Ry. Tee 4ls 19 Report 3 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 ts 0. Introducti 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 I and IT into a single zone which will be equivalent to the current zone II In arriving at these draft provisions, reference has been made to seismic codes of several countries, in particular American (AASHTO, 1992; CALTRANS, 1991] and New Zealand [TNZ,’ 1990] codes, Some major modifications proposed in the Indian code inlcude upward revision of the design force level, introduction of the philosophy of different response reduction factors for different components of a bridge structure, use of the concept of capacity design, and design for controlling the consequences of displacements at the connections between adjacent sections, Further, the clauses have been completely redrafted for more effective implementation, In this report, the commentary is presented in a different font, To enable easy reading, the figures and tables pertaining to the commentary are numbered with prefix C Thus, for example, “Table 5” refers to Table 5 of the codal provisions presented in this report, while “Table C5” refers to the Table C5 of the commentary. 0.1 Definitions For the purpose of this standard, the following terms are defined: Base : It is the level at which inertia forces generated in the substructure and superstructure are transferred to the foundation. Bridge Flexibility Factor C : It is a factor to obtain the clastic 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, eic,, 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 : Ductiity of a structure, or its members, is the capacity to undergo large inelastic deformations without significant loss of strength or stiffness. Ductile Detailing : It is the preferred choice of location and amount of reinforcement in reinforced concrete structures to provide for adequate ductility in them. In steel structures, it is the design of members and their connections to make them adequately ductile.of Bridges :: Code & Commente e 3 of dd 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 7, 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 k is the time period of vibration in mode &, ‘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, ¢.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 MV’: It is the total dead load plus part of live load as pet 3.2.3. Soil Profile Factor § : It is a factor used to obtain the elastic acceleration spectrum depending on the soil profile underneath the structure at the site. Strength : It is the usable capacity of a structure or its members to resist the applied loads. Zone Factor Z : It is a factor to obtain the design spectrum depending on the perceived seismic risk of the zone in which the structure is located, This section on definitions has been particularly included to define numerous terms that are added fresh in the code. Two of the important ones are: (a) The term “average acceleration spectrum” used in IRC:6-1966 has now been dropped. Instead, a term “elastic horizontal acceleration spectrum” hae been introduced. This is because the spectrum used in design may not necesearly 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 eects euch as ductility andDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page J of 44 overstrength, and for concerns such as safety of very short period structures or long period structures. Further, the said spectrum 6 used in the estimation of the total elastic force on the structure/component. Thus, the additional word “elastic” appears. (b) The term “response reduction factor” has been introduced. Through this factor, the actual lateral force, that would be generated if the structure were to remain elastic during the most severe shaking that is likely at that site, is reduced to obtain the design lateral force, This term has been introduced to clarify to the designer that the design lateral force not the same as the maximum force that appears on the structure/comporent 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 ‘A, Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient of mode k C Bridge flexibility factor C, Hydrodynamic force coefficient G _ Bridge flexibility factor of mode & of vibration C),C>, Pressure coefficients to estimate flow load due to stream on the substructure CC, : Dead load reaction of the bridge; dead load reaction at the support Modulus of Elasticity Hydrodynamic force on substructure Inertia force due to mass of a bridge component under earthquake shaking along a direction D E F F e 7. } Inertia force vector due to mass of bridge under earthquake shaking along a direction in mode k Fret Maximum elastic force resultants at a cross-section due to all modes considered Jf, Characteristic cylinder compressive strength of concrete at 28 days tek — Characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete at 28 days ‘Fy Characteristic yield strength of reinforcement steel g Acceleration due to gravity H Height of water surface from level of deepest scour; height of substructure as per 8.2.2 I Importance Factor L Length of bridge deck as per 8.2.2 M, Moment due to horizontal fluid pressure on submerged superstructures about the centre of gravity of its base [m] Seismic mass martix of the bridge structure Pj, — Modal participation factor of mode k of vibration, P_ Pressure due to fluid on submerged superstructures R Response Reduction Factor= Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page $ of d4 ry r2.rsForce resultants due to full design seismic force along two horizortal directions and along the vertical direction, respectively S Soil Profile Factor Sg Seat length of the superstructure on the substructure (or of the suspended portion of the superstructure on the restrained portion) T Natural Period of Vibration T, Natural Period of Vibration of mode k U Vertical force at support due to seismic force VY Lateral Shear Force V* — Maximum elastic force resultant at a cross-section of a bridge component Vnee Design seismic force resultant in any component of the bridge due to all modes considered W Seismic weight, which includes full dead load and part live load as discussed in 3.2.3. W, — Widths of seating at bearing supports at expansion ends of girders. 1, Weight of water in a hypothetical enveloping cylinder around a substructure y Height of water surface from level of deepest scour (in m) Z Seismic zone factor & Horizontal seismic coefficient a — Horizontal seismic coefficient 4g Basic horizontal coefficient B Ratio of natural frequencies of modes i and j {ox} Mode shape vector of the bridge in mode k of vibration 4 Net response due to all modes considered. 4, Response in mode & of vibration. Pj Coefficient used in combining modal quantities of modes i and j by CQC Method ©, Natural frequency of mode k of vibration & Modal damping ratio The existing version of the IRC code, ie, IRC6-1966, considers variation in seismic risk in different parte of the country through “horizontal seismic coefficient at.” On the other hand, the IS code, ie, 11893-1984, uses the “basic horizontal coefficient a9" for the same parameter. Hence, in the draft provisions, a new parameter “seismic zone factor” has been defined to distinguish from the earlier parameters and has been assigned the symbol “Z.” Symbol “A” has been assigned to represent the elastic acceleration spectrum arrived at after considering the relevant factors such as seismic zone factor Z, importance factor |, bridge flexivility 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 (ie, static or dynamic) 0_General Principles LL 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yr IRC:6 Prov mns on Seismic Design of Bridges ymmentar e Gof dd 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 miay choose to design bridges for seismic forces larger than those specified in thie code and but not less. 1.2 The intention of this standard is to ensure that bridges possess at least a minimum strength to withstand earthquakes. The intention is not to prevent damage to them due to the most severe shaking that they may be subjected to during their lifetime. Actual forces that appear on portions of bridges during earthquakes may be greater than the design seismic forces specified in this standard. However, ductility arising from material behaviour and detailing, and overstrength arising from the additional reserve strength in them over and above the design force, are relied upon to account for this difference in actual and design lateral loads. The earthquake codes provide design forces which are substantially lower than what a structure Is expected to actually experience during strong earthquake shaking. Hence, it is important that the structure be made ductile and that it be redundant to allow for altemate 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-detalled 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 15:13920-1993. However, provisions for ductile detailing of prestressed concrete, steel and prefabricated structures are not yet available in the form of Indian Standards. If such structures are to be designed for high seismic zones of the country, it is expected that the designer will ensure suitable ductility following the practices of countries with advanced seismic provisions, 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, efc.,) of seismic ground vibrations expected at any location depends upon the magnitude of earthquake, the depth of focus, distance from the epicenter, characteristics of the path through which the seismic waves travel, andDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code de Commentary page 7 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 girders and cantilevered components. The 1994 Northridge earthquake in USA has clearly chown the vulnerability of horizontal prestressed girders subjected to vertical ground motions. To check the girder for vertical component ground motions, it may be sufficient to consider the girders, except in case of large span bridges, as rigid for vertical vibrations and subjected to zero-period vertical accelerations but with no response reduction factor R (i, the seismic coefficient as 0.67215, eee since the vertical accelerations to be taken for the purposes of design are 0.67 times that of the horizontal accelerations specified in this code). In the seiomic design of bridges, vertical ground motions are particularly important. Vertical seismic forces may cause jumping of girders, and additional stress resultants and displacements, pai ularly in long span bridges. For this reason, this draft recommends that wherever applicable, vertical seismic forces shall be considered. Also, in the overall stability check of bridges, in the stability of superstructures or portions thereof that are not monolithic with the substructure, and in the design of vertical hold-down devices at supports, vertical seismic forces shall be considered. 1.6 The response of a structure to earthquake shaking is a fiction of the nature of foundation soil, materials, form, size and mode of construction, and characteristics and duration of ground motion. This standard specifies design forces for structures standing on soils or rocks which do not settle or slide due to loss of strength during shaking. This clause warns designers that the provisions contained in thie draft code do not provide safeguard against situations where soil underlying the structure may undergo instability due to large settlements, sliding or liquefaction, 1.7 Assumptions The following assumptions are made in the earthquake-resistant design of bridges (@) Earthquake causes impulsive ground motions, which are complex and irregular in character, changing in period and amplitude, and each lasting for a small duration. Therefore, resonance of the type as visualized under steady-state sinusoidal excitations, will not occur as it would need time to build up such amplitudes. (b) Earthquake is not likely to occur simultaneously with wind or maximum flood or maximum sea waves (©) 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 elastic modulus of concrete is difficult to specify. The value varies with the stress level, loading conditions (static or dynamic), material strength, age of material, etc. Hence, there tends to be a very large variation in the value of clastic modulus specified by different design codes even for the same grade of concrete under static conditions. For instance, ACISIB(I969) recommends modulus of elasticity E as 4700) Fz (MPa), while in 1S:456-1978, E is calculated as 5700fy (MPa). Here, ff is the 28-day cylinder strength and f., is the 28-day cube strength; further, ff = 08 fig. Thus, the value of E given by the |S code is about 1.4 times that given by the ACi code for the same grade of concrete. Further, the actual strength of concrete is more than the 28-day strength; it shows an increase with time, There are further difficulties in choosing the value of the modulus of elasticity for concrete for seismic analysis. The value of E given in codes, euch as ACI-BI8 and IS:486, is often the secant: modulus; Its value le prescribed with a View to obtain a conservative estimates of deflections, i.e, lower stiffness. On the other hand, the dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete refers to almost. pure elastic effects and is equal to the initial tangent modulus, which is appreciably higher than the secant modulus. When a structure is new and is subjected to low amplitude of ground motion, the dynamic modulus of elasticity to be used in the analysis has suo 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 defiection calculations, It is unconservative to make a high estimate of stiffness. Hence, there are no easy answers to the question of what value of modulus of elasticity to use for seismic analysis. Considering the enormous variations, this clause allows the designer to use elastic modulus as for a static condition. ln the current IRC and IS codes, the design seismic forces for bridges are directly specified: thie wae often misunderstood as the maximum expected seismic force on the bridge under design seismic shaking, In line with the worldwide practice in this regard, the draft code now distinguishes the actual forces appearing on each bridge component: during design earthquake shaking if the entire bridge structure were to behave linear elastically, from the design seismic force for that component, The draft code makes It clear to the designer that the design seismic forces on superstructure, substructure and foundations are only a fraction of the maximum elastic forces that would appear on the bridge. Only in connections, the design seismic forces may be equal to (or more than) the maximum elastic forces that would be transmitted through them. However, if capacity design provisions discussed under 9. become applicable, the connection design forcesDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 9 of 44 may also be less than the maximum elastic forces. This is in stark contrast with ‘the design forces for any other loading type. For instance, in case of design for wind effects, the maximum forces that appear on the structure are designed for; no reductions are employed. The draft code achieves this by the following step-wise procedure: (2) Obtain the horizontal elastic acceleration coefficient due to design earthquake, which is same for all components; (b) Obtain the seismic weight of each component (0) Obtain the seismic inertia forces generated in each component by nultiplying quantities in (a) and (b) above; (4) Apply these inertia forces generated in each of the components (from (c) above) at the centre of mase of the corresponding component, ard conduct a linear elastic analysis of the entire bridge structure to obtain the stress resultants at each cross-section of interest; (e) Obtain the design stress resultants in any component by dividing he elastic stress resultants obtained in (d) above by the response reduction factor prescribed for that component. Thus, first the maximum elastic seismic forces are estimated and then these are divided with the response reduction factors to obtain the design seismic forces 2.1 Seismic Zone Map For the purpose of determining design seismic forces, the country is classified into four seismic zones as shown in Figure 1 The seismic zone map is under revision by the concerned Map Sub-Committee of the Sectional Committee on Earthquake Engineering (CED:29) of the Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. However, it ie already agreed upon that the new zoning map of India shall have only four seismic zones. As an interim measure till the new zoning map becomes available, for the purpose of determining seismic forces as per this draft code, the current seismic zone map as given in IS1693- 1984 (shown in Figure 1) is used with seismic zone | merged upwards with seismic Zone ll. The current IRC:6-1966 uses the same seismic zone map as in 1S:1893- 1984. 2.2 Methods of Calculating Design Seismic Force ‘The seismic forces for bridges may be estimated by either one of the two methods, namely (a) the Seismic Coefficient Method described in 3.0, or (b) the Response Spectrum Method described in 4.0. For all bridges in seismic zones IV and V, and also for irregular bridges as defined in 2.2.1 in seismic zones III, the Response Spectrum Method shall be adopted. Linear static analysis of the bridge shall be performed for the applied inertia forces to obtain the force resultants (¢.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 stiffinesses of superstructure, bearings, piers or columns (i.e., substructure), foundations and bridge ends. Special seismic analysis and design studies shall be performed for regular bridges with span more than /00 m and for all irregular bridges in seismic zones IV and V.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code de Commentary page 10 of 14 Both IRC 1966 and 1S: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 as these methods are generally understood for buildings in the context of 1G:1893-1984, In these codes, the seismic design force computation does not include consideration of flexibility of the bridge. This impites that all bridges in a seismic zone, irrespective of their span and structural system, have the same accelration coefficient in the design; this is not considered appropriate. This draft code includes the effect of bridge flexibility in ite design force computation. Further, it permits the use of both the Seismic Coefficient Method (le, equivalent static method) and the Response Spectrum Method (i.e. dynamic analysis method). However, it is feit 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 ina 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 prescrives that all bridges in the high seiomic zones (ie, V and Y) shall be analysed as per the multi-mode (dynamic) method. This is again motivated by the fact that the a better distribution of forces ie achieved by this method. th both the methods, the accurate modelling of the bridge structure ie essential, because unlike in the case of buildings where the empirical natural period is based on actual measurements of buildings, no such berchmark 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 2.2.1.1 Regular Bridge A regular bridge has no abrupt or unusual changes in mass, stffhess 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) Its straight or describes a sector of an arc which subtends an angle of greater than 90° at the centre of the arc, and (b) The adjacent columns or piers do not differ in stiffness by more than 259% (Percentage difference shall be calculated based on the lesser of the two stiffnesses 2s reference.),Draft for IRC:6 Provis tic Design of Bric ‘ode & Commentar ze 11 of 44 2.2.1.2 Irregular Bridge All bridges not conforming to 2.2.1.1 shall be considered irregular. The classification of bridges into the two categories, namely regular bridges and irregular bridges, included in the draft code is adopted from the AASHTO code of USA. While this classification Is only meant to be used as a guide, the responsibility of identifying other irregularities in the chosen bridge structure still rests with the designer. 2.3 Vertical Motions The seismic zone factor for vertical motions, when required, may be taken as two- thirds of that for horizontal motions given in Table 2. The existing codes IRC:6-1966 and 1S:1893-1984 prescribe that the vertical accelerations be taken as one-half of the horizontal accelerations for the purposes of design. However, studies on recorded strong ground motion records in the past earthquakes indicate that the peak ground accelerations (PGA) in the vertical direction is generally about two-thirds of that in the rorizontal direction. Thus, the factor of two-thirds is considered more approprate. Now, the draft: building provisions, being discussed in the Earthquake Engineering Sectional. Committee (CED:39) of the Bureau of Indian Standards, include that ‘the selemic zone factor (which reflects the PGA in the seismic zone) for vertical motions be taken as two-thirds of that for horizontal motions. The same provision is now included for the seismic design of bridges here. 2.4 Live Load The design live loads shall be as specified in the relevant standards. 2.4.1 For Calculation of Magnitude of Seismic Forces Only The live load shall be ignored while estimating the horizontal seismic forces along the direction of traffic. The horizontal seismic force in the direction perpendicular to traffic shall be calculated using 5026 of design live load (excluding impact) for railway bridges, and 25%6 of design live load (excluding impact) for road bridges. The vertical seismic force shall be calculated using /00% of design live load (excluding impact) for railway bridges, and 50% 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 ie smaller than that produced if the vehicie mass were completely fastened to the span. Further, the inertia force generated by the venicle 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 cirection of traffic. On the contrary, under seismic shaking in the direction perpendicuar to that of traffic, the rolling of wheels is not possible. Thus, live load is included for__ Draft for IRC6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 12 of 44 shaking in this direction. Here, it is assumed that at the time of the earthquake, 100% of design live load is present on railway bridges and 50% of design live load i 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; this ie taken ae 50% of the live load considered. Thus, (a) 50% of design live load in case of railway bridges, and (b) 25% of design live load in case of road bridges, ie recommended. When computing the vertical seismic forces, the entire live load, which is considered to be present on the bridge at the time of the earthquake (as discussed in the above paragraph), is taken. 2.4.2 For Calculation of Stresses Due to Live Load, but to be Combined with Stresses due to Seismic Forces 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 5026 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 ie assumed that at the time of the earthquake, 100% design live load is present on the epan in case of railway bridges and only 50% in case of road bridges: the clause reflects the same, 2.8 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 (c.2., 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) £0.37 (b) £0.31) £17 where 11 = Force resultant due to full design seismic force along the first horizontal direction, 12 = Force resultant due to full design seismic force along the second horizontal direction, 2.8.2 When vertical seismic forces are also considered, the design seismic force resultants at any cross-section of a bridge component shall be combined as below: (a) 7) £0.37 £0.3r3 (b) £0.3r) +72 0.373 (©) £0.3r) +0.3r2 tr; where 7) and ry are as defined in 2.5.1, and ry = 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 instante. The earthquake ground motion can be thought of in terms of its components in the two horizontal directions and one vertical direction. For bridges that are termed regular, the two orthogonal horizontal directions (say x- and y-directions) are usually the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge. For such bridges, it i sufficient to design the bridge for seismic forces (i.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 trose with skew, design based on considering selemic force in x- and y-directione separately, leads to underdesign of the bridge components. In such a case, the bridge should aiso 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 (2) full design force along x-direction (ELx) acting simultaneously with 30% of the design force in the y-direction (Ely); ie, (ELx+O.3ELy), and (©) full design force along y-direction (Ely) acting simultaneously with 30% of the design force in the x-direction (ELx); ie., (O.3ELx+ELy). This combination ensures that the components (particularly the substructure) oriented in any direction will have sufficient lateral strength. In case vertical ground motions are also considered, the same principle ie 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 [g1893-1984.