Seismic Considerations For Railway Bridge

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT TECHNOLOGY JSS/SM 1.2.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR RAILWAY BRIDGES

J.S. Sondhi,
IRSE, Chief Bridge Engineer
Saikat Mitra
Sr. Section Engineer (Design)
South-Eastern Railways, Kolkata
ABSTRACT
Bridges are critical link structures in transportation infrastructure system. Their reliability and functionality is
of prime importance for through communication. Occurrence of each major earthquake has stepped up concern for
better analysis approach, component design, retrofit techniques and resistance to withstand higher seismic forces.
Research findings and lessons learned from past earthquakes have provided the basis for the performance-based
approach for developing Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). Guidelines now relate design of bridges to level
(magnitude) of earthquake for desired level of functionality. Development of the Seismic Analysis and Design
approach over the years for structures in general has been outlined for reference. Attempt has been made to
summarize features of performance-based approach for seismic design and analysis in general and specific to Railway
Bridges (by AREMA), demand ductility and capacity ductility criteria of bridge components, good conceptual
design practices, and a few specific provisions of IR code and specifications for Railway Bridges. Retrofitting
techniques suited for bridges in general have also been covered. These techniques though not extensively adopted
on Railway Bridges, nonetheless, are cost effective alternatives and could be essential strengthening approach to
upgrade seismic resistance of bridges.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Severe damage or collapse of bridges during major earthquakes has emphasized the need for seismic
assessment and retrofitting of bridges. Much of the damage has occurred to bridges that were designed
prior to development of present Seismic Design Criteria. The design of bridges was then based on nominal
seismic forces without provisions of ductility. The ductility requirements were introduced in seismic codes
only in 1970s.
As a result, many of bridges constructed earlier fail to meet requirements of current Codes now based on
modern performance based ductility–demand seismic design criteria. . Such bridges may need seismic
assessment and retrofitting. The bridges have been often found to be vulnerable to damage because of:
(i) Deficiency of the arrangement/ dimensions—seating width of bearing, etc and
(ii) Deficiency of strength and ductility of pier.
All Seismic Design Codes/ Specifications, framed generally for highway bridges aim to prevent bridge
collapse; most specifications allow some earthquake damage that may require repair/ replacement of a
bridge or component, as long as the damage does not result in the loss of human life. But more importance
is now placed on functionality of bridge post earthquake, linking the expected earthquake intensity to
damage state, loss of functionality, required repairs and expected closure period. This performance-based
approach helps ensure pre-defined functionality of a bridge even after a major earthquake incidence.
The disaster caused by earthquakes can be greatly minimized by protection of vulnerable bridges by
retrofitting techniques appropriate to a given structure. The challenge in bridge engineering is to develop
new and better methods of designing bridges and to retrofit existing ones against loss of functionality, and
destructive effects of earthquakes.
2.0 BACKGROUND AND CHALLENGES

Bridges are simple structures and can be modeled as single degree of freedom structure subject to ground
motion in the longitudinal and the transverse direction. However, the behavior in the two directions can be
quite different particularly for long, narrow bridges.
Short to medium span bridges can be classified into two broad categories type: (1) bridges with
superstructure supported on substructure, and (2) cast-in-place girder bridges with rigid connections
between superstructure and substructure.
NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT JAN 6-7, 2006
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT TECHNOLOGY JSS/SM 1.2.2
In case of type (1) pre-manufactured continuous girder bridge supported by bearing on two-column bents,
just as the column in the multicolumn bents act as a series system in the transverse direction, the diaphragm,
bearing, column, and foundation that constitute each bent act as a series system also in the transverse
direction, with each element sharing the same load but with its own displacement. This load is limited to the
force required to cause the weakest element to yield or fail. All subsequent displacement after yielding
occurs in the damaged element.
Figure 1: Layout and fundamental mode of vibration for a type (1) pre-manufactured Girder Bridge.
In case of type (2), cast-in-place bridges with pier head casted integrally with the superstructure girder
(more common in Highway bridges), the spans are generally continuous over the bents (piers), and the
vertical and lateral loads are resisted by combined frame action of the superstructure and substructure. The
supporting pier columns are subjected to longitudinal loads in proportion to their relative stiffness,
subjected to large deflections, resulting in large forces leading to shear or bending failure at connection to
foundation or superstructure.
Railway bridges are mostly of type (1) with superstructure which are pre-fabricated steel plate girder/ open
web truss, PSC slab type or composite concrete deck on steel girders, as simply supported or continuously
supported structure. Elements in load path of pre-fabricated girders include: girder, diaphragm over
support, bearing system, substructure of bent, piers or abutments, and foundation system of piles, caissons,
or open foundation.
With conventional bearing, longitudinal service loads are transferred through fixed-end bearing to
substructure, whereas the expansion bearing permits movement between super- and sub-structure.
However, in transverse direction both the fixed and expansion (sliding) type bearing transfer load from
super-structure to sub-structure. The relative movement being restricted in transverse direction, these
conventional bearing are vulnerable under earthquakes. Resulting failures are either of anchor bolts holding
bearing to pier cap, or falling off of the girder at the narrow seat. These bearings may also cause problems by
transferring large inertial forces to vulnerable substructures.
Recent earthquakes have demonstrated the important role of end diaphragm and bearings in case of type (1)
bridges. Diaphragm over supports if properly detailed for ductile behaviour can act as fuse in the transverse
load path and limit the magnitude of transverse inertial forces transmitted to the substructure. In case of
simply supported girders with elastomeric or sliding bearings on both ends, permitted movement of
bearings allow the superstructure to slide on the bearing and provide relief to the substructure in case of
severe earthquake.
2.1 Structural Deficiencies

Performances of bridges in past earthquakes have indicated following deficiencies in the
structure/foundation.
(i) Inter-connection between Spans: Traditionally there is no linkage provided between spans of
super-structure, as a result span may be dislodged, unseated or fall down from support.
(ii) Bearing Seat Inadequacy: Bearing seat length is often inadequate for accommodating seismic
displacement. This can also result in unseating of span.
(iii) Bearings Inadequacy: The rocker and roller bearing have not shown satisfactory performance in
major earthquakes. Bearing failures have also occurred due to their inability to accommodate
higher displacements.
(iv) Inadequacy of strength and/or Ductility of Bents (Pier) connection at top and at foundation level.
(v) Inadequacy of Foundation and Soil strength: Liquefaction of soil often results in damage due to
unequal settlements.
2.2 Repair and Retrofitting Systems

Issues are:
(i) The decision to retrofit shall be based on the overall consideration of seismicity, vulnerability and
importance of bridge.
(ii) The need to retrofit shall be determined on the basis of one of the standard procedure such as
capacity demand ratio method, pushover analysis and time history method.
(iii) The objective of retrofitting should at least meet the requirement of present seismic code.
The overall challenge lies in accurate estimation of the likely peak acceleration at the bridge site with due
consideration to the return period of high intensity earthquake, and local soil conditions affecting the peak
values. Bridges behave linearly in lower seismic force range, but generally go in non-linear range when
subjected to large earthquake forces, hence therefore Engineer is required to make realistic estimate of an
equivalent linearized stiffness to estimate the seismic forces on the forces and displacements of bridge.
3.0 APPROACHES FOR SEISMIC DESIGN & ANALYSIS

