See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326258718

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF BRIDGE PIERS

DESIGNED USING DIFFERENT NATIONAL CODES

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 288

2 authors:

Apratim Patil Yogendra Singh

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    114 PUBLICATIONS   395 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ductile detailing of rc bridge pier View project

Out-of-Plane Seismic Behaviour and Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Walls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Apratim Patil on 13 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Eleventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Integrating Science, Engineering & Policy
June 25-29, 2018
Los Angeles, California

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC

PERFORMANCE OF BRIDGE PIERS
DESIGNED USING DIFFERENT NATIONAL
CODES
A. Patil1 and Y. Singh2

ABSTRACT

The current bridge design codes follow a force-based design methodology, without any check on
the displacement. In this methodology, the effect of inelastic energy dissipation is taken into
account indirectly using a ‘Response Reduction Factor’ or ‘Behavior Factor’. Contrary to
buildings, the energy dissipation in bridges takes place in the piers. The capacity of a pier to
dissipate energy depends on reinforcement detailing in the plastic hinge region. Different national
codes differ in the values of response reduction factor and reinforcement detailing guidelines in
piers. A comparative study is conducted on two bridges with different spans and heights to study
their collapse probabilities at maximum considered earthquake (MCE). It is observed that seismic
load combination factor, response reduction factor, P-Δ effect and ductile detailing provisions play
crucial roles in the seismic capacity and collapse probability of bridges.

1
Post-Graduate Student, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India (email:
apratimpatil94@gmail.com)
2
Professor, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India (email:
yogendra.eq@gmail.com)

Patil A, Singh Y. A comparative study of seismic performance of bridge piers designed using different national
codes. Proceedings of the 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Los Angeles, CA. 2018.
 Eleventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Integrating Science, Engineering & Policy
June 25-29, 2018
Los Angeles, California

A Comparative Study of Seismic Performance of Bridge Piers Designed

Using Different National Codes

A. Patil1 and Y. Singh2

ABSTRACT

The current bridge design codes follow a force-based design methodology, without any check on the displacement. In
this methodology, the effect of inelastic energy dissipation is taken into account indirectly using a ‘Response
Reduction Factor’ or ‘Behavior Factor’. Contrary to buildings, the energy dissipation in bridges takes place in the
piers. The capacity of a pier to dissipate energy depends on reinforcement detailing in the plastic hinge region.
Different national codes differ in the values of response reduction factor and reinforcement detailing guidelines in
piers. A comparative study is conducted on two bridges with different spans and heights to study their collapse
probabilities at maximum considered earthquake (MCE). It is observed that seismic load combination factor, response
reduction factor, P-Δ effect and ductile detailing provisions play crucial roles in the seismic capacity and collapse
probability of bridges.

Introduction

Understanding of inelastic seismic behavior of reinforced concrete bridge piers has received
significant research attention after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The effect of 1994
Northridge earthquake on Bull Creek Canyon Channel bridge, demonstrated failure of column due
to unintentional restraint by channel walls. The reduced effective length of columns caused higher
shear force; and the insufficient shear reinforcement in plastic hinge region caused shear failure of
columns near foundation. These failures highlight importance of design, detailing and analysis of
bridge piers. Considerable improvements in design, detailing and construction practice of bridge
piers have been done since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. Many researchers have conducted
analytical and experimental simulations of bridge piers subjected to seismic loading. Kibbaoua et
al. [1] conducted a numerical and analytical study on circular and wall type bridge piers in Algeria,
and developed fragility curves. Collapse capacity of both the piers was found out to be different
due to different cross sectional area, and percentage of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement.

1
Post-Graduate Student, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India (email:
apratimpatil94@gmail.com)
2
Professor, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India (email:
yogendra.eq@gmail.com)

