Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bs 76 BKP PDF
Bs 76 BKP PDF
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
DECEMBER 2005
ISSUED BY
RESEARCH DESIGNS AND STANDARDS ORGANISATION
LUCKNOW - 226011
1
BS-76
FOREWORD
Severe earthquakes of J &K, Bhuj and Latur in recent past, which caused
widespread damages to buildings, structures and bridges, have brought the need for
upgrading seismic design codes in India. Bureau of Indian Standards came out with a
revised 2002 edition of IS: 1893 (Part-1), which only covered general provisions and
buildings. Revision of IS and IRC codes for bridges is still in process. Meanwhile, there
has been lot of advances in seismic design principles of bridges being followed in
developed countries, like in USA. In addition to developing an Indian Code of Standards
for this purpose, there is also a need of better understanding of underlying theories and
philosophies. IITs, Kanpur and Roorkee are involved in conducting short-term courses
for dissipating such knowledge. This report is an effort from B&S Doctorate in creating
such awareness among railway bridge engineers. I hope it would help in initiating
technical debate among bridge fraternity, which would help in our own research finally
lading to revision of IRS Codes.
2
BS-76
CONTENT
CONTENTS PAGE NO
1. BACKGROUND 5
1.1 Recent Developments 5
1.2 Existing Design Philosophy on Indian Railways 6
1.3 Response Spectrum Method as per IS: 1893-1984: 7
1.4 Need For New Seismic Design Criteria 8
1.4.1 Nature of Damages to Bridges Due to Earthquake 8
1.4.2 New Design Philosophy 9
2.0 INTRODUCTION TO NEW CONCEPTS 9
2.1 Bridge Classification 11
2.1.1 Regular and Irregular Bridge 11
2.1.1.1 Regular Bridge 11
3
BS-76
3.2 Damping 19
Appendix-A 37
Appendix-B 38
Appendix-C 39
Appendix-D 40
4
BS-76
1. BACKGROUND
Indian Railways has noted these latest developments in earthquake engineering and a
research project is under consideration for upgrading our IRS Bridge Codes in line with
these. However, till this is achieved, there is a need for a critical assessment of existing
provisions in IRS Codes, new provisions proposed in other Indian Codes and seismic
design criteria of Caltran.
This paper is an effort toward this direction; to make railway bridge engineers familiar
with new developments, create an awareness about issues most critical for railway
bridges and to enable them prepare scope of works for design consultancy contacts for
new major and important bridges.
5
BS-76
Above design philosophy is based on a generalization and attempts to add some extra
forces on the already available Dead Load and Live Load combinations. Hence, it does
not consider extreme earthquakes. Further, the allowable stresses in material and soil is
correspondingly increased in varying degree from 25-50%. Further, it maybe pointed out
that during the expected maximum intensity of earthquake in the various seismic zones,
structures will be subjected to a bigger force. Capacity of the structure in plastic range is
relied upon for absorbing the kinetic energy imparted by the earthquake. But its capacity
is unquantified and unanalyzed. IS:1893-1984 leaves it to just ductile detailing as per
IS:4326-1976, ‘Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of
Buildings’ In 1993 a separate code IS 13920 was developed specifically dealing with
6
BS-76
ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures. IRS Substructure and Foundation Code
do not talk of any ductility detailing in construction.
Existing practice of IS is based on ductile approach to the bridge design. The inelastic
dynamic analysis is usually not carried out.
7
BS-76
8
BS-76
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) is the earthquake, which can reasonably be expected to
occur at least once during the design life of the structure. The structure is designed to
withstand the forces due to such an earthquake in elastic range. Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) is the most severe earthquake that the structure must withstand
without collapse. The later design procedure involves the concept of response reduction
due to ductile deformation or frictional energy dissipation in cracks. There would still be
cases in which actual forces that appear an structures during earthquakes are much
greater than the design forces considered. Ductility arising from inelastic material
behaviour and over strength arising from additional reserve strength in structure over and
above the design strength is relied upon for this difference in actual and design loads.