Seismic design criteria are nowadays based on performance-based approach, the backbone of new seismic
specifications and codes. The objective is to achieve acceptable level of service for bridges of varying
importance after being subjected to moderate (occasional) and large (rare) earthquakes. Importance of
bridge is determined amongst other factors by utility to community, loss due to disruption, and cost of
repair/ replacement. Designing a bridge that remains standing after an earthquake may increase cost by
only few percentage points, whereas the cost to keep an important lifeline bridge operational in service post
a major shock mat increase the design cost by 100% or more.
The latest performance-based seismic criteria for general structures prevalent in USA are:
(i) NCHRP Project 12-49 Recommended Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges
(ATC/ MCEER 2001).
(ii) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) (AASHTO 1998)
(iii) Chapter 9 of the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering (AREMA 2002)
(iv) Caltrans (DOT, California)’s Design guideline- Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) Ver. 1.2 (Caltrans
2001).
Summary reports from Applied Technology Council (ATC) have had a major influence on all these
specifications, these include:
“Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges” (ATC 1996)
“Seismic Design Criteria for Bridges and Other Highway Structures” (ATC 1997).
Other nations like New Zealand, Japan, and few European Countries have also adopted performance-based
Seismic Criteria, mostly derived from above specifications.
Seismic design/ assessment of bridges comprises of the following steps:

I Determining the Design earthquake(s) for the site
II Determining the seismic hazards at the site.
III Determining the seismic demands on the bridge.
IV Designing and detailing the bridge and its components so that their capacity meet the
performance requirements for the seismic demands.
3.1 Earthquake Hazards
At a bridge site can be ascertained from deterministic or probabilistic process. In deterministic approach, the
ground motion is derived from the largest event that can be generated from the physical properties of the
surrounding earthquake (EQ) sources. Attenuated based on distance from source, geology of area, and
further modification at local bridge site.
In probabilistic approach, size and likelihood of each hazard source near the site are evaluated and is based
on random nature of variables involved. In either case the results obtained are accelerations, velocities,
displacements, and frequency content of ground shaking motion.
FACTORS THAT AFFECT AND NEED TO BE CONSIDERED INCLUDE:

3.1.1 Near Fault Effects: Bridges near 10 km from a fault rupture are subjected to large accelerations,
velocities, displacements that challenge traditional elastic methods of seismic design.
3.1.2 Vertical Accelerations: Recent EQ close to faults show effect of significant vertical accelerations. In
Caltrans SDC, the effect of vertical accelerations is not considered for bridges at locations where
horizontal peak rock acceleration is below 0.6g. For other cases, an additional vertical force of 25% of
the dead loads to be applied uniformly along the superstructure and accounted for in design.
3.1.3 Liquefaction: During past earthquakes, liquefaction has occurred to a depth of 20 meters in saturated
layers of loose-to moderately dense sands and nonplastic silts. As per NCHRP Project 12-49
Guidelines, a ground surface acceleration greater than 0.15g can trigger liquefaction of these soils.
The NCHRP guidelines provide a simplified method for determining the liquefaction potential of the
soil at most bridge sites. This simplified method compares the soil capacity (called the cyclic resistance
ratio or CRR) with the demand on the soil (called the earthquake induced cyclic stress ratio, or CSR)
(Seed and Harder 1990, Youd 1999). If the ratio of CRR to CSR is below 1.3, then liquefaction-induced
hazards must be evaluated via nonlinear site-response softwares (such as DESRA-MUSC [Martin
2000]).
3.1.4 Landslides: In sloping areas, the potential for earthquake-induced landslides need to be considered.
An analysis is often required for areas with slopes of 18° or more. Stability analysis procedures for
evaluating potential landslides can vary from a simple static stability analysis to a sophisticated three-
dimensional analysis that includes the nonlinear response of the soil.
3.1.5 Tsunami: Currently, the role of earthquake-induced submarine (sea bed level) landslides in
producing large tsunami is being carefully studied. The tsunami hazard is evaluated for locally
occurring and distant earthquakes. Most coastal areas have been studied, and maps showing 100 year,
500-year, and maximum run up values are available from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA, USA). The forces associated with tsunami are described in a U.S. Corps of
Engineering publication (Camfield 1980) and include the following, are of importance for coastal area
locations:
a) Buoyant force
b) Surge force, as the wave strikes the bridge
c) Drag force, as the water moves a round the structure
d) Impact force, as large objects such as ships and trucks collide with the bridge
e) Hydrostatic force
f) Scour at foundations because of increased flow of water
3.1.6 Ground Shaking, Hazard Maps & Response Spectra: A common method to characterize ground
motion at bridge site is through Response Spectra. A Response Spectra represents the peak
acceleration, velocity or displacement response of single-degree of freedom (SDOF) systems with
different periods subjected to a specific earthquake record. Design spectra are derived from the design
earthquake adjusted for peak rock acceleration and soil effects at the bridge site. These curves are also
termed as ARS curves as adopted by Caltrans; where, A-Peak Rock Acceleration; Rock Spectra R are
distance and magnitude dependent, range from 0.1g to 0.7g; S-Soil modification factor dependent on
soil profile type & amplification factor.
For a bridge site, modified ARS’ curve is

obtained from standard ARS curve as:
ARS’ = (RD ) ( ARS: 5% damped curve)
… Equ. (1)
where,
RD = (1.5 / [40 c +1] ) + 0.5
c = damping ratio (0.05 ≤ c ≤ 0.1)
Figure 2: Response Spectra (ARS) (Caltrans’ SDC) for C Type Soil & Magnitude 6.5 ±0.2
3.1.6a HAZARD MAPS

Peak rock accelerations as well as spectral accelerations at a 0.2-sec. and a 1.0-sec. period are obtained
from the 1996 USGS hazard maps (Frankel 1996) in the NCHRP Project 12-49 Guidelines. Older maps
are used in the AASHTO LRFD specifications (AASHTO 1998). Both sets are probability-based maps
providing the ground motion for a rare and for a more likely earthquake. The Caltrans SDC provides
a hazard map with peak rock accelerations and fault magnitudes that are deterministically derived for
the MCE.
3.1.6b SITE CONDITIONS

The soil effects used by both the Caltrans SDC and the NCHRP Project 12-49 Guidelines were
developed in the early 1990s (Martin and Dobry 1994) and first adopted in the 1994 National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) provisions (Building Seismic Safety Council 1994).
These soil amplification factors can significantly affect the peak acceleration at the site. The new soil
profile types are defined by the shear wave velocity of the top 30 meters of soil, irrespective of the
underlying rock or deeper soil layers.
SOIL SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION

