Handouts - 31.08.2019

Indian Association of Structural Engineers
Refresher Course on
"Application of New Seismic Code for Highway
Bridges - IRC:SP:114-2018"
31st August 2019
PHD House, New Delhi
Handouts of the Presentations

Sponsor
Sanfield (India) Ltd

31st August 2019
Lecture 4 Brief History of Seismic Code in IRC and introduction to

09:00 AM - 11:00 AM new guideline on Seismic Design of Bridges
Mr. Alok Bhowmick, President IAStructE & Managing
Director, B&S Engineering Consultants Pvt Ltd
Lecture 5 Seismic Induced forces & Site Conditions (Chapter 4)

11:15 AM to 12:15 PM Mr. Rajiv Ahuja, GC Member-IAStructE & Independent
Consultant - Bridges & Highways
Lecture 6 Seismic Analysis Methods (Chapter 5)

12:15 PM - 01:15 PM Mr. Aditya Sharma, Director (Highway & Structures),
Ramboll India
HANDOUTS OF THE PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Alok Bhowmick

President IAStructE &
Managing Director, B&S Engineering Consultants Pvt Ltd
BSEC
REFRESHER COURSE ON
“APPLICATION OF NEW SEISMIC CODE FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES”

INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Brief History of
Seismic Code in India
&
Introduction to new
guideline on Seismic ALOK BHOWMICK, IntPE (India)
Design of Bridges PRESIDENT, IAStrucE,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
B & S ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.
REFRESHER COURSE ON “APPLICATION OF NEW SEISMIC CODE FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES”
Brief History of Seismic Codes in India &

Introduction to New Guideline on Seismic
Design of Bridges BSEC
CONTENT OF PRESENTATION
1. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF
SEISMIC DESIGN PRACTICE IN
INDIA
2. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES
IN THE PRESENT CODE
(IRC:SP:114)
3. CONCLUSIONS 2

HISTORICAL
DEVELOPMENT OF
SEISMIC DESIGN
PRACTICE IN INDIA
3
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF
SEISMIC DESIGN PRACTICE IN INDIA BSEC
Kangra EQ 1905 (M 8.6)
1. India has witnessed some of the
largest EQ in world during 1897-
1950.
2. In this period, the country was hit Assam-Tibet EQ 1950 (M8.7)
by five GREAT earthquakes of
magnitude 8.0 and above :
• Assam EQ 1897 Assam EQ 1897 (M 8.7)
• Kangra EQ 1905
Bihar-Nepal EQ 1934
• Bihar-Nepal EQ 1934
• Andaman Island 1941
• Assam-Tibet EQ 1950
4
3. Prior to 1930s, Seismic effects were either not

considered or poorly considered in design of
structures.
4. Initiation for codification of seismic
provisions started in 1930s. After Baluchistan
Earthquake (1930s), Railways were first to
come out with Seismic Design forces.
5. Around the same time, IRC also started
working on Earthquake considerations for
Highway Bridges 5
In India, there are three codes /

standards, which deals with the seismic
design of bridges. These are :
1. IRC 6 (Applicable for Highway Bridges),

2. IS 1893 (Applicable for Highway / Railway
Bridges),
3. IRS Code for EQ Resistant Design of
Railway Bridges.
6
IRC 6 BRIDGE IITK-RDSO

IS 1893
IRC:SP:114 RULES GUIDELINE
FP -1958 FP - 1962 FP - 1941 2010
2nd R -1964 1st R -1966 1st R - 1964 2015
3rd R - 1966 2nd R - 1970 IRS CODE
1979* 3rd R - 1975 ISSUED
4th R - 2000 4th R - 1984 48 Correction
BY RDSO
2003* 5th R - 2002 Slips till date
2017
5th R - 2010 2014 (P-3)
6th R - 2014 6th R - 2016
7th R - 2017
7
SP114 - 2018
Earthquake effects can cause

damage in a number of ways :
a. Vibration
Indian Codes cover
b. Landslide only ‘Vibration’
aspect in detail.
c. Liquefaction
Other aspects are
d. Fire still not adequately
e. Tsunami covered.
8
Development of IRC
Code : IRC 6
9
REFRESHER COURSE ON
DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC
1st Code in 1958 :

The country was divided into
four regions :
1. Region-1: Epicentral Tracts;
(Force to be decided by
Engineer)
2. Region-2: Liable to Severe
Damage (G/10);
3. Region-3: Liable to Moderate
Damage (G/20) &
Map same for 4. Region-4: Liable to Minor
1958, 1964 & 1966 Code Damage or Nil)
10
REFRESHER COURSE ON
IRC:6 – 1979 (3rd Rev)

For the 1st time BIS zoning
Map introduced by IRC
Feq = ...G 11
REFRESHER COURSE ON

4th Revision of IRC:6 -2000 & subsequent
amendment in 2003 (Post Bhuj EQ):
Seismic Zone / % Geographical
(Zone Factor) Area
II (0.10) 41.4%
III (0.16) 30.4%
IV (0.24) 17.3%
V (0.36) 10.9%
IRC followed the same zoning

map as given by BIS 1893. Also
PGA considered is same as in
IS:1893 (for MCE condition) 12
REFRESHER COURSE ON
Major Changes brought in 2003 Code

 There is a strong correlation throughout
the world between the occurrence of
major EQ and advancement in seismic
design codes.
 India is no exception and Bhuj EQ has
brought about radical changes in the
Indian EQ Codes.
 2003 Code of IRC is a reflection of the
same. 13
REFRESHER COURSE ON

Major Changes brought in 2003 Code
1. New Seismic Map introduced with 4
Seismic Zones (Taken from IS:1893
(Part 1)-2002
2. Response Spectra introduced in the
Code.
For the first time, it was recognized that Seismic
forces are not only dependent upon Gravity
Loads, but also on structure type, strength and
stiffness of the member. 14
REFRESHER COURSE ON

Major Changes in 2003 Code ..Contd.
3. ‘Response Reduction Factor (R)’
introduced :
For the first time, it was recognized that it will
be unaffordable to design all structures to
remain elastic under EQ forces. Some
components of the structure can go in inelastic
range and dissipate energy. Substructure
needs to be designed in a manner such that
energy can be dissipated by plastic hinge
formation at a select location. 15
REFRESHER COURSE ON

4. Provisions for confinement and
ductility detailing introduced, in line
with IS: 13920 provisions;
This is to ensure that at the location
of plastic hinge formation, there is
enough ductility to ensure structural
behavior as intended.
16
REFRESHER COURSE ON

5. Recommended provisions for Seismic

stoppers, STU, Base Isolation, Seismic
Fuse etc. introduced in the code;
It was realized that while one method of
resisting EQ forces is to provide structural
members with sufficient flexibility, strength and
ductility, another important method is by
limiting the seismic effects (rather than
resisting them) through use of seismic devices. 17
REFRESHER COURSE ON
5th Rev. of IRC: 6 – 2010 : Major Changes

1. Based on industry feedback, ‘R’ Factor
rationalized and made variable (varying
from 4 to 1) depending upon type of
substructure and type of bearings;
2. Importance Factor was rationalized and

different factors were specified for
Normal, Important and Large critical
bridges. 18
REFRESHER COURSE ON