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page I+ of 44 Table 1 : Percentage of permissible increase in allowable bearing pressure of soil 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 o er than sand gravel and 30, and SP* with N < 10 mixtures with or |poorly graded jwithout clay sands or gravelly binder, and sands with little! clayey sands jor 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 Piles passing| 50 50 50 through any soil but resting on soil type I 2. [Piles not - 2s 25 covered under item 1 3. [Raft 50 50 50 Foundations 4. |Combined isolated RCC 50 25 25 footing with tie beams 5. [Isolated RCC footing 50 25 - without tie beams, 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 tt Notes on Table 1 Note 1; The allowable bearing pressure shall be determined in accordance with IS:6403-1981 *** or IS: 1888-1982 *##* Note 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 seisnic 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 Renark (in metres) For values of depths between 5 metres and 10 metres, linear interpolation is recommended I and IL 25 (for important = 10 20 structures only) Note 4: The piles should be designed for lateral loads neglecting lateral resistance of soil layers liable to liquefy. . See 1S:1498-1970 Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes (first revision). ** See 15:2131-1981 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 & Commentary page 16 of 44 3. Ce Method 3.1 Elastic Seist 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. Importance Factor, given in Table 3, {125 l=7 Ts 40sec |r | 305 yy T> 40sec (% oil Profile Factor, given in Table 4, and ‘undamental 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. C= Bridge Flexibility Factor along the considered direction Table 2 : Zone Factor Z for horizontal motion. ‘Seismic Zone |_Z Lu 0.10 M1 0.16 IV 0.24 Vv 0.36 Table 3 : Importance Factor / for different bridges. Use T Important Bridges (¢.g., Bridges on National and State Highways) | 7.5 Others 1.0 Table 4 : Soil Profile Factor S for different soil profile types at the site. ‘Soil Profile Type Ss Type I_:: Rock or Hard Soils 10 Type II :: Medium Soils 12 Type IIT =: Soft Soils 15 Note :: The soil types are classified in Table 1 of IS:1893-1984. Several changes have been incorsorated in this new elastic seismic acceleration spectrum: (a) The basic horizontal seismic coefficient a is replaced by the seismic zone factor Z, and the soll-foundation system factor f has been repaced by a soil-profile factor S, “ammmmmanenstenagasyssneciscesomneersninn ee RSET While the values for | have been retained the same, the expression fcr Chae 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, seismic zones, For instance, the draft code esecifies zone IV for areas which are likely +40 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 dt scale. The value of Z (= .24) for zone IV gives the value of peak ground acceleration as 0.24g 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 seismic zones. Data from past earthquakes show that as the intensity of shaking goes up one level on the MMI scale (say from VI to Vil, or from VII to Vill), the peak ground acceleration almost doubles. In the existing Indian codes [I5:1893-1984; IRC:6-1966], this is not duly reflected since the seismic force in different zones varied in the ratio 1:2:45:8. The draft code uses a factor of about 1.5, resulting in the ratio 1:1.6:2.45.6. (c) Another change introduced in the draft code is that the soil-foundation system factor Bhas been removed and the soil-profile factor S included. The factor B, depending on the type of soil and the type of foundation, was intended to increase the design force for systems that are more vulnerable to differential settlements. However, in real earthquake situations, bridges do not experience higher earthquake-induced inertia forces on account of vulnerability to differential settlement. Also, the problem of differential settlement cannot be addressed by increasing the design seismic force on the bridge; Instead it has to be addressed by a proper choice of the foundation. On the other hand, records obtained from past earthquakes clearly show that the average acceleration spectrum tends to be different for sites with different soll profiles. The new soil-profile factor S considers this variation, The classification of soil ae given in \S:1893-1964 is used in this draft code. The values of S are taken from AASHTO code. (a) The product of terms C and S shown in Figure 3 of the draft code represents the shape of the design spectrum with peak ground acceleration scaled to the value of 1.0. This shape Is eame as the average shape of the acceleration response spectrum, except in the range O - 0.1 sec. In this range, the value of CS le constant as against the response spectrum which varies from 1.0 to the maximum value (equal to 25 in this case) at a period of about O11 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 recucing the maximum forces on the stiff structures with fundamental period in the range 0-0. 8¢c. In developing this C versus T spectrum, 5% damping is implicitly aseumed. (@) 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 system. Thus, an empirical natural period cannot be arrived at. Hence, recourse to analytical methods becomes essential. 3.1.1 The fundamental natural period 7 of the bridge along a horizontal direction, may be estimated by the expression T= 20/2, 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 ike a single degree of freedom system in the considered direction of shaking and the natural period is obtained by the expression im T= 2m] SON Here, the mass m of the bridge is obtained from its dead load D (kN, say) by dividing with the acceleration due to gravity g. Also, in order to obtain the - stiffness k in kN/mm, 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 ie 1 mm (See Figure C1). Thus, k= F/I =F. ‘And the expression for T modifies to [Dig F To keep the units consistent, g has to be in mm/sec’, ie, 9810 mm/sec”. Thus, the equation reduces to T= 2m, = 2 Pe IRS TOF Simplifying, D P= 20VTo90R" where D = Dead load reaction of the bridge in kN, and F = Lateral force in kN required to be applied at the centre of mass of the ouperetructure for one mm ‘mmismiml 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 resuitants (e.g., bending moment, shear force and axial force) and deformations (¢.g., displacements and rotations) at different locations inDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 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 euch 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 mase of each segment may be proportionally distribuced at the end nodes of that segment. in fact, this is already in practice in the AASHTO code, which requires that (a) the superstructure should, as a minimum, be modelled as a series of plane frame members with nodes at span quarter points, and joint elements. The lumped mass inertia effects should be properly distributed at these locations; and (0) the substructure should be modelled as a series of plane frame members and Joint elements, In case of short stiff columns having lengths less than one third of either of the adjacent span lengths, intermediate nodes are not necessary. However, long flexible columns should be modelled with intermediate nodes at the third points. The criteria for earthquake resistant design is complete only when all of the following are included: (i) the load factors and allowable stresses, (ii) the design acceleration specttum, Including the method of obtaining the naturel period T, (il) the damping ratio, and (iv) the method of analysis. The resporise reduction factors R to reduce the maximum elastic forces to the design forces, are calibrated keeping in mind these factors. Thus, this clause specifies that linear analysis be conducted to obtain the bending moment, shear force and axial force at different locations in the bridge. 3.2.1 Inertia Force Due to Mass of Each Bridge Component The inertia force due to the mass of each bridge component (e.g., superstructure, substructure and foundation) under earthquake ground shaking along any direction shall be obtained from Fe=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 Desi ymmentar se 20 of 44 acceleration coefficient will be different along different directions for the same mase 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 4 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 seismic acceleration coefficient A for portions of foundations below scour depth. 3.2.3 Seismic Weight The seismic weight of the superstructure shall be taken as its full dead load plus appropriate amount of live load specified in 2.4.1. The seismic weight of the substructure and of the foundation shall be their respective full dead load. Buoyancy and uplift shall be ignored in the calculation of seismic weight. The dead load of the superstructure also includes the superimposed dead load that is permanently fastened or bonded with ite 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 ie included in the inertia force calculations. It is clear that the seismic forces on a bridge component: are generated due to its own mass, and not due to the externally applied forces on it. The presence of buoyancy and uplift forces does not reduce its mass. Thus, the clause requires that buoyancy and uplift forces be ignored in the seismic force calculations. 3.3. Design Seismic Force Resultants for Bridge Components The design seismic force resultant V at a cross-section of a bridge component due to earthquake shaking along a considered direction shall be given by Vv =e 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 & Commentary page 21 of 44 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 benween Adjacent sections of Superstructure 08 Superstructure and Substructure :: Hinge | 0.8 Superstructure and Substructure :: In-situ | /.0 Substructure and Foundation Lo ‘The basic philosophy of earthquake resistant design Is that a structure should not collapse under strong earthquake shaking, although it may undergo come structural as well ae non-structural damage. Thus, a bridge ie designed for much less force than what would be required if it were to be necessarlly kept elastic during the entire shaking. Clearly, structural damage is permitted but should be such that the structure can withstand the large deformations without collapse. Thus, two issues come into picture, namely (a) ductility, ie, the capacity to withstand deformations beyond yield, and (b) overstrength, Overstrength ie the total strength including the additional strength beyond the nominal design strength considering actual member dimensions and reinforcing bars adopted, partial safety factors for loads and materials, strain hardening of reinforcing steel, confinement of concrete, presence of masonry infill, 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 overetrength. For example, the superstructure has no or nominal axial load in it, and hence its basic behaviour is that of flexure. However, the substructure which is subjected to significant amount of axial load undergoes a combined axial ioad- 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. ln 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 ls that of connections, which usually do not have any significant. post-yield behaviour that can be safely relied upon. Also, there ie noDraft for IRC.6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :- Code d& Commentary page 22 of 44 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 10. For quite sometime now, countries with advanced seismic provisions have been using this approach of obtaining the design forces from tte 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 chie draft code); values of the same are shown in Figure C2. Similarly, the AASHTO code uses a factor R, called the response modification factor, whose values are shown in Table C1 below. 3.4 Multi-directional Shaking When earthquake ground shaking is considered along more than one direction, the design seismic force resultants obtained from 3.3 at a cross-section of a bridge component due to earthquake shaking in each considered direction, shall be combined as per 2.5. 3.5 Combination of Seismic Design Forces with Design Forces Due to Other Effects The design seismic force resultant at a cross-section of a bridge component given by this draft code, shall be combined with those due to other forces, e.g., dead load, live load, wind load, and wave load. Table C1 : Response Modification Factor Ras per AASHTO code [AASHTO, 1992]. Substructure’ Connections Wall-Type Pler® Superetructure to Abutment Reinforced Concrete Pile Bent Expansion Joints Within a Span a. Vertical Piles Only of the Superstructure b.Ore 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 Bent a. Vertical Piles Only b.One or more Batter Piles Multiple Column Bents "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 detalling are followed. The R-factor for a single column can then be used. ° For bridges classified as SFC C and D, it is recommended that the connections be designed for the maximum forces capable of being developed by plastic hinging of the column bent as specified in the code. These forces will often be significantly less than those obtained using an R-factor of 1.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 23 of it .0_Response Spectrum Method The Response Spectrum Method requires the evaluation of natural periods and mode shapes of several modes of vibration of the structure, This method will usually require usage of a suitable space frame dynamic analysis computer program. 4.1 Elastic Seismic Acceleration Coefficient 4, in Mode & The elastic seismic acceleration coefficient 4, for mode k shall be determined by Ay = ZIC,S, where Z, J and S are as defined in 3.1, and Cy is the bridge flexibility factor for mode & given by the following expression: 125 7, < 40.0 1? Cee ; 31S 7, > 40sec Te where 7; is the natural period of vibration of mode k of the bridge. However, the bridge flexibility factor C, for mode & need not exceed 2.5 irrespective of soil type. For modes other than the fundamental mode, the bridge flexibility factor C, in mode & for Ty $0.1 sec may be taken as Cy = 14 1ST. A plot of C,S versus 7, is given in Figure 3 Typical shape of the acceleration response spectrum when plotted with natural period on the x-axle, is shown in Figure C3(a). It starts at the value of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) at zero period, rises to about 2.5 times (for 5% damping) the PGA value at a period of about 0.1 sec, and then remains at that value upto about O3 sec period. However, seismic design codes usually asoume the design spectrum shape to be horizental for the range from 0.5 sec all the way upto zero period (Ie, the codes ignere the fact that the spectrum has lower values of acceleration in the range of O-0.1 sec, ae 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-0.1 sec [Riddel et al, 1989]; hence, one needs to raise the level of spectrum in this range. ‘Algo, since the acceleration response evectrum 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 analysie this dratt allows the designer to use the ascending part of the spectrum in the range 0-01 sec but only for the higher modes of vibration. Since, the fundamental mode makes the most significant contribution to the overall response acd 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 {ef} of inertia forces to be applied at different nodes in mode k of vibration due to earthquake shaking along a considered direction shall be obtained asDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bri ide de Comment {rf} =0 fox} A Aes, where [im] = Seismic mass martix of the bridge structure, as defined in 4.2.1, {oj} = Mode shape vector of mode & of vibration of the bridge structure obtained from free vibration analysis, Pg. = Modal participation factor of mode k of vibration of the bridge structure for a given direction of earthquake shaking, A, Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient for mode k as defined in 4.1, and g = Acceleration due to gravity The above expression is part of the routine solution procedure for analysis of elastic structures subjected to seismic ground motion represented by its pseudo-acceleration response spectrum. The mathematical model of the bridge structure should properly account for all stiffnesses and masses. A suitable number of intermediate nodes are required for each bridge component to properly estimate the stress resultants caused by the seismic inertia forces generated. in doing 60, guidance may be sought from current AASHTO code practices already certain masses in the bridge structure may become important particularly in cussed in the commentary under 3.2. Rotational moment of inertia of case of joint elements; the same may be incorporated in the matrix of seiomic weights as mass moment of inertia times acceleration due to gravity. 4.2.1 Seismic Mass Matrix The seismic mass matrix of the bridgé 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 distibuted to the nodes of discretisation of that bridge component. The seismic weight of each bridge component: is proportionally distributed to its end nodes and intermediate nodes as lumped masses considering its geometry. These lumped masses are used to form the matrix of seiomic 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 sign ficantly to the response be included in the analysis. And, the book-keeping is done through the modal maeees. Clearly, the modes with low participation in the dynamics of the ‘dge for earthquake shaking along a chosen principal direction, will have very small modal mass and the dynamic force carried by these modes would also be small, The clause suggests that at least 90% of the total seismic mass (as defined in 4.2.1 and 3.2.3) shall be included through the modes that are considered.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 25 of t4 4.3 Maximum Elastic Forces and Deformations The maximum elastic seismic forces in mode k obtained from 4.2 shall be applied ‘on the bridge and a linear static analysis of the bridge shall be performed. The maximum elastic force resultants Fy (e.g., bending moment, shear force and axial force) and the maximum elastic deformations (e.g., displacements and rotations) in mode k at different locations in the bridge for a considered direction of earthquake shaking, The maximum elastic force resultants Fy,, and the maximum elastic deformations, due to all modes considered, for the considered direction of earthquake shaking, shall be obtained by combining those due to the individual modes by either (a) the Complete Quadratic Coefficient (CQC) Method, or (b) the Square Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS) Method described in 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, respectively. 4.3.1 CQC Method Let the modal response quantity due to ith mode of vibration be 4. Also, let r be the number of modes considered. Then, the net response quantity A may be estimated as: SDA ay). Prpeeet teA "= #4076148)" where » and & = Modal damping ratio. Here, itis assumed that the modal damping ratio is same for all modes considered; else, the above expression shall be replaced by appropriate equations, 4.3.2 SRSS Method Let the modal response quantity due to ith mode of vibration be 4, and let r be the ‘number of modes considered. Then, the maximum response 4 due to all modes considered may be estimated as a= |E(A)- Fs The modal response quantities (2g, bending moment, shear force, axial force, displacements and rotations at any locationof the bridge) in each mode k need to be combined to obtain the maximum response due to all modes considered. Studies on modal response combinations show that when modal frequencies are well-separated, the Square Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS) Method provides reasonable estimates. If two modal frequencies are separated from each other by 10% (or less) of the omaller one, then the two modes may be termed as closely-spaced modes. However, when modal frequencies are closely-spaced or nearly closely-spaced, the SRSS method gives poor results. In fact, the Complete Quadratic Coefficient (CQC) Method provides, in general, reasonably good estimates of net response, irrespective of whether the modal frequencies are closely-spaced or well-separated. However, the CQC method as stated in 4.3.1 assumes that the modal damping ratio ls same for all considered modes ofDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 26 of dd vibration. In case it is not 80, reference shall be made to literature [e, Chopra, 1995] for suitable expressions for modal response combination. 4.4 Design Seismic Force Resultants in Bridge Components The design seismic force resultant V7, at any cross-section in a bridge component for a considered direction of earthquake shaking shall be determined as e Fret Vret=—Ro? where the maximum elastic force resultant F,, due to all modes considered is as obtained in 4.3, and the Response Reduction Factor R of that component of the bridge is as per Table 5 As discussed in the commentary under 3.3, the various componerts of the bridge do not enjoy the same level of ductility and overstrength. Hence, the level of design seismic force vis-a-vis the maximum elastic force thet will be experienced by the component if the entire bridge were to behave linear elastically, varies for different bridge components. The values of the response reduction factor R given in Table 6 refiect the same. 4.5 Multi-directional Shaking When earthquake ground shaking is considered along more than one direction, the design seismic force resultants obtained from 4.4 at a cross-section of a bridge component due to earthquake shaking in each considered direction, shall be combined as per 2.5. 4.6 Combination of Seismic Design Forces with Design Forces Due to Other Effects The design seismic force resultant at a cross-section of a bridge component given by this draft code, shall then be combined with those due to other forces, e.g., dead load, live load, wind load, and wave load. 4.7 Site-Specific Spectrum In case design spectrum is specifically prepared for a structure at a particular site, the same may be used for design. However, the bridge structure shall still comply with the minimum requirements specified in this standard. To ensure at least a minimum strength in the bridge structure, this clause prevents the designer from using a site-specific spectrum that results in unduly small design force resultants In comparison with those given by this draft code. 5, Superstructure 5.1 The superstructure shall be designed for the design seismic forces specified in 3. or 4., plus the other loads appearing on it, e.g., dead load, live load, wind load, and wave load 5.2. Under simultaneous action of horizontal and vertical accelerations, the superstructure shall have a factor of safety of at least /.5 against overturning in the transverse direction, Since the supporting width of the span in the transverse direction is relatively small in comparison with that in the longitudinal direction, overturning of superstructures (that are rested on the substructure and not monolithically connected with it) in the transverse direction may be possible under theDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 27 of $4 combined action of seismic forces along transverse and vertical directions. OF course, in these calculations, the direction of vertical seismic force shall be taken £0 as to produce the worst effect. 5.3 The superstructure shall be secured to the substructure, particularly in seismic zones IV and V, through vertical hold-down devices and/or horizontal linkage elements as specified in 5.4 and 5.5, respectively. These vertical hold-down devices andior horizontal linkage elements shall also be used to secure the suspended spans, if any, with the restrained portions of the superstructure. However, the frictional forces shall not be relied upon in these calculations. This clause makes it mandatory in hign seismic regions to have the following devices provided between the supe) ructure (that is not monolithically connected with the substructure) and suzstructure, and between the suspended spans, If any, and restrained portion of tre superstructure: (2) vertical hoid-down devices to prevent she superstructure from lifting off from its supports atop the substructure particularly under vertical seismic forces combined with the transverse eelsmic “orces, and (©) horizontal linkage elements to prevent excessive relative deformations between portions of the superstructure or between the superstructure and substructure. 5.4 Vertical Hold-Down Devices Vertical hold-down devices shall be provided at all supports (or hinges in continuous structures), where vertical seismic force U due to the maximum elastic horizontal seismic lateral force opposes and exceeds 50% of the dead load reaction D 5.4.1 Where vertical force U, due to the maximum elastic horizontal seismic force, opposes and exceeds 50%, but is less than 100%, of the dead load reaction D, the vertical hold-down device shall be designed for a minimum net upward force of 10% of the downward dead load reaction that would be exerted if the span were simply supported 5.4.2 If the vertical force U, due to the horizontal seismic force, opposes and exceeds 100% of the dead load reaction D, then the device shall be designed for a net upward force of 1/.2(U-D); however, it shall not be less than /0%6 of the downward dead load reaction that would be exerted if the span were simply supported Vertical hold-down devices are consioeed essential In the draft provisions to minimise the potential of adverse effects of vertical seismic excitation. The provisions for design force of vertical ho.-down devices have been adapted from the AASHTO code. 5.5 Horizontal Linkage Elements Positive horizontal linkage elements (e.g., high tensile wire strand ties, cables and dampers) shall be provided between adjacent sections of the superstructure at supports and at expansion joints within a span 5.5.1 The linkages shall be designed for, at least, elastic seismic acceleration coefficient A times the weight of the lighter of the two adjoining spans or parts of the structure 5.5.2 Ifthe linkage is at locations where relative deformations are designed to occur, then sufficient slack must be allowed in the linkage so that linkages start functioning only when the design relative displacement at the linkage is exceeded.