First time the code recognizes that the response of a structure to ground vibrations is a
combined function of the nature of foundation soil, materials, form, size, mode of
construction and the duration/ characteristics of ground motion. Vertical seismic forces
are considered significant in bridges with large spans, and those elements in which
stability is considered significant parameter. They require special attention in prestressed
or cantilevered beams, girders and slabs. Horizontal seismic forces in both the
9
BS-76
The design spectrum used in this code is based on the basic average response spectra
graph showing average acceleration coefficient as a function of natural period of
oscillation (in seconds). This coefficient is about 12.5 times the average acceleration
coefficient given in 1984 edition of the code for the same damping. Different graphs are
given for three types of soil (Rock/ hard soil, medium soil and soft soil). These three
graphs differ only for structural elements having natural period greater than 0.5 seconds.
Such higher (12.5 times) acceleration coefficient is probably due to consideration of
Maximum Considered Earthquake in the design.
For the purpose of elastic design of structures, the above coefficient is reduced by
dividing with a factor 2R, where ‘R’ is a new concept introduced called ‘Response
Reduction Factor’. The definition provided in the code for this is, a factor by which the
actual base shear force, that would be generated if the structure were to remain elastic
during its response to the design Basis Earthquake showing, shall be reduced to obtain
the design lateral force. But in reality by comparing the respective expressions for
design horizontal acceleration coefficient of the two editions of the IS Code, it turns out
to be factor, the twice of which represents the ratio between MCE and DBE. The factor
for soil foundation system no longer exist, as different graphs have been used for
different types of soil probably the impact of type of foundation is taken into
consideration in their respective Response Reduction Factor. This factor has been
provided for each element of bridge and depending on its material and type it varies from
maxm. value of 3.0 for RCC superstructure to minimum value of 0.8 for hinge
connection within a span as provided in table 2 of draft Part (3) code. This wide variation
represents the acknowledgement of varying degree of plastic strength redundancy and
over strength in bridge components. Beyond this, there is nothing specified for plastic
10
BS-76
design of structures. The design acceleration vertical coefficient is taken as 2/3 of the
horizontal coefficient.
A regular bridge has no abrupt or unusual changes in mass, stiffness or geometry along
its span and has no large differences in these parameters between adjacent supports
(abutments excluded). A bridge is considered regular, if
(a) It is straight or it describes a sector of an arc which subtends an angle less than 90o at
the center of the arc, and
(b) The adjacent piers do not differ in stiffness by more than 25% (percentage of the
difference should be calculated based on the lesser of the two stiffness as reference).
Further as per draft IS revision the girder bridges, T-beam bridges, truss bridges, hammer
head bridges, bridges having single or multiple simply supported spans are characterized
as regular bridges with each span less than 120m and pier height less than 30m.
All bridges not conforming to clause 2.1.1.1 is to be considered irregular. Further, arch
bridges of span exceeding 30m, cable stayed bridges, suspension bridges, and other
bridges are also treated as irregular bridges.
11
BS-76
IRS bridge rules provide vide paras 2.12.5.1 and 2.12.5.2 that Slab, box and pipe culverts
need not be designed for seismic forces. For bridges in zones I to III seismic forces
should be considered if overall length more than 60m or spans more than 15m. For zone
IV & V seismic forces shall be considered for all spans.
12
BS-76
It is the earthquake, which can reasonably be expected to occur at least once during the
design life of the structure. The DBE is derived on the basis of historical earthquakes that
have affected the site, expressed as ground motion having a defined probability of not
being exceeded during its service life and may be derived using probabilistic approach or
the approach may include seismotectonic consideration. An alternative to this rigorous
probabilistic analysis for evaluation of DBE, when data on earthquake is meager or not
available, is to take a fraction (e.g. 0.4 ) of MCE, where MCE is determined by rigorous
application of seismotectonic method. The structure has to be designed on limit state of
serviceability for this earthquake.