3. For Load Comb, 100-30-30 rule introduced.
4. LL factor under seismic load combination
reduced from 0.5 to 0.2;
5. Response Spectra for different damping % of
the structure were introduced.
6. For design of Foundation, Seismic loads are
taken 1.25 times the forces transmitted from
Substructure (To avoid plastic hinge formation
in Foundation) 19
REFRESHER COURSE ON
1. Response Spectra curve modified to

be in line with the IS:1893 spectra;
2. Response Reduction Factors further

rationalized;
3. Design Philosophy changed from WS

to LS 20
REFRESHER COURSE ON

4. Cracked moment of inertia allowed for
time period calculations
5. Foundation Factor modified. 1.35/1.25
for concrete / steel substructure
6. Reference to IRC112 given in place of
IS: 13920 for ductility detailing
21
Consider a Bridge located in Delhi, in medium soil (Type
II), supported on deep foundation with RCC Circular Pier
EQ SEISMIC COEFF.
BSEC
S. SALIENT FEATURE OF THE
No.
CODE
T = 0.5 Sec T = 1.0 Sec CODE
1 IRC 6 – 1958 0.100 0.100 Code published before BIS Code
ZONING MAP FROM IS 1893-1975
REPRODUCED. ZONE FACTOR,
IRC 6 -1966 (WITH IMPORTANCE FACTOR AND SOIL FACTOR
2 0.090 0.090 INTRODUCED IN LINE WITH PREVAILING
Amendment of 1981)
IS 1893
h = 0.05, l = 1.5,  = 1.2
AMENDMENTS BROUGHT IN LINE WITH
IRC 6 – 2000 (With PROVISIONS OF IS:1893 (PART I) - 2002
3 0.180 0.098 Z = 0.24, l = 1.5, Sa/g = 2.5 / 1.36 for tp =
Amendment of 2003)
0.5sec/1.0 sec. respectively, R = 2.5
''R' FACTORS & I.F RATIONALISED ;
ADDITIONAL MARGIN KEPT FOR
0.090 0.049
4 IRC 6 – 2010 FOUNDATION DESIGN
(0.113)* (0.061)* Z = 0.24, l = 1.2, Sa/g = 2.5 / 1.36 for tp = 0.5
sec/1.0 sec. respectively, R = 4
'R' FACTORS MODIFIED. FF INCREASED
IRC 6 – 2014 / 0.120 0.065 FOR CONC. STRUCTURES FROM 1.25 TO
5 1.35. , Z = 0.24, l = 1.2, Sa/g = 2.5 / 1.36 for tp
2017 (0.162)* (0.088)*
= 0.5 sec / 1.0 sec. respectively, R = 3,
22
HOW SEISMIC FORCE CHANGED WITH TIME FOR IRC CODE
REFRESHER COURSE ON
For Foundation
Eq. Seismic Coefficient can not be determined in

case of IRC:SP:114 easily as it depends also on
concrete grade and reinforcement provided in pier. For Sub-Structure
But it will be higher as compared to past code
23
Development of BIS
Code : IS 1893
24
REFRESHER COURSE ON
DEVELOPMENT OF IS:1893 BSEC

1. Design Spectra extended
upto 6s.
2. Same design response Different
spectra irrespective of acceleration
material of construction spectra for 3 soil
3. Minimum lateral design force types
introduced In IS 1893-2016
4. Simplified method for
liquefaction potential
Response
Spectrum Method
analysis introduced 2016 introduced.
Importance Factor
introduced.
Performance Factor
introduced.
Modal Analysis
introduced.
1970 1975 2002 Change in

1962 1966 Seismic
25
1984 2002 Zoning Map
REFRESHER COURSE ON
Seismic Zone Map of

India: Year-1962 26
REFRESHER COURSE ON
Seismic Zone Map of

India: -1966 27
REFRESHER COURSE ON
Seismic Zone Map of

India: -1970 28
REFRESHER COURSE ON
Seismic Zone / % Geographical

(Zone Factor) Area
II (0.10) 41.4%
III (0.16) 30.4%
IV (0.24) 17.3%
V (0.36) 10.9%
Seismic Zone
Map of India: -2002 29
REFRESHER COURSE ON
Performance Goals in Latest Code :

• IS:1893 – 1962, 1966, 1975 & 1984 actually
specified a single level of earthquake.
• IS:1893-2002 (AFTER BHUJ EQ) specifies TWO
levels of earthquakes (i,e. MCE and DBE).
Design is for DBE only and it is presumed that
MCE requirements will be deemed satisfied.
As per BIS Code [IS:1893 (Part 3)], 2 Level of
EQ checks are envisaged.
• IS:1893-2016 removed concept of DBE & MCE 30

SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES IN THE
PRESENT CODE
(IRC:SP:114)
A 13 paged clause no. 219 of IRC:6

is now replaced by a 150 page full
fledged guideline on Seismic. 31
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN
IRC:SP:114 - 2018 BSEC
Present Codes can be compared with

past code based on following :
a. Design Philosophy and Performance
Criteria
b. Seismic Loads and Site Effects
c. Analysis and Modelling
d. Design Requirements
e. Additional Features in the Code 32
Design Philosophy and Performance Criteria
1. Previous code had no stated

design philosophy. Only
operative clause was there.
2. Present code has a stated design
philosophy. Principle of capacity
design is followed to protect the
structure from collapse.
33
(Clause 2.6)
34
Performance Criteria :
a. Forced Based Design approach.
b. Single Level checks for bridges with
intended design life of 100 yrs. Two-
Level checks for Bridges with
design life > 100 yrs.
c. Response Reduction Factors
rationalized in SP 114. 35
3. New Clause : In case site

specific spectra is used, the
minimum values of seismic
forces & displacements in the
structure shall not be smaller
than those arrived at from the
code response spectrum. 36
4. Minimum Design Seismic Force clause
introduced
37
Basis : Ah-Min = 0.25 x (Sa/g) x (I/R) x (Z/2), Where Sa/g = 2.5, I=1.0, R=3.0
5. The scour to be considered during

seismic design shall be based on av.
of yearly max. design floods. The
average may preferably be based on
consecutive 7 years’ data. In any
case, the scour depth to be
considered for design during
seismic shall not be less than 0.9
times the max. design scour depth. 38
6. Previous code mentions about ‘Special
Investigations’ in certain cases. SP 114 clarifies
what is meant by ‘Special Investigations’. As per
SP 114, detailed Seismic Studies are required in
following additional cases (Other cases, as
existed, not highlighted):
39
40
41
Seismic Loads & Site Effects
1. The code represents the seismic
hazard by 5% damped elastic response
spectra. Provision for scaling of
spectra, for different damping % is now
removed from the code.
2. Two spectras are given ….One for
Seismic Acceleration method of design
and one for response spectrum method
of analysis 42
ESAM : Applicable for

simple structures of
medium spans and low
heights.
ERSM : Applicable for

complex structures of
long, continuous,
skewed spans and long
heights. 43
3. Site effects : Effect of soil in the

response spectrum taken care by
defining three types of soil :
a. Soil Type I – Rock & Hard Soils.
b. Soil Type II – Medium or Stiff
Soils
c. Soil Type III – Soft Soil 44
SP 114 has
given detailed
classification
to determine
the category
in which the
soil falls for
determination
of spectrum
to be used. 45
Analysis & Modelling
1. 3 methods of analysis specified

in SP 114, depending upon the
complexity of the structure & the
input ground motion :
a. Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method
(ESAM)
b. Elastic Response Spectrum Method
(ERSM)
46
c. Time History Method (THM)
2. Bridges of length upto 10m
need not be designed for
EQ.
3. Bridges having spans upto

15m and overall length less
than 60m in Seismic Zone
II & III need not be
designed for EQ
4. Dynamic Earth Pressure

on Abutments and
Retaining Walls need not
be considered in Seismic
zone II & III
47
5. ESAM : Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method
SEISMIC ZONE II & III SEISMIC ZONE IV & V
1. Simply Supported bridges 1. Simply Supported bridges

having individual spans having individual spans
of any length, with pier upto 30m, with pier height
height upto 30m upto 30m
2. Filled up Arch Bridges 2. Filled up Arch Bridges

