Advances In Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

A COMPARITIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC CODES FOR

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF BRIDGES
S.K. Thakkar1 and Sadaqat Ali2
1.Professor of Bridge Engineering Railway Chair, 2. M. Tech. (BST) Student
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
ABSTRACT
The seismic performance of bridge is important as bridges play a key role as
escape routes and as routes for rescue, first aid, medical services, firefighting,
transporting emergency goods to refugees. The main objective of the specifications for
earthquake design of bridges is to establish design and detailing provisions to minimize
the susceptibility of the bridges to damage from earthquakes. The majority of seismic
countries are having specifications and guidelines for seismic design of bridges. It is
often necessary to compare various seismic provisions in order to arrive at most suitable
design criteria. In this paper a comparison is drawn on guidelines for seismic analysis and
design of bridges of some of the world most referred codes with Indian codes. In total
forty four provisions are discussed with main emphasis on response spectrum, soil type,
seismic analysis, live load, design approach and hydrodynamic pressure. A table is
prepared showing comparison of different aspects and a numerical example is also
included for comparison of added mass of water. The aspects in which Indian codes need
to be updated are indicated in conclusions.
INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of seismic design is to ensure that the bridges can safely
perform its function of maintaining communications after a seismic event. The extent to
which this is possible will depend on the severity of the event, design philosophy and
performance criteria. For design purposes, bridges are categorized according to their
importance, and assigned a risk factor related to the seismic return period. This will then
result in equivalent design earthquake hazard and consequent loading. All such
provisions are incorporated in codes of different countries. In India seismic provisions are
included in IS: 1893-1984, IRC: 6-2000, IRS Bridge rules-2004 provisions. The IS: 1893
(revised version) is divided in five parts and the third part contains a separate code on
Bridges and Retaining Walls. In this paper various provision of these codes compared: IS
1893-1984, IS 1893-2002 (PART I), IS 1893-2005 (PART III)(DRAFT), IRC:6-2000
(All INDIAN); AASHTO LRFD-2002, CALTRANS-2004/ATC-32 (All U.S.); JSCE-
Earthquake Resistant Design Codes (PART V)-2000 (JAPAN); EUROCODE 8 (PART
2)-2004 (EUROPE); NZS 4203-2004 (NEWZEALAND). Some degree of damage caused
by earthquakes is allowed in bridges, but the structure should have a low probability of
collapse. Some of the provisions are discussed here while others are tabulated in
Appendix-A.
LEVEL OF EARTHQUAKE
INDIAN: Indian code defines three levels of earthquakes. Minor quake is one with
magnitude less then Design Basic Earthquake (DBE). Moderate quake is one with

217
 S.K. Thakkar1 and Sadaqat Ali2

magnitude equal to DBE and major quake is one with magnitude equal to Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE).
UNITED STATES: Two levels of earthquakes are defined in U.S. codes based on
probability of their occurrence. Small earthquakes are those which have low probability
of being exceeded during normal life of bridges (10% probability of exceeded in 50
years). Large earthquakes are those with low probabilities of occurrence in normal life of
bridge.
JAPAN AND NEW ZEALAND: Two levels of earthquakes are defined based on
probability of occurrence. Weak earthquakes are those which are highly probable to
occur during service life of bridges. Strong earthquakes are those with low probability to
occur during service life of bridge.
EUROPEAN: Two levels of earthquakes are defined in Euro-code based on probability
of their occurrence. Small earthquakes are those which are highly probable to occur
during service life of bridges. Large earthquakes are those with low probable to occur
during service life of bridge.
DESIGN APPROACH
INDIAN: The bridges should be designed such that it can withstand minor earthquake
elastically where as moderate and major earthquake will be withstood by reserve strength
and ductility effect. It is Single Level Design since design is not checked for ductility
without collapse.
AASHTO, CALTRANS, NEW ZEALAND & EUROPEAN: Design should be such
that desired performance at lower earthquake loads is implied elastically. For larger
earthquake, over strength and ductile detailing will be provided (Single Level Design).
ATC-32 Recommendations & JAPAN: Important bridges are designed by seismic
coefficient; the design is then checked for ductility and changes if any will been made in
the design (Two Level Design). For Ordinary bridges, design should be such that desired
performance at lower earthquake loads is implied elastically. For larger earthquake, over
strength and ductile detailing is provided.
RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Only Japanese code give inter plate as well as intra plate spectrum. All the
countries other then New Zealand provide elastic response spectrum in their code, New
Zealand’s code has given inelastic spectrum. ATC-32 has given separate spectrum for
displacement and force calculation. Japanese and Indian codes provide a set of equations
together with response spectrum. For the sake of comparison AASHTO and EURO code
response spectrums are plotted along with INDIAN for medium soil. Fig 1 shows
response spectrum of Indian, AASHTO and Euro code, the plot is self explanatory.