It is the maximum level of earthquake, which is potentially possible at the site based on
seismotectonic geology of the area. This level of ground motion has a very low
probability of being exceeded and represents the maximum level of ground motion on the
basis of estimates of upper threshold magnitude of seismic sources. Structure is designed
for limit state of collapse for this level of seismic forces. MCE is derived on the basis of
maximum earthquake potential inside the seismotectonic province of the site, history,
tectonic maps, recent tectonic movement, surface landform indicators, lineament maps
from remote sensing, abrupt change in ground water level, steep gravity gradient,
magnetic gradient, difference in seismic wave velocity in the region, local topography,
properties of soil, area of subsidence and or settlement etc.
MCE estimate provides Peak (horizontal) Ground Acceleration (PGA), Peak Ground
Displacement, and Peak Ground velocity, which are the basic seismic inputs in bridge
design. Indian codes so far uses only acceleration input. Caltrons uses acceleration and
displacement both as inputs. Zone coefficient given in ISO 1893:2002 is the average
design ground acceleration to be taken in a seismic zone. This reflects the surface
motions and may tend to give overly conservative answers when applied to rock spectra.
Peak rock acceleration in a zone would be different and is likely to be higher. Further
13
BS-76
peak rock acceleration near a causative fault would be much higher than normal value.
Hence, while using zone coefficient for important and unusual bridges, site-specific peak
rock acceleration should be developed based on seismic characteristics of the site.
Strictly speaking, zone coefficients are to determine surface acceleration which have a
particular possibility of being exceeded in a particular number of years. Peak Rock
Acceleration map considers only the MCE earthquakes regardless of frequency of
occurrence.
Maximum credible event should be independent of frequency of occurrence. This is
important when evaluating collapse mechanisms and failure potentials. However,
probabilistic MCE has merit in evaluating the short-term seismic response of the air. For
example; the importance of many lifelines may require that certain structures remain
operational imprediately following a ‘probable” event.
14
BS-76
with increase of hypocentral distance from the site and peak amplification occurs at
higher period.
The design response spectrum is a smooth response spectrum specifying level of seismic
resistance required for design. It is a specification of the required strength of structure.
The strength is frequency dependent and also dependent on maximum velocity,
maximum displacement and maximum acceleration in various ranges of frequencies.
Three straight lines bound the general shape of the smooth spectra on a logarithmic
tripartite graph as shown in figure 1.
This is the spectrum for alluvial soil recommended by Newmark for 1g ZPA. At low
frequency range, the spectral displacement is equal to the maximum ground
displacement; and in the high frequency range, the spectral acceleration is equal to the
maximum ground acceleration.
15
BS-76
As we proceed from low to high frequency, there exist five different regions as
following:
• A transition from maximum ground displacement to amplified spectral
displacement.
• Amplified displacement in .015 to .3 Hz range
• Amplified velocity in .3 to 1.8 Hz range
• Amplified acceleration in 1.8 to 6.0 Hz range
• Transition from amplified acceleration to ground acceleration at 33 Hz
He also proposed a site design coefficient as shown in table 2 for use over and above the
values shown in table 1. Further Moharz found that for 84.1 percentile (mean + one std
16
BS-76
deviation) values both horizontal components are almost equal and vertical component is
approximately 2/3 of horizontal component.
Table 2- Site Design Coefficient by Moharz
Coefficients
Site Category
Displacement Velocity Acceleration
Rock 0.5 0.5 1.05
Alluvium underlain by rock 0.75 0.75 1.2
Figure 2 shows average spectra normalized to 1 ZPA for 2% damping. As may be seen it
Period, Sec
Figure 2- Average Design Spectra by Moharz for 2% damping, showing acceleration
varies with the soil type. Different seismic source has a different spectrum, which can be
seen from figure 3.
17
Figure 3: Acceleration Spectrum For MCE For
10% Damping , Susanta Basu (2005)
BS-76
The modern concept of seismic design is the matching of structural capacity with the
earthquake effects, known as seismic demand on the structure. When expressed in terms
of displacement this could be represented as following equation
ΔD < ΔC (2.5)
Where, ΔD Is the displacement generated from the modal analysis of the framed
structure
ΔC Is the frame displacement when any plastic hinge reaches its ultimate
capacity
In a similar manner the seismic force generated in a structure must be less than the
structural strength of the structure.
