Materials Today: Proceedings 59 (2022) 227–232

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Seismic endurance of box-girder bridge with different piers

Nilanjan Tarafder ⇑, Lakshmi Vara Prasad Meesaraganda
Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology, Silchar, Assam, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: According to recent data, many bridges tend to fail due to seismic inadequacy in design. Circular piers are
Available online 21 November 2021 more effective in reducing scour depth and increasing the durability of bridges than an elliptical bridge
pier. The question is ‘‘whether circular pier performs better under seismic action than elliptical pier or
Keywords: not”. So a comparative study was conducted to analyze the behavior of circular and elliptical piers under
Seismic force earthquake forces, and complete nonlinear static pushover analysis was carried out for two different
Base shear force bridge models separately. Pushover curve data from Indian Standard Code was used to formulate the
Pushover analysis
problem and performance outcomes of the bridges were analyzed. It was found that single circular pier
Design capacity ratio
Drift
showed no failure and better performance in both directions of the bridge, with more displacement
capacity than double elliptical piers when subjected to incremental lateral loads. The design capacity
(D/C) ratio in the longitudinal direction was 1.8 times more for single circular pier bridge and in the trans-
verse direction, the ratio was 1.4 times more for double elliptical pier bridge for the considered earth-
quake situation. Results also showed 47% less drift value for single circular pier bridge compared to
double elliptical pier bridge.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Third International Con-
ference on Recent Advances in Materials and Manufacturing 2021