48
5. ERSM : Elastic Response Spectrum Method
1. Simply Supported bridges having 1. Simply Supported bridges having
individual spans of any length, with individual spans upto 30m, with pier
pier height above 30m height upto 30m
2. Continuous, Integral & Extradosed 2. Continuous, Integral & Extradosed
Bridges of all span lengths Bridges of span length < 150m
3. Arch Bridges (Other than Filled-Up 3. Arch Bridges (Other than Filled-Up
Arch Bridges) Arch Bridges)
4. Bridges with difference in Pier 4. Bridges with difference in Pier
Heights, curved in plan, Skew (>30o) Heights.
5. Bridges founded on poorly graded 5. Bridges founded on poorly graded

sand and / or in liquefiable soil sand and / or in liquefiable soil 49
5. THM : Time History Method + ERSM
1. Bridges located in Geological 1. Bridges located in Geological
discontinuity, Bridges in near field discontinuity, Bridges in near field
region region
2. Cable Stayed Bridges & Suspension 2. Continuous, Integral & Extradosed
Bridges Bridges of span length > 150m
3. Bridges with STU, Isolation
3. Bridges curved in plan, Skew (>30o)
Devices
4. Cable Stayed Bridges & Suspension
Bridges
5. Bridges with STU, Isolation

Devices 50
Design Requirements
1. Capacity design principle : Adopted for
the first time. Problem with this method
is that design becomes over-
conservative when non-seismic load
combination governs the design
2. Response Reduction Factor ‘R’ : ‘R’
factor is now given for Substructure
only. Foundations & Superstructure are
supposed to remain elastic. 51
Design Requirements
3. Overstrength Factor : Value of
Overstrength Factor is no longer a
constant value. It now depends on the
normalized axial force.
4. Seismic Connections : Dealt with in
great details in the new code. Seismic
Reaction Blocks, Seismic Links,
Holding Down Devices, Longitudinal
Restrainers are all covered. 52
Additional Features in the Code
1. Seismic Isolation Device introduced
in the code for the first time (Chapter
10).
2. Several Worked Examples added in
the guideline, for better compliance.
3. Ductility detailing of steel bridges
introduced in the code.
53

CONCLUSIONS
54
CONCLUSIONS BSEC
1. With publication of SP 114, Clause
219 of IRC:6 stands withdrawn. It is
recognized that designers will require
some time to familiarize themselves
with provisions of this guideline.
2. Effort is made by the code makers to

make it user-friendly, by giving many
worked examples. The code is no
longer prescriptive. 55
CONCLUSIONS BSEC
3. Codes are continually evolving as new

knowledge is acquired and experience
with existing code is gained during EQ
that occurs around the world.
4. In many EQ prone countries,
researchers and practitioners have
been able to improve the state-of-the-
art substantially & major code revisons
have occurred. 56
CONCLUSIONS BSEC
5. Future Trends : New methods of

seismic design are either
displacement based or energy
based or both.
6. These methods are likely to find
their way into the codes in future,
as acceptable alternatives to
conventional force-design
methods. 57
CONCLUSIONS BSEC
7. Structural Engineers therefore must
make efforts to improve their
knowledge and skill in advances
techniques of analysis and design.
8. Familiarity with Performance Based

Design is therefore required for
those who want to prepare
themselves for future. 58
CONCLUSIONS BSEC
Finally, I will conclude my presentation by saying :
Seismic Design and

Analysis is as much
an Art as it is a
Science:
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL & ITS
BSEC
EFFECT FOR BRIDGE DESIGN
THANK YOU
For your patience60
Mr. Rajiv Ahuja
GC Member-IAStructE &
Independent Consultant - Bridges & Highways
Refresher Course on "Application of New Seismic Code for
Highway Bridges – IRC:SP:114-2018"
24th August 2019 to 28th September 2019.
Presentation on
Seismic Induced Forces and Site Conditions-Chapter 4
By
Rajiv Ahuja
CHAPTER 4
SEISMIC INDUCED FORCES AND SITE CONDITIONS
This chapter includes mainly:
a) Types of Seismic Induced Forces

b) Ground Motion and Components of Ground Motion
c) Combination of Seismic induced forces for design
d) Seismic zone map and Zone Factors
e) Response reduction factor “R”
f) Importance factor “I”
g) Soil Foundation interaction
h) Hydrodynamic forces on bridge piers and foundations.
g) Liquefaction Effects
Seismic Induced Forces on Bridge Structures:
a) Horizontal seismic forces on structural components of bridge

b) Vertical seismic forces on structural components of bridge
c) Dynamic increment/decrement in lateral earth pressure on retaining structures
d) Hydrodynamic force on submerged portion of pier, pile and well foundations
e) Liquefaction Effects
Ground Motion and Components of Ground Motion:
The characteristics (intensity, duration, frequency etc.) of seismic ground motion expected at
any location depend upon:
• Magnitude of Earthquake
• Its Focal depth
• Distance of epicentre
• Characteristics of the path through which the seismic waves travel.
• Soil strata on which the structure is founded
The predominant direction of ground vibration is usually horizontal. For the design purpose,
the random earthquake ground motion can be resolved in three mutually perpendicular
directions.
1) Horizontal Longitudinal direction
2) Horizontal Transverse directions
3) Vertical direction
Fig. 4.1 Seismic Zones
Towns falling at the boundary of zones demarcation line between two zones shall
be considered in higher zone.
Seismic Zone Map and Design Seismic Spectrum-Clause 4.3:
The Country is classified into four zones as shown in Fig. 4.1.
For each Zone a factor ‘Z’ is associated, the value of which is given in Table 4.2.
Zone No. Zone Factor (Z)
V 0.36
IV 0.24
III 0.16
II 0.10
Moment Magnitude, Mw:
This term is neither defined in IS:1893 nor in IRC:SP:114 but is more commonly used by
Seismologist.
Moment Magnitude is calculated using moment Mo released during an earthquake rupture along a
fault and there are methods to compute the same using seismograms.
This value is also required for assessing Liquefaction potential of soil.
However, Mw Moment Magnitude corresponding to the above Zones is not specified either in
IS:1893 or in IRC:SP:114.
In a recently conducted Seminar on Commentary on IS:1893 at IIT, Gandhi Nagar, values of Mw

have been proposed for each zone.
Table 4.2A MOMENT MAGNITUDE (Mw)
Zone No. Moment Magnitude, Mw
V 7.5
IV 7.0
III 6.5
II 6.0
Importance Factor-Clause 4.5
Bridges are designed to resist Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) level, or other higher or
lower magnitude of forces, depending on the consequences of their partial or complete
non-availability, due to damage or failure from seismic events.
The level of design force is obtained by multiplying (Z/2) by factor „I‟, which represents
seismic importance of the structure.
Choice of Importance Factor:
Combination of factors considered in assessing the consequences of failure and hence

choice of factor ‟I‟- include:
 Extent of disturbance to traffic and possibility of providing temporary diversion,
 Availability of alternative routes,
 Cost of repairs and time involved, which depend on the extent of damages,
- minor or major
 Cost of replacement, and time involved in reconstruction in case of failure
 Indirect economic loss due to its partial or full non-availability

Table 4.3 Importance Factors
While checking for seismic effects during construction, the importance
factor of 1 should be considered for all bridges in all zones
Seismic Class Illustrative Examples Importance

Factor ‘I’
Normal Bridges All Bridges except those mentioned in other classes 1
a) River bridges and flyovers inside cities 1.2