218
Advances In Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

RESPONSE SPECTRUM
3

2.5

Spectral AccelerationCoeff. (Sa/g)

INDIAN MEDIUM SOIL
AASHTO SOIL TYPE-II
2 EURO SOIL GROUP 2

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (sec)

Fig 1 - Response Spectrum of INDIAN, AASHTO and EURO Code

SEISMIC EFFECT OF LIVE LOAD
INDIAN: The live load is to be considered in transverse direction only, for working out
seismic force 50% of design live load for railways as well as road bridges shall be
considered.
UNITED STATES: Live load is to be considered during quake only when designing a
bridge with high live load to dead load ratio, which is case in metropolitan area, where
traffic is heavy.
JAPAN, EUROPE & NEW ZEALAND: Live load is not considered at the time of
earthquake.
IMPORTANCE AND SEISMIC ANALYSIS
All the codes give a table for choice of analysis based on the seismic zone and
importance of bridges. Indian codes do not give importance classification of bridges
while other codes give definition based on type of structure, traffic, function, site, post
quake importance etc.

219
 S.K. Thakkar1 and Sadaqat Ali2

Table 1: Minimum Analysis Required for Seismic Effect as per AASHTO

Single Multi Span Bridges
Span Other Bridges Essential Bridges Critical Bridges
Zone
Bridges
Regular Irregular Regular Irregular Regular Irregular
1 No -- -- -- -- -- --
2 Seismic SM SM SM MM MM MM
3 design SM MM MM MM MM TH
4 required SM MM MM MM TH TH
Where: SM = Single Mode analysis, MM = Multi-Mode analysis & TH = Time History
analysis
Table 2: Method of Seismic Analysis of Bridges as per IS: 1893-2005 (part-III)
(draft)
Category of Bridge Type
Earthquake
Level Regular Major Special Type
Response Spectrum or Response Spectrum or
DBE Seismic Coefficient
Time History Time History
Table 3: Method of Seismic Analysis of Bridges as per Japanese code
Dynamic properties Bridge Whose Bridge Whose Earthquake Behavior is Complex
Earthquake Case Where Static Case Where Static
Analysis Behavior is not
method Analysis is Analysis is Applicability is
Complex Applicable Limited
Seismic Required Required Required
Coefficient for setting of initial values
Method and dimensions
Static Ductility Application studied
analysis Design Required Required according to structural
Method properties
Required for
verification of
Dynamic Analysis Not Required seismic design Required
results by static
analysis
HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE
Provision for hydrodynamic pressure is incorporated in Indian code, Japanese
code and Euro-code only while rest countries are silent on this issue. In Indian code it is
based on the ratio of depth of submerged portion of pier and radius of enveloping
cylinder defined (H/r) and Japanese code it is based on the ratio of width perpendicular to

220
Advances In Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

the direction of earthquake and depth of submerged portion of pier (a/H), whereas in
Euro-code it based on the ratio of two sides in rectangular (b/a), it gives added mass per
unit depth of submergence hence the effect of depth of submergence is not properly
provided. A numerical example is solved here to compare added mass using these codes,
results are tabulated below. For this study depth of submerged pier (H) is fixed as 4 m
size of pier parallel (b) to quake is fixed as 2 m and width perpendicular to quake (a) is
varied as shown in table 4. It is observed from the table that added mass for circular pier
using these three codes are close while for rectangular pier, these are quite different.