TYPE
A Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity vs. > (1,500 m/s)
B Rock with shear wave velocity (760m/s < vs. < 1,500 m/s)
C Very dense soil and soft rock with shear wave velocity (360m/s < vs < 760 m/s) or with either
standard penetration resistance N > 50 or undrained shear strength su ≥ 2,000 psf (100 kPa)
D Stiff soil with shear wave velocity 600 < vs. < 1,200 ft/s (180 m/s < vs < 360 m/s) or with either SPT
resistance 15 < N< 50 or undrained shear strength 1000psf ≤ su ≤ 2000psf (50 ≤ su ≤ 100 kPa)
E A soil profile with shear wave velocity vs < 600 ft/s (180 m/s) or any profile with more than 10 ft (3
m) of soft clay, defined as soil with plasticity index PI > 20, water content w ≥ 40 percent, and
undrained shear strength su < 500 psf (25 kPa)
F Soil requiring site-specific evaluation:
1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading; i.e. liquefiable soils,
quick and highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly-cemented soils
2. Peat and/or highly organic clay layers more than 10 ft (3 m) thick
3. Very high-plasticity clay (PI > 75) layers more than 25 ft (8 m) thick
4. Soft-to-medium clay layers more than 120 ft (36 m) thick.
Table 1: Soil Profile Description (source: Caltrans’ Seismic Design Criteria- 2004)
4.0 PERFORMANCE–BASED SEISMIC CRITERIA

For highway bridges, a two-level seismic analysis has become an acceptable method for earthquake design
of bridges. Guidelines designate the upper level earthquake as an Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE),
with 3% probability of exceedance in 75 years; and a lower level earthquake as a more frequent event or
expected event with 50% probability of exceedance in 75 years. The latter level is used to ensure elastic
response of bridge sub-structures during such events.
Performance Criteria for Highway Bridges NCHRP Project 12-40 Guidelines

Probability of Exceedance for Design Performance Objective
Earthquake Performance Life Safety
Rare Earthquake (MCE) Service Significant disruption
3% in 75 years Damage Significant
Frequent or expected earthquake: Service Immediate
50% in 75 years Damage Minimal
Table 2: Performance Criteria for Highway Bridges
4.1. Capacity based approach to Design: In general under this approach, performance is controlled by
elements which act as fuses, limiting the force along the load path. The most common capacity based
approach is to provide ductile columns that limit the seismic load to the force that causes plastic
hinging of the columns. In case of a cantilever column, the maximum lateral force is limited to the
column’s moment capacity Mp divided by column’s effective length Leff. Adjacent bridge
components and connections are designed for an overstrength moment Mo large enough to ensure
yielding occurs first in column. Column and adjacent capacity protected elements are designed to
resist overstrength shear force VO (derived from Mo and Leff) to ensure that flexure yielding occurs first
prior to catastrophic shear failure.
In case of bridges, other permitted fuse along load path includes: plastic hinging of piles, sliding of
superstructure on bent (pier) caps. In case of important bridges, isolation bearings are good fuse that
protect the bridge during earthquakes,
4.2 Force based Design: Before engineers became comfortable with a capacity-based design approach,
they used a force-based approach with reduction factors. This approach is still provided as an
alternative to capacity-based procedures in the NCHRP Project 12-49 Guideline.
4. 3 Performance Criteria for Railway Bridges, defined by AREMA 2002 (American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, USA), coordinates bridge design criteria with
train post-seismic event operation guidelines. Trains are controlled with advent of seismic event, viz.:
a) Trains within 100 mile radius of the ‘reporting area’ are immediately notified and asked
to proceed at restricted speed.
b) After the information on epicenter and initial magnitude are available, specific
guidelines are provided to trains based on magnitude and region.
Earthquake Ground Motion Distance from Epicenter- Action
Magnitude Level Region California & Baja : N
America
0.0 – 4.99 - n/a n/a none
4.99- 5.99 1 50 100 miles Restricted speed
6.00- 6.99 1 150 300 miles Restricted speed
6.00- 6.99 2&3 100 200 miles Stop & inspect
> 7.00 2&3 As directed, but not less than for lower magnitude
AREMA 2002 specifies three kinds of earthquakes, which relate service/ collapse limits with
Earthquake event, as follows:
a) The serviceability limit state provides for train safety after a moderate event.
b) The ultimate limit state provides for structural integrity after a large event.
c) The survivability limit state prevents bridge collapse for intense events.
· Critical structural members must remain elastic

Ground Motion Level 1 · Trains may continue at reduced speeds over
affected bridges
· No structural damage
· Strength and stability of critical members is not
Ground Motion Level 2 exceeded
· Trains must stop until affected bridges are
inspected
· Damage should be easily detected and repaired
· No structural collapse
Ground Motion Level 3 · Trains must stop until affected bridges are
inspected
· Extensive damage allowed
ALL BRIDGES ARE DESIGNED FOR THREE EARTHQUAKES.

Ground Motion Level Frequency Average Return Period
1 Occasionally 50-100 years
2 Rare 200-500 years
3 Very rare 1,000-2,400 years
Return period: Represents the probability that a certain ground motion will be exceeded.
Probability of Exceedance in 50 yrs Return Period ( Yrs)
10% 475
5% 975
2% 2,475
Structure Importance Classification is used to determine the approximate return period for each of the
three ground motion (i.e. each limit state). The return period for each limit state is determined by
multiplying the difference in the average return period by the importance classification factor “I”,
dividing the product by 4, and adding the result to the minimum return period. For example: Level 1
Ground Motion with Importance Factor of 2 would use a 75 year return period.
The PGA’s for these return periods are interpolated from a plot of the PGA versus the Return Period
for the bridge site; hazard maps plot in the AREMA Manual lead to such plots. PGA for a limited
number of return periods is available for latitude and longitude locations in USA from USGS website:
http://eqdesign.cr.usgs.gov/html/lookup-2002-interp.html; http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/.
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR RAILWAY BRIDGES U.S. RAILWAY PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA ( AREMA 2002 )
The Importance Classification Factor “I” is the sum of a bridge’s
immediate safety value, its immediate value, and its Replacement
value (all multiplied by different weighting factors).
Immediate Safety Value (Factors are summed, and the total <4).
Occupancy Factor:
Freight service only 1
Fewer than 10 passengers per day 2
More than 10 passengers per day 4
Hazardous Material Factor 0 to 4
Community Lifeline Factor 0 to 4
Immediate Value (Factors are summed)
Railroad Utilization Factor:
Under 10 million gross tons annual traffic 1
Between 10million to 50 million Gross tons annual traffic 2
Over 50 million gross tons annual traffic 4
Detour Availability Factor:
No detour available 1.00
Inconvenient detour route 0.50
Detour route readily available 0.25
Replacement Value (Factors are summed, and the total < 4)
Span Length Factor:
Less than 35ft 1
Between 35 and 125 ft 2
Between 125and 250 ft. 3
Greater than 250 ft 4
Bridge Length Factor:
Less than 100 ft 1.0
Between 100 and 1000 ft. 1.5
Greater than 1000 ft 2.0
Bridge Height Factor:
Less than 20ft 0.75
Between 20ft and 40ft 1.00
Greater that 40 ft. 1.25
Table 3. Performance Criteria for Railway bridges
WEIGHTING FACTORS
Immediate Safety Value Immediate Value Replacement Limit State
(IS) (IV) Value (RV)
0.80 0.20 0.00 Serviceability
0.10 0.80 0.10 Ultimate
0.00 0.20 0.80 Survivability
The structure importance classification factor I is determined as sum of the weighted factors for
immediate safety, immediate value, and replacement value, for Ground Motion Level 1,
I = 0.80 x IS + 0.20 x IV + 0.00 x RV
5.0 SEISMIC DEMAND ANALYSIS