1. Introduction ground motion or retrofitting should be performed to withstand

The purpose of bridge construction is to provide passage over
obstacles. The first-ever bridges made by humans were with woo-
den logs or planks. Some rural part of our country (India) witnesses
the bridge made of bamboos and wooden logs. The Romans built
arch bridges and aqueducts. The Romans also practiced cement
that replaced the strength of natural stone. The design of a bridge
varies according to its function, availability of materials, the terrain
over which it is constructed and anchored. The bridge is a vital
structure that is a gateway for the transportation of living beings
and materials from one place to another. During significant haz-
ards like earthquakes, floods, wars, etc., the bridge should perform
well to carry out rescue and rehabilitation effectively. Hence it is
necessary to check the vulnerability of the bridge whether it is
strong enough to withstand such calamities or not. Seismic analy-
sis is a subset of structural analysis to determine the response of
structures under any earthquake excitation. For earthquake analy-
sis, it is necessary to conclude whether the structure is safe under
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nilanjantf@gmail.com (N. Tarafder).
safely.
Some membrane equations were used with plane frame analy-
sis to approximate the actual finite element model of the concrete
box girder bridge. This method gives the prestressing and reinforc-
ing proportional to the transverse bending and stirrups propor-
tional to the longitudinal torsion and shear in a single-celled
precast segmental concrete box girder [1]. A study on the PSC
box girder subjected to live load to generate influence lines and
surfaces shows that the multi-cell PSC box girder has an efficient
means to resist the forces coming to it. They are primarily used
for the lightweight transportation system and the lightweight rail
system like a metro rail compared to the RCC, which is used for
heavy loads. The design parameters like displacement, bending
moment and shear force can be controlled effectively using an
intermediate web of varying thickness. A low span/depth ratio
allows decreasing the dead weight of the structure and its bending
moment. PSC girders are more economical than RCC girders as the
reduced section can be obtained [2]. Time history analysis of a
truss bridge shows that almost all the stresses and the loads were
affected under the load case of occurrences of an earthquake. Dis-
placements are fluctuated and reach their peak value and then
decrease slowly, finally becoming stable. Displacement and rota-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.099
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Materials and Manufacturing 2021
N. Tarafder and Lakshmi Vara Prasad Meesaraganda
tions are varied with the variation in damping ratios. The mini-
mum damping ratio gives the maximum structural responses,
but the damping ratios are not directly proportional to the struc-
tural responses [3]. The shorter span cable-stayed bridges have a
maximum frequency as compared to higher spans. Hence it can
be said that the shorter span bridges are stiffer than the bridge
having long spans. Medium span bridges are preferred since the
vibration and deflections are within limits [4]. Ductility failure
and wall bending were more common in the longitudinal direction,
while the transverse direction showed the bearing failure. Over the
entire length of the bridge, the hinges were distributed. The exte-
rior piers were weak as the hinge formation was early in a longitu-
dinal pushover analysis [5]. A study on rectangular piers with
circular edges subjected to axial compression showed that the pier
under strain hardening region shows increased capacity, behaving
in a ductile manner. With the increase in axial load, the capacity of
a pier increases accordingly to the aspect ratio. The pier that failed
in a brittle manner was found to be slender. The circumferential
steel protects and confines the concrete core while the concrete
core prevents the inward buckling of the steel tubes [6]. An exper-
iment was performed to access the performance-based design
approach to achieve objectives and see the failure pattern. The dis-
placement time history greatly influences the failure and deforma-
tion pattern of any reinforced concrete frame structure when
subjected to seismic forces. Larger crack width ranging from
0.01 in. to 0.02 in. should be filled with epoxy immediately to pre-
vent further damage. Fatigue failure in bridges is the primary con-
cern and the failure of concrete concerning fatigue should be
replaced entirely. Fatigue in longitudinal bars and core should be
partially or entirely removed [7].
The literature proved that studies on PSC girders were done for
live loads, time history loads, and pushover loads. Also, research on
the effect of span length was carried out. Ductility failure, displace-
ment and rotational behaviors, axial compression behavior were
studied in various research papers. However, no research has been
done yet to understand the shape effect of piers of a bridge. In this
paper, a bridge structure was studied, choosing a location in India,
i.e., Silchar. Silchar is situated in the earthquake zone V and the
area has soil type IV. This is a very weak combination for building
any structure. The bridge was studied with single pier and double
pier of different shapes and a detailed comparison was described in
the paper. No research work has been done yet which considered
different shapes of piers in their studies. Therefore, no data is avail-
able to confirm which type of pier is better for earthquake resisting
purposes. So the required study has been done to understand the
pier’s behaviors concerning earthquakes and maximum traffic load
conditions. In this respect, the pushover analysis was performed to
analyze the structure under seismic activity [8]. Displacement
capacity and base shear capacity for each bridge were found out
and the capacity limit was prescribed. Design capacity ratio also
confirmed the safety level of each bridge in addition, with a com-
parison of performance between the two bridges [9].
2. Research significance
The present study selected the bridge structure over Barak River
in Silchar for performance comparison, and the study includes two
structural conditions. The bridge was constructed under the Public
Health Department (PWD), Silchar. One of the said conditions con-
siders a bridge with a single circular pier having a diameter of
4.5 m [10]. In comparison, another structural condition considered
the bridge with a double elliptical pier acting together having
dimensions of 4.5 m and 0.75 m as major and minor axes, respec-
tively [10]. The performance of the bridge under static and
dynamic lateral force or, as we can say, earthquake lateral force
228
Materials Today: Proceedings 59 (2022) 227–232
was obtained based on the different shapes of piers was used. This
type of work was never carried out before and research in this
direction revealed in-depth knowledge about the performance
and durability of the bridge. So in this project, the seismic perfor-
mance of a prestressed box girder bridge was checked using a sin-
gle circular pier and two elliptical piers at the same station. By
using elliptical piers scouring depth is reduced and hence the dura-
bility of the bridge was increased comparatively than using one
circular pier.
3. Analytical modelling
For two types of bridges, two different models were rendered in
CSiBridge for the analysis. Steps used in modeling were: defining
the material properties, section properties, bridge span discretiza-
tion, assigning piers and bent to the bridges, bearings, restraints,
etc. and defining various parametric variations for the bridge deck