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 28 of 44 5.5.3. When linkages are provided at columns or piers, the linkage of each span may be connected to the column or pier instead of to the adjacent span. The design seismic force for each bridge component is only fraction of the maximum elastic force that can be sustained by it, if it were to completely remain elastic during earthquake shaking. However, the deformations calculated from the linear analysis of the bridge ou cted to these design forces are much smaller than the actual deformations experienced during selemic shaking. Unseating of superstructure from the substructure or of the suspended span from the restrained portion are the possible consequences if the actual deformations are not accounted for in the design of the supports at these interface points. Sometimes, the two portions that move relative to each other are securely fastened by devices called the positive horizontal linkage elements. These devices are usually either high tensile wire strand ties, cables or dampers. For the purposes of the design of these devices, the experience from the AASHTO code is used. The design forces are stated to be reasonably conservative to provide increased protection at a minimum increased cost. 5.6 Submersible Bridges 5.6.1 The hydrodynamic pressure p (in N/m”) on a submersible bridge superstructure shall be determined by p=8750A/yH, where A = Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient given by 3.1, y = Depth of section below water surface (in m), and H = Height of water surface from level of deepest scour (in m). 5.6.2 The total horizontal shear Vj, (in N/m) and moment M,, (in Niv/m) per meter width about the centre of gravity of the base at any depth y due to hydrodynamic pressure are given by ets h 3D d My = py? ane n= 75 PY Both 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 are retained as given in the existing IS:1893-1984 except for the following change. In 5.6.1, “A” has taken the place of “a”. Clearly, A may be much larger than oy, i. the existing expression in 1S:1892-'984 uses the “reduced” accelerations while tris draft code uses the maximum accelerations expected during earthayake shaking. This Implies that the hydrodynamic pressures calculated as 7er the expression in this draft code will be significantly higher. Again, this dra® code clearly distinguishes the actual forces appearing on the bridge from thos+ used in its design. 6. Substructure 6.1 Design earthquake forces and forces due to maximum flood shall not be considered to occur simultaneously. The loads specified in this standard cover general conditions. The designer shall also provide for other loads where they might be critical, e.g., vehicle or ship impact on substructure.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Comment rage 29 of t4 6.2 Scour Depth Earthquake forces on the substructure shall be calculated based on the depth of scour caused by the discharge corresponding to the annual mean design flood. In the absence of detailed data, this depth shall be taken as 90% of the maximum scour depth. The clause 6.2 is retained as given in IRC:6-1966. 6.3 Design Seismic Force The design seismic forces for the substructure shall be the obtained as the maximum elastic force on it (as defined in 6.3.1) divided by the appropriate response reduction factor given in Table 5 6.3.1 Maximum Elastic Seismic Forces The maximum elastic seismic force resultants at any cross-section of the substructure shall be calculated considering all of the following forces on it (a) Maximum elastic seismic forces transferred from the superstructure to the top of the substructure through bearings (Figure 4). (b) Maximum elastic seismic forces applied at its centre of mass due to the substructure’s own inertia forces. Reduction due to buoyancy and uplift shall be ignored in the calculation of seismic weight. (©) Hydrodynamic forces owing to stream flow acting on piers, and modification in earth- pressure due to earthquake acting on abutments, 6.3.1.1 When the substructures are oriented normal to the direction of the traffic and along the direction of stream flow, two separate load cases, namely seismic forces acting parallel (a) to the current direction, and (b) to the traffic directions, shall be considered. And, when the substructures are oriented skew either to the direction of traffic or to the direction of current, the load combination as given in 2.5, shall be considered. 6.3.2 While considering the stability of the substructure against overturning, the minimum factor of safety shall be /.5 under simultaneous action of maximum elastic seismic forces in both horizontal and vertical directions during the earthquake. ‘These clauses under 6.3 are retained as given in IS:1893-1984. 6.4 Hydrodynamic Force For the submerged portion of the pier, the total horizontal hydrodynamic force along the direction of ground motion is given by F=CAW,, where C, is a coefficient given by Table 6, depending on the height of submergence of the pier relative to that of the radius of a hypothetical enveloping cylinder (Figure 5); and A is the elastic seismic acceleration coefficient as per 3.1; and W, is the weight of the water in the hypothetical enveloping cylinder. The pressure distribution due to the hydrodynamic effect on the pier is given in Figure 6; the coefficients C,,C),C3 and Cy in Figure 6 are given in Table 7 This clause is retained as given in IS1893-1984, except that “A” replaces “ay”. Again, a stated in the commentary under 6.6, “A” is different from “oly.” Hence, the hydrodynamic forces calculated as per this code will be much higher ‘than those estimated as per the existing code IS:1893-1984.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commenta page 30 of 44 Table 6 : Values of Height of Submerged Portion of Pier H | C, der 0.39 0.58 0.68 0.73 Table 7 : Pressure Distribution Coefficients C,, C,, C, and C GG CG Cy 0.1 | o+10 | 0.026 | 0.9345 0.2 | 0.673 | 0.093 | 0.8712 0.3 | 0.832 | 0.184 | 0.3013 0.4 | 0.922 | 0.289 | 0.7515 0.5 | 0.970 | 0.403 | 0.6945 0.6 | 0.990 | 0.521 | 0.6390 0.8 | 0.999 | 0.760 | 0.5320 1.0 | 1000 | 7.000 | 0.4286 7. Foundations 7.1 In loose sands or poorly graded sands with little or no fines, the vibrations due to earthquake may cause liquefaction or excessive total and differential settlements. Founding of bridges on such sands shall be avoided in seismic zones III, IV and V, unless appropriate methods of compaction or stabilisation are adopted for soils, This clause is retained as given in IRC:6-1966, 7.2 When substructures terminate on a footing which rests on rock or on piles, they may be considered rotationally fixed. Foundations on soft material may be modelled using equivalent linear spring coefficients. Also, well foundations may be analysed assuming soil springs as lateral supports. 7.3 Seismic Zones IV and V The foundations of bridges in seismic zones IV and V shall be designed to resist smaller of the following: (a) Design seismic forces obtained from 3.3 or 4,4, and (b) Forces developed when overstrength plastic moment hinges are formed in the substructure, as described in 9 Damages to foundations have vey serious implications from structural rs y considerations. Also, foundation repairs are very expensive as it ie very difficult to access and to make alterations in them. Hence, it is required to ensure that these are not damaged. This clause is intended to achieve the objective that In case of severe ground shaking, the foundation is not damaged. This is done first by requiring a much lower value of response reduction factor for foundation than for the substructure, ie, a much higher design seismic coefficient for foundation that for the substructure. However, this is qualified through the concept of capacity design (e.g, Paulay and Priestley, ‘092; and Jain and Murty, 1996}‘ux Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary. Grbac penis pag Since the seismic forces are inertia induced, the foundation can never experience a seismic force higher than what the substructure Is capable of transmitting to it. In section (b) here, the attempt is to obtain this upper-bound force that can be transmitted by the substructure by calculating the overstrength plastic moment capacity of the substructure. The code requires tthe lower of (a) and (be) to be used in design of the foundation. 8. Connections 8.1 Design Force for Connections within Superstructure and between Superstructure and Substructure 8.1.1 Seismic Zones I, and I The connections between adjacent sections of the superstructure or between the superstructure and the substructure shall be designed to resist at least a horizontal seismic force in the restrained directions equal to 0.20 times the vertical dead load reaction at the bearing, irrespective of the number of spans. In low seismic regions, the effort in the seismic design of the bridges Is reduced to some extent by this clause by requiring only a simple design force calculation for the restrained supports (e.g., rocker or elastomeric bearings). The clause has been borrowed from the AASHTO code and is considered to provide a somewhat overestimate of the design force. 8.1.2 Seismic Zones IV and V The connections between the superstructure and substructure, and the substructure and foundation shall be designed to resist the smaller of the following: (a) Maximum elastic horizontal seismic force transferred through it in the restrained directions divided by the appropriate Response Reduction Factor R applicable to connections, which are given in Table 5, and (b) Maximum horizontal force that develops when overstrength plastic moment hinges are formed in the substructure, The most common cause for earthquake disasters in case of bridges is the failure of connections, particularly those between superstructure and the substructure. Hence, extra caution is needed to ensure the safety of connections. This is done in this draft code by requiring the value of response reduction factor for bridges as 0.8 or 10 (See Table 5); this implies that the design force for connections obtained by (a) above is equal to (or more than) the maximum expected elastic force. However, by allowing the designer to use the lower of (a) and (b) above for design of connections, the code brings in the capacity design concept. Force obtained by (b) above provides an upper-bound on the inertia force that can be developed in the superstructure before the substructure becomes plastic. Once the substructure becomes plastic, the bridge will not be able to sustain higher inertia forces. 8.2 Provisions to Account for Displacements at Connections where Motions are Permitted 8.2.1 Separation Between Adjacent Units When relative movement between two adjacent units of a bridge are designed to occur at a separation joint, sufficient clearance shall be provided between them, to permit__ Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 32 of 1d the calculated relative movement under design earthquake conditions to freely occur without inducing damage. Where the two units may be out of phase, the clearance to be provided may be estimated as the square root of the sum of squares of the calculated displacements of the two units under maximum elastic seismic forces given by 3.2 or 4.3. When two adjacent unite are designed such that relative movement between them is expected to occur at their separation joint, then adequate clearance is necessary between them to avoid pounding and the consequential damage. To provide the cumulative sum of the displacements of the two units as the separation would be too conservative. Thus, this clause proposes that the ‘square root of the sum of squares of the calculated displacements of the two units under the earthquake forces may be provided as the clearance. 8.3 Minimum Width of Seating at Supports of Superstructure on Substructure, or of the Suspended Span Portion on the Restrained Portion of the Superstructure The widths of seating W (in mm) at supports measured normal to the face of the abutment/pier/restrained portion of superstructure from the closest end of the girder shall be the larger of the calculated displacement under the maximum elastic seismic forces estimated as per 3.2 or 4.3, and the value specified below: 500+15L+6H for seismic zones I, I and II Ww 800+25L+10H for seismic zones IV and V where . L = Length (in meters) of the superstructure to the adjacent expansion joint or to the end of superstructure. In case of bearings under suspended spans, it is sum of the lengths of the two adjacent portions of the superstructure. In case of single span bridges, it is equal to the length of the superstructure; and For bearings at abutments, H = Average height (in meters) of all columns supporting the superstructure to the next expansion joint. It is equal to zero for single span bridges. For bearings at columns or piers, H = Height (in meters) of column or pier. For bearings under suspended spans, H = Average height (in meters) of the two adjacent columns or piers. Graphical representation of seating widths are shown in Figure 7 The connections between superstructures and substructures are designed for forces specified under 8.1. Even though these are conservative vaues, there still will remain possibilities of the actual seismic force in the connections exceeding the actual strength of the connections, Also, in bridges the substructures are liable to large displacements due to dynamic earth-pressures. Under these conditions, it is possible that the superstructure span may be separated from the connection. At this instance, if adequate width is available on top of the substructure for the superstructure span to rest (despite being separated from the connections), then at least the superstructure span is prevented from being dislodged from its support. Clearly, if the superstructure span is still resting atop the substructure, the cost of repairing the connection and restoring the superstructure span to Its desired position is far moreDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code é Commentary page 33 of ds economical than having to rebuild the superstructure afresh if it falls off from the substructure. Hence, this clause attempts that even under maximum expected deformations, possibility of collapse or loss of span are minimised through conservative provisions of minimum seating widths. The values of seating widths recommended for high seismic regions are about 66% higher than those for low seismic regions; this 's because of higher potential of connection failures in high seismic zones. The above provision for minimum seating widths W, (In mm) is similar to that adopted in the the AASHTO code, given by [203+167L+66GH for low selemic performance categories wet [sos+26u+ 10H for high seismic performance categories where Land hare as defined in the draft code. Clearly, this draft code requires a higher seating width than the American practice. This is motivated by the Japanese practice; the Japan code (JRA, 1990] requires that the seat length Sg (in mm) from edge of superstructure to the edge of the substructure shall be longer than the vaiue estimated by the expression 700+5L Ls 100m Se= B00+4L L>100m where L represents the span length (in ri). 9. Capacity Design of Bridge Components The design seismic force for bridges is lower than the maximum expected seismic force on them, However, to ensure good performance at low cost, the difference in the design seismic force and the maximum expected seismic force shall be accounted for through additional cautions. The provisions given under 9. shall be applicable to seismic zones IV and V only This clause requires some additional provisions which ensure that brittle failure modes do not precede the ductile failures. In a structure having both brittle and ductile elements, if it can be ensured that the ductile elenents will yield prior to failure of brittle elements, the post-yield behaviour of the structure will be ductile. The concept of capacity design is used to ensure post-yield ductile behaviour of a structure having both ductile and brittle elements. In this method, the ductile elements are designed and detailed for the design forces. Then, an upper-bound strength of the ductlle elements ie obtained. It is then expected that if the seismic “orce keeps increasing, a point will come when these ductile elements will reach cheir upper-vound strength and become plastic. Clearly, we now need to enaure shat even at that level of seismic force, the brittle elements remain safe. This procedure is referred to as the capacity design procedure [Paulay and Priestley, 1992]Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary. page 34 of 44 9.1 Single-Column or Single-Pier Substructure Provisions given in IS:13920-1993 for the ductile detailing of RC members subjected to seismic forces shall be adopted for such components of the bridge. In particular, the design shear force for a single column type substructure (as against the frame type substructure) shall be the higher of the following: (a) Maximum elastic shear force at the critical section of the bridge component divided by the response reduction factor for that components as per Table 5, and (b) Maximum shear force that develops when the substructure has maximum moment that it can sustain (i.e, the overstrength plastic moment capacity as per 9.4), ‘The locations for the critical sections are at the bottom of the column or pier in a single- column substructure as shown in Figure 8a. ‘The clause is meant to ensure ductile behaviour of the columns or piers. in RC. members, flexural failure can be ductile if the member is detailed appropriately. On the other hand, shear failure is brittle. Hence, the columns are designed and detailed for fiexure first. Then, using the principle of capacity design, one calculates how much is the maximum possible earthquake force that ‘this column can sustain in the event of strong shaking. Since the shear failure is a brittle failure, shear design for columns is carried out for thie upper bound load. Note that a similar provision for shear design of beams in RC frame buildings is already in practice for many years for buildings, 6.g,, clause 7.2.5 in 1S:4326-1976 and clause 633 in 1S:13920-1993. 9.2 Multi -Column or Multiple-Pier Substructure Provisions given in 1S:13920-1993 for the ductile detailing of RC members subjected to seismic forces shall be adopted for such components of the bridge. In particular, the design shear force for a multi-column frame-type or multi-pier substructure shall be the higher of the following: (a) Maximum elastic shear force at the critical section of the bridge component divided by the response reduction factor for that components as per Table 5, and (b) Maximum shear force that is developed when plastic moment hinges are formed in the substructure so as to form a collapse mechanism. Here, the plastic moment capacity shall be the overstrength plastic moment capacity as per 9.4. The locations for the critical sections are at the bottom and/or top of the columns/piers in ‘multi-column frame-type substructures or multi-pier substructures as shown in Figure 8b. ‘This clause attempts to achieve the same objectives as discussed earlier in commentary to clause 9.1, but for the multiple-column or multiple-pier substructures. 9.3 Design Force for Connections Connections at the restrained ends shall be designed for the lower of the following: (a) Maximum elastic shear force transferred through them at the critical section of the bridge component divided by the response reduction factor for that components as per Table 5, and (b) Maximum shear force that develops when the substructure has maximum moment that it can sustain (j.e., the overstrength plastic moment capacity as per 9.4).for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentar ye 35 of dd 9.4. Overstrength Plastic Moment Capacity 9.4.1 Limit State Method of Design The overstrength plastic moment capacity at a reinforced concrete section shall be taken as 1.4 times the ultimate moment capacity based on the usual partial safety factors for materials and loads, and on the actual dimensions of members and the actual reinforcement detailing adopted. The factor arises from the following. The partial safety factor used in limit state design [IS:456-1978] for reinforcing steel is 1.15, le, the yield stress in steel used in design is 0.876, Further, in estimating the overstrength capaci it le aeoumed that 25% increase in steel stress is possible owing to strain- hardening in it; thus, the maximum stress in reinforcing bars for design purposes can be up to 1.25f,, as against 0.876, used in calculating moment capacity as per |S:456. Since sections are necessarily under-reinforced for ductile behaviour, the ultimate moment carrying capacity is it fluenced primarily by the stress in steel, and only very marginally by the grade of concrete. Thus, the ultimate moment capacity of the section can be scaled-up proportional to the ratio of the maximum stress in steel in the two cases, to obtain the plastic moment hinge capacity. Thus, 1.25 X (110.87) = 1.437, which is rounded off to 14. Similar factor of 1.4 io in practice in the ductile deatlling provisions of 1S:i3920-1998 for reinforced concrete members 9.4.2 Working Stress Method of Design The overstrength plastic moment capacity at a section shall be based on the permissible stresses mentioned below, and on the actual dimensions of the members and the actual reinforcement detailing adopted. The permissible stresses applicable for materials under gravity load conditions shall be first multiplied by 1.5 (as specified in 2.6.1, to account for the instantaneous application of the maximum earthquake forces) and then by 1.4 to account for overstength in materials. The entire framework of capacity design is really applicable only to the limit state design. It is difficult to extend It to the working stress method of design However, considering that the Indian professionals will continue to use working stress method for design of bridges for many years to come, thle clause provides a crude way to implement the capacity design concept for such situations. The factor 1.4 is kept same as in lit state method, 10, Summary and Conclusions ‘A draft proposal for the seismic design of bridges is presented for the next revision of IRC:6. Many of the issues raised in the earlier reports on the performance of bridges in India during past earthquakes [Murty and Jain, 1996] and on the state-of-the-art review of IRC-6-1966 provisions [Jain and Murty, 1996] have been incorporated. The following is a brief summary of some major and important modifications made in this proposal: ‘Relative values of seismic zone factor have been changed; these are the same as the ‘ones included in the draft provisions of IS:1893, which is under revision. * Two methods, namely Seismic Coefficient Method and Response Spectrum Method, are given for estimating design seismic forces; this is in line with the draft Indian code for buildings and codes of some other countries for seismic design of bridges. TheseDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 36 of 44 methods replace the existing methods in the IRC:6-1966 and IS: 1893-1984, which do not recognise the flexibility of the bridge * The concept of ductility and overstrength is brought into the code explicitly, by introducing the response reduction factors in place of the performance factor. «Different response reduction factors have been proposed for the different components of the bridge, depending on the expected ductility and overstrength in them. © The design force level for bridges has been raised from the existing levels and brought in line with the current international practices. + The concept of capacity design is introduced in the design of connections, substructures and foundations * The soil-foundation system factor is dropped. A soil profile factor depending on the soil profile has been introduced for obtaining the design spectrum. Design for displacements in the structure is introduced Use of vertical hold-down devices and horizontal linkage elements to account for the large displacements generated during seismic shaking, is made mandatory in certain bridges. ‘© A minimum width of seating of superstructure over substructures to avcid collapse of spans from the atop the substructures, is required for all bridges. The proposed draft includes significant improvements over the IRC:6-1966 and the IS;1893-1984. However, there are still a number of areas that needs to be further improved. These include detailed clauses on the design and detailing of individual components of foundations and abutments, of all structural steel bridge components, and of all reinforced concrete bridge components. 11. References ‘AASHTO 1992, 1992, Standard Specifications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, ‘Washington, D.C., USA. CALTRANS 1991, 1991, Bridge Design Specifications, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, C.A., USA. CalviM,, and Priestley, MJN., 1991, Seismic Design and Retrofittting of Reinforced Concrete Bridges, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofittring of Reinforced Concrete Bridges, 2-5 April 1991, Bormio, Italy. Chopra,AK., 1995, Dynamics of Structures : Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, USA. IRC.6-1966, 1985, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges : Section II : Loads and Stresses, Indian Roads Congress, New Delt. 18:1893-1984, 1984, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 18:4326-1976, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi 18:13920-1993, 1993, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. JainS K,, and Murty,C.V.R., 1996, “Review of the State-of-the-Art in Seismic Design of Bridges,” Report submitted to Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, October. Jain,S.K., and Navin,R., 1995, “Seismic Overstrength in Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.121, No.3, March 1995, pp 580- 585.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bri fe & Comment se 37 of 44 JRA, 1990, Design Specification for Highway Bridges, Part I: General, Part II: Steel Bridges, Part Ill: Concrete Bridges, Part IV: Foundation, Part V: Seismic Design, Japan Roads Association, February. Murty,C.V.R., and Jain,S.K., 1996, “Seismic Performance of Bridges in India During Past Earthquakes,” Report submitted to Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, March. NZS:3101-1982, Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures, Standards Association of New Zealand, Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, NZS:4203-1991, Code of Practice for General Structural Design and Design Loadings ‘for Buildings, 2/DZ 4203/2 Draft for Comment, Standards Association of ‘New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. . Paulay,T., and Priestley.M.I.N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and ‘Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA. Riddel.R., Hidalgo,P., Cruz,E., 1989, “Response Modification Factors for Earthquake Resistant Design of Short Period Buildings,” Earthquake Spectra, EERI, CA, USA, Vol.5, No.3., pp 571-590. TTNZ Bridge Manual, 1991, Bridge Manual : Design and Evaluation, Transit New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. Acknowledgments The authors are thankful to the Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, for the financial support, which made this work possible.