A seismic demand analysis should target for global model of the entire bridge, as well as standalone models
for individual components-columns, bents and frames, to ensure that all components can resist a design
earthquake. All such behavior including yielding of ductile elements need to be accounted for in the seismic
demand analysis. Railway bridges are generally short to medium span bridges of type (1) with
superstructure supported on substructure. In the longitudinal direction, the expansion bearing act as
isolators, limiting the force to frictional force coefficient of the bearings. Most of these bearings have limited
displacement capacity, often smaller than the earthquake demand, before they reengage the superstructure.
In transverse direction, primarily the displacement ductility demand is on the bents (piers) supporting the
superstructure.
Various practical analysis approaches are:

a. Equivalent Static Analysis (ESA) - For regular simple (SDOF model) bridges, Tp is used to find
spectral accelerations or displacements.
b. Elastic Dynamic Analysis (EDA) - for complicated bridges, multi degree of freedom, eigen vectors,
participation factor for each mode, CQC method is often used for summing the modes.
c. Non-Linear Analysis - Time History analysis capture realistic behaviour of bridges
However, bridges in areas of low seismicity and for single span need no analysis.
NCHRP Project 12-49 Guidelines provides guidelines instructions for four elastic analysis methods.
1. Uniform Load Method
2. Single Mode Spectral Method
3. Multimode Spectral Analysis
4. Time History Analysis
5.1.1 For Railway Bridges (AREMA 2002): Analysis approach overview:

a) Analysis used to satisfy performance criteria for Level 1 Ground Motion ( serviceability
limit state)
b) Structure Response is function of site characteristics, structure stiffness and damping
c) Equivalent Static Analysis or Modal Analysis used to determine seismic loads
d) Total member loads = Seismic + static loads
e) Members are sized to satisfy Level 1 response limits
Analysis procedure is adopted based on bridge configuration:
BRIDGE CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Single Span No Analysis Reqd.
2-Span Equiv. Lateral Load or Modal Analysis Procedure
Multi Span regular Equiv. Lateral Load or Modal Analysis Procedure
Multi-span irregular Modal Analysis Procedure
Single span bridges do not require formal analysis, however they should have sufficient seat width at
abutment to avoid unseating.
Irregular bridges may have high curvature of abrupt change in stiffness or mass along the length.
Structure Response: Is determined by Seismic Response Coefficient (for m th mode)
Cm = 1.2* ASD / Tm2/3 ≤ 2.5 AD … Equ.
(2)
Where, A = Base Acceleration Coefficient
S = Site Coefficient based on Soil Type (1 to 4)
D = Damping Adjustment Factor
Tm = Time Period of m th mode in secs.
The Cm is the basis of determining Structure Design loads for both Equiv. Lateral Load or Modal
Analysis. ELL uses only a single value based on natural period of vibration of structure for each of the
principal directions of the structure. Modal Analysis combines values for multiple mode of vibration
in each of the two directions.
The loads in each of the two directions of structure are combined to get final seismic design loads.
a. Case 1: 100% Transverse Load Demand + (N=30%) Longitudinal Load Demand
b. Case 2: 100% Longitudinal Load Demand + (N=30%) Transverse Load Demand
(c.f. N=40% in NCHRP Project 12-49Guidelines )
5.1.2 Elastic (Dynamic) Analysis in general: Basic Governing Relations

Stiffness: In the cases of bridges the approach is to consider Columns and abutments to determine
the stiffness for typical bridge response.
Governing equation for SDOF system under external force p (t):
mu” + c (u’ –z’) + k (u-z) = - p(t) ……. ……. Equ. (3a)
Where, m- mass; c- damping coeff; k- stiffness;
u-displacement; p(t) external force on structure.
For relative displacement w = u – z , and no external force:

mw” + c w’ + k w = - m z” …… ……. Equ. ( 3b)
Here, z” is the support acceleration due to earthquake, obtained
from accelorogram record of previous earthquake for the area; the
above 2nd order differential equation is solved to determine relative
velocity w’ and acceleration w” for the bridge structure due to an
earthquake (z”).
Figure 4: Schematic of Damped Mass Spring Model under ground motion z(t)
As a simplified approach, use is made of Response spectra

(graph of maximum response of displacement/
velocity/acceleration/ of a SDOF system for a given
earthquake record). Caltrans (ref. Bridge Design
Specifications) has specified standard Response Spectra curves
dependent upon 4 different soil depths, and 7 different peak
ground acceleration(PGA). For important sites, modified
standard, or site specific Response Spectra are also used.
Engineers need to calculate the structure mass and stiffness,

calculate Time period and using approximate 5% damped
spectra obtain the structure’s response from the spectra.
Spectral displacement, spectral velocity and spectral
acceleration are related as, and determined as such.
Sa = ω Sv = ω2 Sd …… ….
Equ. (4)
Figure 5: Example Response Spectra
NONLINEAR BEHAVIOUR
Bridge members change stiffness during earthquakes. A column’s stiffness is
reduced when the concrete cracks in tension. It is further reduced as the steel
begins to yield and plastic hinges form. The axial stiffness of a bridge changes
in tension and compression as expansion joints open and close. The soil behind
the abutment yields for large compressive forces and may not support tension.
We must consider all changes of stiffness to accurately obtained force and
displacement values for our bridges.
Currently, Caltrans-SDC policy is to calculate a cracked stiffness for bridge column. A value of Icr =0.5
Igross can be used unless a moment curvature analysis is warranted. Also, since bridge column are
designed to yield during large earthquake, the column force obtained from analysis is taken, reduced
by a ductily factor and the column designed for this smaller force. Caltrans is currently using a
ductility factor (µ) of about 5 for designing new columns. However a moment-curvature analysis of
column should be done when the column’s ductility is uncertain.
Abutments: Since it is not known how large a gap will exists at an abutment during an earthquake,
the approach is to determine the largest and smallest gap, perform two analyses and use the largest
force and displacement.
6.0 BRIDGE ELEMENTS—DESIGN / SEISMIC ASSESSMENT

The higher value EQ places increased displacement and ductility demand on the bridge components,
like the piers should provide sufficient ductility and resist the moments induced under severe
earthquake.
General Concepts
6.1 Global Displacement Criteria (Ref: Caltrans SDC Feb 2004)
Each bridge or frame shall satisfy following relation. Where ∆D is the displacement along the local
principal axes of a ductile member generated by seismic deformations applied to the structural
system. This total displacement within the structure or subsystem includes components attributed to
foundation flexibility ∆f, flexibility of capacity protected components, flexibility due to elastic ∆y and
inelastic response ∆p of ductile member.
∆D < ∆C; where:
∆D: Is the displacement generated from the global analysis, the stand-alone analysis, or the
larger of the two if both types of analyses are necessary. Includes effects due to
foundation flexibility, if any
∆C : The frame displacement when any plastic hinge reaches its ultimate capacity.
∆D , can be estimated by ESA (Equiv Static Analysis) for bridge or individual frame with
following characteristic:
- response can be captured by fundamental mode
- balanced spans
- low skew
EDA is suited and adopted for all other ordinary standard bridges.
6.2 Demand Ductility Criteria
A ductile member is defined as a member that is intentionally designed to deform inelastically for
several cycles without significant degradation of strength or stiffness under the demand generated
under MCE.
The entire structural system as well as its individual subsystems shall meet the displacement ductility
demand requirements imposed due to the EQ.
Figure 6: Effect of Foundation flexibility of Force deflection Curve of a Single Column Bent (pier)
6.3 Capacity Ductility Criteria