Important Bridges b) Bridges on National and State Highways
c) Bridges serving traffic near ports and other
centres of economic activities
a) Bridges crossing two existing/proposed railway lines
(Future lines shall not be considered as proposed
railway line)
a) Long bridges more than 1km length across perennial 1.5
Large critical bridges in all rivers and creeks
seismic zones b) Bridges for which alternative routes are not available
c) Bridges crossing more than two existing/ proposed
railway lines
Horizontal Seismic Forces on structural components:
Horizontal Seismic Induced Forces Fh are obtained by the following relation:
Fh=Ah x Mass
Ah=(Z/2) (Sa/g)/(R/I)
Z=Zone Factor
Sa/g=Design/Response Acceleration Coefficient
R=Response Reduction Factor
I=Importance Factor
Ah is computed in longitudinal and transverse directions separately. Methods for computation of Seismic
Induced Forces including Sa/g corresponding to Time Period are given in Chapter 5.
Vertical Motion:
The effect of vertical ground motions is important in bridges with long spans, prestressed
concrete spans, bridges with long horizontal cantilevers and where stability is the criteria of
design.
The vertical ground motions can be quite significant in near field earthquakes.
Vertical motion can occur in cantilever spans arising due to horizontal motion of piers.
In zones IV and V the effects of vertical components shall be considered for all elements of
the bridge. However, the effect of vertical component may be omitted for all elements in zone
II and III, except for the following cases:
(a) prestressed concrete superstructure
(b) bearings and linkages
(c) horizontal cantilever structural elements
(d) for stability checks and
(e) bridges located in the near field regions
Vertical component of Seismic action
Analysis for vertical seismic action requires time period of superstructure in vertical direction.
Time period for the superstructure has to be worked out separately using the property of the
superstructure, in order to estimate the seismic acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) for vertical
acceleration.
It can be obtained by free vibration analysis of superstructure using standard structural

analysis software.
For simply supported superstructure with nearly uniform flexural rigidity, the
fundamental time period Tv, for vertical motion can be estimated using the expression:
Tv=
Where,
l is the span metres,
m is the mass per unit length (N per m), and
EI is the flexural rigidity of the superstructure in N-m2.
The seismic zone factor for vertical ground motions may be taken as two-thirds of that for
horizontal motions.
Combination of Component Motions
The seismic forces shall be assumed to come from any horizontal direction. For this purpose,
two separate analyses shall be performed for design seismic forces acting along two
orthogonal horizontal directions. The design seismic force resultants (i.e. axial force, bending
moments, shear forces, and torsion) at any cross-section of a bridge component resulting
from the analyses in the two orthogonal horizontal directions (x, z) shall be combined as below:
a) ±r1±0.3r2
b) ±0.3r1±r2
r1= Force resultant due to full design seismic force along x direction.
r2= Force resultant due to full design seismic force along z direction.
When vertical seismic forces are also considered, the design seismic force resultants at any
cross section of a bridge component shall be combined as below:
a) ±r1±0.3r2±0.3r3
b) ±0.3r1±r2±0.3r3
c) ±0.3r1± 0.3r2±r3
Where,
r1 and r2 are as defined above and r3 is the force resultant due to full design seismic force along the vertical
direction.
Response Reduction Factor R:
Structure is designed as earthquake resistant and not for the actual earthquake forces which
may be quite higher than design forces. Design seismic forces are obtained after dividing the
elastic earthquake forces by a factor “R” which is used due to following reasons:
Overstrength of structural components:

Overstrength is derived from partial safety factors on loads, material safety factors, provision of
more reinforcement than required, strain hardening of materials & confinement of concrete. This
provides additional reserve of strength.
Redundancy:
Yielding at one location in the structure does not imply yielding of the structure as a whole.
Load redistribution in redundant structure provides additional safety margin. For this reason,
continuous/frame type structures perform better.
Ductility:
There is more energy dissipation in ductile structures when it yields and natural period increases
Design Forces for elements of Structures and use of Response reduction factor:
Clause 4.2.4 of IRC: SP:114-2018
“R” Response Reduction Factor is one of the most important parameters in calculation of
Seismic Induced Forces.
“R” is a factor by which the elastic lateral force shall be reduced to obtain the design lateral force
on components.
The forces on various members obtained from the elastic analysis of bridge structure (as
described in Chapter 5) are to be divided by Response Reduction Factor given in Table 4.1
before combining with other forces as per load combinations Table B.1 to B.4 of IRC: 6 - 2017.
Table 4.1 Response Reduction Factors (R)
Column 3 of above Table is deleted in forthcoming Amendment and Ductile detailing will be mandatory for
piers of bridges located in all seismic zones.
BRIDGE COMPONENT ‘R’ WITH DUCTILE ‘R’ WITHOUT

DETAILING DUCTILE DETAILING
(for Bridges in Zone II
only)
Substructure
(i) Masonry / PCC Piers, Abutments 1.0 1.0
(ii) RCC Wall piers and abutments transverse 1.0 1.0
direction (where plastic hinge cannot develop)
(iii) RCC Wall piers and abutments in longitudinal 3.0 2.5

direction (where hinges can develop)
(iv) RCC Single Column 3.0 2.5

(v) RCC/PSC Frame ( Refer Note VI) 3.0 2.5
(vi) Steel Framed 3.0 2.5
(vii) Steel Cantilever Pier 1.5 1.0
Bearings and Connections (see note(V) also) 1.0 1.0
Stoppers (Reaction Blocks) 1.0 1.0
Those restraining dislodgement or drifting away of bridge elements.
Comparison of R with other Codes for Ductile Detailing:
‘R’
R’ ‘R’
AS PER IRS
BRIDGE COMPONENT AS PER IRC AS PER SEISMIC CODE 2017
IS:1893
Substructure
(i) Masonry / PCC Piers, Abutments 1.0 1.5 & 1.0 1.5 & 1.0
(ii) RCC Wall piers and abutments transverse 1.0 3.0 & 2.5 3.0 & 2.5
direction (where plastic hinge cannot develop)
(iii) RCC Wall piers and abutments in longitudinal direction (where hinges 3.0 3.0 & 2.5 3.0 & 2.5
can develop)
(iv) RCC Single Column 3.0 4.0 4.0
(v) RCC/PSC Frame 3.0 4.0 4.0
(vi) Steel Framed 3.0 2.5 2.5
(vii) Steel Cantilever Pier 1.5 1.0 1.0
Bearings and Connections 1.0 0.8 2.0
Stoppers (Reaction Blocks) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Those restraining dislodgement or drifting away of bridge elements.
Foundations (well, piles or open) Design for over 1.0 2.0

strength moment
Euro Code Provision :BS EN 1998-2:2005+A2:2011 EN 1998-2:2005+A2:2011 (E)
Table 4.1: Maximum values of the behaviour factor q
Type of Ductile Members
Limited Ductile Ductile
Reinforced concrete piers:

Vertical piers in bending 1.5 3.5 λ(αs )
Inclined struts in bending 1.2 2.1 λ(αs)
Steel Piers:
Vertical piers in bending 1. 5 3,5
Inclined struts in bending l .2
Piers with normal bracing 1.5 2,0
Piers with eccentric bracing - 2,5
Abutments rigidly connected to the deck: 3,5
In general l.5 1. 5
Locked-in structures (see. 4.1.6(9), (10)) l.0 1 .0
Arches 1.2
2,0
* αs = Ls/h is the shear span ratio of the pier, where Ls is the distance from the plastic hinge to the point of zero
moment and h is the depth of the cross-section in the direction of flexure of the plastic hinge.
For (αs ) ≥3 λ(αs )=1
3> αs ≥ 1.0 λ(αs)= (αs/3)^0.5
Seismic Transverse direction with ductile detailing
For Ls=height for a cantilever pier= 16m

Size of pier= 4m x 1m (wall type) as per IRC:112
αs=16/4=4 λ(αs )=1 q=3.5
For Ls=height for a cantilever pier= 6m
Size of pier= 4m x 1m (wall type) as per IRC:112
αs=6/4=1.5 λ(αs )=0.707 q=3.5*0.707=2.475
As per IRC:SP:114 R=1 in transverse direction and R=3 in longitudinal direction

However, for pier of size 3.9m x 1.0 m R=3 in both directions
 R factor with Elastomer Bearing:
When elastomeric bearings are used to transmit horizontal seismic forces, the response
reduction factor (R) shall be taken as 1.0 for all substructure.
Combined stiffness of elastomer bearing and a cantilever pier is given by:
Ke=1/k1+1/k2
Where
k1=stiffness of elastomer bearings
K2=stiffness of pier
Elastomer bearings lead to higher time period and reduced Sa/g.