‘6 Provisions on rismic Design of Code & Comment 3B of td ist of Tables Table 1 : Percentage of permissible increase in allowable bearing pressure of soils Table 2 : Zone Factor Z for horizontal motion, Table 3 : Importance Factor / for different bridges. Table 4 : Soil Profile Factor S for different soil profile types at the site. Table 5 : Response Reduction Factor R for Bridge Components and Connections Table 6 : Values of C,, Table 7 : Pressure Distribution Coefficients C,, Cy, Cs and C, Table C1 : Response Modification Factor R as per AASHTO code [AASHTO, 1992] of Figures Figure 1 : Seismic zone map of India. Figure 2 : Plot of CS versus natural period T to be used in the Seismic Coefficient Method Figure 3 : Plot of C,S' versus natural period 7; in mode k of the bridge to be used in the Response Spectrum Method. Figure 4: Transfer of Forces from Superstructure to Substructure. Figure 5 : Hypothetical Enveloping Cyclinders to Estimate Hydrodynamic Forces on Substructures. Figure 6 : Hydrodynamic Pressure Distribution on the Substructure due to Steam Flow. Figure 7 : Minimum Width of Seating of Spans on Supports. Figure 8 : Potential location of plastic hinges in (a) single column substructures, and (b) double column substructures. Figure C1 : Deformed geometry of bridge deck (a) when earthquake force is normal to the direction of traffic, and (b) when earthquake force is along the direction of traffic. The full circle shows the location of the centre of mass of the bridge system before application of the force F, and the hollow circle that after the application of the force F. Figure C2: CALTRANS adjustment for ductility and risk assessment factor Z. Figure C3 : Acceleration response spectrum (a) actual (but smoothened), and (b) idealised for design purposes.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges Code & Commentary Figure 1 : Seismic zone map of India. canaroK page 39 of 44Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 10 of 44 Soil Type HI 0 1 2 3 4 5 Natural Period T (sec) Figure 2 : Plot of CS versus natural period T to be used in the Seismic Coefficient Method Natural Period T,, (sec) Figure 3 : Plot of C.S' versus natural period 7; in mode k of the bridge to be used in the Response Spectrum MethodDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 41 of 44 Figure 4 : Transfer of Forces from Superstructure to Substructure | Direction of Seismic Force Figure 5 : Hypothetical Enveloping Cyclinders to Estimate Hydrodynamic Forces on Substructures CH ay (Resultant pressure al 7 on CH) CH | a Po = 1.2F/H Figure 6 : Hydrodynamic Pressure Distribution on the Substructure due to Steam Flow:Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 42 of 44 we (a) Abutment Wi = emi W2 (b) Column or Pier w* : (b) Suspended Span on Restrained Portion of Superstructure Figure 7 : Minimum Width of Seating of Spans on SupportsDraft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 43 of 44 Boge seame Soeainvewrs, 5 Bre seme SOESINUCIE, Sere mere, fen i, ‘icion rove 4S eee SumTeS be ‘catumn Parent prose Ly ‘nwge reports Pte “a secten 4a (a) andge sme BPRSIUCIS, Serge iin wl ein Porennat plastic nage reqs Section A.A Figure 8 : Potential location of plastic hinges in (a) single column substructures, and (b) double column substructures. Direction of Traffic Seismic? Force F é Selemic Force F~ timm Direction of Traffic (b) Figure C1 : Deformed geometry of bridge deck (a) when earthquake force is normal to the direction of traffic, and (b) when earthquake force is along the direction of traffic. The full circle shows the location of the centre of mass of the bridge system before application of the force F, and the hollow circle that after the application of the force F.Draft for IRC:6 Provisions on Seismic Design of Bridges :: Code & Commentary page 44 of 44 oS eal somite OS] Pore ts(e=20) Ga 4 rat wa, nd wig -Acjusenent Factor (2) Lenin in 1 Wot oad errata sea Saye (= 88 0 o2 04 08 6s 19 2 30 Period of Structure (Soc) T Figure C2 : CALTRANS adjustment for ductility and risk assessment factor Z. ; 2.5 PGA 2.5 PGA PGA o Natural PeriodT ° Natural Period T (a) (b) Figure C3: Acceleration response spectrum (a) actual (but smoothened), and (b) idealised for design purposesEnclosure A1. Introduction The behaviour of bridge structures under strong seismic conditions is very different from that under normal gravity loads (dead loads and moving live loads). Further, the seismic design of bridges draws great significance since bridges come under the category of “life-line structures.” The implications of disruption in the transportation network due to distress or collapse of bridge systems, particularly during the immediate post-carthquake relief and rehabilitation operations, demand that special attention be paid in their design and construction, The seriousness of the matter has been recognized by many countries over the last two and a half decades. Major initiatives, in the form of comprehensive revision of design codes, stricter quality control at construction, and an exhaustive retrofit program for existing deficient bridge structures, have been undertaken in those countries. India is, indeed, an earthquake country. More than 50% of the country lies in seismic zones III, IV, and V; while, the remaining area also cannot be considered aseismic as was very graphically illustrated by the 1993 Killari (Latur) earthquake in seismic zone I. It is therefore important to evaluate how the modern bridges being built in the country have been performing, in the past earthquakes with a view to modify the design and construction procedures appropriately. This paper reviews the damages incurred by bridges in India during past earthquakes and lists the lessons learnt from them, 2. Background on Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity ‘When reviewing the performance of bridges in the past earthquakes it is important to have the correct perspective with regard to the strength of shaking that the bridge concerned experienced during the earthquake. In a damaging earthquake, if a major bridge is located in the area which did not sustain strong shaking, then no-damage performance of the bridge is of no consolation as far as review of seismic performance of bridges is concerned. It is therefore important that when reviewing the performance of a bridge during the earthquake, the intensity of shaking in the area be kept in perspective. Considering the prevalent confusion onaccount of intensity and magnitude. in this section background is provided on earthquake magnitude and intensity Earthquake magnitude is simply a measure of the size of the earthquake reflecting the elastic energy released by the earthquake. It is usually referred by a certain real number on the Richter scale (e.g, magnitude 6.5 earthquake). On the other hand, earthquake intensity indicates the extent of shaking experienced at a given location due to a particular earthquake. It is usually referred by a Roman numeral on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. more recently on the MSK scale (e.g., intensity VIII on MMI scale). To draw a parallel, consider a /001 light bulb used for illumination purposes. It dissipates energy of 100 Watts, say, However, the brightness of light at different distances from it, referred in candlelights, is different. The former is magnitude andthe later is intensity. Whether or not there is adequate light at a given location to enable one to read a book, depends on what is the intensity of light at that location; intensity itself depends on the magnitude of bulb (i.e., Watts) and the distance of the bulb from the location under consideration. Similarly, intensity of shaking at a location depends not only on the magnitude of earthquake, but also on the distance of the site from the earthquake source and the geology / geography of the area. Isoseismals are the contours of equal earthquake intensity. The Indian seismic code (1S:1893-1984) divides the country into five seismic zones based on expected intensity of shaking in future earthquakes. The five seismic zones I, II, IIT IV and V correspond to areas that have potential for shaking intensity on the MMI scale of V or less, VI, VII, VIII, and IX or more, respectively. Insofar as benchmarking the seismic performance of bridges is concerned, itis not the magnitude of the earthquake but the intensity at the location of the bridge that must be used. For example, during an earthquake of magnitude 6.5, the maximum intensity area experiences a shaking of VIII, say, but has no bridges. The bridges of interest may be located in areas that lie in seismic zone IV but that4 sustained shaking intensities of VI and VII. Then, the performance of these bridges will only answer the following question: how did the bridges designed for seismic zone IV perform ‘when subjected to earthquake shaking similar to what is expected in seismic zones II and IIL respectively. 3. Jabalpur Earthquake of 1997 ‘An earthquake of Richter magnitude 6.0 occurred on 22 May 1997 at 04:22 hours (IST) centered about 8 km southeast of the city of Jabalpur (Madhya Prades), The maximum intensity of shaking experienced during the earthquake was VIII on the MSK scale at the villages of Kosamghat and Kudaria in the Jabalpur district. The intensity of shaking in the city of Jabalpur varies between VII and V. The area affected by this earthquake lies in seismic zone IIT as per the Indian codes {IR:6-1966; IS:1893-1984], and hence the level of shaking was indeed expected. The strong earthquake shaking was experienced over a relatively large area covered by the districts of Jabalpur, Mandla, Sivni and Chhindwada. There are a good number of highway and railway bridges in the area. All the bridges except one major railway bridge performed very well [Jain et al, 1997]. The two lane bridge across the Narmada river at Mandla, 95 km southeast of Jabalpur, consists of two-span prestressed concrete superstructure supported on non-prismatic RC piers founded on base rock. The bridge has RC restrainers to prevent the superstructure from dislodging transversely from the elastomeric bearings from the pier top This bridge performed very well (Figure 1). The damage sustained by the buildings in the neighbourhood suggests an intensity of shaking around VI. Another, nine-span bridge across the river Gaur near Kosamghat sustained no damage. The damaged bridge was a steel through-truss bridge consisting of six simply supported spans, across the river Narmada between Tilwara and Gwarighat in the Nagpur Division of the South Eastern Railway (Figure 2). In the roller and rocker bearings of this bridge, one 32 mm diameter pin connects the knuckle pin to the saddle cover plate (Figure 3)3 These pins were fractured at several of the supports, and the spans were dislodges transversely by about /00 mm. Fortunately, none of the spans was dislodged from the piers. The fractured pins were replaced and the bridge was restored to working condition in about two days. The weight of the superstructure span of this steel bridge is about 200 fonnes, The tensile strength of each of these 32 mm diameter mild-steel pins is about 20 tonnes. The transverse load of one span is resisted by four such pins. Hence, the total transverse load carrying capacity is around 80 tonnes. The pin failures indicate that, at the top of the piers, the peak acceleration may have exceeded 0.4g. Killari Earthquake of 1993 The quake measuring 6.4 on the Richter scale struck at 03:53 hours (IST) on September 30, 1993, and was centred around village Killari in Latur district (Maharashtra) Gain er al, 1994]. The maximum intensity of about IX on the MMI scale was experienced in villages Killari and Talni; Figure 4 shows the isoseismals for this earthquake in the worst- affected region. The entire area affected by this quake falls in the seismic zone I as per IRC code [IRC:6-1966] and BIS code [IS:1893-1984] (i.e, area having potential for shaking intensity of V or less on the MMI scale) An iniportant feature of this earthquake was that the affected area was very small; even less than about 20 km x 20 km sustained severe shaking, This is a common feature for earthquakes having very low focul depth. The meizoseismal area (area of sirongest shaking) had no major bridges, except for one aqueduct. Only culverts or small bridges on RC. T- beams or R.C. slabs are in use in the area; most of them sustained no damage or very minor cracking at the abutments, The area also has no rail network; hence, the performance of railway bridges cannot be inferred from this earthquake. The RC aqueduct bridge for the left bank canal over a tributary to the Tima river near the village Ganjankhed suffered the most significant damage. The intensity in this area may be estimated to be around IX on the MMI scale. The aqueduct consisted of 7 spans, each of /6.5metres (Figure 5). The bearings over the first pier towards village Talni were found damaged. The damage consisted of shearing and pulling-out of the anchor bolts connecting the steel bearings to the pier (Figure 6). Also, the bottom plates of the bearings were damaged. The post-earthquake location of the bearings indicates that the pier has moved away from the abutment by about 4 to 5 cm. Fortunately, the spans were not unseated from the bearings and dislodged on to the piers. The bearings (sliding and rocking) are welded to steel plates at top and bottom, and these plates are then bolted to the soffit of the girder and to the concrete pedestal on top of the pier. The details of these steel plates used are shown in Figure 7(a). The configuration of the plate with reduced size and thickness at the location of bolt holes and the lack of welding on the second side between the plates of different thicknesses, demonstrate poor detailing. Figure 7(b) shows a schematic of the failure at these bearing plates due to the horizontal displacements generated during the earthquake. A reinforced concrete box-culvert (Figure 8) supporting the above canal and located between villages Ganjankhed and Talni, very close to extension of the observed fault scarp towards the west side, was itself not damaged. However, the wing walls of the embankment at the box culvert tilted outwards by about 5 to 7 cm (Figure 9). Reports from two independent surveys of bridges in the neighbouring districts of Sholapur, Osmanabad and Beed provide the following observations. A survey of 15 major bridges, in the Sholapur district, of varying age (20-/25 years) and construction types (masonry arches, RCC arches, RCC T-beam, RCC solid slab) concludes that no significant distress was observed which could be attributed to the 1993 Killari earthquake [Ghosh, 1996] Tt may be recalled that this region was subjected to shaking intensity V and VI (on the MMI scale) during the earthquake. In another survey of bridges [Tandon, 1996], three masonry arch bridges in the Osmanabad district and one masonry arch bridge in the Beed district were found to have cracks in the arch barrels, separation of spandrels walls, and displaced stones. TwoRCC solid slab bridges in the Osmanabad district, one 128 m long (/4 spans @ about 9 m) and another 90 m long (0 spans @ about 9 m), had no bearings provided under the spans. The expansion joints were found to have malfunctioned. In another bridge in the Osmanabad district, a 45 m long RCC T-beam and slab bridge (3 spans of about /5 m), the elastomeric bearings were found embedded in concrete. Fine cracks in webs of girders were also recorded. This bridge is located in the region which experienced shaking of intensity around VI or VI. 5,_Uttarkashi Earthquake of 1991 The earthquake occurred at 02:53 hours (IST) on October 20, 1991 in the Garhwal ‘Himalayas in northern India [Jain et a/., 1992]. Strong, shaking was experienced in the districts of Uttarkashi, Tehri and Chamoli of the state of Uttar Pradesh. The quake measured 6.6 on the Richter scale [GSI, 1992]. Tehri and Chamoli are in the seismic zone V as per the current code, while Uttarkashi comes under seismic zone IV. The intensity of shaking was estimated to be about VIII in Uttarkashi area, and about VII in Tehri and Chamoli. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) of about 0.3g each along the horizontal and vertical directions have been recorded by strong motions instruments at Uttarkashi (Chandrasekaran and Das, 1992] ‘The transportation system (predominantly a road network) of the area was throttled due to extensive damage to roads, slopes, retaining walls and bridges. The area has a number of single-span RC T-beam bridges of up to 20 meter span, and steel truss bridges of larger span. In a few bridges, cracks appeared between abutments and wing walls. There is no rail network in the affected area and hence the performance of railway bridges cannot be inferred from this earthquake ‘The rather important Uttarkashi-Harsil-Nelong road link was paralyzed for several days due to a large number of landslides and collapse of a major bridge. The Gawana bridge. located 6 km north of Uttarkashi towards Maneri, was a 56 m span steel truss bridge built in 1974. Under the shaking of intensity VIII or IX experienced in the area, the emtire bridge span ‘was unseated from its abutments and fell into the river below (Figure 10); road access to areasnorth of Uttarkashi was cut-off from the rest of the country. No permanent displacement or damage to the bridge abutments was noticed. The superstructure was supported on two rocker bearings at one end and two roller-cum-rocker bearings at the other. The anchor bolts of one of the roller-cum-rocker bearings were found. sheared-off and the base plate was found rotated from its original position (Figure 11). However, the anchor bolts at the other bearings were found to be in place and intact. The top and bottom plates of the bearings were separated; the top plates were still attached to the superstructure. The evidence at site suggests that inadequate design of bearings and anchor bolts, as well as lack of positive ‘mechanisms to hold the dislodged spans from falling off the abutments seats, were responsible for this failure, The Uttarkashi-Lumgaon road link was lost due to collapse of embankments on the approach road to the bridge near Kishanpur. The approach to the bridge is on a 8 meter high embankment with retaining walls in “banded” stone masonry. Under the intensity VIII shaking experienced in the area, these walls on both sides collapsed resulting in the failure of the embankment. The reduced road width enabled the transit of pedestrian traffic only; vehicular traffic was suspended for over 10 days, The area has a number of pedestrian suspension bridges providing access to villages located across the river Bhagirathi. The main tower and anchor blocks of these bridges are in unreinforced stone masonry. Table 1 shows the list of damages sustained in some of them. The failure of the anchor block of the suspension bridge near Harsil (about 73 km north of Uttarkashi) may be attributed to poor quality of construction rather than the intensity of shaking (Figure 12); the intensity of shaking in this region was only about VI on the MMI scale, 6. Bihai al Earthquake of 1988 ‘On August 21, 1988, a quake measuring 6.6 on the Richter scale rocked the states of Bihar, West Bengal and Sikkim in India and the neighbouring country of Nepal in the morningat 04:39 hours (IST). The quake centred in Nepal, but close to the Indian, caused significant damage to life and property in both the countries [Jain er al., 1991]. It occurred in the same region which was visited by the great earthquakes in the past (Bihar-Nepal earthquakes of 1833 with M 7.0 to 7.5 and of 1934 with M 8.4). The isoseismal map of the region shows maximum intensities upto IX in northern Bihar and upto VIII in Sikkim (Figure 13), In the state of Bihar, damage to road bridges was generally reported from all areas but specific information on bridge performance is not available area wise (e.g, Thakkar ef a 19%), There were many smail bridges of simple spanned steel beam supported on piers of steel pipes. Such bridges seemed to have behaved well. The 5.6 km long bridge over the Ganges river near Patna (shaking intensity of VI; constructed for seismic zone IV which corresponds to intensity VIM) did not show any apparent damage. The damage to oridges along the ruraj roads were in the form of cracks in the piers, abutments, wing walls, and RC deck slab. At some places, subsidence in the embankment caused damage to culverts. In Sikkim, two bridges which experienced intensity VII shaking were affected due to failure of hill slopes. The problem was compounded by incessant rains before and after the earthquake, making the hill slopes more prone to damage [Jain and Tripathi, 1989]. The then newly constructed 67 m span prestressed concrete Legship Bazar bridge (Figure 14) on river Kale| Khola near Legship Bazar town (about 93 km from Gangtok) was damaged due to landslides. The hill slope on the Legship Bazar end failed and soil i cluding huge boulders fell on the bridge deck smashing a portion of the deck slab near the abutmem (Figure 15). The bridge however was opened for traffic after clearing the debris. There was no apparent dénage to piers and abutments, About 3 km upstream from the Legship Bazar on the Legship- ishiding road, the 135 m span Tashiding suspension bridge across river Kale} Khola wes under construction; the towers and cable anchors were completed by the time of earthquake. The RC abutment-cum-suspension tower on the Legship end was situated just by0 the side of a high hill-cliff. During the quake, a huge soil-cum-boulder mass fiom the cliff came down due to slope failure and washed away the whole construction at this end. The other end was however intact. An old suspension bridge with wooden decking situated very near to the Tashiding bridge, was not damaged. The worst-affected area of the earthquake does not have major broad-gauge railway line, but meter and narrow gauge lines. A number of railway bridges were damaged: information could be obtained on the performance of railway bridges in the Samastipur Division of N.E.Railway [NERly, 1989]. Eight of these bridges were restored to normal working condition after minor repair work. The most significant damage was to the five-span (two of 12.2 m and three of 30.5 m) bridge between Samastipur and Muktapur in the Samastipur-Darbhanga section. A shaking intensity around VII or VIII was experienced in this area, The rocker bearings on pier 1 and 3 broke and fell down. Seven numbers of these damaged saddles of the rocker bearings had to be replaced. Another bridge of seven spans (four of 12.2 m and three of 30.5 m) in the same area between Hayaghat and Thalwara experienced a longitudinal movement of the girder between piers 4 and 5 by about 4 cm. The girder had to be pulled back to its original position. A fifteen-span (each of /2.2 m) bridge in the Manasi-Saharsa section was also seriously affected. The girder of the fourth span shifted laterally by 2 cm. Eight piers developed horizontal cracks. The wing walls of a bridge, between Naya Nagar and Ruseraghat stations, bulged out. Piers of a three-span (each of 6.1 m) steel girder bridge between Janakpur Road and Bajpatti stations, developed cracks. A six-span (each of 6.1 m) steel girder bridge between Kamtaul and Jogiara stations, received severe damages. The bed blocks below the girders cracked and the masonry piers and abutment of the bridge developed wide cracks. The wing wails and the return walls of a three-span (each of 6./ m) steel girder bridge between Kekarghatti and Trasarai stations, developed cracks. Some portions of the wall masonry cracked and fell down causing the abutment masonry to bulge.u The parapet wall of approaches of a ten-span (each of 6./ m) bridge between Manigachi and Lohna Road stations, cracked and collapsed. Another seven-span (each of /2.2 m) bridge between Dhamaraghat and Koparia stations received damages. The existing cracks in the bed block of two piers widened. One pier of a three-span (each of /2.2 m) bridge in Jhanjharpur- Laukaha Bazar section tilted and was found to be out of plumb by 5 cm, immediately after the earthquake. Beyond the above twelve bridges, approaches of two other major bridges located in intensity VIII area (in the Forbesganj-Saharsa and Saharsa-Purnia sections) subsided and caved-in leading to distortion of the tracks. 7. Burma-India Border Earthquake of 1988 "A strong earthquake of magnitude 6.8 (some sources attribute the magnitude as 7.3) rocked the north-eastern states on August 6, 1988 at about 6 AM. The quake was centred close to the Indian border in Burma. Some damages were reported in India [Kumar, 1992] where maximum intensities of upto VIL were experienced in Imphal, Kohima, Jorhat and ‘Tejpur. The stations at Berlongfer and Diphu recorded the highest peak ground accelerations of about 0.34g [Chandrasekaran and Das, 1990}. Damage survey also indicated maximum intensity in this area. Three bridges, namely the Kaliabhomora bridge across river Brahmaputra near Tejpur [Prajapati, 1990), the single-span Metong bridge on National Highway 37 between Jorhat and Sibsagar, and the prestressed concrete box girder bridge on river Barak near Silchar (Prajapati. 