like depth, top slab thickness, bottom slab thickness, web thick-
ness, etc. For the double elliptical piers, section designers were
used in modeling the section and finally, the finite element model
was updated to bridge object to generate the full bridge model.
The deck section of the proposed bridge was box girder type
and M40 grade of concrete was used as the grade of construction.
The geometry of the deck section varies as shown in Table 1, and it
considers the dimension of the deck section of the abutment sec-
tion at two ends. The thickness of the deck section throughout its
length was not constant, instead, it followed a parametric varia-
tion. The parametric variation of three parameters, i.e., the height
of girder, thickness of soffit and web thickness for three spans were
defined. A detailed cross-section of the box girder deck section is
shown in Fig. 1. The bridge is equipped with two abutments having
bottom girder support. These abutments on the starting and end
station were assigned, keeping the foundation spring properties
as fixed. Details of the abutment properties are shown in Table 2.
The bent cap, also known as pier cap, is an RCC member of 8 m
in length, produced in the transverse direction of the bridge with
4.5 m width and 2.25 m depth. The superimposed and wheel load
of the bridge was transferred to the pier through the bent cap sec-
tion. Detailed properties are mentioned in Table 3.
The double elliptical pier section was designed with the section
designer option as the cross-section property is not available in the
default section list. For assigning the pier at the center of the pier
cap, it is placed at 4 m distance from the edge of the cap section.
M35 grade of concrete was used for the pier section. The exact
property of the pier section is shown in Table 4.
Bearing for pier and abutments of a bridge is necessary to assign
in order to transfer the loads from decks to the pier and abutments.
The bearing elevation is the action point of bearings and details are
shown in Table 5.
4. Pushover analysis
The response spectrum function used was IS-1893:2002 design
spectrum function for earthquake zone V and stiff soil, represent-
ing Silchar. Seismic design request is generated using AASHTO
Table 1
Deck Section at 60 m away from the Pier [10].
Component Width [m] Height [m] No.s
Top Slab 12 0.26 1
Haunch (inner) 1.2 0.35 2
Haunch (outer) 2 0.35 2
Web 0.35 1.9650 2
Soffit Slab 6 0.2750 1
Bottom Haunch 0.6 0.15 2
N. Tarafder and Lakshmi Vara Prasad Meesaraganda
Fig. 1. Cross-section view of a Single Box Girder.
Table 2
Abutments Properties [10].
Abutment Girder support Sub Type
BABT1 Bottom Spring
BABT2 Bottom Spring
*BABT = Bridge Abutment Section.
LRFD 2002 design code for bridges selecting seismic design cate-
gory D, pushover analysis, and previously defined response spec-
trum as a function [11]. At first, the dead load of the entire
structure was applied and several iterations were performed to cal-
culate crack section properties. Based on these crack section prop-
erties, response spectrum analysis was performed and lastly,
pushover analysis was performed. The response spectra for seismic
zone V and proposed area soil type are shown in Fig. 2.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Capacity curve
The graphical presentation visually evaluates how the structure
will perform when subjected to seismic ground motions. The struc-
ture’s capacity was represented by a force–displacement curve
obtained by nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. In this method,
first, a distribution for the lateral loads on the frame was assumed
and increased monotonically. Due to this, the structural element
yields chronologically and the structure experiences a loss in stiff-
ness. Fig. 3 shows the capacity curves for the bridges in the longi-
tudinal direction. The bridge with double elliptical pier can resist
up to 40% more base shear force than the bridge with a single cir-
cular pier. Also, the bridge with double pier was able to withstand
a displacement up to 103 mm under all loads before it completely
collapsed, which was 43% higher than the displacement capacity of
the bridge with a single pier. Even for the yielding area, the bridge
with double pier showed 0.5 mm of more displacement safety than
the bridge with a single circular pier in the longitudinal direction.
This is because the combined effect of two piers was acting
together against the pushover load in this direction.
Fig. 4 shows the capacity curves for the bridges in the trans-
verse direction. The only advantage of a bridge with a double ellip-
tical pier was its ability to resist up to 30% more base shear force
than a single circular pier. However, as far as the yielding of the
material is concerned, the bridge with a single pier obtained higher
Table 3
Bent cap properties [10].
BENT Beam Length Beam Section
BENT1 8.0 m Pier cap
*BENT = Bent Cap Section.
Materials Today: Proceedings 59 (2022) 227–232
yielding than the other bridge, which leads to more time available
for the users to move to safety before complete collapse of the
FS Prop bridge. The single pier bridge provided 16 mm displacement after
Fixed
yielding, whereas the other bridge provided only 5 mm displace-
Fixed ment. Moreover, the bridge with a single pier could displace
97.9 mm, which was 34.6% higher than that of the bridge with a
double pier. The reason behind the better performance of a single
circular pier is that it has a constant diameter in all directions to
perform similarly in both directions. However, in the transverse
direction, double piers had a small amount of width, due to which
this bridge did not perform well than the single pier bridge.
5.2. Demand/Capacity (D/C) ratio
It is an important aspect to check the seismic vulnerability of
bridges when subjected to a seismic load. When the demand to
capacity ratio comes out to be less than 1, the structure is consid-
ered safe, but if the ratio is more than 1, the structure requires ret-
rofitting. Table 6 explains the design/capacity ratio for the
structure in both directions with a single pier and double pier.
The bridge had three spans and hence at two stations, 65 and
188, there were two pier sections. For single pier bridge, piers from
both the pier stations had a D/C ratio of 0.612 in the transverse
direction and in the longitudinal direction, the ratios were 0.602
and 0.624 for the stations 65 and 188, respectively. For the double
pier bridge, piers had a D/C ratio of 0.327 and 0.362 in the longitu-
dinal direction for stations 65 and 188, respectively. In transverse
direction the ratios were 0.085 & 0.084 respectively. It is clear that
although both of the single and double pier bridges had the d/c
ratio of less than 1, which means the safety of the structure is con-
firmed, the ratios for double pier bridge was nearly half of that for
single pier bridge. The double pier bridge was proven safe twice
from a single pier bridge, as per the safety level, in a longitudinal
direction. Whereas in the transverse direction, the single pier
bridge is 1.4 times safer than the double pier bridge because of
having a lower D/C ratio. This is because of the surface area of
the single pier bridge, due to which the seismic force can be dis-
tributed in more area, reducing the D/C ratio.
5.3. Drift and drift ratio
Drift is the relative displacement of subsequent levels of a struc-
ture and drift ratio is the ratio of the drift to its respective height.
These two values were also described in Figs. 5 and 6. It can be seen
that drift and drift ratio both follow a disturbing path as the load
Type Girder Support Number of Pier
Single Bottom 1
229
N. Tarafder and Lakshmi Vara Prasad Meesaraganda Materials Today: Proceedings 59 (2022) 227–232