 In case of R=1, substructure and foundation will remain in elastic state, no ductile
detailing is required irrespective of seismic zone.
 Bracing and bracing connection primarily carrying horizontal seismic force for steel and
steel composite superstructure, R factor shall be taken as 3 where ductile detailing is
adopted.
 Response reduction factor is not to be applied for calculation of displacements of elements of

bridge as a whole.
 As per IS:1893 (Part 3) in Footnote under Table-3 : R should be taken as 1.0 for calculating
displacement.
Design Horizontal Forces on Bearings:
 Bearings and connections shall be designed to resist the lesser of the following
forces,
 (a) Design seismic forces obtained by using the response reduction factor of 1.0
 (b) F orces developed due to over strength moment when hinge is formed in the substructure.
Horizontal seismic force from (a) with R=1 can be very high for which it may be difficult to
design bearings.
Horizontal force from (b) can be much lower especially in case of a single pier. But in multiple
piers, sum of shear in all piers for overstrength moment has to be added.
Integral bridges is the solution for such situations.

Horizontal Seismic Forces on bearings can be very high as seen from the following example:
Superstructure=3-lane continuous with deck width of 15.2m including footpath and length of
100m
Dead Load per meter=15.2 x 0.6 m average thickness x 2.5 =22.8 t/m
SIDL(wearing course +crash barriers) per meter= 4.75t/m
Total DL+SIDL=27.55 t/m x 100=2755 t
Seismic Zone=V Z=0.36
R=1 for bearings
Sa/g=2.5 for shortest pier on ramp
Ah=0.18 x 2.5 x 1.5/1=0.675
Fh=Horizontal seismic force=0.675 x 2755= 1860 t !!
Many superstructures are being constructed with single box for 6-lane divided carriageway
with a deck width of about 30m where horizontal seismic force may be much higher for
continuous spans.
 Overstrength moments, (Mo) shall be considered as
 Mo=γo MRd
 γo = Overstrength factor and

 MRD is plastic moment of section (for detail refer Chapter 7).
 Over-strength factors for Concrete members: γo= 1.35 & for Steel members: γo = 1.25
 The shear force for over strength moments in case of cantilever piers shall be calculated as
MRD/h, “h” is height shown in Fig 7.2 in Chapter 7.
 In case of portal type pier capacity of all possible hinges need to be considered.
 Capacity Design should be carried out where plastic hinges are likely to form.
 Capacity Design is dealt with in Chapter 7.

 Minimum Seismic Forces:
In case site specific spectra is used, the minimum values of seismic forces and
displacements in the structure shall not be smaller than those arrived at from the
code response spectrum-Clause 2.4 ii of IRC:SP:114.
 The earthquake accelerations should be applied to full mass in case of

submerged structures and not on buoyant mass-Clause 2.4 iv of IRC:SP:114.
 Amendment :The R factor for ductile behavior specified in Table 4.1 may be
used only if the location of relevant plastic hinges are accessible for
inspection and repair. Otherwise, under situation of inaccessibility of plastic
hinges the Factor R given in Table 4.1 shall be multiplied by 0.6; however,
R value less than 1.0 need not be used.
Relaxation Clauses Clause 2.3
 Culverts and minor bridges up to 10 m length in all seismic zones need not
be designed for seismic effects.
 Bridges in seismic zones II and III satisfying both limits of total length not
exceeding 60 m and individual simply supported spans not exceeding 15 m
need not be designed for seismic effects.
 The dynamic earth pressures on abutments during earthquakes shall not be

considered in Zones II and III.
Soil Structural Interaction, Damping and Soil Properties-Clause 4.4
 For bridges founded on soft/ medium soil where deep foundation is used for the purpose
of seismic analysis, soil structure interaction shall (better to write-may be in place of shall)
be considered.
 However, it shall not be considered for open foundation on rock.
 While modelling the substructure and foundation of the bridge considering soil–structure
interaction effects, flexibility of soil is included with the help of soil springs.
 The effect of considering soil-structure interaction, in general, results in longer time
period, thereby reducing the seismic forces.
 However, considering soil flexibilities shall result in large displacements, soil parameters,
like elastic properties and spring constants shall be properly estimated.
 There are situations, where one obtains a range of values for soil properties. In such
cases, the highest values of soil stiffness shall be used for calculating the natural
period and lowest value shall be used for calculating displacement.
Seismic Effects on Live Load Combination-Clause 4.6
 The seismic force shall not be considered when acting in direction of traffic, but shall be
considered in direction perpendicular to traffic.
 The horizontal seismic force in the direction perpendicular to the traffic shall be calculated
20 percent of live load (excluding impact factor).
 The vertical seismic force shall be calculated for 20 percent live load (excluding impact
factor).
 All live load combination for verification of equilibrium, structural strength, serviceability
limit state etc. the Tables B.1 to B.4 of IRC: 6-2017 shall be referred.
Seismic Effects on Earth Pressure and Dynamic Component-Clause 4.7
For seismic effects on earth pressure and dynamic component the clause 214.1.2 of IRC-
6- 2017 shall be referred.
Clause 214.1.2.1 Dynamic Increment in Active EP for non-cohesive soil due to Earth fill
Clause 214.1.2.2 Dynamic decrement in Passive EP for non-cohesive soil due to Earth fill
Clause 214.1.2.3 Dynamic Increment in Active EP for non-cohesive soil due to Uniform
Surcharge
Clause 214.1.2.1 Dynamic decrement in passive EP for non-cohesive soil due to Uniform
Surcharge
Clause 214.1.2.5 Effect of Saturation in dynamic increment and decrement for non
cohesive soil
Clause 25 of IS:1893 (Part 3) for dynamic increment/decrement in C-Ø Soil
Clause 214.1.2.1 IRC:6-2017 for Active Pressure due to Earthfill under Seismic Case:
The total dynamic force in kg/m length wall due to dynamic active earth pressure shall be:
C = Coefficient of dynamic active earth pressure

a
w = Unit weight of soil in kg/m3
Av = Vertical Seismic coefficient
ø = Angle of internal friction of soil
λ =
α = Angle which earth face of the wall makes with the vertical
β = Slope of earth fill
δ = Angle of friction between the wall and earth fill and
Ah = Horizontal seismic coefficient, shall be taken as (Z/2), for zone factor Z
From the total pressure computed as above subtract the static active pressure obtained
by putting Ah = Av = λ = 0 in the expression above. The remainder is the dynamic
increment.
The static component of the total pressure shall be applied at an elevation h/3 above
the base of the wall.
The point of application of the dynamic increment shall be assumed to be at mid-height