All ductile members in a bridge shall satisfy the displacement ductility capacity requirements,
specified below.
6.4 Displacement Ductility Demand

Displacement ductility demand is a measure of the imposed post-elastic deformation on a member.
Displacement ductility is mathematically defined by equation:
µ D = ∆D / ∆ Yd ………… …………. Equ (5)
∆D = the estimated global frame displacement demand defined in Section above
∆ Yd = the yield displacement of the subsystem from its initial position to the
formation of plastic hinge.
The local displacement capacity of a member is based on its rotation capacity, which in turn is based
on its curvature capacity. Curvature capacity can be determined by M-Φ analysis; the local
displacement capacity ∆c of any column may be idealized as one or two cantilever segments,
∆c = ∆yCol + ∆P ; and here, ………… …………. Equ ( 6 )
∆yCol = (L2/3) * Φ y ; ∆P = θP.( L – Lp/2); θP = Lp x Φ y;
where,
∆yCol = The idealized yield
displacement of the column at the
formation of the plastic hinge
∆P = Idealized plastic
displacement capacity due to
rotation of the plastic hinge
Φ y = Idealized yield curvature
defined by an elastic-perfectly-
plastic representation of M-Φ
θP = Plastic Rotation Capacity
Figure 7: Local Displacement Capacity - cantilever pier column with fixed base
6.5 Target Displacement Ductility Demand— Minimum Local Displacement Ductility Capacity
Each ductile member shall have a minimum local displacement ductility capacity of mc = 3 to ensure
dependable rotational capacity in the plastic hinge regions regardless of the displacement demand
imparted to that member. The local displacement ductility capacity shall be calculated for an
equivalent member that approximates a fixed base cantilever element as depicted in Fig. 8. The
minimum displacement ductility capacity mc = 3 may be difficult to achieve for columns and pile
shafts with large diameters Dc > 10 ft, (3m) or components with large L/D ratios. Local displacement
ductility capacity less than 3 requires considered review.
The target displacement ductility demand values for various components are identified below. These
target values have been calibrated to laboratory test results of fix-based cantilever columns where the
global displacement equals the column’s displacement. The target values may range between 1.5 and
3.5 where specific values cannot be defined.
Single Column Bents supported on fixed foundation µD 4
Multi-Column Bents supported on fixed or pinned footings µD 5
Pier Walls (weak direction) supported on fixed or pinned footings µD 5
Pier Walls (strong direction) supported on fixed or pinned footings µD 1
Figure 8: Local Ductility Assessment- Equivalent Model
7.0 DESIGN APPROACH FOR RAILWAY BRIDGES (AREMA 2002)

The approach consists of:
a) Conceptual Considerations used to select appropriate bridge form and configuration
b) Analysis for Level 1 Ground Motion to size the members
c) Detailed provisions are incorporated to allow the structure to satisfy the performance
requirements Level 2& 3 ground motion.
Conceptual consideration is adopted to select appropriate type of bridge and configuration; designers
effort should be to maintain balance between functional requirements, cost and seismic resisting
features. Preferred configurations for Bridge, Superstructure, and sub structure consist of:
Preferred Configuration Special Configuration

Bridge Configuration
Straight Line Alignment Curved Bridge Alignment
Normal Piers Skewed Piers
Uniform Pier Stiffness Varying Stiffness
Uniform Span Stiffness Varying Stiffness
Superstructure
Simple Spans Continuous Spans
Short/ Light Spans Long/ Heavy Spans
No Hinges Intermediate Hinges
Substructure
Wide Seats Narrow Seats
Seat Bent Caps Integral Bent Caps
Single Columns Multiple columns
Performance requirements to meet Level 2 & 3 Ground Motion consist of:

i) Continuity Provisions: A Load path to transfer lateral forces from the superstructure
to the ground
ii) Ductility Provisions: Allow the structure to respond in inelastic range
iii) Provisions to Limit Damage: Limit damage to areas which are accessible to
inspection and repairs
iv) Redundancy Provisions: Alternate Load paths to increase survivability.
Continuity Provisions include:

i) Superstructure designed to carry lateral forces to bearings or shear connectors
ii) Lateral Force from Span to end supports by
a) Lateral Bracing System
b) Lateral bending of girder, torsional effects as applicable
c) Diaphragm action of concrete decks
iii) End cross frame or diaphragm designed to carry lateral forces to bearings/ shear
connectors.
Ductility Provisions include:
i) Longitudinal reinforcement in columns, pier walls, and piles to be adequately
confined to allow the member to respond in post- yield range.
ii) Lap splices are not allowed in main load carrying member within an effective
distance‘d’ of any area designed to resist in post-yield range.
7.1 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - General Points for Bridges

Good engineering judgment can help achieve an effective and economical seismic design rather
than an elaborate analysis. Regular bridge configurations with wide seat at the expansion (sliding
bearings); flexible, well-confined columns of fairly equal stiffness; well designed and detailed
concrete connections perform well during earthquakes.
7.1.1 Time Period: A standard bridge should be designed to have a fundamental frequency period
of 1-2 sec in both longitudinal and transverse direction. In case of a smaller period, then it draws too
much force during an earthquake, and if period is longer, then it undergoes too much displacement.
For Time period on shorter bridges, the bents (piers) should be made more flexible in the
longitudinal direction and stiffer in the transverse direction.
7.1.2 Skew Angle: Bridges with large skew angles have performed poorly during earthquakes.
Bridge designs with skew angles greater than 30° are not desirable and should be avoided whenever
possible. The skew angle is dictated by obstacles (rivers, roads, railway tracks, and so on) under the
bridge, and constraints of curve radius on approach tracks alignment. When skew cannot be
avoided, it should be reduced as much as possible, and the integrity of the bridge should be
emphasized. Integrity can be achieved through well-detailed and well-designed bridges without
transverse joints or with ample seat widths and restrainers at expansion joints. There is concern that
capacity-protected elements such as the bent caps and superstructure may be more vulnerable and
may yield before the columns on highly skewed bridges. The restrainers on a skewed bridge should
be strung along the bridge’s longitudinal axis.
7.1.3 Complex Geometry: Bridge damage often occurs to highly curved superstructures and
eccentrically loaded substructures. Similarly, outrigger bents should be avoided, or they should be
designed with pinned connections prevent the large moments created by eccentrically supported
inertial forces.
7.1.4 Heavy Superstructure: The acceleration forces developed during an earthquake are
proportional to the bridge mass that is concentrated in the superstructure. In seismic areas, super-
structures with massive dead loads are a disadvantage and should be avoided. The use of
alternative construction methods with lighter superstructures or with lightweight materials is
economically justified in seismic areas. This is especially true when substructures are supported on
pile or shaft foundations.
7.1.5 Abutments: An abutment model can be complicated, with nonlinear links to represent the gap
in seat-type abutments and a nonlinear force-displacement curve to represent the behavior of the
surrounding soil. Since the designer is primarily concerned with column damage during
earthquakes, a simple abutment model can be used as long as it does not underestimate the demand
on the columns.
7.1.6 Bearings: Bearings can be viewed as inexpensive isolation devices. The only criterion for
using them is to make sure that their mode of failure is consistent with the modeling assumptions.
On tall piers, especially, bearings should permit relative movement after an earthquake; they can be
inspected for damage and easily replaced.
7.1.7Cable Restrainers: Longitudinal restrainers consisting of high-strength cables or rods are
recommended across superstructure expansion joints as a second line of defense to prevent
unseating. A restrainer length is chosen that will enable restrainers to yield before the
superstructure becomes unseated.
1. CASE EXAMPLE - Longitudinal Seismic Force Estimation