2.6 Response Reduction Factor
It is a term introduced in the IS1893 (Part I): 2002. It is a factor by which the actual shear
force, that would be generated if the structure were to remain elastic during its response
to the Design Basis Earthquake shaking, shall be reduced to obtain the design lateral
force. This represents the response reduction due to ductile deformation or frictional
energy dissipation in the cracks when the structure deforms beyond yield limit Δy but
within the maximum displacement Δmax up to which the structure retains the seismic
loads. The ratio of Δmax and Δy is also known as ductility of the structure. Hence reduction
of elastic force is justified by expected ductility of the structure.
Recent proposals in IS 1893 and IRC 6 provide for computation of seismic forces based
on zone factors provided in table 2 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002. These factors vary from
0.36 for zone V to 0.1 for zone II. These reflect the PGA for MCE in the respective
zones. It is multiplied by a factor 0.5 for obtaining PGA for DBE. Structural response
factors, which is nothing but response spectra for 1g PGA, is given figure 2 of the code
for three types of soil; rock or hard rock, medium soil, soft soil. This is reproduced in
figure 5 here.
18
BS-76
Where δ= horizontal displacement at the acting position of the inertial force of the
superstructures when the force corresponding to 80% of the weight of the substructure
above ground surface for seismic design and all weight of the superstructure portion
supported by it is assumed to act in the acting direction of inertial force. The elasticity of
substructure and foundation should be accounted for in evaluating the displacement.
Above expression is for simply supported bridges where the vibration unit of substructure
can be idealized as a single cantilever pier carrying the superstructure mass, resting on
well, pile or open foundation. Alternatively, the fundamental natural period T1 (in
seconds) of pier/ abutment of the bridge along a horizontal direction may be estimated by
the following expression:
T1 = 2√W/1000F
W= Appropriate dead load of the superstructures, and live load in kN. F= Horizontal
force in kN required to be applied at the center of mass of superstructure for one mm
19
BS-76
Damping has a significant impact on the response spectrum. Smaller damping results in
higher response and vice versa. Figure 5 shows the graph, taken from IS 1893: 1984, of
average acceleration coefficient vs natural time period.
Normally a 5% damped response curve should be used for determining the acceleration
for regular bridges and for those, which do not need modal analysis. Following
characteristics are typically good indicators that higher damping may be anticipated:
• Total length less than 90m
• Three spans or less
• Abutment designed for sustained soil mobilization
• Normal or slight skew (less than 20 degrees)
• Continuous superstructure without hinges or expansion joints
20
BS-76
Design horizontal seismic coefficient is calculated by multiplying the DBE PGA with the
response factor derived above and importance factor of the bridge, which is same as
existing in IRS codes. This when multiplied with the seismic mass of the structural
component it gives the inertia force. Maximum elastic force resultant at the chosen cross-
section of that bridge component due to earthquake shaking along the considered
direction is then divided by the appropriate response reduction factor to get the design
seismic force resultant at that cross section. Table 3 gives the response reduction factor R
for various bridge components.
Table 3: Response Reduction Factors
Sl. No. Structure, Component or connection R
(i) Superstructure, RCC 3.0
(ii) Superstructure, steel, PSC 2.5
(iii) Substructure
(a) RCC piers with ductile detailing, cantilever and 2.5
wall type
(b) RCC piers w.o. ductile detailing, cantilever and 2.0
wall type
(c) Masonry piers 1.5
(d) RCC framed construction in piers with ductile 3.0
detailing
(e) Steel Framed piers 2.5
(f) Steel cantilever piers 2.0
(g) Steel trussed arch 2.5
(h) RCC arch 2.0
(i) Abutment of mass concrete, masonry 2.0
(iv) Bearings 0.8
(v) Expansion joints and connections 0.8
(vi) Structure hinge 3.0
(vii) Stoppers in bearings and all types of 1.0
foundations
21
BS-76
22
BS-76
with the total dead load (W), the total horizontal earthquake force acting on the structure
could be obtained. The total earthquake force is then converted into equivalent uniform
load. To determine the forces in the members due to this uniform earthquake loading, the
forces in the members from the original uniform loading is prorated.
