
adopted toward characterizing the influence of soil conditions on ground motions;
statistical procedures involving records from past earthquakes and Analytical Procedures
involving evaluation of the non-linear soil effect of on the upward propagation of shear
waves from an underlying rock formation.
Average acceleration spectra for different site condition based on 104 records developed
by seed and others are shown in figure-2.

Analytical procedure of developing site specific spectra involves; determination of the

peak rock acceleration at site, determination of dynamic properties of the soil deposit
like- shear wave velocity layer thickness, unit weight of each layer, ground water table,
material type, shear modulus and damping relationships for increasing strain levels.
Following relationship is the most important,
Es = DS2
Where,
Es = Dynamic elastic shear modulus
D = In situ density
S = Shear wave velocity

The determination of the shear velocity is best performed in an undisturbed in-situ

location and is accomplished through a variety of geophysical exploration methods and
equipments. The basic idea is to generate, identify, isolate, and measure the time rate of
travel of a shear wave from a given source to various monitoring positions. Shear waves
could be produced by hitting horizontally (for S wave) or vertically ( for P waves) with a
15lb hammer to the ends of a 8” x 12” x 8’ wooden plank pressed by a wheel of a vehicle
to apply 1 to 2 psi pressure. Wave is captured, in a plastic tube drilled in ground, through
sensors at various depths. There are wave propagation programs, like ‘SHAKE’
developed in 1972 by seed and others, which is based on a one-dimensional model, which

26
 BS-76

could be used efficiently for computing the response of soil profile to vertically traveling
shear waves.

An investigation of seismicity of the site is necessary to determine the epicenters of past

earthquakes, depth of focus, distance of most probable epicenter from the site and
frequency characteristics of the ground. The expected ground motion and design spectra
is obtained as explained in para 2.3 and 2.4.

5.5 Modal Analysis

For structures that cannot be idealized as single degree of freedom systems, it is generally
necessary to perform a computer analysis of the dynamic response. When the modes and
frequencies of the system have been obtained, the modal responses for a design
earthquake loading are determined for each mode considering the participation for that
mode. These responses are maximums and generally will not occur simultaneous to the
woodmen responses of other modes. It is, therefore necessary to combine the various
modal responses in some statistical manner in order to obtain a realistic value of the
actual maximum response of the total structure at a given location.
The response of the pier in any mode say rth mode of vibration due to earthquake motion
can be obtained from:
Xr = Cr Xr Sdr
Where, Xr = dynamic response desired, which may be deflection, bending moment, shear
or any other quantity.
Cr = mode participation factor, which is the ratio of (sum of product of mass mi at i in the
rth mode and its horizontal displacement yir) and (sum of product of mass mi at i in the rth
mode and square of its horizontal displacement yir).
Sdr = Spectral displacement in rth mode of vibration
The spectral displacement depends upon the earthquake motion, the time period and
damping of the structure.

In the modal analysis of an important multi span river bridge (like Sone, Ganga,
Brahmaputra etc.), the main objectives from seismic view point should be (i) to

27
 BS-76

determine the forces, moments and displacements at various sections of the bridge, (ii) to
determine the base and soil reactions under seismic conditions, (iii) to estimate the
displacements in the bearing of suspended span due to possible out of phase motion of
spans and (iv) to suggest how to achieve needed dynamic displacements at the
articulations and to restrain them from further displacements to avoid the falling of
suspended spans. The mathematical model of such bridge should be considered as planar
structure in the longitudinal direction and should consist of a series of lumped masses in
the girder as well as in the piers. The mass less elastic connections between masses could
be 3 to 5 m long each. The foundation springs should be lumped at the center of gravity
of embedded part of the well. 50% of span length from adjacent spans should be
considered along with one pier in one mathematical model. Modal analysis with adjacent
piers taken together should also be carried out to know the out of phase displacements.
The output of the modal analysis should consist of minimum following:

• Details of different modes of vibration studied along with sketch, frequency, and
period
• Different load combinations taken
• Maximum shear and bending moment at desired points in each mode of vibration

Since the dynamic response are these corresponding to significant inertia contributions.
The stiffness effects are sometimes condensed to these degrees of freedom to simplify the
solution. For most structures, the rotational inertia contributions are not significant and
therefore the rotational inertia at each joint are usually neglected. Hence in most cases,
the dynamic degrees of freedom are the translational degrees of freedom at each joint. In
general, complex structures should be modeled as a three dimensional space frame, and
analyzed on a computer program. The number of most lamps to be included is critical to
the analysis too few will result in unsatisfactory answers and too many will increase the
computer unnecessarily. In general, for deck/ column type structures, masses lumped at
the quarter points of spans and the third points of columns will yield satisfactory results
at the least cost.