1989], are reported to have been damaged during this earthquake, Information on the damage to the Metong bridge is incomplete. The Kaliabhomora (Tejpur) bridge is 3015 m long, with 24 typical spans of 120 m each and two shore spans of 67.5 m each, It is 7.5 m wide with 1.5 m footpaths on either side. (Figure 16). The typical span consists of two balanced cantilevers 52.5 m each from the supports with a central suspended span of 15 m. The suspended span is a gitder-slab system in RCC, while the cantilever span is a segmental tapered box girder system in prestressedRB concrete, The north end of the suspended spans are fixed to the cantilever span, and the south end are let free for longitudinal translation. The bridge was about one year old at the time of the earthquake. Due to the earthquake, pier 3 from the north end was observed to have tilted by about 6-8 cm [Prajapati, 1990; Sharma, 1990]. It is suspected that differential settlements under the pier may have been responsible for the tilt. The elastomeric bearing pads at the fixed end were displaced and deformed. Cracks were also recorded on the free surface of these pads. About /23 anchor bolts holding the steel plates on either side of the bearings are recorded to have been bent and pulled out. This is attributed to the fouling of the projected portions of the bolts with the movement of the steel plates. Over 26 conerete rail posts at the ends of the suspended spans were found to have been damaged due to the relative longitudinal movement along the bridge spans. The footpath portion adjoining these rail posts were either cracked or broken. The prestressed concrete box girder bridge across river Barak at Sadarghat, Silchar. was about 20 years old at the time of the earthquake, The 234.7 m long 7.5 m wide bridge has two central piers and two end tresties (Figure 17), with a hinge at the cemre of the bridge. Cracks were noted at the trestle supports on the top and bottom faces of both the lower and upper flanges of the box girder [Prajapati, 1989] 8. _Dharmsala Earthquake of 1986 The hill town of Dharmsala, Himachal Pradesh, was rocked by a quake (M 5.7) at 13:05 hours (IST) on April 26, 1986. The earthquake drew considerable attention because of the proximity of Dharmsala to Kangra, the seat of the great Indian earthquake in 1905 (M 8) The quake caused a maximum intensity of VII on the MMI scale in the area. The affected area classifies under seismic zone V. Even though significant damage is reported on buildings, no mention of performance of bridge structures is available [Arya et al., 1986] 9. Cachar Earthquake of 19: The northeast region of India was shaken by a magnitude 5.6 tremour at 23:33 hours1B on December 31, 1984. The epicentre of this shallow focus earthquake was centred around the banks of the Sonai river 2 km east of Baramuni village in Assam. The affected area falls in seismic zone V of the country Two, somewhat similar, well-designed and well-constructed RC bridges were within about 0 km focal distance. These bridges, namely the Sonaimukh bridge and Rukni bridge. suffered different levels of repairable damage [Agarwal, 1986]. Unfortunately, information on the imensity of shaking in these areas is not available. The reinforced concrete Sonaimukh bridge is /00 m long 4.8 m wide supported on six 8.5 m_to 12 m high piers, which rested on well foundations of /2.8 m to 16.3 m height (Figure 18). The bridge consists of three identical supported spans of about 18 m and two suspended spans of about 9 m. The supported spans resting on the piers had rocker and roller bearings The damage incurred by the bridge included the following, One well cap developed cracks and ‘was relatively transversely displaced with respect to the well. The bridge deck was no longer straight in plan after the shaking (Figure 18). The final displaced locations of the five pieces of the bridge deck suggests that there was a relative transverse displacement (right lateral) between the two abutments. Some superstructure spans were dislodged fom the bearings resulting in upto 45 cm relative horizontal relative displacement between the superstructure and the pier. The dislodged spans were precariously held over the piers/supported spans. The clear width of seating of the spans at the bearings was insufficient. A slightly increased shaking intensity or duration may have manifested into the collapse of, at least, a few spans. The Rukni bridge has an identical design as the Sonaimukh bridge, but with a reduced length of 65 meters. The bridge is composed of two fixed spans on four piers and one central suspended span. The abutments had RC retaining walls to support the embanked soil mass. The damage was in the form of pounding o! ¢ longitudinal superstructure span against the retaining wall at the abutments on the north end of the bridge, and separation at the south end4 Further, at the intermediate junctions between the fixed and suspended spars. the pounding effect was observed. Residual longitudinal displacements upto 5 cm have been measured along the direction of the bridge at these locations. 10. Implications of Past Performances on Seismic Design of Bridges The seismic shaking intensity experienced by the various bridges discussed above can be only termed moderate, And even under these moderate amounts of shaking, the performance in the bridges is scartered over a wide range, from minor cracks to complete collapses (Table 1). A number of lessons are obvious from these performances which have significance insofar as seismic design of bridges is concerned. The following sub-sections present a summary of the same. 10.1 Level of Design Seismic Force The Gawana bridge episode during the 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake is a landmark in the seismic history of bridges in India. The peak ground accelerations of about 0.3g recorded in the region, that is classified to be in seismic zone IV. is in contrast with the design seismic coefficient of 0.05g to 0.075g specified for bridges in zone IV. Considering the typical shape of response spectrum with 5% damping (Figure 19) implies a response reduction factor of about 10 to 15. This is too large for bridges where the beneficial effects of ductility and redundancy are small. The experiences from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in U.S.A immediately lead to a sharp increase in the design seismic force for bridges in the United States of America, However, the level of design seismic force for bridges is too ‘ow in the Indian code. 10.2 Inadequate Connections Between Superstructures and Subsiructures The failures of the railway bridge bearings during the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake, the Gawana bridge bearings during the 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake, and the aqueduct bridge bearing during the 1993 Killari earthquake are clear indicators of the inadequate design provisions in the Indian seismic code for bridges vis-a-vis the bearings. A glance at Table 1 clearly shows the poor performance of bearings in almost all the past earthquakes. This is amajor problem that needs to be tackled for Indian bridges. The issue is explained in the following. Different components in a bridge have different capacities to undergo inelastic deformations. The ductility and redundancy in structures is usually relied upon in reducing the design seismic force from the maximum elastic forces. Amongst the bridge components (superstructure, substructure, foundation and connection between the superstructure and substructure), the connections have little or no capacity to undergo inelastic deformations. In earthquake-resistant design of the bridge superstructure and substructure, usually the de force is only a fraction of the maximum elastic forces, response reduction factors of 3 or more are normally used. However, in the design of bearings which transfer earthquake forces, necessarily the full maximum elastic force, or even more, has to be considered, This is essential because bearings are determinate elements with no or marginal reserve strength beyond yield. In fact, international practice is to design the connection elements (bearings), with a response reduction factor of about 0.8, i.e., for 25% more than maximum elastic forces 10.3 Deformation Design at Connection Regions The damages to the railway bridge bearings in the Samastipur Division of NE.Railway during the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake, the Kaliabhomora bridge bearing damage at Tejpur during the 1988 Burma-India Border Region earthquake, and the Rukni and Sonaimukh bridge bearing damage during the 1984 Cachar earthquake, are but some examples of the need for controlling the displacements along and transverse to bridge spans The connections between the superstructure and substructure and between the adjacent sections of superstructure (e.g., suspended span and supporting span elements), undergo relative motions during seismic shaking. These connections must be so detailed that they can indeed allow the required deformations without themselves being damaged. There are three major aspects to this: © Longitudinal and lateral translational movements of the superstructure facilitated by the16 connection elements © Stability of superstructure against uplifting and possible overturning, * Adequate widths atop the substructure or supporting span to permit large movements of superstructure components without dropping-off from the supports 10.4 Substructure and Foundation Design Bridge substructures of the old bridges in India are usually of masonry type. Lately there is trend towards the use of reinforced concrete substructures and foundations. The aqueduct bridge pier during the 1993 Killari earthquake and the Kaliabhomora bridge pier during the 1988 Burma-India Border region earthquake are two examples of tilting of foundations. Since the damages in foundations usually remain undetected, ‘t is not easy to evaluate the performance of foundations during the past earthquakes. Further, there are numerous bridge pier, abutment and wing-wall damages reported during earthquakes discussed above. In all, there is a clear need for more scientific design and detailing of foundations and substructures. 11. Concluding Remarks ‘Most of the recent earthquakes in India have been of moderate size and have caused only moderate intensity of shaking. Moreover, the meizoseismal areas (worst-affected areas) in most of these earthquakes did not have many major bridges. Nevertheless, damage to bridges in these earthquakes provides very clear pointers to what one would expect considering that the Indian bridge codes are not in line with the current seismic design philosophy. Our country has clear potential of great earthquakes (of magi itude | ‘ger than 8.0) causing significantly higher level of shaking intensity (upto XII on MMI scale). Figures 20 shows the performance of railway lines during the Great Assam earthquake of 1897; this is a grim reminder of what can be expected of our major road and rail lines in the event of a strong earthquake taking place at just the right location (i.e., wrong location for the society). 12. Acknowledgements The work reported here was carried out with financial support from the Ministry of7 Surface Transport, Government of India; the authors are grateful for this support. The authors also sincerely thank Mr. Mahesh C. Tandon and Mr. A. R. Ghosh for generously sharing information on damage to bridges in the Latur earthquake 13. References Agarwal,P.N., 1986, “Damage to Two RCC Bridges During December 31, 1984 Cachar Earthquake, Northeast India,” Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Vol.23, No.1, March 1986, pp 1-16. Arya,A.S., Gupta,S.P., Lavania,B.V.K., and Kumar,A., 1986, Report on Dharmasala, Himachal Pradesh, Earthquake April 26, 1986, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, July 1986. Chandrasekaran,A.R., and Das.J.D., 1990, “Strong Motion Arrays in India: Characteristics of Recent Recorded Events,” Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Vol.27, No.1, pp 1-66 Chandrasekaran,AR., and Das,J-D., 1992, “Analysis of Strong Motion Accelerograms of Uttarkashi Earthquake of October 20, 1991,” Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Vol.29, No.1, pp 35-55 Ghosh,A.R., 1996, personal communication GSI, 1992, Unarkashi Earthquake October 20, 1991, Special Publication No.30, Geological Survey of India, Caleutta. GSI, 1993, Bihar-Nepal Earthquake August 20, 1988, Special Publication No.31, Geological Survey of India, Calcutta. GSI, 1995, 4 collection of papers presented at the Workshop on the 30th September, 1993 Killari Earthquake, Maharashtra, 24 December 1993, N.G.RI., Hyderabad, Special Publication No.27, Geological Survey of India, Caleutta. IRC:6-1966, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section I: Loads and Stresses, The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, 1985. 18:1893-1984, 1984, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Deaign of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. Jain,S.K., Tripathi,RP., and Agarwal,A.K., 1991, “Geotechnical Damage Due to Bihar Earthquake of August 1988,” Proceedings of Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, March 11-15, 1991, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A., pp 519-524. JainS.K., and Tripathi,R.P.. 1989, “Damage to Roads and Bridges in Sikcim and West Bengal,” Proceedings of Workshop on Bihar-Nepal Earthquake, December 28-29, 1988, LLT-Kanpur, Kanpur. Jain,S.K., Singh,R.P., Gupta, V.K., and Nagar,A., 1992, “Garhwal Earthquake of October 20, 1991,” EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter, Vol.26, No.2, February 1992, pp 14. Jain,S.K., Murty,C.V.R., Chandak,N., Seeber,L., and Jain.N.K., 1994, “The September 29, 1993, M6.4 Killari, Maharashtra, Earthquake in Central India,” EERI Special Earthquake Report, BERI Newsletter, Vol.28, No.1, pp 1-8 Jain,S.K., Murty,C.V.R, Arlekar,J.N., JainCK, SinbaR., and Goyal,A. 1997, “Some Observations on Engineering Aspects of the Jabalpur Earthquake of 22 May 1997,” EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter, Vol.31, No.8, August 1997, pp 1-8. Kumar,B., 1992, “Isoseismals of Burma-India Border Region Earthquake of August 6, 1988,” Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Vol.29, No.1, pp 57-67. NE. Railway, 1989, personal communication. Oldham,R.D., 1899, Report on the Great Earthquake of 12th June 1897, Memoirs of theRv-IRe AS Geological Survey of India, Vol.XXIX, Calcutta, Prajapati,G.L., 1989, “Damage to Barak River Bridge at Sadarghat, Silchar, Assam Due to Burma-India Border Region Earthquake of August 6, 1988,” Proceedings of National Seminar on Concrete Admixtures and Repair Material, December 28-29, 1989, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, pp 48-57. Prajapati,G.L, 1990, “Performance of Kaliabhomora Bridge on River Brahmaputra During Burma-India Border Region Earthquake of August 6, 1988," Bulletin of the Indian Society of Earthquake Technology, Vol.27, No.3, September, pp 151-159 Sharma,V.C., 1990, “Tejpur Bridge Across River Brahmaputra Special Features of Superstructure, Earthquake Effects and Present Thinking,” Proceedings of the National Seminar on Bridge Superstructure, Bombay, Vol.1, pp 121-134. Tandon,M.C., 1996, personal communication. Thakkar,S.K., Paul,D.K.. Mukerjee.S., Bandopadhyay,S., Kumar,A., and Lavania, B.V.K.. 1992, Damage Survey Report on Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of August 21, 1988. Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee.List of Tables Table 1 : Summary of Damages to Bridges in India During Past Earthquakes Figure | Figure 2 : Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 of Figures View of the RCC bridge across river Narmada at Mandla showing the RC seismic restrainers at the piers. View of the steel through-truss bridge across river Narmada between Tilwara and Gwarighat in the Nagpur Division of the S.E.Railway, which sustained damage. View of (a) the rocker, and (b) the roller bearings, showing the knuckle pin and the saddle cover plate fastened together with a 32 mm mild steel pin. Isoseismals for 1993 Killari earthquake in the worst-affected region [GSI,1995] Aqueduct near Ganjankhed along left bank canal of Tirna river over ¢ tributary Damage to the steel bearings at pier 1 of the aqueduct (a) pulling of the anchor bolts, and (b) shearing-off of the anchor bolts Details of the steel bearing plate used at the supports in the aqueduct Box culvert supporting the earthen embankment for the canal. Tilting of the wing wall at the box culvert during 1993 Killari earthquake. View of the collapsed Gawana bridge during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake View of the displaced bearing plates at the supports of the collapsed Gawana bridge during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake ‘View of the severely damaged anchor blocks of the suspension bridge near Harsil during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake. Isoseismal map of the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake [GSI, 1993] View of the Legship Bazaar bridge in Sikkim after the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake (Jain and Tripathi, 1991] View of the damaged deck of the Legship Bazaar bridge in Sikkim during the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake [Jain and Tripathi, 1991]. Details of typical cantilever span of Kaliabhomora (Tejpur) bridge across Brahmaputra river [Prajapati, 1990] Line diagram showing elevation of the prestressed concrete box girder bridge on the river Barak at Sadarghat, Silchar [Prajapati, 1989] Details of the Sonaimukh bridge damage during 1984 Cachar earthquake [Agarwal, 1986] Current Design Spectrum vis-d-vis Recorded Motion in Uttarkashi Earthquake (Seismic Zone IV) View of the distorted railway lines at a bridge severely damaged during the Great Assam earthquake of 1897 (Oldham, 1899]Table 20 3: Summary of Damages to Bridges in India During Past Earthquakes Earthquake Earthquake Comments Information 1997 Jabalpur Magnitude 6.0 ‘* Good number of highway and railway bridges in | Max.Intensity VIII | the area perfomed well | (in a very small area) *One major railway steel through-truss bridge between Tilwara_ and Gwarighat__on| S.E Railway sustained damage to its bearings | - Nine simply supported spans on rocker and | roller bearings, with one 32 mm diameter pin | connecting the knuckle pin and saddle cover plate at each bearing - 32 mm diameter pins fractured at many | supports - spans transversely displaced by about /00 mm - pins replaced and bridge restored in 2 days 1993 Killari Magnitude 6.4 Max Intensity IX © Very small meizoseismal area #No rail network in affected arez ‘Bearing failure and movement of pier in RCC | aqueduct bridge No other major bridge in meizoseismal area | 1991 Uttarkashi Magnitude 6.6 Max Intensity IX ‘© Meizoseismal area in hilly terrain | No rail network in affected area | Collapse of 56m span steel truss bridge at | Gawana - Failure of bearings *Severe damage to anchor blocks of suspension | bridges 1988 Bihar-Nepal Magnitude 6.5 Max.Intensity IX ‘Damage to 12 railway bridges | - Failure of bearings | - Excessive transverse movements at | supports = Cracks in abutments / wing walls * Damages to bridges in Sikkim due to landslides _! 1988 Burma-India | Magnitude 6.8 + Movement of pier and bearing failure in Tejpur | Border Region | Max.Intensity VII_| bridge across Brahmaputra river 1986 Dharmsala | Magnitude 5.7 No information available on seismic Max Intensity VII_| performance of bridges | 1984 Cachar Magnitude 5.6 | ‘Max.Intensity 2? ‘Two RC girder-slab bridges damaged - Failure of bearings - Excessive relative displacement along and transverse to span direction between span and piers, and between suspended and supported spansFigure I : View of the RCC bridge across river Narmada at Mandla showing the RC seismic restrainers at the piers Figure 2 : View of the stee! through-truss bridge across river Narmada between Tilwara and Gwarighat in the Nagpur Division of the S.E.Railway, which sustained damage.Figure 3 » View of (a) the rocker, and (b) the roller bearings, showing the knuckle pin and the saddle cover plate fastened together with a 32 mm mild steel pinT T 7 Jawalga © Lamjan \ ~ / ~ a Ni oR I NN ilanga os ff UE va baladau N. Kumpti a i Jeuri Kanegaon 7 Nandurga \ sani ° o © Ganjankhe Hattarga LS Kast o Sarni Z Zara ee | / a i aka ring? B it peeve | / ‘arasgaon ° ° S: alegaon_/ Mudgar °Sarori qomara 8G ehinchott Rede Chincholi Kate a Naranguaci Hasturi | tausigarh 4, ful 9° 8 7 Chakur 0 vm Se Sangvipety oS \ Salegaon> — SSmygrahal Bet Jawalga / ; ° ° Toramba 4 Kaddara® 7 Hursat i Koral — Ekarga Jaoli ° \ a © Kaldeonimbala © pele 10 15 Lt \ a Km 7 “7 Urgarso @ maIN Hock w-—-— ° 1 76° 45° Figure 4 : Isoseismals for the 1993 Killari earthquake in the worst affected region [GSI, 1995]24 To TALNI BEARING TO GANJANKHED FAILURE 16.5m Typical 5 r Tit \ ve / nis Til cana 1 J EMBANKMENT I 1 NBUTARY] /Sapurwent WALL AD ‘AQUEDUCT- BRIDGE ALONG LEFT BANK CANAL OF TIRNA RIVER OVER A TRIBUTARY g {Y= C4 OUTSIDE DIAPHRAGMS AT BEARINGS SSS < 5 3 SSS PEDESTAL Lb le a "Ale 2. PIERS 3. 2 6 ROCKING BEARING SLIDING BEARING Figure 5 - Aqueduct near Ganjankhed along left bank canal of Tima river over a tributaryFigure 6 - Damage to steel bearings at pier 1 of the aqueduct (a) pulling of the anchor bolts, and (b) shearing-off of the anchor bolts.26 612 fill if bolt hole, etwe s. a a — 10 rt no welding_7 | Elevation ae [25 35 4 150 25 “25 25 200 25 Plan (Note: Ail dimensions are in mm and approximate.) Figure 7 : Details of the steel bearing plate used at the supports in the aqueduct.27 CANAL i, aE \ 7 \ a EARTHEN EMBANKMENT » — |i cuLveRT ' a y EARTHEN EMGANKMENT rommes Se 40mm cuLvent e Lldaded oe “WING: WALL WING) WALL EARTHEN EMBANKMENT CANAL EARTHEN EMBANKMENT ‘ i \ / \ I \ TSI (A wNe Wa Coven oo TRANSVERSE MOVEMENT Figure 8 Box culvert supporting the earthen embankment for the canal.Figure 9 . Tilting of the wing wall at the box culvert during 1993 Killari earthquake.2 1g 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake, Figure 10 : View of the collapsed Gawana bridge durin; plates at the supports of the collapsed Gawana bridge during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake. View of the displaced bearin: Figure 11Figure 12: View of the severely damaged anchor blocks of the suspension bridge near Harsil during 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake.31 eggeere SCALE FI ql Figure 13 : Isoseismal map of the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake (GSI, 1993],Figure 14: View of the Legship Bazaar bridge in Sikkim after the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake (Jain ef al, 1991] Figure 15 : View of the damaged deck of the Legship Bazaar bridge in Sikkim during the 1988 Bihar-Nepal earthquake [Jain and Tripathi, 1991]33 20m TSmwoe por uevel | [age ee wr mee Ress e 7 aS as aca Lag CHRTLEVER ARM PIER CAP 6.5 m 30> i “me soe PIER SHAFT ‘T82Sm LL we ersom aod chnoruswead_o| Loree roven | i moms Ct] winearuuen we | . weut car 2.347 a | oe an Bal toe me wage SECTION | aver mu, ES eee | | . Bom - | SAND FLL, Fs a ream mnooms |: weit cure secrone mama LJ mae Figure 16 : Details of typical cantilever span of Kaliabhomora (Tejpur) bridge across. Brahmaputra river [Prajapati, 1990]. ‘CENTRAL HINGE CONCRETE, Snesriey \, eonsniRerae 6x9 A SReStee sicna® ENO : Figure 17: Line diagram showing elevation of the prestressed concrete box girder bridge on the river Barak at Sadarghat, Silchar (Prajapati, 1989].34 ideco-overaur tener igen arioce 5 rece f] : 2 CART FILL t 5 ? "69 3 we —HE |] tT 3 [ore ace moe AY co rgansvense cS s (a? LONGITUDINAL SECTION ° ts ag te) PLAN view sr oo a : Nagy section '® le not 10 scaLe TALL OMENSIONS IH cu Figure 18: Details of the Sonaimukh bridge damage during 1984 Cachar earthquake [Agarwal, 1986] Typical 5% Spectrum of /—~ Recorded Ground Motion Design Spectrum for 7 Seismic Zone IV ‘Natural Period T (sec) Figure 19: Current Design Spectrum for Seismic Zone IV Vis-a-vis Typical 5% Spectrum of Recorded Ground Motion.Kapp CF pte TPotetching Suey o nde Oreea Cara See 5. Figure 20: View of the distorted railway lines at a bridge severely damaged during the Great ‘Assam earthquake of 1897 [Oldham, 1899].Enclosure BA state-of-the-art review on seismic design of bridges - Part | : Historical development and AASHTO code —————— | Sudhir K. Jain and C.V.R. Murty The basic philosophy of seismic design is the same for all structures. However, there are certain significant and neces- sary differences in the design calculations for bridges as against those for buildings. For instance, the American codes employ different response reduction factors for different bridge components. The distinctly different calculations hve arisen after coaluating the performance of the bridges during past earthquakes in the USA, Japan and other countries, In this paper, the historical development of the American seismic code provisions for design: of bridges is reviewed to highlight the departure from the method of calculations usually adopted {for buildings and the origin of the special calculations for bridges. Further, the paper shows how the seismic perform ‘ance observed in the bridges in USA has been translated into ode provisions in the AASHTO code of USA. Rather poor performance of bridges in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in California, USA, and the 1978 Miyaji-Ken Oki earthquake in Japan clearly revealed that the usual seismic design procedures applicable to buildings cannot be applied to bridges. Bridges pose their own unique problems vis-a-vis seismic performance. AS a result, in the last twenty years, the state-of the-art of earthquake-resistant design of bridges has undergone significant changes and major modifications have taken place in the bridge codes of USA, Japan and New Zea- land. (On the other hand, the provisions on the seismic design of bridges in the Indian codes'? continue to remain rather De Sudhir K Jan, Proessoe, Department of Gi gineering Indian inst of Technology. Kanpur 20806. DrCVR Murty AsistntProfesoe, Deparmentaf Cl Engineering Indian IagetateofTanology, Kanpur 08016 simplistic and in line with whatis perhaps adequate for build- ings. This is reflected in the poor performance of bridges in India’. In this paper, the currert provisions in AASHTO code’, USA are reviewed. A companion paper’ presents a re- view of provisions in another American code, namely CALTRANS code” together with those in the draft New