Patil A, Singh Y. A comparative study of seismic performance of bridge piers designed using different national
codes. Proceedings of the 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Los Angeles, CA. 2018.
The reason behind different percentage reinforcement was the difference in provisions for
reinforcement detailing in different shapes of cross section. Another study conducted by
Mahmoudi et al. [2] about fragility analysis of bridge abutments and piers, including the bearing
used pedestrian bridge located in Montreal for case study. They observed that due to relative
flexibility of bridge pier in comparison with the abutment, failure of bridge can takes place due to
unseating of superstructure. Study conducted by Kulkarni et al. [3] on tall bridge piers
demonstrated that in case of tall bridge piers, we cannot ignore P-Δ effect. Also, the pushover
analysis is not adequate to demonstrate the behavior of a tall bridge pier. A study conducted by
Sebail [4] compares the different national seismic design codes and reports that over strength factor
is inherent component of design, which may alter the capacity of the bridge.
The main focus of the present study is to compare different national codes for designing of
bridge piers and compare the collapse capacity of typical piers designed for these codes. The study
has been carried out on rock outcrop in Zone V of the Indian code IRC-6 [5] with fixed base. Five
different national codes has been used to design the same set of bridges under given hazard
conditions. For non-linear incremental dynamic analysis, guidelines of ASCE 41 [6] and FEMA
P695 [7] have been used. The FEMA P695 [7] far field ground motion suit has been used to carry
out the analysis. Both Sa(T1) and Sa,avg (0.2T – 3T, 5%) have been considered as intensity measures.
In contrast to Sa,avg (0.2T – 3T, 5%), Sa(T1) cannot capture the spectral ordinates corresponding to
higher modes, and it also doesn’t consider the spectral shape for elongated period.

Case Studies

For the presented case studies, two bridges have been considered. One of the bridges considered
for the study is located in North-East region of India, and is constructed over river ‘Teesta’. This
bridge has center to center span length of 42.3 m and consists of RC box girders as superstructure.
Height of pier, from foundation cap to top of pier cap, is 5 m. The second bridge, considered for
case study is a steel truss bridge over river Ganga, and is located in Eastern part of India. It is
having span length of 105 m from center to center of bearings. The pier height including the
thickness of pier cap is 17.706 m. The bridge is used for rail transportation. M40 concrete and
Fe500 grade steel has been used for construction of bridge piers and pier caps. Both the bridges
have been considered to rest on rock outcrop with fixed base.

Pier Section Design

In this study, five different codes IRC [8], RDSO [9], AASHTO [10], EURO [11] and
CALTRANS [12] have been used for seismic design and ductile detailing of bridge piers.
According to AASHTO [10] code, the response reduction factor, R depends on category of bridge
(viz. critical, essential or other). While CALTRANS [12] provide Response Modification Factor,
z based on period on vibration. For single column bent, the z factor is constant equal to 4 up to 0.6
s period, which decreases linearly to 2.5 at 3 s period. According to EURO [11], IRC-6 [5] and
RDSO [9] codes, the response reduction factor depends on the reinforcement detailing. The
response reduction factors for the considered bridges, according to different design codes are
shown in Table 1. Further, different codes use different multiplication factors to apply on the
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) response spectrum to convert it into the Design Basis
Earthquake (DBE). The live load specifications also vary for different countries. To keep parity in
the present study, IRC-6 [5] specifications have been used for the Teesta (road) bridge, whereas
IRS Bridge rules [13] have been used for the Ganga (railway) bridge. Respective load
combinations of different codes (Table 2) have been used to obtain the design forces in the piers.
It has been assumed that all the codes are able to provide adequate capacity in shear and the shear
failure mode has not been considered in the present study. The diameter of pier section, percentage
of longitudinal reinforcement required, and the confining reinforcement required has been
calculated using the different codes and shown in Table 3.

Table 1. Response reduction factors used according to different country codes

Design Code Teesta Bridge Ganga Bridge

AASHTO 1.5 1.5
EURO 3.3 3.3
IRC 4 4
RDSO 4 4
CALTRANS 4 2.7

Table 2. Load factors according to different country codes

Design Code Dead load factor Live load factor Seismic load factor
AASHTO 1.5 0.5 1
EURO 1.35 0.2 1
IRC-6 1.35 0.2 1.5
RDSO 1.25 0.5 1.5
CALTRANS 1.5 0.5 1

Table 3. Section of bridge pier with reinforcement detailing

Longitudinal Transverse
Dia. of
Bridge Design Code Reinforcement Reinforcement
Pier (m)
(%) (%)
AASHTO 2.35 3.61 1.39
Teesta Bridge

CALTRANS 1.70 3.61 0.83

EURO 1.80 3.60 0.78
IRC 1.90 3.60 1.00
RDSO 1.90 3.60 0.83
AASHTO 2.60 3.80 1.01
Ganga Bridge

CALTRANS 2.00 3.60 0.56

EURO 1.90 3.60 0.78
IRC 2.00 3.60 0.83
RDSO 2.10 3.80 0.80

Nonlinear Modelling of Bridge Piers

For modelling of concrete in the cross section of bridge piers, Mander’s confinement model [14]
has been used. The section has been modelled in ‘Section Designer’ tool of ETABS Nonlinear [15]
software, with required longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. For longitudinal steel, an elasto-
plastic model has been used. Usable strain limits of 2% and 5% have been applied on the steel in
compression and tension, respectively [6]. The sections and material properties are used to develop
the moment curvature curves for different pier section, which are further used to develope the
moment-rotation curves.

