IIT Rookee Site Specific Spectra Report

SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS
FOR RALIWAY BRIDGE PROJECT SITES,

HIMACHAL PRADESH
Final Report (Bridge Nos. 1-5)
PROJECT No.: EQD/2017-18/

For Official Use Only
DEPARTMENT OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE – 247667, INDIA
SEPTEMBER 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL), Chandigarh is in process of construction of Bhanupalli-

Bilaspur-Beri New Railway Line Project which involves about 26 Important Bridges involving
multiple spans for the railway project in Punjab-Himachal Pradesh. As per IS: 1893 as well as
Railway Codes of Practice, site specific earthquake studies are to be carried out for deciding the
design parameters for structures. The site-specific earthquake parameter studies for seismic
design of the structure of the bridges were referred to Department of Earthquake Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee by RVNL, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the Department
has taken up the studies for site-specific earthquake parameters for the site. This report consists
of site-specific earthquake design parameters and the design response spectra at DBE and MCE
for Bridge No. 1 to 5 at the rock-outcrop as well as on soil surface corresponding to return
periods of 475 and 2475 years.
RVNL has provided following reports / documents which have also been referred to in deciding
the design parameters: Geological Mapping Reports, Geological L-Section and Plans,
Geotechnical Investigation Reports including Borelogs, Geophysical Investigation Reports and
VS,30 Reports prepared by Department of Earth Sciences, IIT Roorkee.
The recommendations for the site-specific seismic hazard for the Bridge No. 1 to 5 is based on
the studies carried out related to the regional geology, local geology around the site, earthquake
occurrences in the region around the site and the seismotectonic setup of the area and the borelog
details. The Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) has been conducted and Uniform
Hazard Spectra (UHS) for all the sites have been estimated for return periods of 475 and 2475
years, based on this seismotectonic modelling of the region around the site and average shear
wave velocity (Vs,30) in upper 30m of the soil layers.
Design response spectra for two different return periods (475 and 2475 years) have been
developed from the results of the PSHA as well site coefficients as per ASCE 7 (2016). The
generic shape of the 5% damped design response spectrum is obtained as per ASCE 7 (2016)
recommendations, based on the control parameters of the UHS at different ground conditions and
return periods. It is to be noted that the corresponding ordinates of response spectra for 2475
years presented in this report are to be used in place of Zx(Sa/g) in the code-based design
procedure with the load factor for seismic load as 1.0. Design vertical response spectra shall be
taken as 2/3rd of the corresponding horizontal values. The design parameters as evaluated
through this study shall also satisfy the provision of IS:1893 in respect of Earthquake Design
Parameters.
This study has been carried out by Prof. Y. Singh, Prof. M. L. Sharma, Prof. M. Shrikhande, Prof.
J. Das, Prof. B. K. Maheshwari, Prof. J. P. Narayan, Prof. S. C. Gupta, Prof. R. S. Jakka, Prof. R.
N. Dubey, Prof. Daya Shanker, Dr. Mitesh Surana and Mr. Kavan Modha. Useful discussions
held with RVNL officers, namely, Sh. Rajeev Soni, CPM and Sh. A.P. Singh, JGM regarding the
site-specific studies are gratefully acknowledged.
(Yogendra Singh) September 6, 2018
i|Page
ii | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 1) 8
2.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 1) 9
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 23
iii | P a g e
iv | P a g e
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Locations of Railway Bridges (1-26) with respect to tectonic features. MBT-Main
Boundary Thrust, JMT-Jwala Mukhi Thrust, RF-Ropar Fault. 5
Figure 2 Seismotectonic and seismogenic zones around the Railway bridge sites. 6
Figure 3 5% damped Design Response Spectrum at rock outcrop with UHS for a return
period of (a) 475 years (b) 2475 years (Bridge – 1) 8
Figure 4 5% damped Design Response Spectrum at soil surface for a return period of (a) 475
years (b) 2475 years (Bridge – 1) 10
Figure 10 5% damped Design Response Spectrum at soil surface for a return period of (a)
475 years (b) 2475 years (Bridge – 5) 19
Figure 12 5% damped Design Response Spectrum at soil surface for a return period of (a)
475 years (b) 2475 years (Bridge – 6) 22
v|Page
vi | P a g e
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Locations of Railway Bridges 3
vii | P a g e
Final Report
SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS

FOR RALIWAY BRIDGE PROJECT SITES,
HIMACHAL PRADESH
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL), Chandigarh is in the process of construction of

Bhanupalli-Bilaspur-Beri New Railway Line Project which involves about 26 Important
Bridges involving multiple spans for the railway project in sector in Punjab-Himachal
Pradesh. As per IS: 1893 as well as Railway Codes of Practice, site specific earthquake
studies are to be carried out for deciding the design parameters for structures. The site-
specific earthquake parameter studies for seismic design of the structure of the bridges were
referred to Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee
by RVNL, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the Department has taken up the studies for site-specific
earthquake parameters for the site.
RVNL has provided following reports / documents which have also been referred to in
deciding the design parameters: Geological Mapping Reports, Geological L-Section and
Plans, Geotechnical Investigation Reports including Borelogs, Geophysical Investigation
Reports and VS,30 Reports prepared by Department of Earth Sciences, IIT Roorkee.
Table 1 shows list of Bhanupalli-Bilaspur-Beri railway bridges. The railway bridge sites 1 to
18 falls in seismic zone-IV, 19-21 at the boundary of zone-IV & V and bridges 22 to 26 lie in
seismic zone V as per the seismic zoning map of India incorporated in Indian Standard
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (IS:1893 Part 1:2002). Railway bridges
1-11 lie southwest of thrust T1, 12-15 fall between T1 and JMT, 16-23 fall between JMT and
MBT, 24 at MBT and 25-26 lie northeast of MBT (Fig. 1). The probable intensity of
earthquake in seismic zone-IV corresponds to Comprehensive Intensity Scale (MSK-64) VIII
and Zone-V it is IX.
This report contains site-specific earthquake design parameters for the railway bridge site 1 to
5, in terms of the design spectra at the rock outcrop and for the soil strata for Design Basis
Earthquake (return period ~ 475 years) and Maximum Considered Earthquake (return period
~ 2475 years). The seismic design parameters were evaluated using probabilistic approach.
For this purpose available data of the local and regional geological conditions, occurrence of
Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 1|Page

Final Report
earthquakes and seismotectonic set up of the region has been used. The earthquake catalogue,
containing the locations, times of occurrence and the size of earthquakes (provided by India
Meteorological Department to the RVNL, Chandigarh project authorities), was made
available to DEQ by the RVNL, Chandigarh and this data-set has been used for this study.
A 6° X 6° area bounded by latitudes 28.2°N and 34.4°N and longitudes 73.4°E and 79.8°E
around the site (Fig. 2) has been considered for the study of regional geotectonic set up of the
region. Figure 2 also shows seismogenic zones considered for this study. The railway bridges
1-23 lie in the Siwaliks of the Kangra recess. Development of folds and faults which are
disposed with some parallelism between them as well as the stratigraphic horizons and the
recess fault. This structural set up suggests that the recesses are the result of a combination of
frontal and oblique ramps formed as listric normal faults during an earlier extensional phase,
prior to the Himalayan orogeny. The Siwalik belt occupying a sprawling foothill zone consist
of outcrops of Tertiary rocks in several folded and faulted strips. The Siwalik present a
picture of folded structural belt with broad synclines alternating with steep, often faulted,
narrow asymmetric anticlines. The axial planes as well as the strike faults and thrusts on their
limbs are steep at the surface and dip more gently northwards at depth. The Siwalik is mainly
arenaceous facies and represents a molasse deposit (predominantly sandstone and boulder
beds), which was deposited in a foredeep at the end of the Tertiary orogeny in Himalaya.
From NW to SE the MBT that separates the Sirmur belt (Paleogene) from the Siwalik belt, is
tectonically overlapped by diverse and even structurally higher thrust sheets. The MBT is not
a single thrust plane and the configuration is produced on the surface by an overlapping of
thrust sheets.
The Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) that has its surface manifestations only at a few places marks
the southern limit of the Himalayan Frontal Belt. Within MBT and MFT the belt is traversed
by several subsidiary thrusts some of which have considerable spatial extent viz. Jwalamukhi
Thrust and Drang Thrust. Evidences of neotectonic activity have been documented at several
places along MBT and in western parts of Jwalamukhi Thrust. The Frontal Belt package is
affected by several regional scale folds, of which Mastgarh and Paror anticlinal axial traces
are traceable for considerable distances.
The geological formations in Lesser Himalaya have suffered extensive tectonic movement
and the rock formations were subjected to displacement from its original place of deposition.
This transportation was caused due to large scale thrusting of various geological formations