Zea- land code! and the current Indian codes. Background on earthquake-resistant design Earthquake-resistant design is fundamentally very different ‘rom the design for other dynamiceffects, uch as wind loads and vehicle loads. This section reviews some of the basic is sues involved in seismic design. Since the size of a future earthquake and shaking inten- sity expected at a particular site cannot be determined accu- rately the seismic forces are difficult to quantify for the pur- poses of design. Further, the actual forces that can be gener- ated in the structure during an earthquake are very large, and designing the structure to respond elastically against these forces makes the structure to0 expensive. Therefore, in the earthquake-resistant design, postyield inelastic behaviour is usually eed upon to dissipate theinput seismicenergy. Thus, the design earthquake force may be only a fraction of the maximum (probable) forces generated if the structure is to remain elastic during the earthquake. For instance, the de- sign seismic force may at times be say, 8 percent of the maxi- mum elastic seismic force. Thus, earthquake-esistant design and construction does not aim to zchieve a structure that will not get damaged in a strong earthquake having low prob- ability of occurrence; it aims to have a structure that will per- form appropriately and without collapse in the event of such a shaking. es Febraary 198 * The lndian Conerete JournalNatal period T, see Fig 1 A typical average acceleration response spectrum (5 percent damping) of recorded ground motions (in units of Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA), in seismic design, 5 percent-damped elastic acceleration, response spectrum S, is often used. A typical average shape ‘of acceleration response spectrum is shown in Fig 1. The spec- tral value S, corresponding to zero natural period T= 0 is the peak ground acceleration (PGA). The horizontal PGA may be zbout 0.3 g in area sustaining ground shaking of intensity Vil on the Modified Mercali Intensity (IML) scale. Also, the maximum 5, value (for natural period of about 0.1 sto 0.35) is about 25 times PGA in case of 5 percent damped spec trum. Thus, a building, located in seismic zone IV (which corresponds to MMI VIII) and having natural period of 0.2 s may sustain maximum lateral force (iit were to remain elas- tic) of about 75 percent ofits self weight. As against this, In dian seismic code provides the design coefficient as 0.05 g for 2 typical building with fundamental period of 02 s and located in seismic zone IV. The difference in the two num bers, which involves a factor of about 10 to 15, is accounted for by overstrength and ductility in the building Overstrength isthe actual strength of the structure which is usually much higher than the design strength; the differ. ences inherently introduced in the code-designed structures Numerous factors contribute to this. For example, load fac- tors and strength reduction factors used in design, lower grav Joads present at the time of the earthquake than assumed in the design, actual strengths of materials which are often larger than characteristic values used in design, larger mem- ber sizes and higher reinforcement provided than required from strength considerations, material strengths under cy- clicearthquake conditions being higher than under seatic con- ditons, and contribution of non-structural and structural non- seismic elements to lateral resistance. The value of overstrength in buildings varies widely. For instance, values, in the range of 28 to 15.0 have been reported for one type of, reinforced concete (RC) moment resisting frames’. Ductility is the capacity of a structure (or a member) to undergo deformation beyond yield without losing much of its load carrying capacity. Higher the ductility of the struc- ture, more isthe reduction possible in its design seismic force over what one gets or linear elastic responce. In well-designed buildings, a ductility reduction factor of upto £3 can be achieved. ‘One can now define the response reduction factor 3 as the product of overstrength and ductility reduction factor, ‘The design seismic force for the structure can be taken as the maximum seismic force expected, ifthe structure respends elastically, divided by the response reduction factor. Thus, with an overstrength of 3.0 and the ductility reduction facior of 40, one could design the building for one-twelfth of she ‘maximum elastic force. ‘The design horizontal force of the order of five to twelve percent of the weight of the building, originally came =om the actual performance of buildings during the damasing earthquakes in Japan in the early part of this century actual ground motions, caused by strong earthquake shak- ing, were recorded only later. Only recently it has become possible to explain why design based on such a small ‘ac- tion of the maximum elastic forces was suificient in buld- ings, As will be seen subsequently the earlier bridge codes, adopted seismic design criteria similar to that for buildings: this required that the bridge as a whole be designed for percent of its weight acting in the 2orizontal direction. Fail- lures of bridges in the US and Japan in the seventies ciezrly showed that this was not sufficient The bridges do not rave same amount of ductility and overstrength in all parts othe structureasin case of buildings. Forinstance, the overstrength, available at she connections between the superstructure and substructure is only nominal and there is hardly any ducal- ity available at the connections. Therefore, the connections in bridges are to be designed for much higher levels of seismic force. The concept of capacity design is extensively used in the design of individual bridge components. A brief review of the principal of capacity design is given in the next sec- tion. Capacity design Consider a structure having both bitle and ductile elements AS load on this structure is incrensed, ifthe one elements fail while the ductile elements are sll below yield, the suc. ‘ural failure wil be brittle, However if it can be ensured sat the ductile elements will yield prot to failure of brite ele ments, the post-yield behaviour ofthe structure will be cuc- tile. The concept of capacity design is used to ensure rost yield ductile behaviour ofa structure having both ductile and brite elements. ‘The concept can be explained with the example of a cain under tensile load, Fig 2. One obvious way to ensure ductile behaviour of the chain isto simply ensure that all the links in the chain are ductile. Let us say that itis too expensive. or simply infeasible, to have all the links as ductile. Assume one link is made of a ductile material (sy, mild steel) and the rest, are of a brittle material (say, cast iron). The conventional de- sign of the chain is as follows. ‘+ The most reasonable assessment of required Fig2 A chain under tensile loading The indian Concrete Joarnal* Februar? 1996:22 strength of the chain is made. + Some factors of safety are applied on this force and on strength of the two types of links, and the links are designed. ‘The actual strength of the individual links may be differ- ent from the calculated strength. As load on the chain goes beyond the design load, there is a possibilty that failure may ‘occur in any of the links and once any one link fails, the en tire chain fails. If one of the brittle links fail first, the chain will fail in a brittle manner and vice-versa. However, to ensure that the chain behaves in a ductile ‘manner, it can be designed as follows: * assess the required strength of the chain. * apply suitable factors of safety on this load and. ‘material properties, and design the ductile link carefully so that it will behave in a ductile man- + assess the upper bound on load that the ductile link can sustain before failure, considering fac- tors of safety, overstrength in the link, its strain hardening, etc. * design the brite inks for the upperbound load calculated in the previous step. ‘This design will ensure that the brittle elements will re ‘ain elastic at all leads prior tothe failure ofthe chain. Thus, the brittle failure mode has been prevented. This procedure is referred to as the capacity design procedure” Historical developments of seismic bridge codes of USA It is of interest to review the development of bridge codes in the United States. There are two major US codes of interest for seismic design of bridges, namely, Standard Specification for Highway Bridges by the American Association of State Highway and Transport Otfcials (AASHTO), and the Bridge Design Specifications of the California Department of Trans- portation (CALTRANS). The following review is based on an unpublished note! and section 1.2 “background” in the AASHTO code. ‘The frst provisions in USA for considering aseismic de- sign of bridges appeared in the AASHTO 1958 standard speci- fication for highway bridges. These required that irrespec. tive of the location of the bridge and seismic risk, the design earthquake force V be taken as: v = RW, @ where W ~ total weight of the structure, and k= 002 for bridges supported on spread footings ‘on soils having an allowable bearing capac- ity greater than 35 tons/fe, ‘= 0.04 for the spread footings on soils having an allowable bearing capacity less than 35 tons/ fe, and = 0.06 for pile footings. On the other hand, prior to the 1971 San Fernando (Cali fornia) earthquake, the California State Division of Highways specified that all structures, except underground structures and retaining walls, shall be designed to resist earthquake forces EQ applied horizontally at their centre of gravity. Fur. ther, this force shall be distributed to supports according to their relative stitiness. Here, the design earthquake foree £Q was specified as : EQ = KCD2002p, @ where K = 1.33 for bridges whare a wall with a heightto- length ratio of 25 or less resists horizontal forces applied along the wall. 1.00 for bridges where single columns or piers with a height-to-length ratio of 25 ot less re sist horizontal forces. ~ 0.67 for bridges where continuous frames re sist horizontal forces applied along the frame. 1-1 erage si In the above, coefficient K reflects the energy absorption capability of the structure depending on its substructure; Cis a coetficent representing the structares stiffness; T isthe natu. ral period of the structure; D is the dead load reaction of the structure; and Pis the lateral force required for one inch hori zontal deflection of the structure. Further, it was also added that special consideration be given to structures founded on soft materials capable of large earthquake movements, and to large structures having massive piers. The poor performance of bridges constructed with the above criteria during the San Ferando (California) earth. 03, C,, need not exceed 20 A. + When soil type is I, for modes other than the funda~ ‘mental mode, which have periods less than 03 5, C,, may be determined in accordance with the following formula: C= A08+40T,) a + For structures in which any T, exceeds 4.05, the value of C,,, for that mode may be determined in accord ance With the following formula @) Fig 4 shows the response spectrum shapes for dizerent soil conditions as per the above. Combination of orthogonal seismic forces The clastic seismic forces and moments resulting from analy ses in the two perpendicular direction are combined 3y the “100 percent + 30 percent rule” Design forces for SPC A The connections of the superstrucure to the substruct=: are to be designed to resistin the restrained directions a horizon- February 1998 * The Indian Conerte Journal atal seismic force equal to 020 times the dead load reaction force. Thus even though the bridges in SPC 4 do not require detailed seismic analysis, their connections are still to be de signed for 0.2 g coefficient. ‘Tablet: Analysis procedure AASHTO 1992" “Semie Reser Bridges Irelar™ bridges etormance ch ‘ ‘teeny ovr seans__2or morespous 8 1 1 c 1 2 Se {Sap erg ore eer Monies pec eatat W riacee aaa See es ogee ecm ree, aa” igs any bet done taster te Design forces for SPC 8 All elements of the bridge, except the foundation, are to be Gesigned for force obtained by dividing the maximum elas- tic force by the response modification factor for that element. Foundations (except the pile bent) are to be designed for the ‘maximum elastic force divided by half the R factor for the substructure (column or pier) attached to the foundation. This, ‘means that design seismic force for the foundation is twice the seismic force for the coluinn/pier that it supports. For pile bents, the foundation is to be designed for the same seis- ric force as the column or the pier that it is supporting, Design forces for SPC Cand D For SPC C and D, two sets of design forces are specified. The first st is based on the maximum elastic force divided by the response modification factor for the concerned element (ex- cept for foundations for which the response modification fac- toris taken as 1.0 for this calculation; that is, maximum elas- tic force is taken for the foundation). And, the second set is based on the maximum seismic force that can be developed inthe element considering the capacity design principles. The code then specifies either of the two for design of a particular component. Usually, the capacity design forces are lower than. the alternative forces, and are recommended for design. These tivo sets are first described followed by the specifications for different components. Fig 4 Design spectrum used in Procedure 2for AASHTO 1992 @) Design force set 1 For al the elements of the bridge, except for the founda- ‘ion, this force is obtained by dividing the maximum elastic force by the response modification factor for that element For the foundation, the design foxce for this set is calculated using Rel, that is, maximum elastic force. (ii) Design force set 2 ‘The design force for this set is that resulting from plastic hinging at the top and/or bottom of the coluran (capacity design concept). The code provides detailed procedure for both single column/ pier situations and bents with two or sore columns. Single column/pier situations The capacity design force 's tobe calculated for the two principal axes ofa colurmn and in the weak direction of a pier or bent. (i) The overstrength plastic moment capacity of the column is determined. (ii) The shear force in column corresponding to the overstrength plastic moment capacity is calcu lated. (iii) The axial force in the columns is the unreduced maximum and minimum seismic axial load plus that due to the dead loads. Multiple columns/piers situations: For bents with two or more columns, forces are to be calculated both in the plane of the bent and perpendicular tothe plane of the bent. Per ppendicular to the plane of the beat, the forces shall be calcu- lated as for single columns discussed above. in The plane of the bent, the forces are to be calculated in the following man- (i) Overstrength plastic moment capacity of the columns is determined. This is assessed assum- ing that the columns are carrying only the dead loads and there is no axial load due to seismic condition. (ii) The shear force in individual columns of the bent js calculated corresponding to the overstrength plastic moment capacity. (ii) Column shears calculated above are summed to obtain the maximum shear force that the bent can take. (iv) The bent shear force calculated above is applied to the top of the bent (that i, at the centre of mass of the superstructure above the bent). For this condition, the axial force in the columns is determined. (2) Using the above axial force in the columns plus the axial load due to dead loads, a revised overstrength moment capacity of the columns is calculated. Now steps (ii) to (v) are repeated, “The Laan Concrete Journal" February 1998until the bent shear force value has converged (to say within 10 percent) (vi) Now the forces in the individual columns in the plane ofthe bent corresponding to column hing ing are: 1. Axial force in the columns is that due to the dead loads plus the converged values under seismic loads as calculated above. 2. Moment in the columns are given by the column overstrength plastic moments cor- responding to the axial force in (1) above. 43. Shear in the columns is calculated corre- sponding to the moment obtained in (2) above, Column and pile bent design force (Axial force: The maximum and minimum de- sign force is either (i) maximum elastic design values plus that due to dead loads, o (i) value corresponding to plastic hinging calculated in design force set 2 plus that due to dead loads. Lower of these two can be used; the latter val- ues will generally be lower. (i) Moments: Design moments in columns will be as per design force set 1, thats, maximum elas- ‘ic moment divided by the response modifica tion factor (iii) Shear: Design shear will be either (a) maximum elastic shear force (calculated taking response modification factor of 1.0), or (b} that corre- sponding to plastic hinging of the column as cal- cilated in design force set 2. Lower of the two values can be used in design; usually the latter value will be lower. column is being designed for the reduced moment, but the axial and shear forces on the column are being calculated by the capacity design principles. Ths is because shear failure is to be prevented as itis brite failure. Similarly, column failure under axial load is brite, and must be avoided. Pier design torces Design forces for the piers will be as per the design force set L; that is, maximum elastic forces divided by the response modification incor. However, if the per is being designed as, 3 column in its weak direction, then all design requirements of the columns discussed above will be used for the weak direction, Connection design forces between superstructure and columns, and between columns and foundations ‘These will be lower of (i) those as per design force set 1, and (i) forces developed at the top and bottom of the columns tetst pes | rr rersc CH ——S Fig§ Dimensions for minimums supportiength requirements (AasHtTo, 1992) due to column hinging as determined in design force set 2 Of course, the forces in (ii) here are to be calculated only after the column design is complete and the overstreng-h mo- ‘ments are calculated. Here, while forces as per (i) are =gher than the maximus elastic force (because the response =odi- fication factor is less than 1.0 for the connections), those in (Gi) are as per capacity design. Usually those by the cazacity| design being lower will govern. Longitudinal linkage forces Positive linkage is to be provided by means of ties, cables, dampers or an equivalent mechanical means between the adjacent sections of the superstructure at supports ard ex- pansion joints within a span. Freon isnot to be considered a positive linkage. Where linkage is provided at colurans or piers the linkage of each span may be attached to the col- tumn or pier rather than between adjacent spans. Linkages ae to be designed for a minimum force of acceleration coef- ficient times the weight ofthe lighter ofthe two adjoining spans or parts of the structure. Design force for hold down devices In continuous structures, hold-down devices are to be pro- vvided at all supports or hinges # the vertical seismic iorce due to longitudinal horizontal sesmic load opposes and ex- ceeds 50 percent of the dead load reaccon. The minimum, design force for the hold down device is szeater of (i) 10 per- cent of the dead load reaction that would be exerted # the span were simply supported, an¢ (i) 12 mes the net zolift force (that is, vertical upward seismic force minus the dead. load reaction) Foundation design forces The foundation (including footings, ple caps and piles) are to be designed for the either (i) forces ceiculated as per de- sign force set | (which i equal tothe maximum elastic orce), oF (i) forces that develop at the base of the column come sponding to column plastic hinging (caiculated as per coac- ity design principle in design fore set 2). The lower of the two can be used, usually the later forces will be lowe —_—————— February 1998 The indian Coneete Journal 8s Fi SriRelative displacements and seating widths ‘The structural configuration of bridges in the USA fall into ‘nwo general categories, namely monolithic systems and girder bearing systems. While both systems appear to be equally lly resistant, enginee-s accept that monolithic super ble to reduce the joint pull apart and subsequent collapse. In girder bearing systems, relative displacements between superstructure and substructure re ‘quire three aspects to be carefully attended to. Firstly, under seismic iorces acting transverse to the lon- gitudinal girders, uplift forces may be generated at the Sup- Ports. Special vertical hold down devices are necessary to increase stability of the superstructure against overturning. Secondly, under seismic forces acting along the longite- dinal girders, adjacent superstructure units at supports and at expansion joints within the span may move away from, each other by undesirable amounts. Special horizontal link- age elements are necessary’ to keep these units together. Thirdly, under seismic forces acting along the longitudi- nai girders, the relative longitudinal motion between the su- petstnicture and substructure may be larger than the avail- able width of support on top ofthe substructure (that is, pier or column), At least, a minimum seating width atop the sub- structure for the superstructure must be ensured in accord ance with the actual displacements envisaged during the maximum credible earthquake, and not in accordance with the displacements calculated under the design loads which coud be smaller. In girder bearing systems, the need for mini- mum seating width specifications draws importance from, -mumerous loss-of-span type of failures experienced in the past earthquakes, The code requires that atthe expansion ends of the girders, atleast a minimum support length (in mm) meas- ured from the end of the girder to the face of the pier or abut- ment, Fig 5, shall be provided, given by No = 203 +167 +666 for low seismic per- formance cat -gories A and B N = 305 +250 L + 10.00 H for high seismic per- formance categories C and D © where L is the total length of superstructure between ex- pansion joints (in m) and H is the height of the column or pier (in m). Conclusions It is necessary to recognise that redundancy is rather low in bridges unlike in buildings. For this reason, the seismic de- sign lateral forceis kept higher for bridges than that for build- ings. Further, the experiences of bridge failures during earth- quakes show that strength criteria alone is insufficient in as- suring good seismic performance; deformational aspects are as important as the strength criteria. Since bridges are com- posed of a set of components that are serially connected to each other with relatively very few support points on the ground, a strength hierarchy is required to be developed in these components based on the concept of capacity design. It is ensured that ductile modes of failure precede the brittle modes of failure. The force transier from superstructure to substructure through the connections (bearings) are accounted for keeping in mind that bridge components resist the forces during an earthquake through ineiastic action, and hence they are designed for only a fraction cf the actual forces appear- ing on them during seismic shzizng. However, connections do have their responsibility of s=nsferring the actual forces generated in the superstructure othe substructure. Thus, the connections have to be designed forthe actual forces (or more) and not reduced forces. The A*STO code has very nicely, translated the experiences of pe-ormance of bridges during past earthquakes into practical cesign provisions, Acknowledgements This study was carried out with nancial support from the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of india; the au- thors are grateful for the Suppo: (fo be continued) References 51853-1984, nd standerd wr for erthust esis design of Fraires Buren of indian Standards 98, New Det. 2 RCG-1956,Stenderd specie snsand code of prac road Bridges ‘Sl lak and stress, Indian Roses Congres, 1985, New Delhi 3) MURTY,CV.R, and] AIN,SK, Seismic ssdormance of bridgesin india dur ing past earthquakes, Report submites = Minty of Surface Tonpart, Naw ‘ath March 196, 4. MURTY CVR, and JAIN, SK, Selsmicrerfomance of bedgesin ina dur ing past earthguaes, The Bridge and Sractral Engine, Jourl of ING. TADSE New Deli Vo 27, no Decexser 1997, pp 457, AASHTO, Senda specification ioc design of highogy bie, “Tanatiean Asoation of State Highwa end Trnsportaion OsScas, Wash ington, DC, USA, 1992 6 JAIN,SK and MURTY, CXR. Astatet the at review of stmic design of bridges - Part: CALTRANS, TNZ and Indian codes, companion paper ‘under pubcton in The Indio Concer, 1998, CALTRANS, Bridge design seston, Calflora Deparent of ‘Fanaporation Sacramento, CA, USAL 91 5 “TNZ Bdge Manual, Bridge xual: Design end eeu, Tanit ‘New Zealand, Wallington, New Zalae 1991 9. JAIN.SK and NAVIN, R Selmicoveccengthin einorod concret ames, Journal of Stature Engineering, ASCE “a 121, No 3, 1985, pp 580-85 10, PAULAY 7, and PRIESTLEY. MN. Seam design ofr concrete and -nasonry buildings, on Wiley and Sons New York 1952 1. IMBSEN, RA, Sesmi design of tries story unpublished note, 2 ATC, Seamic dsm guideline fr highway bridges, Apis Tech: ‘ology Counc 555 Trin Delphin Deve Sut 80, Redwood Ci, CASHOSS. 2101, USA. 1981 12. ____ATC3.06, Tentative proton = the develop of seo repel ‘onefrtuasing, Applied Technology Cuncl 555 Twan Dephin Drive Suit 530, Retwood Cit, CANO 2101, SA. 1978 14 _18:861978, Coe of practi fe =sm and winforced ener, Bazea indlanSaandards, New Delt 1978. 