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Moment-Rotation curves for piers designed for different codes: (a) Ganga Bridge;
and (b) Teesta Bridge.

For estimating the moment-rotation curves from the moment-curvature curves, plastic hinge length
is a crucial input parameter. For the designed solid pier sections, the following relationship for
plastic hinge length, proposed by Paulay and Priestley (1992), and recommended by CALTRANS
[12] has been used:

 p   p  Lp (1)

L p  0.08L  0.022 f ye  d bl  0.044 f ye  d bl (2)

 p  u   y (3)

where,
 p and  p are the plastic rotation capacity and plastic curvature capacity of pier section,
respectively, u and  y are the ultimate and yield curvature capacity of pier section, Lp is plastic
hinge length of pier section, L is length of pier measured form point of maximum moment to point
of contra-flexure, fye and dbl are the expected yield stress and diameter, respectively, of the
longitudinal reinforcement used in the pier.
Fig. 1 shows the obtained moment-rotation curves for different piers. To consider the cyclic
degradation of strength and ductility, the capping strength and pre- and post-capping rotations in
these moment-rotation curves are reduced as per the guidelines given in PEER ATC:72-1 [16].
The piers are modelled as vertical cantilevers, with the tributary mass and vertical load lumped at
bearing level for longitudinal direction and at center of gravity of super-structure for the transverse
direction. The model has been analyzed using ETABS software which provides energy based
degrading hysteretic model. However, this model is available in ETABS only for moment (M3)
hinges and not for the interacting (P-M2-M3) hinges. The considered bridges having single pier
bents, the axial force in the pier does not change with the lateral displacement and hence, provides
an opportunity to model the behaviour using M3 hinge. Accordingly a M3 hinge is assigned at the
base of pier. For calculation of effective stiffness (EIeff) of the cracked pier sections the guidelines
of ASCE-41 [6] have been used, where the effective stiffness of column section depend on P/Agf’c
ratio. (E – Modulus of elasticity, I – Moment of inertia of section, P – Gravity load, Ag – Gross
cross sectional area of pier, f’c – Compressive strength of concrete).
Three parameters are required in the ETABS hysteretic model to account for stiffness
degradation and energy dissipation: i) Energy factor at moderate deformation (f1), which is ratio
of energy dissipated in degraded to non-degraded loop for deformation within pre-capping range;
ii) Energy factor at maximum deformation (f2), which is ratio of energy dissipated in degraded to
non-degraded loop for deformation within post-capping range; and iii) Stiffness degradation
weighing factor (s). In this study, the values of f1, f2 and s have been used as 1, 0.55, 0.10,
respectively, which have been obtained using a calibration of the hysteretic curve [17]. For
calculation of ductility ratio, displacement controlled non-linear static analysis (pushover analysis)
considering P-Δ effect, has been used, and ductility ratio has been calculated according to
guidelines of FEMA P695 [7].

Dynamic capacity curve and fragility analysis

Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) of the bridge pier models has been carried out with far-field
ground motion suits of FEMA P695 [7]. 22 ground motion records specified in FEMA P695 are
used with gradual scaling, till the collapse is observed. Plots of Sa,avg (0.2T-3T, 5%) vs drift ratio;
and Sa(T1) vs drift ratio have been obtained for each scaled record. The collapse is indicated by
sudden drastic increase in the drift ratio for a small increase in the Intensity Measure (IM) (Figs.
2 and 3). Results of IDA have been used for fragility analysis as per the procedure proposed by
Haselton et al [18]. The fragility is represented as the collapse probability vs Sa,avg(0.2T-3T, 5%)
or Sa(T1). According to this procedure, the probability of collapse depends on median collapse
capacity and total uncertainty in collapse capacity. The total uncertainty has two components: i)
the record to record variability (βRTR) which is standard deviation of logarithm of collapse spectral
acceleration for different ground motions; and ii) Modelling uncertainty (βm), which is dependent
on material used for construction, construction practice, detailing and design provisions and
completeness of analytical model used for simulation.
To probability of collapse is expressed as