of the wall.
The Modified earth pressure forces due to dynamic increments and decrements need
not be considered on the portion of the structure below scour level.
Seismic Forces on Embedded portion of foundation:
 For embedded portion of foundation at depths exceeding 30 m
below scour level, the seismic force due to foundation mass
may be computed using design seismic coefficient equal to
0.5Ah.
 For portion of foundation between the scour level and up to 30
m depth, the seismic force due to that portion of foundation
mass may be computed using seismic coefficient obtained by
linearly interpolating between Ah at scour level and 0.5Ah at a
depth 30 m below scour level.
Hydrodynamic Forces on Bridge Piers and Foundations-Clause 4.8
Method-1:
Total hydrodynamic force and pressure distribution along the height of submerged
piers/piles/well following the method of cylinder analogy shall be adopted. This method is
suitable when Seismic Coefficient Method of analysis is employed.
Method-2:
Computing „Added Mass‟ of water contained in enveloping cylinder and adding this mass
with the inertial mass of pier. This method is suitable when dynamic analysis such as
Response Spectrum Method or Time History method is employed.
Method-1:
When the earthquake occurs, hydrodynamic forces shall be considered acting on
all submerged parts of structures such as piers, well caps, wells, pile caps, piles and
the connecting beams between the two wells if existing, over the submerged height up
to scour level in addition to the seismic force calculated on the mass of the respective
part of the structure. This force shall be considered to act in the horizontal direction
corresponding to the direction of earthquake motion. The total horizontal force
shall be evaluated by Eq. 4.2
F = Ce × ah× W Eq. (4.2)
Where :
Ce = A coefficient given in Table 4.4 as a function of ratio H/Re ( height of
submerged portion of pier (H) to Radius of enveloping cylinder Re )
αh = Design horizontal seismic coefficient as given in IRC 6 – 2017
W = Weight of the water of the enveloping cylinder

Some typical cases of submerged structures of piers and the corresponding enveloping
cylinders are shown in:
Fig. 4.3(a) shows single unit structures
Fig. 4.3(b) shows enveloping cylinders for pile groups.
For the evaluation of volume of water the diameter of the enveloping cylinder of water
which is shown in Fig. 4.3 (a) and Fig. 4.3 (b) as per the direction of earthquake motion
should be considered without deducting for the volume of structure.
Fig. 4.3 (a) Structure of Single Unit
Fig. 4.3 (a) Structure of Single Unit

Fig. 4.3 (b) Enveloping cylinder for Pile Group
Table 4.4 Value of Ce
H/Re
Ce
1.0 0.390
2.0 0.575
3.0 0.675
4.0 0.730
The pressure distribution is shown in Fig. 4.2.
Values of C1, C2, C3 and C4 are stated in Table 4.5.
Fig. 4.2 Diagram showing Pressure Distribution

Table 4.5 Values of Coefficients C1, C2, C3 and C4
C1 C2 C3 C4
0.1 0.410 0.025 0.9345
0.2 0.673 0.093 0.8712
0.3 0.832 0.184 0.8103
0.4 0.922 0.289 0.7515
0.5 0.970 0.403 0.6945
0.6 0.990 0.521 0.6390
0.8 0.999 0.760 0.5320
1.0 1.000 1.00 0.4286
Method-2:
Method of computation of added mass of water:
The total „effective mass‟ in a horizontal direction of a submerged pier should be assumed to
be sum of:
 The actual mass of the pier without giving allowance for buoyancy
 The mass of water enclosed within the pier in case of hollow pier
 The added mass Ma of water per unit of pier height, contained in enveloping cylinder
The added mass of water per unit of pier height, contained in enveloping cylinder is computed
using Eq. 4.3
Ma = C × r × p x R 2 (Eq. 4.3)
Where:
Ce= a coefficient in Table 4.4, a function of H/Re ρ= the water

density
Re= the radius of enveloping cylinder
This added mass Ma is used in computing „effective mass‟ as explained above. The effective
mass is then used in working out natural periods and mode shapes of bridge and response
spectrum analysis. No separate calculation for working out Hydro dynamic pressure is then
necessary
/ Liquefaction:
It is a state primarily in saturated cohesionless soils wherein the effective shear strength is reduced
to negligible value for all engineering purposes, when the pore pressure approaches the total
confining pressure during earthquake shaking. In this condition, the soil tends to behave like a fluid
mass. It is more applicable to fine sands with low value of SPT.
FOS for Liquefaction is given by
FOS=CRR/CSR
Where
CRR is Cyclic resistance ratio
CSR is Cyclic Stress ratio
If FOS<1, Soil is liquefiable.
Detailed procedure for assessing FOS is given in Appendix-A5 of IRC:SP:114-2018.

CRR = (CRR 7.5) (MSF) Kσ Kα
CRR_7 5= standard cyclic resistance ratio for a 7.5 magnitude earthquake obtained using
values of SPT or CPT or shear wave velocity
MSF = magnitude scaling factor given by following equation:
MSF = 10^2.24/ Mw^ 2.56
This factor is required when the magnitude is different than 7.5 magnitude.
Mw=Moment Magnitude for the location considered.

Suggested values are ZONE Mw
II 6.0
III 6.5
IV 7.0
V 7.5
Liquefaction Effects:
a) Open foundation is not feasible unless ground treatment is done.
b) Deep foundations like piles and wells have to be provided.
c) In piles, skin friction in liquefied zone to be neglected, though overburden is not lost.
d) Geotechnical capacity of piles is seismic case to come from soil below liquefication level.
e) In well foundations too, soil resistance in liquefied zone to be neglected.

4.9 Load Combinations under SLS and ULS
 For Combination of loads for limit state design of structural components , the Annexure B of
IRC: 6-2017 shall be referred.
 In Seismic combination, load factor is 1.5 on seismic effects (Table B.1 and B.2)
 For base pressure and pile capacity of Foundations, IRC:78 is to be referred. design
Thank you for your attention
Mr. Aditya Sharma
Director (Highway & Structures), Ramboll India
Indian Association of Structural Engineers
(IAStructE)
REFRESHER COURSE ON "APPLICATION OF NEW

SEISMIC CODE FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES -
IRC:SP:114-2018"
ON 30 AUGUST 2019
CHAPTERS – 5 - SEISMIC ANALYSIS METHODS
Presented By :- Aditya Sharma

CONTENTS OF GUIDELINES –MAIN CHAPTERS
• Chapter - 1: Preface
• Chapter - 2: Introduction
• Chapter - 3: Conceptual Design
• Chapter - 4: Seismic Induced Forces and site Condition
• Chapter - 5: Seismic Analysis Method
• Chapter - 6: General Design Provision
• Chapter - 7: Seismic Design Methods
• Chapter - 8: Design of Bridge components
• Chapter - 9: Ductile Detailing of Structures
• Chapter - 10: Seismic Isolation Devices

CONTENTS OF GUIDELINES - APPENDICES
• Appendix A-1 – Illustration of elastic seismic acceleration method
• Appendix A-2 – Illustration of elastic response spectrum method
• Appendix A-3 – Illustration of capacity design procedure
• Appendix A-4 – Illustration of hydrodynamic Pressure on Bridge Piers
• Appendix A-5 – Illustration of Liquefaction of soil

CHAPTER 5 – GENERAL & CONTENTS
• Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method (Seismic Coefficient Method)- worked out

examples presented in Appendix-1;
• Elastic Response Spectrum Method – Worked out example presented in

Appendix-2;
• Two different Spectra are proposed as per IS: 1893-Part-I-2016;
• Geotechnical Aspects in determining spectra and the type of soil on which the
structure is placed shall be identified by three types of Soil classification;
• Time History Method Added & elaborated;
• Minimum Seismic Horizontal force for which structure should be designed is

introduced by mentioning Minimum Design Horizontal Seismic Acceleration
Coefficient.
SEISMIC ANALYSIS METHODS
The Seismic analysis of the bridges shall be carried out using the following
methods as per applicability, depending upon the complexity of the structure and
the input ground motion.
• Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method (Seismic Coefficient Method)
• Elastic Response Spectrum Method
• Time history Method