28
 BS-76

5.6 Important Points to be Taken Care of in Getting Modal Analysis from

Design Consultants
1) A brief introduction about the software being used alongwith its qualities,
should be provided.
2) The software used should allow the user to define the structural problem in
familiar structural design terms.
3) Steps involved in the actual modal analysis should be clearly spelt out in
the report preferably this should be shown in a flow chart, highlighting the
iterative processes.
4) A typical flow chart is given in Annexure-B.

6.0 Role of Soil-Structure Interaction in Seismic Behavior

Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) is one of the design issues, which is often overlooked,
and even in some cases ignored. For dynamic loading, a structure always interacts with
surrounding soil and it is not adequate to analyze the structure independently. If seismic
loading is applied to the soil region around foundation, then one has to model this region
along with the structure. A structure founded on rock doesn’t encounter any deformation
at the base due to the transverse shear and overturning moment applied at the base due to
earthquake. Hence resulting horizontal displacement of the base is equal to the control
motion; and no rocking motion arises at the base. But when the structure is founded on
soft soil overlain on rock, the motion of the base of the structure will be different from
the control motion in the rock. The soil affects the dynamic response of the structure in
three ways:
• It modifies the free-field motion which becomes different than existing in the
rock. The soil mass above the rock would undergo a shear deformation along the
seismic motion, in general the seismic motion gets amplified, thus resulting in
horizontal displacements that increase towards the free surface of the site. Hence
the boundary of the base of structure imparts an enhanced motion to the structure
as compared to a structure founded on rock. This amplification of motion is held
responsible for the fact that structures founded on a deep soft soil site have been

29
 BS-76

damaged more severely in actual earthquakes than the neighboring structures

founded on rock.
• When a rigid foundation is inserted in the soil, the base of the foundation would
experience some average displacement and a rocking motion. This rigid body
motion would result in accelerations that would vary over the height of the
structure, in contrast to the applied accelerations in the case of structure founded
on rock. The introduced rocking of the base will affect the response, especially at
the top of a tall structure. The presence of the soil below the rigid base in the
model will make the system more flexible, decreasing the fundamental frequency
to a value which will, in general, be significantly below that applicable for the
fixed base structure. There would be greater damping too. This kind of interaction
between soil and rigid base in the absence of superstructure is called kinemetic
interaction.
• In the presence of structure, the inertial loads applied to the structure will lead to
an overturning moment and a transverse shear acting at a point in the rigid base of
foundation. This will cause deformation in the soil and thus once again modify the
motion at the base. This part of analysis is called inertial interaction.

All the above effects could be summarized in the form of following:

Effect of Soil Effect of Base Effect of Structure

Control Motion Free Field Motion Kinematic Interaction Inertial Interaction

The procedure most commonly used for designing a large bridge is to (1) generate a
three-component set of accelerograms representing the free-field ground motion at a
control point selected for the bridge site and (2) characterize the spatial variations of the
free-field motions within each soil region of interest relative to the control motions. This
would provide the spatial and temporal variation of the motion before excavating the soil
and superimposing the structure. For this the longitudinal section along the bridge
alignment should be drawn and locations of foundations of different piers should be
superimposed. Then the spring model of the soil foundation interaction should be

30
 BS-76

developed. The dynamic analysis of each typical foundation should be carried out in
following steps:
• Obtain the motion of the foundation in the absence of the superstructure
• Determine the dynamic impedances (spring and dashpots) associated with
swaying, rocking, and cross-swaying-rocking oscillations of the foundation
• Compute the seismic response of the superstructure supported on the springs and
dashpots of step 2 and subjected to the input motion of step 1.

The analysis could be based on discrete models with lumped masses. Pile foundations
present typical case in which there would be significant interaction between soil and pile
and the seismic effect at the pile cap level would be different than the foundation resting
on a nearly rigid well. Hence development of soil foundation model in case of pile
foundation is more important.