Another static force method is called ‘Generalised Coordinate Method’ in which two
modes of vibration (longitudinal & transverse) are considered separately and virtual work
done by external forces and internal member forces, as the structure vibrates through a
unit virtual displacement is equated to zero and the natural period is computed.
In each of the above equivalent static force method of analysis, maximum generalized
displacement and individual column or member forces should be determined without the
use of response reduction factor (or ductility factor). This factor should be applied later
on to design the member. Hence the full bridge structure analysis should be done without
any ductility reduction factor.
23
BS-76
(a) Forces developed in the various parts of structure considering dynamic effect of
earthquake
(b) Displacements in various parts of structure, particularly at the level of bearings.
Which are susceptible to damage
(c) Forces developed in the foundation due to dynamic effect
Following steps are involved in dynamic analysis of simply supported girder type bridge
on rocker and roller bearings;
• Mathematical model of substructure
• Determination of dynamic characteristics of bridge substructure
• Design spectra for site
• Modal Analysis for dynamic response
While performing dynamic model analysis of bridges, the engineer is forced to make
modeling assumptions at the abutment supports and hinges, which lead directly to forces
and deformations in theses areas. Response spectra without using any reduction factor
should be used to get a more realistic picture of the actual deformations the system.
Reduction to the design level can then be made depending on the component under
consideration. For example, an abutment key is more brittle than a ductile column. This
component then would require a much lower reduction factor (ie higher design force).
However, if it is determined that failure of the key would not contribute to a collapse
condition, it could be designed to fail before excessive forces reached the abutment. This
refinement in the arrangement of the criteria puts examination of collapse mechanisms,
relative component importance, system deformations and energy absorbing
characteristics of each structural element in the hands of the engineer.
24
BS-76
Any lumped mass should consist of self weight, in filled water, and virtual mass of water.
The top mass should include dead weight of superstructure if it is rocker bearing. The
mass should also include live load as per IS:1893.
25
BS-76
26
BS-76
could be used efficiently for computing the response of soil profile to vertically traveling
shear waves.
In the modal analysis of an important multi span river bridge (like Sone, Ganga,
Brahmaputra etc.), the main objectives from seismic view point should be (i) to
27
BS-76
determine the forces, moments and displacements at various sections of the bridge, (ii) to
determine the base and soil reactions under seismic conditions, (iii) to estimate the
displacements in the bearing of suspended span due to possible out of phase motion of
spans and (iv) to suggest how to achieve needed dynamic displacements at the
articulations and to restrain them from further displacements to avoid the falling of
suspended spans. The mathematical model of such bridge should be considered as planar
structure in the longitudinal direction and should consist of a series of lumped masses in
the girder as well as in the piers. The mass less elastic connections between masses could
be 3 to 5 m long each. The foundation springs should be lumped at the center of gravity
of embedded part of the well. 50% of span length from adjacent spans should be
considered along with one pier in one mathematical model. Modal analysis with adjacent
piers taken together should also be carried out to know the out of phase displacements.
The output of the modal analysis should consist of minimum following:
• Details of different modes of vibration studied along with sketch, frequency, and
period
• Different load combinations taken
• Maximum shear and bending moment at desired points in each mode of vibration
Since the dynamic response are these corresponding to significant inertia contributions.
The stiffness effects are sometimes condensed to these degrees of freedom to simplify the
solution. For most structures, the rotational inertia contributions are not significant and
therefore the rotational inertia at each joint are usually neglected. Hence in most cases,
the dynamic degrees of freedom are the translational degrees of freedom at each joint. In
general, complex structures should be modeled as a three dimensional space frame, and
analyzed on a computer program. The number of most lamps to be included is critical to
the analysis too few will result in unsatisfactory answers and too many will increase the
computer unnecessarily. In general, for deck/ column type structures, masses lumped at
the quarter points of spans and the third points of columns will yield satisfactory results
at the least cost.