5 1S 139202093, Inn standard ae of practice for ductile detaing of ‘Hire concte member sue oex-ude recs, Brea oflndan Sand rds, New Del 1953, ‘Te lndan Conerete Journal *Febreary 1998A state-of-the-art review on seismic design of bridges - Part Il: CALTRANS, TNZ and Indian codes Sudhir K. Jain and C.V.R. Murty In a companion 2aper', the historical development ofthe seis- mic design provisions for bridges in USA are studied and it is shown how =e experience of the performance of bridges during past zarthquakes has been translated into the AASHTO code. In this paper, code provisions on seismic design of bridges in California, USA (CALTRANS code) and New Zealand “TNZ code) are reviewed in detail, together with those in the Indian codes (IS : 1893-1984 and IRC : 6- 1966). In the American and New Zealand codes, more real- istic ground accelerations are explicitly considered in design, * suitable response reduction factors are used to account for ductility and ocerstrength, and the principle of capacity de- sign is liberally used. This results in a bridge structure which is likely to dispiay ductile behaviour in the event of very strong shaking. Moreover, these codes provide specifications for vertical hoid-down devices and horizontal linkage ele- ‘ments; these devices provide positive anchorage and stability against lateral and longitudinal displacements and against vertical uplift. Finally, to prevent loss-of-span type of col- lapses, these codes require minimum seating widths. Ibis seen that, generally, the seismic design force for bridges in the current Indian codes is extremely ioc, particularly for the connections (such is not the case for the buildings). The In- dian codes require major changes regarding (i) more real- istic earthquake ground accelerations (ii) consideration of flexibility of siructure in design force calculation, and (ii) provision of proper response reduction factors for differ- ent elements of the bridges to account for ductility and ocerstrength. Also, there is an urgent need to incorporate provisions on vertical hold-down devices and horizontal link- age elements, ard minimum seat widths. rSudhi K Jain Desarmentof Givi Engineering indian insite of Technol co: Kanpur Kanga 99016 DrC¥R. Mur, Derrenent of Civil Engineering indian institu of Technal= ge Kanpur Kanga 28016 ‘The historical development of the seismic design codes ‘or bridges in USA has been presented in a companion paper’ along with a review of the AASHTO code of USA*. This per presents a review of the CALTRANS code” of USA. ‘he Transit NZ code' of New Zealand, and the Indian codes" This paper shows that the New Zealand code has the ‘zast gap between state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. For instance, it uses an inelastic design spectrum to specify -he seismic design force. Such an approach is currently not 3e- ing followed in the design codes of USA. also, the use of a soil amplification factor as a function of the natural period of the bridge system is a special featur in the CALTRANS code; in the AASHTO code, the site coetfcient which reflects the type of sol is independent of the natural period of the briege system. In light of the performance of bridges in India 4ur- ing the past earthquakes* and the above mentioned review of the design codes of USA and New Zealand, the paper rises the relevant issues for consideration in the next revision of the Indian code provisions for seismic design of bridges CALTRANS code (USA) This standard specification is published by the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) for the purzose of seismic design of freeway /highway bridges inthe Stazeof California, USA. This code has been a model code for any others in the profession of code development. Design philosophy In this code, the design force is obtained in two steps. Fist, the elastic forces generated in the members and connectors under the maximum credible earchquake are obtained. Then, depending on the capability of a component to provide tile behaviour, the above maximur: elastic forces are divided by the reduction factor of that component to arrive at its de- sign forces. Thus, different compenents of a bridge are ognised to have different ductility and overstrength in tem. Since inelasticities are expected in substructures, the concept Maren 1998 ¢ The Indian Concrete Journal weof capacity design is used in the design of substructures and foundations. ‘The CALTRANS code is primarily based on the strength criteria, There are no provisions to control the lateral displacements (drift) in bridge structures. However, provi- sions accounting for relative displacements between adjacent components of the superstructure and between the super- structure and supports are available. These specifications focus on the design of horizontal linkage elements between adjacent spans or on the design of vertical hold-down de- vices at the supports, be it piers or abutments. Seismic forces are required to be determined for two in- dependent loading conditions in perpendicular directions, usually along longitudinal and transverse axes, of the bridge. Design force and reduction factors The elastic response spectra (5 percent damping) at the site for the maximum credible event(s) are obtained by the prod- uct of peak rock accelerations 4, acceleration spectra in rock R, and soil amplification factor 5, described in the following, ‘subsections, Peak rock accelerations, A Seismic risk at different locations in California is specified in CALTRANS code through contour maps where the contours, joinall locations of equal peak rock acceleration, that is, maxi- ‘mun expected acceleration A at bedrock or rock-like mate- rial. Since local soil conditions will influence the accelera~ tion atasite, these contours are prepared assuming rock strata. ‘The effect of local soil conditions is incorporated in design through soil amplification factor. The peak rock acceleration, contours are drawn up to 0.7g at 0.1g intervals. Acceleration spectra in rock, The code provides normalised acceleration spectra R in rock, {or the different ranges of peak rock accelerations, Fig 1, a a function of the natural period of the bridge T. Note that the maximum spectral amplification used in these curves is 2.6. Also, the shape of spectrum appears different from usual because (i) the natural period is plotted on a log scale, and (i) the natural period axis starts at 0.1 s. The elastic spec- trum for 5 percent damping on rock can thus be obtained for any location in California by multiplying the peak rock ac- celeration, A with the normalised rock spectra, R. Soil amplification factor, S Depending on the type and depth of soil over bedrock, mo- tions at the ground are modified om what is produced at the rock level. Thus, the soil ampiiication factor S, whichis, the ratio of the peak acceleration atthe ground to that at the bedrock, has been developed. The CALTRANS code cetego- rizes soil sites into four categories: thickness of alluvium of 0-10 feet, 10-80 feet, 80-150 feet, arc > 150 feet. For alluvium, thickness of 0-10 feet, $= 10. Fer the three categories, the plots of $ versus T for different values of peak rock acceiera- tion (eanging from 01g to 0.7g) are given in Fig 2. Fundamental natural period of bridge, T While using the equivalent static nethod, the fundamental natural period, in seconds, of the sridge as a whole in any direction may be estimated by the relation 5 a tate Fig 1 Normalised rock spectra A® Fig 2 Normalised rock spectra A? ‘The Indi Concrete Journal * March 1998 Ceee where Wis the dead load of the bridge and P is the total ‘uniform force applied to the superstructure which will cause ‘one-inch maximum horizontal deilection in the considered direction of loading, Thus, P represents the total stitiness of the superstructure, supporting members and surrounding soil. Ductility and risk reduction factor, Z Seismic design forces and moments ‘or individual members as per the CALTRANS code shall be determined by dividing the individual elastic seismic member forces with the appro- priate ductility and risk reduction factor, Z. This factor which is similar to the response reduction factor discussed earlier in this report, is shown in Fig 3 for the different components of the bridge. Facior Z accounts for ductility and risk to dam- age as seen in the past earthquakes. -It was seen that low- level bridges with periods less than 0.6 s were much less vul- nerable to collapse than the more flexible bridges, ‘The Z factor is taken to be a higher value for low-height bridge superstructures owing to favourable experiences in past earthquakes. Hence, the Z factor is gradually reduced ‘with increase in T beyond 0.6 s. This implies higher design force for bridge superstructures that are higher. For a single- column bent, 6) if Ts06s T-06 if T>06s Be @ Z={ 6 1- and for a multi-column bent s \ tts0ss T-06 | Z=\ 3{1-7=28 | 24 J if T>06s @) The Z factor for substructures, that is, piers, abutment walls and wingwals is taken as 20. These elements have | Tei veiniorea concrete shear bays eas | i [| Fig 3 Ductility and risk reduction factor Z° ‘much less ductility and no redundancy. Hence the Z values are lower than those used in case of superstructures. The Z factor for restraining devices is also independent of the natu- ral period of the structure. The value of for hinge restrained ‘able is taken as 1.0 and that for wel-restrained concrete shear keys is taken a5 0.8. These values indicate that restrainers and shear keys are being designed for the maximum expected elastic forces or more. These low values ensure that the com- ponents are not stressed beyond yield. Failure ofthese co ponents may lead to collapse conditions and thus lower Z values are used. Method of analysis The CALTRANS code permits tve methods of analysis, ‘namely, equivalent static analysis and dynamic analysis, de- pending on the nature of the bridge. The design forces may be estimated by using the ARS srectra and reducing the m ments and forces by the ductility and tisk -eduction factor. Z. However the deflections determined by using the ARS spec- tra can be assumed to be realistic and are not to be reduced. Equivaient static analysis In case of relatively simple bridges, which have well-balanced stifiness, supporting bents (or substructures) of approximately equal stitiness, litte or no skew, tangent or very large radius of alignment, relatively light subsructures and no interme- diate expansion joints, the equivalent static analysis may be used even though the dynamic analysis method is preferred, When using this method of analysis, a minimum value of ARS equal t0 0.4 is imposed. However, there is no such mini- mum force requirement when usiag dynamic analysis. On the other hand, the equivalent static analysis is the preferred method to obtain forces in hinge restrainers. ~ The seismic load may be assumed as an equivalent uni- form static load equal to ARS times W, applied at the vertical centre of gravity of the total bridge structure. The distribu. tion of this seismic force to individual members shall be in accordance to the stiffness of the superstructure, substruc- and the restraint at the abutments. The elastic forces ‘computed in the different bridge components are then di- vided by the adjustment factor Z; the forces so obtained are to be used as design forces. Dynamic analysis Bridge structures with irregular configuration or support stiffnesses are required to be analysed by this method. The method employs modal analysis of the lumped mass space frame of the bridge subjected to gound motion. The ground motion may be given by the given response spectrum (ARS spectrum) or it may be an equivalent site-specific elastic re sponse spectrum (5 percent damping). The model of the bridge structure shall also inclucethe restraint offered by the soil. This dynamic analysis technique is particularly preferred, to asceriain the forces and momen’ in column members and transverse keys. ‘The comurientary on the CALTRANS code clearly states that the assumption that the usually recommended dynamic analysis procedure (which is an elastic procedure) will allow March 1998 * The Indian Coacrete Joursal it a)the prediction of earthquake forces very accurately is not cor- rect At best, elastic dynamic analysis can provide a good distribution of the forces in the bridge structure and a gen- eral estimate of deformations that can be expected. How- ever issues like cumulative damage need to be included to refine the dynamic analysis to give “reasonable” results. Combination of orthogonal seismic forces To account for the directional uncertainty of the earthquake ground motion, fwo load cases are recommended. The seis- mic loads are calculated individually along two orthogonal directions. Usually, one may consider the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis of the bridge as these orthogonal di- rections. These forces are then combined by “100 percent + 30 percent rule” to obtain design forces. This ruleis explained in the following and illustrated in Fig 4 The forces and moments resulting from the two analyses of the bridge system subjected to the seismic load along the two orthogonal directions, say direction 1 and direction 2, shall be combined as below @) Seismic load case 1: Combine the forces and mo- ments resulting from the analysis with seismic load along direction 1 with 30 percent of the corresponding forces and ‘moments from the analysis with seismic load along direc- tion 2, We wy oar, | cue cn te cuenta nme fore Goepons eee terecy be des oe mrewtamces at Slon Caeegnave mene wa Geo mat ey cme ‘Rem seer Cae cn senconmreio eft ee nc The Tau age ef eee twee AS foe ae Titiane ere iammsctom Fig 4 Combination of orthogonal Gi) Seismic load case 2 : Combine the forces and mo- ments resulting from the analysis with seismic load along direction 2 with 30 percent of the corresponding forces and moments from the analysis with seismic load along direc- tion 1. Special cases The code requires that all bridge structures at sites adiacent to faults at sites with unusual geologic conditions, unusual bridge structure types, and bridges whose fundamental natu ral periods are greater than 3 5, be treated as special cases. The design forces for such bridgesshall be based on approved site-specific soil response and dynamic analysis. Restraining features to limit relative displacements Monolithic superstructures are preferable to reduce the joint pull-apart and subsequent collapse. However, when gisder- bearing systems are used, protection against relative displacements between the superstructure and substructure is provided for through special vertical hold-down devices, horizontal hinge restrainers and fixed restraining devices by “design force” clauses. Interestingly, despite the numerous Joss-of-span type of failures in California, there is no require ‘ment of minimum seating width in the CALTRANS code. However, Memo io Designers of CALTRANS on abutments, ‘mentions AASHTO requirements on minimum seat widths. Further, CALTRANS uses a 24 inch minimum seat on all bridges, and additional seat width at abutments on high skew? Restrainers along longitudinal and transverse directions Positive longitudinal restraint is required to be provided be- tween adjacent sections of superstructure at all intermediate expansion joints. These restraints for example, hinge restain- ersor fledble single-direction restaining devices, are expected. to limit the superstructure displacement. The forces in these restrainers are to be determined using the equivalent static method. When estimating the total stiffness of the frame ‘moving away from the joint, the longitudinal stiffness of one adjacent superstructure frame, restraint at the abutment, gaps at the joints and gaps at the restrainers are to be considered. Further, in case of simple multise spans, only one span is, required to be considered at a time. However, the code re quires that forces in shear keys and other types of fixed re- straining devices be determined by using the dynamic analy- In single span bridges, detailed analysis is not required to estimate the forces in restrainers. The forces in the connec- tions between superstructure and substructure are required to be evaluated as per equivalent static method. When su- perstructures are fixed to abutments in the transverse direc- tion, their natural period of vibration may be taken as zero. Restrainers in vertical direction Where the vertical seismic force opposes and exceeds 50 per cent of the dead-load reaction at any support or intermediate im The Indian Concrete Journal * March 1998hinge, the CALTRANS code requires that vertical hold-down devices be provided at that suppor. The minimum design force for such devices shall be the greater of (i) 10 percent of the dead load reaction, and (i) 1.2 times the net uplift force. Substructure design The design of the substructure components is based on the capacity design concept. In calculating the probable plastic ‘moment capacities at the base of the column, the possible overstrength in materials beyond their specified nominal char- acteristic strengths are to be used. For reinforced concrete columns, a strength reduction factor of 1.3 is recommended for sein the calculation of overstrensth plastic hinge capac- ity from the nominal moment capacities. This strength re- Fig § Potential platie hinge locations and the method for caleulating the design shear> ‘duction factor of 13 for reinforced concrete columns increases, the ultimate strength, as against the values less than 1.0 nor- mally used in design. In the CALTRANS code, this method of determining the plastic hinge capacities is uniformly ap- plicable to all bridges in the State of California. ‘The code specifies that columns in substructures be de- signed for the following loads. Design moment ‘The design moment for column is obtained by dividing the seismic member forces by the appropriate factor, Z. Shear force The design shear force is determined from the probable plas- tic moment of the column section and the distance between, the plastic hinges. Some examples of potential plastic hinge locations are also discussed in the commentary of the code, Fig 5. The length of the plastic hinge region may be assumed to be the largest of () largest lateral dimensions of the pris- matic portion of the column, (i) one-sixth the length of the column, and (ii) 24 inches. In case of flared columns, the length of plastic hinge regions may be assumed tobe the above quantity enhanced by the flare length. Axial force ‘The design axial force is the unfa:tored dead load axial force plus or minus the axial force developed resulting from the formation of the plastic hinges in the substructure. Foundation de: Damages in foundations are no: easily detectable. Hence, unfavourable brittle failures in them, if any, are avoided by designing them for forces which are envisaged correspond ing to the structure undergoing the maximum possible duc- tile response (that is, the conceot of capacty design). The CALTRANS code requires that the design forces for founda- tions of bents and piers shall be the smaller of (i) the maxi ‘mum elastic force, and (ii) the force at the foundation due to formation of plastic hinge at the base of the column in the substructure. The code specifies that the ultimate sol or pile capacity bbe used for resisting the seismic foundation loads. TNZ Bridge Manual (New Zealand) This draft specification is published by Transit New Zealand (the organisation in-charge of rational roads), for the pur- pose of seismic design of highway bridges in New Zealand. The Bridge Manual of Transit New Zealand, here-in-after called the TNZ code, today stands as the design code with the least gap between the states-of-the-art and of-the-practice in so far as the seismic design of bridges is concerned. Design philosophy The TNZ code is a strong advorate of the concept of capacity design. The design approach iavolves the choice of an in- tended mode of structural behaviour during strong shaking, followed by design and detailing of members to ensure that March 1998 * The Indian Concrete Joarsal 133the structure behaves as intended. Sufficient strength capac- ity is provided elsewhere in the structure to ensure that the chosen energy dissipation mechanism does indeed develop in the event of a major earthquake. The TNZ code recognizes the need to calculate the design force due to ground motion in the two orthogonal directions to the bridge to account for the directional uncertainty of the ground motion. However, zo combination of these foes is specified. Importance categories and risk factor, F ‘The TNZ code defines three importance categories for bridges depending on the average number of vehicles per day ex- pected atthe time of design on location vis-a-vis motorw: and railways, and on whether on anational or provincial hi ‘way. Based on this importance category, a factor to be used i determining the design force is introduced keeping in mind a different seismic return period for each of the categories. This factor, named the risk factor R, takes a value of 0.9, 1.1 and 1.3, the last one being the value for the most important bridges, implying higher design seismic force for them. Zone factor, Z ‘Azone factor Z, which reflects the peak ground acceleration at the site, is given in the form of a contour map for the New Zealand islands. The TNZ code takes a minimum value of Z as 0.4 and a maximum value of 08. This implies that peak ground accelerations in the range of 04 g to 0.8 g are envis- ‘aged in the country Ductilty, inelastic design spectra and soil type ‘The TNZ code discusses in detail the different types of struc- tures from the point of view of ductility. It requires designers touse the actual characteristic of the structure to evaluate the design displacement ductility factor u Here, indirect refer- cence is made to the use of nonlinear analysis in obtaining ‘The maximum allowable design displacement ductility fac- tor jt is shown in Table 1 as a function of the different rein- ‘Table: Maximum allowable values of design displacement ductility fae- tor [TNZ, code] Ener crpstioe em Doct or partials doce struc (Tepe) in which plastic hinges format design od iter above eround or normal (or mean tie) waterlvel Duce or parally duel tractus pe). in which plastic hinges 4 formin reasonably accessible posions esample less than 2m below * ‘pound, butt below nommal (or ean ide) water level Dac or partially duce struct Type!) in which plastichinges 3, sre paces, orming more thax m below ground or below nor sal (or mean ie) wate level of: level reasonably predictable Parialy dca truce (Type) Spread fotings designs io rock (ules larger valve can be speci also) Hingng in racked pes in which, fowces “Locked” structure T=0) 1 lati structure ‘Nowe: The design duality factor fr sractures of limited capaaiy or demand is tobe detemined from acual structure characteristics forcement detailing schemes recommended in the reinforced concrete code". Fig 6 gives examples of maximum value of ductility allowed by TNZ. The TNZ code specifies the basic acceleration coefficient C, which reflects the response amplification (due to the struc- ture flexibility) and the response reduction factor (due to duc- tility and overstrength. This coetient C. is given for de- sign displacement ductility factor u values of 1, 2,3, 4 and 6, for two soil types and for a given fundamental natural pe- Hod T of the bridge structure in the considered direction of design earthquake, This coefficient C, in the form of smooth spectra is shown in Fig 7 for two soil types : namely, normal soils and flexible soils. Foundations resting on soils that can liquefy are to be treated as special cases, and detailed studies are required to ascertain the likely ground response. The spec- trum curves in Fig 7 show in the low period range (i) dotted lines, and (i) solid line plateau. The code requires that the ordinates for fist mode response should notbe less than the plateau values. For higher mode responses, the dotted por tion of the curves may be used instead of the plateau. It is Interesting to note that TNZ is amongst the few codes to use inelastic spectra in design as given in Fig 7 Design force level The seismic analysis is performed by constructing the basic design spectrum given by the product of basic acceleration coefficient C, zone factor Z, the risk factor R. Notice that no response reduction factor is being used in the process. The main component of response reduction factor, namely duc- tility reduction factor and the overstength, are accounted for through C, The effect of ductility reduction factor comes directly by’ means of different curves for C, for different val- ues of ductility. Even though TNZ code does not mention it as such, it is apparent that the overstrength comes into de- “| | '6 Examples of maximum value of 1 allowed by TNZ* a “The ndin Conese Joeraal* Mareh 198 =esign through the fact that the ordinate of C, curves at 2e70 period is 0.4 and not 1.0; this implies an overstrength of 2.5 being assumed. The code allows three types of analysis, namely () equivalent static force analysis, (i) modal analysis (response spectrum method of analysis) and (ii)inelastic ime history analysis. The code provides detailed specifications on material properties to be used in analysis (as against most other codes which leave out this and thereby provide ample scope for large variations in material properties and hence in natural period calculations) ‘The TNZ code specifically states thatthe design forces and moments in individual members calculated by the 1e- sponse spectrum analysis shall be atleast 80 percent of the values obtained by the equivalent static analysis method. Equivalent static force analysis “The design lateral force is given by H = C,ZRW 20.05 W, (a) where, W is the total seismic weight (dead weight plus part of superimposed weight). The other parameters are as described in the previous sections Modal analysis The modal analysis is to be performed with the design in- elastic responce spectrum C, for the specific soil condition n of basic acceleration coetticient C, with natural period for eitferent soil types and different ductilty+ Fig7 Variat and the chosen level of ductility, facored by the zone factor Z and the risk factor R described in the previous sections, The code specifies that sufficient number of modes shall be taken in the analysis to ensure thatthe effective mass so in- cluded is a least 90 percent of the tctal bridge mass. Inelastic time history analysis Inelastic time history analysis is permitted with synthetic 2c-