Final Report
due to intense operative compressional tectonic activity in geological past resulting in

numerous nappe structures. The Lesser Himalaya is built up of several thrust sheets resting on
the autocthonous units which are characterized by its own structural pattern and lithology.
The outer Lesser Himalaya is comprised of three nappes piled up one over the other. Besides
the major thrusts the region has also a number of local thrusts, which have severed the tightly
folded rock formations along the axial planes and brought the older ones over the younger.
For site geology i.e. rock/soil types at the railway bridge sites has been made available by the
RVNL, Chandigarh. The information on rock outcrop type at the bridge sites 1-5 are available
and corresponding shear wave velocity has been used for computation purpose. Further based
on shear wave velocity data (provided by RVNL, Chandigarh) for the abutments of the
railway bridges 1-5 and hazard spectra are also computed for soil strata.
Table 1 Locations of Railway Bridges
Railway Bridge No. Longitude °N Latitude °E
1 76.45 31.31
2 76.47 31.30
3 76.49 31.30
4 76.56 31.27
5 76.57 31.27
6 76.58 31.26
7 76.59 31.25
8 76.64 31.23
9 76.64 31.23
10 76.68 31.25
11 76.68 31.25
12 76.70 31.26
13 76.71 31.28
14 76.74 31.27

Final Report
15 76.75 31.29
16 76.75 31.30
17 76.75 31.30
18 76.76 31.31
19 76.76 31.32
20 76.76 31.32
21 76.76 31.33
22 76.76 31.34
23 76.76 31.36
24 76.77 31.37
25 76.78 31.38
26 76.82 31.41

Final Report
Figure 1 Locations of Railway Bridges (1-26) with respect to tectonic features. MBT-Main
Boundary Thrust, JMT-Jwala Mukhi Thrust, RF-Ropar Fault.

Final Report
Figure 2 Seismotectonic and seismogenic zones around the Railway bridge sites.
KKF- Karakoram Fault, ISZ-Indus Suture Zone, KFS-Kaurik Fault System, KF-Kishtwar
Fault, JF-Jhelum Fault, MF-Mangla Fault, SNF-Sundernagar Fault, AF-Alaknanda Fault,
MT-Martoli Thrust, MCT - Main Central Thrust, VT-Vaikrita Thrust, DT-Drang Thrust,
MBT-Main Boundary Thrust, JMT-Jwala Mukhi Thrust, NAT- North Almora Thrust, SAT-
South Almora Thrust, RT-Ramgarh Thrust, MFT-Main Frontal Thrust, MDF-Mahendragarh
Dehradun Fault.