An example of a multi 4-span, composite concrete deck bridge on steel girders is depicted with brief
calculation steps. The procedure aims to determine maximum seismic displacement, calculate
linearized stiffness, and obtain the actual displacement based on the stiffness in longitudinal direction.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
• Piers with fixed bearing support to superstructure considered to give longitudinal resistance
• Roller bearings are considered to give negligible resistance in longitudinal direction
• Cracked moment of inertia of columns/piers/bents are used
• Resistance by one abutment resisting force to be considered
• Longitudinally, bridge behaves as a parallel system (Ktotal = Ka + Kb), total system is sum of
individual stiffness of piers ‘fixed’ to superstructure.
Figure 9: Bridge Arrangement: (clockwise) Elevation View with 2 Fixed Bearing, 1-Roller Column
support & End Abutments; Section at Fixed bearing Pier; Section at Abutment Seat; and Idealized
Seismic Model.
It is assumed, that the bent (pier) footings are fixed and the stiffness of the bent caps is ignored to
simplify the analysis. Bent #3 is not considered towards longitudinal stiffness since it has a roller
bearing and offers negligible resistance to earthquake force. For seismic analysis, longitudinal stiffness
due to two fixed bearing supports, assuming cracked moment of inertia of the columns, is calculated as:
Kc = 2 Column (3EIcr/l3) = 2[(3)(2.5x107) (0.5)(2x23/12)/83] = 1.95x105 KN/m
The other stiffness to be considered is due to abutment. Since only one abutment act at a time (the one
the superstructure is pressing against), only one abutment is considered in analysis.
Abutment Stiffness is linked to area of soil behind backwall (W x h) + due to piles (7000 kN/m per pile)
KA = (47 000) * 2(11) + (7 000) * 12nos = 1.03 x 106 + 8.4 x 104 = 1.114 x 106 kN/m.
Longitudinally, the bridge behaves as a parallel system, therefore the total stiffness is
Km = Kc + KA = 1.95x105+ I.I Ix 10s = 1.31 x 106 kN/m
Total weight W for structure (=Wt of superstructure + Wt of the bent caps for bents #2 and #4)
W = 13 300 kN
Abutment Behaviour is non-linear, effective only in

compression. For seat type abutment, after closing of initial
gap, the abutment stiffness remains linear till max. value of
370 kN/m2 ( based on field investigation studies at UC,
Davis), thereafter it is assumed to behave plastically. The
abutment will yield at a force equal to 370 kN/ times the area of
the back wall, therefore;
Fy = 370 x A = 370 x (2 x 11) = 8 140 kN
Force versus Displacement for the bridge. This will help to

obtain the longitudinal seismic force on the bridge by iteration. The
minimum abutment gap is 0.01 meters and the maximum gap is 0.02
meters. Both the gap openings are examined to determine the
maximum force.
Figure gives a representation of the nonlinear behavior of the bridge.
Till 0-01 meter gap only the cracked column stiffness is acting.
After the gap closes (the abutment is engaged) and the total stiffness
is acting. The abutment yields at a force of 8 140 kN, An additional 1
420 kN goes to the columns as the bridge displaces to the point
where the abutment yields. Then, the bridge's remaining stiffness
is the cracked column stiffness.
Figure 10: Abutment Non-linear Response & Force v/s Displacement for Bridge Proper
Trial Approach(1st cycle) : assume a 0.03m displacement
1. Determine Total Force: F = Σ K∆ = 1950 * 0.01 + 1310* 0.0073 + 195 * 0.0127 = 13.990 kN
2. Linearized Stiffness: K = F/∆ = 13990/ 0.03 = 466 320 kN/m
3. Find Time Period: T= 2π √ (M/K) = 2π √ (13300 ÷ 9.81/ 466 320) = 0.34 sec
4. Depending upon soil on which foundation exists, relevant ARS curve for peak 0.6g PGA is used;
in present case for B type soil, ARS value obtained is 1.78
5. Actual displacement is calculated: ∆act = ARS x W / K; in this case ∆ = 0.51m.
6. Value is compared to assumed value of ∆; in this case ∆act > ∆assumed, assume higher displ. value and
repeat trial.
The procedure is repeated until the guessed displacement and calculated displacement are within 5%.
8.0 DESIGN APPROACH AS PER IRS CODE

Railway Bridge Rules (ref. Cl.2.12.7) refers to the seismic co-efficient method to estimate Seismic force:
Fh = β. I. α0 Wm; Horizontal seismic force
Fv = 0.5 β. I. α0 Wm; Vertical seismic force
where, -β is the co-efficient depending upon the Soil foundation system,
-I is the Importance factor; the Importance factor shall be taken as 1.5 for important
bridges and 1.0 for all other bridges. A bridge is classified as ‘important’ if it has a
linear waterway of 300m or total waterway of 1000 sq.m. or more.
-α0 is the basic horizontal seismic co-efficient which reflects the seismic zone.
The basic horizontal seismic co-efficient α0 = 0.08, 0.05, 0.04, 0.02, 0.01 for seismic zones V, IV, III,
II, & I , respectively.
-Wm is the seismic weight (Dead weight plus part of superimposed weight) considered,
excluding buoyancy or uplift.
When considering Seismic Forces, only 50% of gross tractive effort/braking force, to be reduced by
taking dispersion and distribution of longitudinal force, shall be considered along with horizontal
seismic forces along/across the direction of the traffic. IRS Steel Bridge Code suggests that “The
superstructure of the bridge shall be properly secured in case of Zone V to prevent it from being
dislodged off its bearing during earthquakes”.
Modal analysis shall be necessary to be carried out for the following cases in zones IV and V:
a) For bridges of type such as cable stayed bridge, horizontal curved girder bridge, reinforced
concrete arch or steel arch bridge, and
b) When the height of substructure from base of foundation to the top of the pier is more than 30m
or when the bridge span is more than120m.
c) In case of important bridges where there is a possibility of amplification of vertical seismic co-
efficient, modal analysis is preferable.
9.0 RETROFITTING TECHNIQUES