7.0 Ductile Design and Reinforcement Detailing

7.1 Importance Ductility

Elastic seismic design is carried out for a much lower seismic force than that caused by
the DBE, and the factor by which DBE seismic force is reduced to get such design force
is known as response reduction factor. Hence it is imperative that with DBE and lower
seismic forces under moderate earthquakes the structure would undergo deformations
beyond its yield limit. This would be plastic deformation. Ductility as defined in para 2.6,
is required to be used in seismic design to avoid uneconomic structural sizes. If a
structure undergoes occasional deformation in this range, there would be small damages
to it. Whereas under an earthquake higher than DBE but lower than MCE, the structure
might undergo severe damage but total collapse could be avoided with a judicious design
of the bridge system. This ductile approach of seismic design of Indian codes require
careful ductile detailing to account for equivalent response reduction factor considered in
the design.
Ideally bridge structures should be designed so that the earthquake energy will be
dissipated by the individual members acting in a ductile manner, avoiding brittle shear
failures. This is, however, not possible in all cases of bridge design, since some of the

31
 BS-76

components may be have in a non-ductile fashion. Since the ductility levels may vary for
the individual components of a bridge, reduction of the elastic response spectrum for
design may be somewhat misleading and may result in some members being under
designed. Hence, elastic design response spectrum should be used to predict the overall
structure response and then the ductile components should be designed to absorb the
required energy. The important aspect in designing is to predict how a bridge would
actually behave during an earthquake. Further, one must quality ductility as either being
available ductility or required ductility. Another distinction must also be made between
ductility of the section of an individual component of a structure and the overall ductility
of a structure.

7.2 Available Section Ductility

The available section ductility or curvature ductility is defined as:
Φu
hφ =
Φy

where hφ= available section (curvature) ductility

φu = ultimate curvature of the section
φy = curvature of the section at yield.

7.3 Available Structure Ductility

This is often referred to as the available displacement ductility and it can be determined
by considering the available section ductility of the individual components. It is defined
as:
Δu
μΔ =
Δy

Where μΔ = available structure (displacement) ductility

Δu = Ultimate displacement of the structure.
Δy = Structure displacement at yield.

The relationship between section ductility and structure ductility is given by

following equation-

32
 BS-76

1 .5 h h
μΔ = 1 + (2 − )( μφ − 1)
L L
Where, h= length of plastic hinge, usually assumed to the equal to the depth of
the member.
L= length of the inverted pendulum (pier length)
μΔ = available structure (pier) ductility.
μφ = available section (pier section) ductility.
Maximum desirable section ductility equals 15 for a RCC column as strain
hardening of compression steel starts at this point, and this ductility can be
obtained for several cycles of loading. Using this value of μΔ in the above
equation and μ = 600mm, L – 6000mm.
μΔ = 4.9
M p L2
As Δ y = (for displacement at end of cantilever beam)
3EI
The available structural ductility Δy could be computed from above.

7.4 Required Ductility

Δu
The required structure (displacement) ductility μΔ =
Δy

Where Δu = ultimate required displacement of the structure

Δy = structure displacement at yield
When a simple (Inverted) pendulum structure is subjected to horizontal grown motion,
the structure responds with a linear load deflection relationship in the elastic range-
represented by a b. b

d e
a g f Lateral deflection
d'
e’
b’ Elastic cyclic load deflection-abab’a
Figure -7 Elasto-plastic cyclic load deflection –
adec’d’a

33
 BS-76

If the oscillator is not strong enough to carry the full elastic response inertia load, a
plastic hinge will form near the base of column. The load deflection diagram would in
such case be represented by a d e. d is the point where plastic hinge is formed and after it
load remains constant (at the hinge capacity) while deflection increases upto e, which
represents the maximum or ultimate required displacement of the structure Δu. When the
mass returns to the natural position, the energy converted to kinetic energy is represented
by the small triangular area e f g, because the energy represented by the area a d e g is
dissipated by the plastic hinge.

The criteria used for determining the required structure ductility factor is dependent on
the period of the structures. The following three period ranges and corresponding
response reduction factors, R, are generally used for design.

Elastic Response load

R=
Design load
Table-4
Period Range R Criteria
Short 1 Force
Long μΔ Displacement
Intermediate 2μ Δ − 1 Energy

For the short period structures, the response factor is 1 in the response spectrum, i.e. the
force level must be maintained, conserving force (acceleration); thus there is no reduction
using an elastic analysis.