Final Report
Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment has been performed following the necessary steps.
Seismogenic source zones were identified and delineated based on the tectonics and
seismicity of the study area. The seismic hazard parameters namely, the seismic activity rates
λ and β of Gutenberg Richter relationship have been computed. The λ, β and values of
magnitude of completeness (Mc) have been computed after due treatment of seismicity
catalogue.
Latest ground motion prediction models given by Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014) and Chiou
and Youngs (2014) are used. The project sites are located very close to the MBT and NAT
and it is expected that these two tectonic features will have role in characterizing the strong
ground motion. In view of this both the area source and fault plane have been considered
during estimation of PSHA.
The uniform seismic hazard response spectra has been obtained for rock outcrop and soil for
two conditions, i.e, 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, or 475 years of return period,
and 2% exceedance in 50 years which is equivalent to 2475 years of return period. The
spectra obtained from the above mentioned two GMPEs were combined with a weight of 0.5
each. The response spectra obtained for 475 years and 2475 years of return periods have been
denoted as Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE),
respectively. The spectral ordinates have been estimated for the time periods 0.03, 0.05, 0.1,
0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 seconds.
Design response spectra for four different return periods (475 and 2475 years) have been
developed from the results of the PSHA. The generic shape of the 5% damped design
response spectrum is obtained as per ASCE 7 (2016) based on the control parameters of the
response spectra at different ground conditions and return periods. The 5% damped horizontal
design response spectra for rock outcrop, for 475 and 2475 years return periods are plotted in
Fig. 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b, 7a, 7b, 9a, 9b, 11a and 11b. The vertical response spectra may be
considered as 2/3 times of the corresponding horizontal response spectra. These spectra may
be used for design of the bridge, depending on the location, type and level of the foundations.
Applying PSHA technique as mentioned above uniform seismic hazard response spectra has
also been obtained for abutments of all the five bridges for which shear wave velocity are
made available by the project authority. In situ shear wave velocity profile for Railway Bridge
abutments are obtained based on seismic MASW survey.

Final Report
2.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 1)
Vs,30 for the sandstone, claystone and conglomerate bed rock has been assumed as 750 m/s.
0.8
Design Response Spectrum (Rock outcrop)
UHS (Rock Outcrop)
0.6
Sa (g)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.4
1.2 Design Response Spectrum (Rock outcrop)
UHS (Rock Outcrop)
1.0
Sa (g)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
period of (a) 475 years (b) 2475 years (Bridge – 1)

Final Report
The corresponding equations for design response spectrum at rock outcrop are as follows:
For 475 Years For 2475 Years
Sa ( g )  0.274(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.516(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.686 0.10s  T  0.302s Sa ( g )  1.289 0.10s  T  0.328s
Sa ( g )  0.207 / T 0.302s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.423 / T 0.328s  T  10.00s
2.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 1)
The estimated Vs,30 values are 301 m/s and 370 m/s for A-1 and A-2 respectively. Then these
values are used as input in PSHA using GMPEs given by Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014)
and Chiou and Youngs (2014) for both A-1 and A-2. Using the site amplification factors, Fa
and Fv from ASCE 7 (2016) for the Site Class C and Site Class D, based on the shear wave
velocity in top 30 m of the soil strata, response spectrum has been plotted. The seismic hazard
for soil has been obtained from that on the rock outcrop using above mentioned two methods
and the envelop of the two has been recommended for use.
Figures 4a and 4b show envelope which has been recommended for use in the design.