Most of the bridges built worldover prior to 1970s were with little or no considerations for seismic demands.
The reinforced concrete supporting substructure components lacked the required strength and ductility to
withstand higher earthquakes. This led to a strategy to investigate and carry out improvement and
strengthening of the deficient components. Decision to replace or retrofit a bridge devolves on
consideration of importance of the bridge, age, condition, and cost consideration to replace bridge or its
components. In US, a few Transportation Departments consider a retrofit as an acceptable option if the total
cost does not exceed 60% of the replacement cost. In case of costly retrofit option, controlled damage to
certain bridge components like supporting pier/ foundation may be allowed. The level of controlled
damage to a retrofitted bridge is generally based on importance of the bridge and on established
performance criteria.
In short, situations that necessitate retrofitting are:
1. Seismically deficient existing bridges not meeting current code requirement; these bridges have not
yet experienced earthquakes
2. Deficient in initial design, bridges that are partially damaged in earthquakes, yet not structurally
deformed.
Retrofitting of bridge may be required in a few or most of the bridge components. The seismic retrofit
strategy involves a study of the lateral load path and assessment of the ability of different elements to
transfer lateral loads. The type and extent of retrofitting will be based on detailed seismic assessment and
designer’s experience. On the basis of deficiency observed after seismic evaluation, available options, and
cost consideration, the suitable retrofit techniques should be selected.
A few retrofit techniques for various components of bridge include:

a) Superstructure: Horizontal or Vertical motion restrainers, inter linking of span, strengthening of
diaphragm over piers, external pre-stressing, and using damper.
b) Bearing: Replacement of bearing by new bearing that could accommodate displacement, provision
of stoppers, clamps/vertical holding down devices, replacement of bearings by isolation devices.
c) Substructure: Concrete jacketing, steel jacketing, carbon fiber wrapping, composite jacket of fiber
glass.
d) Foundation: Strengthening of existing foundation by enlargement of size, increasing number of
piles, jacketing.
Probabilistic methods are sometimes used to prioritize bridges’ retrofitting (Ritter 1991, Kramer 1996).
Sometimes department may be unwilling to retrofit if they must replace a seismically deficient bridge. A
designer may look at the probability of collapse during the bridge’s remaining life. If the probability is low,
then the owners may forestall a comprehensive retrofit, otherwise in case of high probability retrofit would
be justified.
SUPERSTRUCTURE
Superstructure deficiency is associated with their unseating at experience joints or on bearing supports due
to relative displacements. The most commonly observed type of failure in superstructure of simple
supported bridges is a girder falling off the supports due to longitudinal response. Most of the girder
bridges that exist in railway are simple supported. To prevent such type of failure, the adjoining spans
should be interconnected by connection rods/restrainers/linkage bolts .Fig. 11i & 11ii depicting the typical
details.
The linkage shall be designed for a horizontal force equal to design acceleration coefficient times the weight
of the lighter of the two adjoining spans.
When the linkage is required at the locations where certain relative displacement is expected to accrue, then
a slacking must be allowed in the linkage element such that it functions only after the design relative
displacement is exceeded.
BEARINGS
Bridge bearings are one of the most vulnerable components in resisting earthquake. Bearing deficiencies are
associated with (i) inadequate seat width and (ii) inadequacy to accommodate displacements in
earthquakes. The possible retrofit solution is (i) replacing steel bearing by Elastomeric bearing. (iii) Bearing
seat extension (iii) provision of stoppers and devices to prevent pumping of girders. Fig. 11 iii, showing the
typical sketch.
The fixed bearing should be designed to withstand the seismic force, horizontal and vertical which these are
expected to transmit in the event of ground motion. In case of movable bearing, the bearing should be able
to accommodate design displacement. The displacements beyond design values should be restrained by
stoppers.
The bearings that are permitted to move in longitudinal direction but restrained in transverse direction
should be designed for suitable estimates of design seismic force in transverse direction.
Vertical Hold Down Devices

The vertical hold down devices shall be provided at all bearing supports where jumping of span is
envisaged on the bearing. Such a device could be in the form of clamp, hooks, bolts, vertical restrainer cable
and like.
Where the vertical upward force (U), during earthquake exceeds, dead load reaction (D), then the device
shall be designed for a net upward force of 1.2(D-U) , such a device should be designed for a vertical force
not less than 10% of dead load reaction.
Figure 11(i): Tying the Figure 11(ii): Vertical motion restrainer retrofit
superstructure by restrainer cable
Figure 11(iii): Replacement of Rocker bearing by combination of

prefabricated steel bearing and elastomeric bearing.
Seating Width
The bearing seat width S in cm between the end of girder and edge of substructure should be not less than
the following values.
S= 70 +0.5L , for L<100m.
S= 80 + 0.4L, for L>100m. Where, L is the span length in meters.
Figure 11(iv): Seating Width
Seismic Arrestor
An approach adopted in case of rail cum road bridge across river Brahamputra at Jogighopa, NF Railway,
India, the design of seismic arrestor permit vertical movement of the spans but provide a fixture such that
the spans fall back in their true position in the extreme case of lift off. Figure 11(v) shows below the
conceptual detail of the seismic arrestor designed and installed for the Jogighapa Bridge.
Figure 11(v)
Longitudinal Restrainer
Figure 11(vi): Longitudinal restrainer, bumper, and tie.
The longitudinal movement of superstructure can be limited by installing cable restrainers between the
superstructure and the abutments or piers. The cable should be designed and installed with proper slack to
allow thermal movement while preventing excessive longitudinal movement during earthquake. In lieu of
cable restrainers or in combination with them, bumper blocks may be used to engage an expansion pier or
abutment, and they may also be considered for fixed bearing that cannot be easily replaced or retrofitted to
resist seismic forces. Bumper blocks may be used in conjunction with restrainer cables to engage the
abutment in both directions, shown in Figure 11(vi). This retrofit should be considered where the abutments
and its foundation can resist the transferred forces.
Transverse Restrainer Figure 7(vii)

During past earthquakes, excessive transverse movement of bridge superstructures caused loss of support at
the fascia girder on a number of bridges. To transfer lateral seismic forces and prevent excessive
displacement, transverse restrainers are sometimes used at the bearing. Various types of restrainers such as
steel angles, shear keys, or anchor bolts are used, as warranted by the superstructure and the bearing type.
Figure shown below shows restrainer angles used with an elastomeric bearing that has sliding surface (a)
and with a regular elastomeric bearing (b). The angle should be provided on all the bearings on a pier or
abutment support.
Figure 11 (vii): Transverse restrainer angles
Restrainer Anchor Bolt

An anchor bolt restrainer for an elastomeric bearing with a sliding surface is shown. The sliding surface and
the bearing both accommodate longitudinal thermal movement over a rigid support. The slotted holes in the
top plate allow longitudinal movement of the superstructure but restrict transverse movement to the
flexural deformation of the bolts. Transverse restraints should be designed to remain elastic and resist the
lateral forces corresponding to plastic hinge of the column or other ductile elements in the lateral load path.
However, even when elastic behavior is anticipated for the restrainers, proper detailing should be provided
to ensure adequate ductility and prevent brittle failure if unexpectedly large forces or displacements occur.
Figure 11(viii): Restrainer anchor bolts.
Concrete Abutment Seat Extender

Concrete seat extenders are often drilled and bonded to abutments and columns. The seat is extended
upward under the girder to limit the propped height in case of excessive movement or toppling of rocker
bearings. Figure 11(ix) shows a seat extender detail for a concrete abutment.
Figure 11 (ix): Concrete abutment seat
Elastomeric Isolation Bearing With Lead Core