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5794)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1090)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (838)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (599)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1712)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (895)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1103)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (588)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (537)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2102)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (344)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1015)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1839)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (821)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (121)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (440)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (399)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1937)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4609)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4200)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (806)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2322)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1891)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (73)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Irc 108 1996

  

  Document9 pages

  Irc 108 1996

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• Irc 37

  

  Document42 pages

  Irc 37

  rajudeen

  No ratings yet
• Irc 82 1982

  

  Document28 pages

  Irc 82 1982

  Divya Tadepalli

  0% (1)
• IRC-39 - (Road - Rail Level Crossings) PDF

  

  Document9 pages

  IRC-39 - (Road - Rail Level Crossings) PDF

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• IRC-6 - (Road Bridges Std. Specifin. and Code of Practice-sec-II)

  

  Document36 pages

  IRC-6 - (Road Bridges Std. Specifin. and Code of Practice-sec-II)

  Ajitesh Yelisetty

  No ratings yet
• Irc Gov in SP 019 2001 PDF

  

  Document124 pages

  Irc Gov in SP 019 2001 PDF

  Charlene Chua

  No ratings yet
• Irc 82 1982

  

  Document28 pages

  Irc 82 1982

  Divya Tadepalli

  0% (1)
• Irc

  

  Document108 pages

  Irc

  haritha

  100% (4)
• SP-23 Vertical Curves For Highways

  

  Document28 pages

  SP-23 Vertical Curves For Highways

  imranmax13

  100% (5)
• FIDIC New

  

  Document129 pages

  FIDIC New

  Gade Sirish Reddy

  No ratings yet
• Irc

  

  Document108 pages

  Irc

  haritha

  100% (4)
• Guidelines For Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Bridg

  

  Document33 pages

  Guidelines For Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Bridg

  nitinchavan30

  100% (3)
• Bridges Seismic

  

  Document98 pages

  Bridges Seismic

  Manish Deo

  No ratings yet
• Irc - SP-35

  

  Document60 pages

  Irc - SP-35

  Deven Patle

  25% (4)
• Crash Barrier Illustion Drawing PDF

  

  Document1 page

  Crash Barrier Illustion Drawing PDF

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• A Proposed Draft For IRC-6 PDF

  

  Document98 pages

  A Proposed Draft For IRC-6 PDF

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• TOT Agreement

  

  Document138 pages

  TOT Agreement

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• A Proposed Draft For IRC-6 PDF

  

  Document98 pages

  A Proposed Draft For IRC-6 PDF

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• CBEC Press Release DT 16.11.2017after On GST Rate Changes

  

  Document2 pages

  CBEC Press Release DT 16.11.2017after On GST Rate Changes

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• A Proposed Draft For IRC-6

  

  Document5 pages

  A Proposed Draft For IRC-6

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• NHAI - 567 Application Under Right To Information Act. 2005 Received From Sh. Durga Prasad. Rohtas, Bihar

  

  Document10 pages

  NHAI - 567 Application Under Right To Information Act. 2005 Received From Sh. Durga Prasad. Rohtas, Bihar

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• TOT Agreement

  

  Document138 pages

  TOT Agreement

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• (SNC-AA) - 3767 - W-Beam Barrier - 09.08.2014 PDF

  

  Document18 pages

  (SNC-AA) - 3767 - W-Beam Barrier - 09.08.2014 PDF

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• Crash Barrier Illustion Drawing

  

  Document1 page

  Crash Barrier Illustion Drawing

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• MORTH StandardDataBook PDF

  

  Document328 pages

  MORTH StandardDataBook PDF

  Srinivas P

  No ratings yet
• Irc Code Books S.No. AA Code IRC Code/Title

  

  Document4 pages

  Irc Code Books S.No. AA Code IRC Code/Title

  chinnadurai33

  No ratings yet
• MORTH StandardDataBook PDF

  

  Document328 pages

  MORTH StandardDataBook PDF

  Srinivas P

  No ratings yet
• A Proposed Draft For IRC-6

  

  Document98 pages

  A Proposed Draft For IRC-6

  James Mcguire

  No ratings yet
• Manual For Maintenance of Roads

  

  Document55 pages

  Manual For Maintenance of Roads

  avinash35

  No ratings yet