Table 4
Pier property [10].

BENT Column No. Section Distance [m] Height [m] Angle Pier Support R1 Release R2 Release R3 Release
BENT1 1 Pier 4.0 9.5 0.00 Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed

Table 5
Bridge Bearings Properties [10].

Bridge Object Span Name Station [m] Type Bearing Bearing Property Bearing Elevation [m] Bearing Angle
BOBJ1 Start Abutment 0 Abutment 1 BBRG_A 7.7 0
BOBJ1 Start Abutment 0 Abutment 2 BBRG_A 7.7 0
BOBJ1 Span1 65 Bent 1 BBRG_B 7.7 0
BOBJ1 Span1 65 Bent 2 BBRG_B 7.7 0
BOBJ1 Span2 188 Bent 1 BBRG_B 7.7 0
BOBJ1 Span2 188 Bent 2 BBRG_B 7.7 0
BOBJ1 Span To End Abutment 253 Abutment 1 BBRG_A 7.7 0
BOBJ1 Span To End Abutment 253 Abutment 2 BBRG_A 1.83 0

*BOBJ = Bridge Object.

Fig. 2. Response Spectrum function used in Pushover Analysis.

230
N. Tarafder and Lakshmi Vara Prasad Meesaraganda Materials Today: Proceedings 59 (2022) 227–232

Fig. 5. Comparison of drift for both column type.

Fig. 3. Comparison of pushover curve in longitudinal direction.

Fig. 6. Comparison of drift ratio for both column type.

for the bridge with a single pier. Also, the pushover analysis shows
the total capacity of the structure under an earthquake load.
Fig. 4. Comparison of pushover curve in transverse direction.

increases. Up to 513 kN of applied load, the inter-level drift of piers 6. Conclusion

gradually increased, but at that load, drift was horizontal for the
mid-portion of the piers. After that, the curve is steeper and valid,
as the top portion of the piers displaced more than the lower levels.
Similar behavior was seen in the case of the drift ratio for both the
piers. However, the bridge with double piers was experiencing
35.7% more drift than the single pier bridge. This is because of
the connection area between the pier and the bent cap section of
the bridge. More the connection area, more surface area is avail-
able for an external force to be distributed, resulting in less drift
To consider the effect of earthquake force in designing, it was
necessary to carry out pushover analysis to calculate base shear,
which is governing force for the lateral input forces. The results
clearly show that the shape effect of the pier is significant in the
construction of a bridge. Until now, no research paper was avail-
able for real construction work, but this paper will surely help con-
siderably in that matter. Pushover analysis is recommended for the
existing bridges to check their vulnerability against the ground

Table 6
Comparison of Demand Capacity Ratio.