For the long period structures, the elastoplastic displacements of a structure are assumed
to be equal to the elastic displacement, i.e. R = μΔ
For the intermediate period range, energy is conserved and the reduction is based on an
equal energy concept. This implies that the potential energy stored in the elastic system
at maximum deflection is equal to the energy in the elasto-plastic system at maximum

34
 BS-76

deflection, this is shown in figure -7 where area under triangle a b c should be equal to
area a d e f. This condition gives
2μ Δ − 1
From the above formulations, it is possible to determine the ductilities required for the
intermediate and long period structures for various desired response reduction factors.
These values are tabulated in Table-5.
Response Reduction factor Long period Ductility Intermediate period
required ductility required
5 5 13.0
4 4 8.5
2.5 2.5 3.63
1.67 1.67 1.89
1.25 1.25 1.28
1.0 1.0 1.0
Table -5: Required ductility Vs. Desired Response Reduction Factor.

7.5 Making Concrete Structure Ductile

Concrete is known to be brittle material, i.e. it fails suddenly when subjected to load. But
concrete can be made ductile when confined by reinforcement. Figure 8 shows the
behavior of unconfined and confined concrete.

Fig 8: Behavior of Confined/ Unconfined Concrete Fig9: Confining Concrete by hoops/ stirrups

35
 BS-76

It can be seen that confinement not only increases the strength of concrete, but it
tremendously increases the ductility of concrete. The confinement of concrete is obtained
by providing stirrups as shown in figure 9. The stirrups should be hooked at 135o into
core concrete; otherwise these stirrups open up under force due to earthquake and the
confining action is not available. Further, even with confinement, RC members are
sufficiently ductile in bending action only, but not in axial and shear action. Therefore,
we have to ensure that RC members should yield only in flexure and not in axial or shear
action. This can be ensured by designing the RC members in such a way that their shear
and axial load capacity is higher than their capacity in flexure. This is called ‘Capacity
Design’. By suitable selection of flexure, shear and bending capacity, a structure could be
designed to behave in a particular way. At the junction of pile cap and pier, a pier could
be designed to intentional yield to ensure that excessive shear is not generated to damage
the foundation or cause collapse. Creation of such intention locations is known as
creating hinges at which structural member rotate plastically without losing structural
integrity.
Figure 10 shows the possible locations of such plastic hinges in bridge piers

Fig-10

Appendix-C shows the different important ductile detailing in columns.

36
 BS-76

Appendix-A
Flow Chart For Equivalent Static Force Method

Assume A Structure

Select site dependent elastic

design response spectrum from fig.4

Idealize structure and

find natural period of first mode of vibration

Obtain response acceleration coefficient

Find equivalent static force in each component

Find resulting displacement and member forces

Yes
No
Adjust For Ductility And Risk

Adjust
component
forces

Load Factor And Group Loading

Revise the
COMPONENTS
Check ductility and displacement
structure
ADEQUATE

Complete details including ductile

detailing

Process

Complete Design

37
 BS-76

Appendix-B
Flow Chart For dynamic Model Analysis

Assume a structure

Geotectonic & geophysical site exploration, site specific MCE

Develop site-specific design response spectrum

Create dynamic model of structure

Substructure & Foundation

Model analysis for MCE acceleration to

find frequency, displacement & forces in
various modes

Yes No

Adjust design forces for MDE, R & I factors

Adjust
component
forces

Load Factor And Group Loading

Inadequate
Revise the
structure Check ductility and displacement

Adequate

Complete details including ductile

detailing

Design Complete

38
 BS-76

Appendix C

Typical Ductile Detailing

Figure a: End Zone Confinement in Wall Pier

Figure b: Hoops and Ties

Figure c: Rectangular Column Ties

Figure d: Confinement in Hollow Section

39
 BS-76

Appendix- D

Bibliography

1. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures

(IS:1893)

Part-1: General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth Revision-2002)

2. Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected

to Seismic Forces – Code of Practice (IS:13920:1993) – Second Reprint 1996.
3. “Draft” Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (Part-3),
Bridges and Retaining Walls dated 05.07.2004, circulated by BIS vide ref.
CED 39/ T-12..
4. “Draft” IRC 6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges – November 2003
(Circulated for Discussion).
5. Seismic Design Criteria, February 2004 Version 1.3 – Caltrans.
6. Seismic Design Force for Single Span Slab-girder Skewed Bridges – By
Shervin Maleki, Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 2 (2001)
7. Compilation of Lecture Notes of IIT Roorkee.

40