Fig 2: Defining Dimensions of Pier Section

Table 4: Numerical Comparison of Added Mass (kg) for Hydrodynamic Pressure
Circular pier Rectangular pier
Parameter
a=2m a=4m a=6m a=8m
Indian code 9169 28888 51094 78374
Japanese code 10500 36000 67500 96000
Euro-code 12560 85408 209753 388523
DISCUSSION ON COMPARISON OF CODES
A comparison on various issues of codes is provided in tabular form in Appendix
A. The studies on the world seismic codes for bridges have been conducted for five
countries. These codes are referred around the world and have been used as guiding
document. From the study following observations are made.
• Response Spectrum: Indian, ATC-32 and New Zealand have smooth curves in
long period range while for other’s curve are piecewise linear. ATC-32 has
provided separate curves for displacement and force. New Zealand code is the
only code with inelastic Response Spectrum. Japanese code provides inter plate
as well as intra plate earthquake Spectrum.
• Importance categories: Indian codes do not give definition of importance
categories, CALTRANS has not addressed this point; other codes defined
importance categories with factor.

221
 S.K. Thakkar1 and Sadaqat Ali2

• Site classes: CALTRANS has defined five site classes while AASHTO and
ATC-32 have defined four site classes, while other having three. The definition
of site classes for Americans and Euro-code is based on shear wave velocity
while that Japanese code is based on predominant period and New Zealand is on
natural period and in Indian code soil types are based on SPT value.
• Selection of method of analysis: Indian code has given selection based on type
of bridges only while other codes have provided matrix based on some factors.
• Load combination: Only Indian and Euro-code have provided load combination.
• Live load effect: Indian code has considered seismic effect of live load, while as
per American codes live load to be considered for special cases, while others
have ignored live load effect.
• Capacity design: Indian codes have not incorporated capacity design.
• Minimum seat width: In Euro-code it depends on seismic displacement while
others have given expression for seat width.
• Foundation: American, Japanese and New Zealand codes have covered
foundation design while other codes have given some guidelines.
• Base isolation: Covered as special case and full chapter is devoted to this topic
in Japanese, Euro-code and CALTRANS while other codes have given some
guideline.
• By the release of IS: 1893-2005(PART III) Indian seismic code for bridges will
be compatible to other world codes for bridges.
• AASHTO, CALTRANS and ATC-32 include all aspects of bridge design
including seismic while other codes covered only seismic part in above
mentioned codes and remaining provision in some other codes.
• Japanese code comprehensively covers special topics like base isolation, ductility
design, Unseating Prevention system etc. which are not covered in that detail by
other codes.
CONCLUSIONS
A study is conducted on various issues of seismic codes on bridges in USA,
Japan, Euro-code, New Zealand and Indian codes. From the study it can be concluded
that:
• General philosophy of seismic design is similar; there are variations in
performance criteria.
• The performance based design is adopted by majority of codes while Indian code
is yet not adopted this basis of design.
• All codes have adopted capacity design except Indian.
• Indian, Japan and Euro-code provide hydrodynamic pressure effect during
earthquake while others are silent. There are variations observed in consideration
of hydrodynamic effect of water in various codes.

222
Advances In Bridge Engineering, March 24 - 25, 2006

• Indian code particularly need up-gradation on classification of importance,

design considerations for MCE, consideration of near field earthquake,
performance criteria, capacity design and consideration of asynchronous motion.
REFERENCES
1. Bureau of Indian Standards, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structure, 1984, IS: 1893, New Delhi.
2. Bureau of Indian Standards, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structure (Part I: General Provision and Building), 2002, IS: 1893, New Delhi
3. Bureau of Indian Standards, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structure (Part III: Bridges and Retaining Walls), (Draft) 2005, IS: 1893, New
Delhi.
4. ATC, Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges, 1996, ATC-32,
CA.
5. ATC, Seismic design criteria for bridges and other highway structure, 1997,
ATC-18, California.
6. JSCE, Specifications for Highway Bridges (Part V Seismic Design), 1996,
Tokyo, Japan.
7. EUROCODE, Design Provision for Earthquake Resistance of Structures (Part 2
Bridges), 1996, Euro-code 8, Europe.
8. TRANSIT, Bridge Manual, 2003, Wallington, New Zealand.

223