ELASTIC SEISMIC ACCELERATION METHOD
For most of the structures of low to medium heights with small span and small
length of bridge , elastic seismic acceleration method (Seismic coefficient
method) is adequate. In this method structure is analysed its
fundamental(single) mode of vibration.
Fh = Ah x (Dead load +Appropriate live load)
Fh = horizontal seismic force to be resisted.
Ah = design horizontal seismic coefficient
The design horizontal seismic coefficient shall be determined as follows:
I = Importance Factor
R = Response reduction factor
Z = Zone factor
Sa/g = Design acceleration coefficient for different soil types, normalized with peak ground acceleration, corresponding
to natural period T of structure (considering soil-structure interaction, if required). It shall be as taken corresponding to 5
percent damping
CHAPTER 5 –SEISMIC ANALYSIS METHODS
• For use in Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method (Seismic Coefficient Method)

In absence of calculations of fundamental time period of small bridges, the value of

may be taken as 2.5
Fundamental time period of bridge component is to be calculated by any rational

method of analysis by adopting the Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete (Ecm) as per
IRC: 112, and considering moment of inertia of cracked section, which can be
taken as 0.75 times the moment of inertia of gross uncracked section, in the
absence of rigorous calculation
The fundamental natural period T (in seconds) of pier/abutment of the bridge

along a horizontal direction may be estimated by the following expression:
Where,
D = Appropriate dead load of the superstructure and live load in kN
F = Horizontal force in kN required to be applied at the center of mass of

superstructure for one mm horizontal deflection at the top of the pier/
abutment for the earthquake in the transverse direction; and the
force to be applied at the top of the bearings for the earthquake in the
longitudinal direction.
Applicability on specific structure type :
a) Pier height of bridge is less than 30m.
b) Bridge having no abrupt or unusual changes in mass, stiffness or geometry

along its span
c) Bridge should be straight in and adjacent piers do not differ in stiffness by

more than 25%
This method is not applicable for arch bridge of span more than 30m, cable
supported bridges, suspension bridges and other innovative bridge. This method
is illustrated in next slides
ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD
This is a general method, suitable for more complex structural systems

(continuous bridges, bridges with large difference in pier heights, bridges which
are curved in plan, etc.), in which dynamic analysis of the structure is performed
to obtain the first as well as higher modes of vibration. The forces are obtained
for each mode by use of response spectrum
The following steps are required in Elastic Response Spectrum Method
1) Formulation of an appropriate mathematical model consisting of lumped mass system

using 2D/3D beam elements. The mathematical model should suitably represent dynamic
characteristic of superstructure, bearings, sub-structure, and foundation and soil/ rock
spring. In rock and very stiff soil fixed base may be assumed.
2) Determination of natural frequency and mode shapes following a standard transfer

matrix, stiffness matrix, finite element method or any other approach.
3) Determine total response by combining responses in various modes by mode

combination procedure such as Square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS),
complete quadratic combination (CQC) etc.
4) Calculate the base shear values computed at (3).

ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD - COMBINATION OF MODES
Applicability of Elastic Response Spectrum Method
1) Applicable for pier height more than 30m.
2) Bridge having abrupt or unusual changes in mass, stiffness or geometry
3) Adjacent pier differ in stiffness by more than 25%.
4) To get more accurate results for calculation of seismic forces

GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS FOR DETERMINING THE SPECTRUM
Classification of Types of Soils for Determining the Spectrum to be Used to Estimate Design Earthquake Force
Sr. Soil Type Remarks
No.
i) a) Well graded gravel (GW) or well graded sand (SW) both with less than 5
I percent passing 75 µm sieve (Fines)
Rock or Hard b) Well graded gravel-sand mixtures with or without fines (GW-SW)
soils c)Stiff to hard clays having N above 30, where N is standard penetration test
value
d) Poorly graded sand (SP) or clayey sand (SC), all having N above 30
ii) a) Poorly graded sands or poorly graded sands with gravel (SP) with little or no
II fines having N between 10 and 30
Medium or Stiff b) Stiff to medium stiff fine-grained soils, like silts of low compressibility (ML) or
soils clays of low compressibility (CL) having N between 10 and 30
iii) a) All soft soils other than SP with N<10. The various possible soils are:
III b) Silts of intermediate compressibility (MI);
Soft soils c) Silts of high compressibility (MH);
d) Clays of intermediate compressibility (CI);
e) Clays of high compressibility (CH);
f) Silts and clays of intermediate to high compressibility (MI-MH or CI-CH);
g) Silt with clay of intermediate compressibility (Ml-CI); and
h) Silt with clay of high compressibility (MH-CH).
GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS FOR DETERMINING THE SPECTRUM
Note below Table : -

The value of N to be used shall be weighted mean of ‘N ’of soil layers from existing ground level/
Scour level to ’30 m’ below ground / Scour level. Here N value of individual layer shall be the
corrected value.
This is major change from earlier IRC :- 6 which specify that N values are at founding
level for use of spectra Curve
TIME HISTORY METHOD
• The dynamic analysis of a bridge by time history method may be carried out using
direct step-by-step method of integration of equations of motion with suitable steps
small enough to include response of highest modes of vibration.
• This method is also recommended in situations where large number of modes vibration
are expected to participate in bridge response.
• The seismic motion shall be represented in terms of ground acceleration time-histories

and related quantities (velocity and displacement).
• For spatial model of the structure, the seismic motion shall consist of three
simultaneously acting accelerograms. The same accelerogram may not be used
simultaneously along both horizontal directions. Depending on the nature of the
application and on the information actually available, the description of the seismic
motion may be made by using artificial accelerograms or simulated accelerograms
TIME HISTORY METHOD
Spectral Compatible Time History:
• Artificial accelerograms shall be generated using elastic response Spectra given in Fig
5.1(b) and site specific elastic response spectra .
• The duration of the accelerograms shall be consistent with the magnitude and other
relevant features of the seismic event underlying the establishment of ag.(peak ground
acceleration).
• When site-specific data are not available, the duration of the time history shall be not less
than 30 Sec out of which the strong motion duration shall not be less than 6 Sec. .
• The characteristics of artificial accelerograms should observe the following rules:
• Minimum of 3 sets of time history should be used.

• The mean of the zero period spectral response acceleration values (calculated
from the individual time histories) should not be smaller than the value of ag
• (peak ground acceleration) for the site in question.
TIME HISTORY METHOD
Simulated Accelerogram:
• Simulated accelerograms are generated through a physical simulation of source and
travel path mechanisms.
• The samples used are adequately qualified with regard to the seismic genetic features of
the sources and to the soil conditions appropriate to the site.
• This values are scaled to the value of ag for the zone under consideration.
• Scaling shall be carried out so that the peak ground acceleration shall not lower than 1.3
times the 5 % damped elastic response spectrum of the design seismic loads in the
period ranging between 0.2 T1 and 1.5 T1 were T1 is natural period of the fundamental
mode of the structure
TIME HISTORY METHOD
Applicability
• In bridges where pier height are high
• bridge has abrupt or unusual changes in mass, stiffness or geometry along its span and has
large differences in these parameters between adjacent supports,
• special seismic devices such as dampers, isolator shock transmission unit etc are provided
and
• Where the large spatial variation need to considered