1  Sa  
P  IC      ln    (4)
 Sa  S
 T  a ,median  

where
 T   RTR 2   m 2 (5)
Sa,median is median spectral acceleration which can be evaluated directly from IDA curve. Whereas,
βT is the total uncertainty in calculation of collapse probability. βRTR and βm are as discussed above.
In addition to the collapse probability, the Collapse Margin Ratio (CMR) of the considered bridges
has also been compared, using the guidelines provided in FEMA P695 [7]. The CMR is defined
as the ratio of median spectral acceleration capacity to the spectral acceleration demand at MCE.

S a ,median
CMR  (6)
S a , MCE

Results and discussion

Table 4. Results of non-linear static analysis

Ductility Over-strength Factor

Bridge Design
Type Code Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse
direction direction direction direction
AASHTO 4.82 4.34 2.28 1.50
Teesta Bridge

CALTRANS 3.94 3.57 2.72 1.79

EURO 4.17 3.65 2.30 1.50
IRC 4.42 4.00 3.04 2.00
RDSO 4.78 4.33 3.12 2.05
AASHTO 2.64 2.58 1.73 1.56
Ganga bridge

CALTRANS 1.57 1.55 2.03 1.84

EURO 1.69 1.66 2.03 1.82
IRC 1.68 1.65 2.74 2.48
RDSO 1.78 1.75 2.94 2.76

Table. 4 shows the ductility and over-strength factors of the different bridge designs, obtained
using the nonlinear static analysis. As seen from Table. 3, the design for AASHTO [2] code results
in the maximum confining (transverse) reinforcement and the same is responsible for the highest
ductility ratio in case of both the bridges designed for AASHTO code. On the other hand, the piers
designed and detailed using CALTRANS [6] code results in the lowest amount of the transverse
reinforcement, yielding the lowest ductility ratio. IRC [13] and EURO code [9] provisions result
in approximated same ductility. Results of uniaxial non-linear dynamic analysis (IDA) for the
bridge pier designed and detailed according to RDSO code [22] have been shown in Figs. 2 and 3,
using Sa,avg(0.2T-3T) and Sa(T1), respectively, as the IM. The fragility curves of same bridge pier
are also shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Similar results have also been obtained for other
bridges, but not shown here for brevity. Comparing the results of the non-linear static and non-
linear dynamic analyses, it can be seen that the results of both the analyses show the same trend
about the performance of bridge piers designed and detailed using different national codes.
 (a) (b)

Figure 2. Dynamic capacity (IDA) curves with Sa,avg(0.2T-3T) as the IM, for the bridge pier
designed and detailed using RDSO code: (a) Teesta Bridge; and (b) Ganga Bridge.

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Dynamic capacity (IDA) curves with Sa(T1) as the IM, for the bridge pier designed
and detailed using RDSO code: (a) Teesta Bridge; and (b) Ganga Bridge.
Table 5. Dynamic collapse capacity and corresponding variabilities.

Median Capacity βRTR βT

Pier Model βm
Sa(T1) Sa,avg Sa(T1) Sa,avg Sa(T1) Sa,avg
AASHTO 2.02 1.32 0.34 0.22 0.5 0.60 0.54
Teesta Bridge

CALTRANS 1.28 0.88 0.25 0.19 0.5 0.56 0.53

EURO 1.42 0.92 0.21 0.19 0.5 0.54 0.53
IRC 1.57 0.95 0.22 0.20 0.5 0.54 0.53
RDSO 1.75 0.97 0.25 0.17 0.5 0.56 0.52
AASHTO 0.67 0.40 0.39 0.23 0.5 0.64 0.55
Ganga Bridge

CALTRANS 0.26 0.18 0.31 0.23 0.5 0.59 0.55

EURO 0.31 0.21 0.33 0.30 0.5 0.6 0.58
IRC 0.40 0.24 0.31 0.33 0.5 0.58 0.60
RDSO 0.38 0.21 0.27 0.25 0.5 0.57 0.56

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Fragility curves with Sa,avg(0.2T-3T) as the IM, for the bridge piers designed and
detailed using different codes: (a) Teesta Bridge; and (b) Ganga Bridge.
 (a) (b)

Figure 5. Fragility curve bridge piers designed using different country codes using spectral
acceleration at T1: (a) Teesta Bridge; and (b) Ganga Bridge.