Final Report
1.0
Envelope
0.8 ASCE 7-16 (Site Class - C)
ASCE 7-16 (Site Class - D)
Sa (g)
0.6 GMPE_A1
GMPE_A2
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.8
Envelpoe
1.5
ASCE 7-16 (Site Class - C)
1.2 ASCE 7-16 (Site Class - D)
Sa (g)
GMPE_A1
0.9 GMPE_A2
0.6
0.3
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
years (b) 2475 years (Bridge – 1)
The corresponding equations for design response spectrum at soil surface are as follows:
Sa ( g )  0.343(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.619(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.858 0.10s  T  0.527s Sa ( g )  1.547 0.10s  T  0.515s
Sa ( g )  0.453 / T 0.527s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.797 / T 0.515s  T  10.00s
Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 10 | P a g e
Final Report
Vs,30 for the soft friable sandstone bed rock has been assumed as 750 m/s.
0.8
UHS (Rock Outcrop)
0.6
0.5
Sa (g)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.4
UHS (Rock Outcrop)
1.0
Sa (g)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
Final Report
Sa ( g )  0.270(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.501(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.675 0.10s  T  0.301s Sa ( g )  1.252 0.10s  T  0.324s
Sa ( g )  0.203 / T 0.301s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.406 / T 0.324s  T  10.00s
and Fv from ASCE 7 (2016) for the Site Class D, based on the shear wave velocity in top 30
m of the soil strata, response spectrum has been plotted. The seismic hazard for soil has been
obtained from that on the rock outcrop using above mentioned two methods and the envelop
of the two has been recommended for use.
Final Report
1.0
Envelope
0.8 ASCE 7-16
GMPE_A1
Sa (g)
0.6 GMPE_A2
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.8
Envelpoe
1.5
ASCE 7-16
1.2 GMPE_A1
Sa (g)
GMPE_A2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
Sa ( g )  0.340(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.582(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.851 0.10s  T  0.524s Sa ( g )  1.455 0.10s  T  0.570s
Sa ( g )  0.445 / T 0.524s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.830 / T 0.570s  T  10.00s
Final Report
Vs,30 for the soft friable sandstone bed rock has been assumed as 800 m/s.
0.8
UHS (Rock Outcrop)
0.6
0.5
Sa (g)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.4
UHS (Rock Outcrop)
1.0
Sa (g)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
Final Report
Sa ( g )  0.264(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.472(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.659 0.10s  T  0.290s Sa ( g )  1.179 0.10s  T  0.316s
Sa ( g )  0.191/ T 0.290s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.372 / T 0.316s  T  10.00s
Final Report
1.0
Envelope
0.8 ASCE 7-16
GMPE_A1
0.6
Sa (g)
GMPE_A2
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.8
Envelpoe
1.5
ASCE 7-16
1.2 GMPE_A1
Sa (g)
GMPE_A2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
Sa ( g )  0.336(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.582(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.839 0.10s  T  0.505s Sa ( g )  1.455 0.10s  T  0.514s
Sa ( g )  0.424 / T 0.505s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.748 / T 0.514s  T  10.00s
Final Report
Vs,30 for the sandstone and claystone bed rock has been assumed as 800 m/s.
0.7
UHS (Rock Outcrop)
0.5
Sa (g)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.2
1.0 UHS (Rock Outcrop)
0.8
Sa (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
Final Report
Sa ( g )  0.249(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.441(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.623 0.10s  T  0.292s Sa ( g )  1.102 0.10s  T  0.316s
Sa ( g )  0.182 / T 0.292s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.348 / T 0.316s  T  10.00s
Final Report
1.0
Envelope
0.8 ASCE 7-16
GMPE_A1
Sa (g)
0.6 GMPE_A2
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.8
Envelpoe
1.5
ASCE 7-16
1.2 GMPE_A1
Sa (g)
GMPE_A2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
Sa ( g )  0.333(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.557(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.832 0.10s  T  0.631s Sa ( g )  1.393 0.10s  T  0.654s
Sa ( g )  0.525 / T 0.631s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.911/ T 0.654s  T  10.00s
Final Report
Vs,30 for the sandstone and claystone bed rock has been assumed as 800 m/s.
0.7
UHS (Rock Outcrop)
0.5
Sa (g)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.2
1.0 UHS (Rock Outcrop)
0.8
Sa (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
Final Report
Sa ( g )  0.249(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.442(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.622 0.10s  T  0.293s Sa ( g )  1.104 0.10s  T  0.315s
Sa ( g )  0.182 / T 0.293s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.348 / T 0.315s  T  10.00s
Final Report
0.8 Envelope
ASCE 7-16
0.6 GMPE_A1
Sa (g)
GMPE_A2
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(a)
1.8
Envelpoe
1.5
ASCE 7-16
1.2 GMPE_A1
Sa (g)
GMPE_A2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Period (s)
(b)
Sa ( g )  0.328(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.530(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s
Sa ( g )  0.820 0.10s  T  0.678s Sa ( g )  1.325 0.10s  T  0.710s
Sa ( g )  0.556 / T 0.678s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.941/ T 0.710s  T  10.00s
Final Report
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The site-specific design spectra have been estimated based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment carried out for the region. The design spectra at rock outcrop as well as soil strata
at different bridge sites, have been provided for the 475 years and 2475 years return period.
 The envelope presented in this report can be used with appropriate values of
Importance Factor, I and Response Reduction Factor, R, as per the relevant standards
and codes.
 The vertical response spectrum can be considered as 2/3rd of the corresponding