MINIMUM DESIGN HORIZONTAL SEISMIC FORCE
• Bridges and its components shall be designed and constructed to resist the
effects of design Horizontal Seismic force specified above.
• But regardless of horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient Ah arrived at by

applying appropriate seismic analysis methods.,
• bridges shall have lateral load resisting system capable of resisting horizontal
seismic acceleration coefficient not less than Ah- Min given below
SEISMIC ZONE Ah- Min
II 0.011
III 0.017
IV 0.025
V 0.038
CHAPTER 5 – METHOD OF ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 5 –SEISMIC ANALYSIS METHODS
Method of analysis in
Pier Height Remarks
Condition Seismic Zone
II & III IV & V
Difference in Pier
Large All heights ERSM ERSM Refer Note 4
Heights/Stiffness
< 100 m
Curved in Plan All heights ERSM ERSM*
radius
Bridge With Skew Angle >30 ◦ All heights ERSM ERSM*
#site Specific
Cable Stay, Suspension Main Span Spectrum for
All heights ERSM* ERSM#
& Extradosed span <600m zone IV & V
preferable
Evaluation of
liquefaction
Bridges founded on site with sand or poorly
potential shall be
graded sand with little or no fines or in All heights ERSM ERSM
carried out as
liquefiable soil in all seismic zones
given in Appendix
A2
Notes :-
1. From following analysis methods higher order analysis should be performed wherever bridge is falling under more than one
category
ESAM - Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method
ERSM – Elastic Response Spectrum Method
ERSM*- Elastic Response Spectrum Method & Time History Method
ERSM#- Elastic Response Spectrum and Time History Method with Site specific studies
2. Bridges having 0 to 15m span and overall length is less than 60m falls in seismic zone II and III no seismic check need
to consider.
3. Geological discontinuity is a plane or surface that marks a change in physical or chemical characteristics in a soil or
rock mass. A discontinuity can be in the form of a bedding plane, joint, cleavage, fracture, fissure, crack, or fault plane
4. The adjacent pier do not differ in stiffness by more than 25 %. Percentage of difference shall be calculated based on
lesser of the two stiffness
APPENDIX-A1 (REFERENCE CLAUSE 5.2.1)
ILLUSTRATION OF ELASTIC SEISMIC

ACCELERATION METHOD (ESAM)
Application Usage
This method is presented for a simple Fundamental time period "T" is calculated by
bridge having a simply supported using expression given in clause 5.2.1 and
spans resting on elastomer bearings corresponding Sa/g is worked out using Spectra
WORK FLOW FOR CALCULATING THE BASE SHEAR WITH ESAM
DEFINE CALCULATE TIME

DEFINE SEISMIC DEFINE MEMBER DEFINE MEMBER
MEMBER PERIOD & BASE
PARAMETERS STIFFNESS LOADS
IDEALIZATION SHEAR
TYPICAL TRANSVERSE CROSS SECTION OF THE BRIDGE
LOAD IDEALIZATION DEFLECTION OF PIER & VARIATION OF SEISMIC
BEARING COEFFICIENT
Summary of member stiffness
Grade of Modulus of
Member Dimension Section Properties concrete Elasticity
(Mpa) (Gpa)
Depth 1.5 m Area 11.2 m2
Pier cap Width 4.0 m Ixx 7.32 m4

35 32
Length 2.8m Iyy 14.93 m4
Area 3.14 m2
Ixx / Iyy 0.78 m4

Pier
Diameter 2.0m 35 32
Cracked
0.59 m4
Ixx / Iyy
Foundation Width 4.0 m Ixx 21.33 m4

35 32
Thickness 0.05 m
Elastomeric
Width 0.5 m
bearing Rxy / vxx 14000 kN/m N/A N/A
Length 0.5 m
Calculate base shear
APPENDIX-A2 EXAMPLE 1 (REFERENCE
CLAUSE 5.2.2)
ILLUSTRATION OF ELASTIC SEISMIC

RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD (ERSM)
Application Usage
A bridge with two span continuous Mathematical modelling, member properties for
superstructure resting on fixed and analysis, loading, determination of natural
free bearings is analyzed for frequency, mode shapes and calculation of base
assessment of seismic forces with shear by using a commercial software
ERSM
WORK FLOW FOR CALCULATING THE BASE SHEAR WITH ERSM
DEFINE CALCULATE TIME

DEFINE SEISMIC DEFINE MEMBER DEFINE MEMBER
MEMBER PERIOD & BASE
PARAMETERS STIFFNESS LOADS
IDEALIZATION SHEAR
TYPICAL TRANSVERSE CROSS SECTION MEMBER VARIATION OF SEISMIC COEFFICIENT
OF THE BRIDGE IDEALIZATION
Step 3: Define member stiffness
Summary of member stiffness

Grade of concrete Modulus of
Member Dimension Section Properties (Mpa) Elasticity (Gpa)
Pier cap Width 4.5 m Ixx 8.23 m4

35 32
Area 4.91 m2
Ixx / Iyy 1.92 m4

Pier
Diameter 2.5m 35 32
Cracked
1.44 m4
Ixx / Iyy
Pile cap Width 5.1 m Ixx 56.38 m4

35 32
Length 5.1 m Iyy 56.38 m4
Area 1.13 m2
Pile Diameter 1.2m 35 32
Ixx / Iyy 0.10 m4
TYPICAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Model piles from Model pile cap Model pier, Apply Loads Perform
MSL to mid of pier cap & Seismic analysis
pile cap bearings
Summary of Time period & Modal participation factor
Participation factor
(%) Design
seismic
Frequency Time Period
Mode Sa/g acceleration
(Cycles/Sec) (Sec)
coefficient
Individual Cumulative (Ah)
1 0.48 2.10 85.01 85.01 0.65 0.021
2 7.29 0.14 14.97 99.98 2.50 0.080

THANK YOU
ADITYA SHARMA, Director –Highway & Structure,

Ramboll India Pvt Ltd
Phone :- 9811517222

Handouts - 31.08.2019

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Handouts - 31.08.2019

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Indian Association of Structural Engineers

Handouts of the Presentations

Sanfield (India) Ltd

Lecture 4 Brief History of Seismic Code in IRC and introduction to

Lecture 5 Seismic Induced forces & Site Conditions (Chapter 4)

Lecture 6 Seismic Analysis Methods (Chapter 5)

Mr. Alok Bhowmick

“APPLICATION OF NEW SEISMIC CODE FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES”

Brief History of Seismic Codes in India &

Brief History of Seismic Codes in India &

3. Prior to 1930s, Seismic effects were either not

In India, there are three codes /

1. IRC 6 (Applicable for Highway Bridges),

IRC 6 BRIDGE IITK-RDSO

Earthquake effects can cause

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

1st Code in 1958 :

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

IRC:6 – 1979 (3rd Rev)

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

IRC followed the same zoning

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

Major Changes brought in 2003 Code

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

Major Changes in 2003 Code ..Contd.

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

5. Recommended provisions for Seismic

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

5th Rev. of IRC: 6 – 2010 : Major Changes

2. Importance Factor was rationalized and

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

5th Rev. of IRC: 6 – 2010 : Major Changes

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

6th Rev. of IRC: 6 – 2014 : Major Changes

1. Response Spectra curve modified to

2. Response Reduction Factors further

3. Design Philosophy changed from WS

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

DEVELOPMENT OF IRC:6 BSEC

Eq. Seismic Coefficient can not be determined in

DEVELOPMENT OF IS:1893 BSEC

1970 1975 2002 Change in

DEVELOPMENT OF IS:1893 BSEC

Seismic Zone Map of

DEVELOPMENT OF IS:1893 BSEC

Seismic Zone Map of

DEVELOPMENT OF IS:1893 BSEC

Seismic Zone Map of

DEVELOPMENT OF IS:1893 BSEC

Seismic Zone / % Geographical

DEVELOPMENT OF IS:1893 BSEC

Performance Goals in Latest Code :

Brief History of Seismic Codes in India &

A 13 paged clause no. 219 of IRC:6

Present Codes can be compared with

1. Previous code had no stated

3. New Clause : In case site

5. The scour to be considered during

ESAM : Applicable for

ERSM : Applicable for

3. Site effects : Effect of soil in the

1. 3 methods of analysis specified