Table 6. Collapse Margin Ratio and Collapse Probability.

Collapse Margin Ratio Collapse Probability at MCE

Country
Codes Teesta Ganga
Teesta Bridge Ganga Bridge
Bridge Bridge
AASHTO 2.24 3.00 0.0022 0.1598
CALTRANS 2.22 1.93 0.0116 0.7061
EURO 2.01 2.33 0.0056 0.5933
IRC 2.26 2.74 0.0035 0.4347
RDSO 2.32 2.48 0.0023 0.4608

Conclusions

Comparing the behavior of bridge pier designed and detailed using five different national codes,
it is observed that AASHTO code [2] provides the highest while CALTRANS code [6] provides
the lowest seismic capacity. While piers designed according to guidelines by RDSO [22], IRC [14]
and EURO code [9] have comparable performance. Short bridge piers, designed and detailed using
RDSO code, behave slightly better than piers designed and detailed using the IRC code. On the
other hand, the pattern is just opposite for comparatively tall bridge piers. Currently, none of the
considered design codes provides any check on maximum displacement that can be permissible
for bridge piers. This limitation results in significantly higher collapse probabilities in case of taller
piers, for all the considered codes. Current study has been carried out with pier base considered as
fixed. Further study with considering the flexibility of foundation and soil needs to be conducted
to further explore the effect of increasing period and P-Δ.
 Acknowledgments

The ground motion database used for non-linear dynamic analysis is taken from PEER NGA [19]
database. Authors would like to express their thanks to Mr. Mithesh Surana, Research Scholar,
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee. for his valuable
inputs about software used to conduct this analytical study, ETABS (16.2.0) [15].

References

1. Kibboua A, Naili M, Kehila F, Bechtoula H, Mehani Y. Seismic vulnerability functions of existing reinforced
concrete bridge piers. Proceedings of 15WCEE 2012; 0225.
2. Mahmoudi S, Chouinard L. Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridge. Proceedings of 15WCEE 2012;
5759.
3. Kulkarni R, Adhikari S, Singh Y, Sengupta A. Seismic performance of bridge with tall piers. Proceedings of
Institution of Civil Engineering 2014; DOI: 10.1680/bren.14.00027.
4. Sebai A. Comparisons of international seismic code provisions for bridges. M.E. Dissertation 2009, McGill
University, Quebec, Canada.
5. Indan Road Congress (IRC). Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, section: II loads
and stresses. IRC-6, New Delhi, 2014.
6. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE
Standard, ASCE/SEI 41-13, Reston, Virginia, 2013.
7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Quantification of building seismic performance factors.
FEMA P695, Washington, D.C., 2009.
8. Indian Road Congress (IRC). Code of practice for concrete road bridges. IRC-112, New Delhi, 2011.
9. Research Design and State Organisation (RDSO). Seismic Design of Railway Bridges. National Information
Centre for Earthquake Engineering, Lucknow, 2010.
10. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2012.
11. European Committee for Standardization (ECS). Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Part 2:
Bridges. Eurocode- 8, Brussels, 2003.
12. California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). Seismic Design Criteria and Bridge Memo to
Designers. CALTRANS, Sacramento, CA, 2006.
13. Indian Railway Standards (IRS). Rules specifying the loads for design of super-structure and sub-structure
of bridges and assessment of strength of existing bridges. IRS: 2008, Lucknow, 2008.
14. Mander JB, Priestley MJN and Park R. Theoretical stress strain model for confined concrete. Journal of
Structural Engineering 1988, 114(8): 1804–1826.
15. CSI (2016). ETABS 2016 Integrated building design software, Version 16.2.0, Computers and Structures,
Inc., Berkeley, U.S.A.
16. PEER / ATC-72-1. Modelling and acceptance criteria for Seismic design and analysis of tall buildings.
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 2010.
17. Surana M, Singh Y, Lang D. Seismic characterization and vulnerability of building stocks in hill region.
Natural Hazard Reviev 2017, ASCE.
18. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Deierlein GG, Dean BS, and Chou JH. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete
buildings. I: Assessment of ductile moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011a, ASCE, 137(4),
481-491.
19. PGMD (2011) PEER Ground Motion Database (BETA version),
http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database (accessed 10/09/2017).

View publication stats