This is a force-controlled bearing that has been developed and used to dissipate earthquake energy and
provide better distribution of seismic forces to bridge support. Figure 11(x) below shows the element of an
elastomeric isolation bearing composed of a lead core and natural or synthesized rubber with embedded
layers of steel plates. The bearing is vulcanized and has a masonry plate and a sole plate that provide a
positive connection when bolted to the superstructure and the substructure.
Figure 11(x): Force-displacement behaviour of lead/rubber
Friction-Type Isolation Bearing

In friction-type isolation bearing lateral movement is permitted at the interface of the bearing element
between the superstructure and substructure. Lateral movement at sliding surface is associated with friction
forces that oppose movement. The value of the friction force depends on various factors, including the
vertical reaction at the sliding surface, contact pressure, ambient temperature, speed of the movement, and
condition of the sliding surface. Two popular types of friction bearings currently used in the United States
are the friction isolation bearing (Constantinou et al. 1991) and the friction pendulum bearing Figure 11(xii)
(Zayas et al. 1990).
Figure 11(xi): A Friction–isolation bearing.
Figure 11(xii): Force–displacement behaviour and friction pendulum bearing
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
Seismic design consideration for bridges is of importance with view to ensure functionality even after a
severe earthquake. Loss to society due to closure of important routes is now a serious consideration.
Damage to bridge structure as such generally does not occur for EQ of magnitudes upto 6 on Richter scale.
The design earthquake at bridge site need to be accurately assessed based on return period and intensity
levels expected. Problem of bridge analysis and response need to be addressed at global level as well as
individual component level. Lateral force path need to be closely examined to assess resistance to
earthquakes of pre-desired levels. Forces attracted by overall structure are dependent on the time period of
structure, for bridges having Tp in the range: 1- 2 sec, is an appropriate approach. Further, design of
components comprising substructure for Ductility Demand is the main issue and need to be addressed to
ensure non-collapse and overall functionality of the bridge post-earthquake of defined level of severity.
Performance based Criteria for Railway Bridges, defined by AREMA 2002, provide a comprehensive
framework for seismic analysis and design of bridge structure and components.
For Indian Railway bridges, the provisions for seismic analysis and design is quite basic and preliminary in
nature, need to be made comprehensive and should provide specifically for ductility demand design of
components.
Retrofitting techniques suited for bridges in general are of prime importance to enhance seismic-resistance
of existing bridges. These techniques are in different stages of development and as regard use on Railway
Bridges have not been extensively adopted. Some special installations other than bridge bearing are
required to be provided to facilitate safe and seismic-resistant functioning of the structure as a whole. These
special installations include, Seismic Arrestor, Shock Transmission Device, Expansion Joint, Isolation
devices etc. Recent example of use of such device on NF Railway includes a Seismic Arrestor at a Rail-cum-
road bridge, Jogighopa, falling under seismic zone IV.
REFERENCES
1. IRS ‘Bridge Rules (revised upto correc. Slip No.23 dt. 26-10-1999)’; ‘Concrete Bridge Code’ (corrected
upto 1997 & ‘Steel Bridge Code’, RDSO Publication, Indian Railways.
2. ‘Bridge Design Practice -1995’ , Caltrans (Dept. of Transportation, CA, USA)
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs/manual/bridgemanuals/bridge-design-practice/
3. ‘Seismic Design Criteria- Feb 2004, Ver 1.3’, Caltrans (DOT, CA., USA).
4. AREMA Manual 2002.
5. ‘Fundamentals of Seismic Protection for Bridges’, Mark Yashinsky & M.J. Karshenas, EERI, Mno-9,
2003, Reprint published by NICEE, IITK.
6. ‘Bearing for Railway Bridges’, An IRICEN, Indian Railways Publication.
7. USGS Website: http://earthquake.usgs.gov
Figure 12: Sample Customized Plot for North California area obtained from USGS Website

Seismic Considerations For Railway Bridge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Seismic Considerations For Railway Bridge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT TECHNOLOGY JSS/SM 1.2.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR RAILWAY BRIDGES

2.0 BACKGROUND AND CHALLENGES

2.1 Structural Deficiencies

2.2 Repair and Retrofitting Systems

3.0 APPROACHES FOR SEISMIC DESIGN & ANALYSIS

Seismic design/ assessment of bridges comprises of the following steps:

FACTORS THAT AFFECT AND NEED TO BE CONSIDERED INCLUDE:

For a bridge site, modified ARS’ curve is

3.1.6a HAZARD MAPS

3.1.6b SITE CONDITIONS

SOIL SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION

4.0 PERFORMANCE–BASED SEISMIC CRITERIA

Performance Criteria for Highway Bridges NCHRP Project 12-40 Guidelines

Table 2: Performance Criteria for Highway Bridges

· Critical structural members must remain elastic

ALL BRIDGES ARE DESIGNED FOR THREE EARTHQUAKES.

Probability of Exceedance in 50 yrs Return Period ( Yrs)

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR RAILWAY BRIDGES U.S. RAILWAY PERFORMANCE

Table 3. Performance Criteria for Railway bridges

5.0 SEISMIC DEMAND ANALYSIS

Various practical analysis approaches are:

5.1.1 For Railway Bridges (AREMA 2002): Analysis approach overview:

Single Span No Analysis Reqd.

2-Span Equiv. Lateral Load or Modal Analysis Procedure

Multi Span regular Equiv. Lateral Load or Modal Analysis Procedure

Multi-span irregular Modal Analysis Procedure

5.1.2 Elastic (Dynamic) Analysis in general: Basic Governing Relations

For relative displacement w = u – z , and no external force:

As a simplified approach, use is made of Response spectra

Engineers need to calculate the structure mass and stiffness,

6.0 BRIDGE ELEMENTS—DESIGN / SEISMIC ASSESSMENT

6.3 Capacity Ductility Criteria

6.4 Displacement Ductility Demand

Figure 8: Local Ductility Assessment- Equivalent Model

7.0 DESIGN APPROACH FOR RAILWAY BRIDGES (AREMA 2002)

Preferred Configuration Special Configuration

Performance requirements to meet Level 2 & 3 Ground Motion consist of:

Continuity Provisions include:

7.1 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN - General Points for Bridges

1. CASE EXAMPLE - Longitudinal Seismic Force Estimation

Abutment Behaviour is non-linear, effective only in

Force versus Displacement for the bridge. This will help to

8.0 DESIGN APPROACH AS PER IRS CODE

9.0 RETROFITTING TECHNIQUES

A few retrofit techniques for various components of bridge include:

Vertical Hold Down Devices

Figure 11(iii): Replacement of Rocker bearing by combination of

Figure 11(iv): Seating Width

Figure 11(vi): Longitudinal restrainer, bumper, and tie.

Transverse Restrainer Figure 7(vii)

Figure 11 (vii): Transverse restrainer angles

Restrainer Anchor Bolt

Figure 11(viii): Restrainer anchor bolts.

Concrete Abutment Seat Extender

Figure 11 (ix): Concrete abutment seat

Elastomeric Isolation Bearing With Lead Core

Figure 11(x): Force-displacement behaviour of lead/rubber

Friction-Type Isolation Bearing

Figure 11(xi): A Friction–isolation bearing.

Figure 11(xii): Force–displacement behaviour and friction pendulum bearing

You might also like