horizontal response spectrum.
 The design earthquake parameters recommended for 2475 years return period shall be
used in place of Z × Sa/g, with load factor for earthquake load being taken as unity.
The forces obtained as per this report should also be compared with those obtained from Cl.
7.1, of RDSO Guidelines on Seismic Design of Railway Bridges (2015). The structure shall
not be designed for forces less than those obtained from RDSO Guidelines on Seismic Design
of Railway Bridges (2015).

IIT Rookee Site Specific Spectra Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IIT Rookee Site Specific Spectra Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS

FOR RALIWAY BRIDGE PROJECT SITES,

PROJECT No.: EQD/2017-18/

DEPARTMENT OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL), Chandigarh is in process of construction of Bhanupalli-

(Yogendra Singh) September 6, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

2.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 1) 8

2.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 1) 9

3.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 2) 11

3.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 2) 12

4.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 3) 14

4.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 3) 15

5.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 4) 17

5.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 4) 18

6.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 5) 20

6.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 5) 21

Table 1 Locations of Railway Bridges 3

SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS

Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL), Chandigarh is in the process of construction of

Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 1|Page

Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 2|Page

due to intense operative compressional tectonic activity in geological past resulting in

Table 1 Locations of Railway Bridges

Railway Bridge No. Longitude °N Latitude °E

Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 3|Page

Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 4|Page

Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 5|Page

Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 6|Page

Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 7|Page

2.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 1)

Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 8|Page

For 475 Years For 2475 Years

Sa ( g )  0.274(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.516(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s

Sa ( g )  0.686 0.10s  T  0.302s Sa ( g )  1.289 0.10s  T  0.328s

Sa ( g )  0.207 / T 0.302s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.423 / T 0.328s  T  10.00s

2.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 1)

Bridge Nos. 1 to 5 9|Page

For 475 Years For 2475 Years

Sa ( g )  0.343(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.619(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s

Sa ( g )  0.858 0.10s  T  0.527s Sa ( g )  1.547 0.10s  T  0.515s

Sa ( g )  0.453 / T 0.527s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.797 / T 0.515s  T  10.00s

3.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 2)

For 475 Years For 2475 Years

Sa ( g )  0.270(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.501(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s

Sa ( g )  0.675 0.10s  T  0.301s Sa ( g )  1.252 0.10s  T  0.324s

Sa ( g )  0.203 / T 0.301s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.406 / T 0.324s  T  10.00s

3.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 2)

For 475 Years For 2475 Years

Sa ( g )  0.340(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.582(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s

Sa ( g )  0.851 0.10s  T  0.524s Sa ( g )  1.455 0.10s  T  0.570s

Sa ( g )  0.445 / T 0.524s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.830 / T 0.570s  T  10.00s

4.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 3)

For 475 Years For 2475 Years

Sa ( g )  0.264(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.472(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s

Sa ( g )  0.659 0.10s  T  0.290s Sa ( g )  1.179 0.10s  T  0.316s

Sa ( g )  0.191/ T 0.290s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.372 / T 0.316s  T  10.00s

4.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SOIL STRATA (Bridge - 3)

For 475 Years For 2475 Years

Sa ( g )  0.336(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s Sa ( g )  0.582(1  15T) 0.00s  T  0.10s

Sa ( g )  0.839 0.10s  T  0.505s Sa ( g )  1.455 0.10s  T  0.514s

Sa ( g )  0.424 / T 0.505s  T  10.00s Sa ( g )  0.748 / T 0.514s  T  10.00s

5.1 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT ROCK OUTCROP (Bridge - 4)