28
BS-76
Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) is one of the design issues, which is often overlooked,
and even in some cases ignored. For dynamic loading, a structure always interacts with
surrounding soil and it is not adequate to analyze the structure independently. If seismic
loading is applied to the soil region around foundation, then one has to model this region
along with the structure. A structure founded on rock doesn’t encounter any deformation
at the base due to the transverse shear and overturning moment applied at the base due to
earthquake. Hence resulting horizontal displacement of the base is equal to the control
motion; and no rocking motion arises at the base. But when the structure is founded on
soft soil overlain on rock, the motion of the base of the structure will be different from
the control motion in the rock. The soil affects the dynamic response of the structure in
three ways:
• It modifies the free-field motion which becomes different than existing in the
rock. The soil mass above the rock would undergo a shear deformation along the
seismic motion, in general the seismic motion gets amplified, thus resulting in
horizontal displacements that increase towards the free surface of the site. Hence
the boundary of the base of structure imparts an enhanced motion to the structure
as compared to a structure founded on rock. This amplification of motion is held
responsible for the fact that structures founded on a deep soft soil site have been
29
BS-76
The procedure most commonly used for designing a large bridge is to (1) generate a
three-component set of accelerograms representing the free-field ground motion at a
control point selected for the bridge site and (2) characterize the spatial variations of the
free-field motions within each soil region of interest relative to the control motions. This
would provide the spatial and temporal variation of the motion before excavating the soil
and superimposing the structure. For this the longitudinal section along the bridge
alignment should be drawn and locations of foundations of different piers should be
superimposed. Then the spring model of the soil foundation interaction should be
30
BS-76
developed. The dynamic analysis of each typical foundation should be carried out in
following steps:
• Obtain the motion of the foundation in the absence of the superstructure
• Determine the dynamic impedances (spring and dashpots) associated with
swaying, rocking, and cross-swaying-rocking oscillations of the foundation
• Compute the seismic response of the superstructure supported on the springs and
dashpots of step 2 and subjected to the input motion of step 1.
The analysis could be based on discrete models with lumped masses. Pile foundations
present typical case in which there would be significant interaction between soil and pile
and the seismic effect at the pile cap level would be different than the foundation resting
on a nearly rigid well. Hence development of soil foundation model in case of pile
foundation is more important.
Elastic seismic design is carried out for a much lower seismic force than that caused by
the DBE, and the factor by which DBE seismic force is reduced to get such design force
is known as response reduction factor. Hence it is imperative that with DBE and lower
seismic forces under moderate earthquakes the structure would undergo deformations
beyond its yield limit. This would be plastic deformation. Ductility as defined in para 2.6,
is required to be used in seismic design to avoid uneconomic structural sizes. If a
structure undergoes occasional deformation in this range, there would be small damages
to it. Whereas under an earthquake higher than DBE but lower than MCE, the structure
might undergo severe damage but total collapse could be avoided with a judicious design
of the bridge system. This ductile approach of seismic design of Indian codes require
careful ductile detailing to account for equivalent response reduction factor considered in
the design.
Ideally bridge structures should be designed so that the earthquake energy will be
dissipated by the individual members acting in a ductile manner, avoiding brittle shear
failures. This is, however, not possible in all cases of bridge design, since some of the
31
BS-76
components may be have in a non-ductile fashion. Since the ductility levels may vary for
the individual components of a bridge, reduction of the elastic response spectrum for
design may be somewhat misleading and may result in some members being under
designed. Hence, elastic design response spectrum should be used to predict the overall
structure response and then the ductile components should be designed to absorb the
required energy. The important aspect in designing is to predict how a bridge would
actually behave during an earthquake. Further, one must quality ductility as either being
available ductility or required ductility. Another distinction must also be made between
ductility of the section of an individual component of a structure and the overall ductility
of a structure.
32
BS-76
1 .5 h h
μΔ = 1 + (2 − )( μφ − 1)
L L
Where, h= length of plastic hinge, usually assumed to the equal to the depth of
the member.
L= length of the inverted pendulum (pier length)
μΔ = available structure (pier) ductility.
μφ = available section (pier section) ductility.