Type of pier Station [m] Direction Demand [m] Capacity [m] D/C Ratio
Single circular pier 65 Transverse 0.059897 0.097934 0.612
Longitudinal 0.043740 0.072718 0.602
188 Transverse 0.059898 0.097934 0.612
Longitudinal 0.043741 0.070110 0.624
Double elliptical pier 65 Transverse 0.061247 0.072066 0.850
Longitudinal 0.033963 0.103995 0.327
188 Transverse 0.061247 0.072716 0.842
Longitudinal 0.033965 0.093715 0.362

231
N. Tarafder and Lakshmi Vara Prasad Meesaraganda
motion and to check whether retrofitting is required or not. The
following conclusions are drawn from the study:
 The capacity curve concluded that a bridge with a double ellip-
tical pier could resist up to 40% more base shear force than a
single circular pier in the longitudinal direction. However, a sin-
gle circular pier bridge could resist 10.8% more base shear force
in the transverse direction than a double elliptical pier bridge.
 Displacement capacity in the longitudinal direction of the
bridge was 43% higher for the bridge with a double pier than
that of the bridge with a single circular pier. However, in the
transverse direction single pier bridge was found to be 34.6%
more effective in the case of displacement capacity of the
bridge. In the transverse direction, double elliptical piers were
acting individually, whereas, in the single pier, a circular col-
umn section of higher diameter was used, which increased
the performance of the bridge with a single circular pier with-
out any failure under studied conditions.
 The design capacity (D/C) ratio in the longitudinal direction was
1.7 times more for single circular pier bridge in comparison
with double elliptical pier bridge. The bridge with a double pier
was 42% safer than the bridge with a single pier in this direction
for an earthquake. A single pier bridge performed better in the
transverse direction and provided 38.8% more safety than a
double pier bridge.
 Drift results proved that bridge with a single circular pier
decreased the drift amount by 35.7% compared to the bridge
with double piers. The drift and drift ratio supports the bridge’s
construction with a single pier rather than having double piers.
It can be concluded that the bridge with a double pier was able
to withstand more base shear, which gives more endurance, but
the single pier bridge has better performance overall in displace-
ment behavior of the bridge, including its drift. The design capacity
ratio also confirmed that the bridge with a single circular pier was
safer than the bridge with a double elliptical pier.
232
Materials Today: Proceedings 59 (2022) 227–232
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nilanjan Tarafder: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Soft-
ware, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original
draft. Lakshmi Vara Prasad Meesaraganda: Writing - review &
editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] W.S. Kenneth, Approximate analysis of a box girder bridge, J. Struct. Eng.. 114
(7) (1988) 1644–1657.
[2] G.V.S. Reddy, P.C. Kumar, Response of a box girder bridge span, Int. J. Bridge
Eng. 2 (2014) 21–30.
[3] N. Lwin, Time history analysis of a truss bridge, Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 56 (2)
(2014) 1549–1555.
[4] Y.B. Jankar, M.R. Suresh, Time history analysis of a cable stayed bridge based on
various span and pylon heights, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 17 (2018) 41–50.
[5] P.S. Lande, A.D. Yawale, Seismic performance study of a bridge using pushover
analysis, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. 98 (2014) 865–892.
[6] M.F. Hassanein, V.I. Patel, Round-ended rectangular concrete-filled steel
tubular short piers finite element investigation under axial compression, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 140 (2018) 222–236.
[7] D.E. Lehman, J.P. Moehle, Performance based seismic design of reinforced
concrete bridge pier, J. Struct. Eng. 9 (2000) 159–169.
[8] IS 1893:2016 Recommendation for Earthquake Resistance Design of
Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[9] IITK–RDSO, Guidelines for Design of Railway Bridges, Research Designs and
Standards Organisation, Lucknow, India, 2010.
[10] PWD, Silchar, Assam.
[11] AASHTO, Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
America, 2002.