Maximum desirable section ductility equals 15 for a RCC column as strain
hardening of compression steel starts at this point, and this ductility can be
obtained for several cycles of loading. Using this value of μΔ in the above
equation and μ = 600mm, L – 6000mm.
μΔ = 4.9
M p L2
As Δ y = (for displacement at end of cantilever beam)
3EI
The available structural ductility Δy could be computed from above.
d e
a g f Lateral deflection
d'
e’
b’ Elastic cyclic load deflection-abab’a
Figure -7 Elasto-plastic cyclic load deflection –
adec’d’a
33
BS-76
If the oscillator is not strong enough to carry the full elastic response inertia load, a
plastic hinge will form near the base of column. The load deflection diagram would in
such case be represented by a d e. d is the point where plastic hinge is formed and after it
load remains constant (at the hinge capacity) while deflection increases upto e, which
represents the maximum or ultimate required displacement of the structure Δu. When the
mass returns to the natural position, the energy converted to kinetic energy is represented
by the small triangular area e f g, because the energy represented by the area a d e g is
dissipated by the plastic hinge.
The criteria used for determining the required structure ductility factor is dependent on
the period of the structures. The following three period ranges and corresponding
response reduction factors, R, are generally used for design.
For the short period structures, the response factor is 1 in the response spectrum, i.e. the
force level must be maintained, conserving force (acceleration); thus there is no reduction
using an elastic analysis.
For the long period structures, the elastoplastic displacements of a structure are assumed
to be equal to the elastic displacement, i.e. R = μΔ
For the intermediate period range, energy is conserved and the reduction is based on an
equal energy concept. This implies that the potential energy stored in the elastic system
at maximum deflection is equal to the energy in the elasto-plastic system at maximum
34
BS-76
deflection, this is shown in figure -7 where area under triangle a b c should be equal to
area a d e f. This condition gives
2μ Δ − 1
From the above formulations, it is possible to determine the ductilities required for the
intermediate and long period structures for various desired response reduction factors.
These values are tabulated in Table-5.
Response Reduction factor Long period Ductility Intermediate period
required ductility required
5 5 13.0
4 4 8.5
2.5 2.5 3.63
1.67 1.67 1.89
1.25 1.25 1.28
1.0 1.0 1.0
Table -5: Required ductility Vs. Desired Response Reduction Factor.
Fig 8: Behavior of Confined/ Unconfined Concrete Fig9: Confining Concrete by hoops/ stirrups
35
BS-76
It can be seen that confinement not only increases the strength of concrete, but it
tremendously increases the ductility of concrete. The confinement of concrete is obtained
by providing stirrups as shown in figure 9. The stirrups should be hooked at 135o into
core concrete; otherwise these stirrups open up under force due to earthquake and the
confining action is not available. Further, even with confinement, RC members are
sufficiently ductile in bending action only, but not in axial and shear action. Therefore,
we have to ensure that RC members should yield only in flexure and not in axial or shear
action. This can be ensured by designing the RC members in such a way that their shear
and axial load capacity is higher than their capacity in flexure. This is called ‘Capacity
Design’. By suitable selection of flexure, shear and bending capacity, a structure could be
designed to behave in a particular way. At the junction of pile cap and pier, a pier could
be designed to intentional yield to ensure that excessive shear is not generated to damage
the foundation or cause collapse. Creation of such intention locations is known as
creating hinges at which structural member rotate plastically without losing structural
integrity.
Figure 10 shows the possible locations of such plastic hinges in bridge piers
Fig-10
36
BS-76
Appendix-A
Flow Chart For Equivalent Static Force Method
Assume A Structure
Yes
No
Adjust For Ductility And Risk
Adjust
component
forces
Revise the
COMPONENTS
Check ductility and displacement
structure
ADEQUATE
Process
Complete Design
37
BS-76
Appendix-B
Flow Chart For dynamic Model Analysis
Assume a structure
Yes No
Adjust
component
forces
Inadequate
Revise the
structure Check ductility and displacement
Adequate
Design Complete
38
BS-76
Appendix C
39
BS-76
Appendix- D
Bibliography
40