An Overview of Indian Seismic Codes on Bridges:

Challenges and Issues for Developments

Dr. S.K.Thakkar
Former Professor of Earthquake Engineering and Railway
Bridge Chair Professor, IIT Roorkee

Refresher Course on IRC:SP:114-2018; Aug.24-Sept.28.2019

PHD House, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi, August 24, 2019
 This Presentation
• Overview of Indian Seismic codes
• Lessons learnt from the past earthquakes
• Highlights of Important features on codes
• Critical Views on Codes
• Challenges and Issues for Development
 Indian Seismic codes
• IS: 1893 Part (3), 2014 : Bridges and Retaining
walls
• RDSO Seismic Guide lines for Railway Bridges,
2015
• IRC: SP: 114-2018, Seismic Guidelines for Road
Bridges
 Parent Seismic Code
• IS: 1893 Part (1) 2016, General Provisions for
Buildings
• Seismic Zoning
• Response Spectrum
Seismic
Zoning
Map
Code Response Spectrum
 Update of Codes
• Continuous process
• Gap between state of art and existing practice
• R & D Development
• Design Philosophy
• Deficiency in Design Methods
• Experience gained from recent earthquakes
• Feed back from professionals
 Earthquake Effects
• Inertia effects
• Earth pressures
• Hydrodynamic pressures
• Soil effects
 Seismic Behavior of Bridges
• Bridges are Structures of Post earthquake importance
• Bridge behavior is different than structures like
buildings
• Lateral load resisting system is different in both
longitudinal and transverse directions
• Bearings are vulnerable to damage
• Buildings are designed on the basis of strong column
and weak beam while bridges have strong girders and
weak columns
• Plastic hinges form in columns in bridges unlike in
beams in buildings
 Seismic Behavior…
• The redundancy in traditional bridges is much
lower than in buildings
• Soil effects are more significant
• Seismic problems in bridges are now well
understood
 Main Seismic Problems
• Out of phase motion between piers
• Failure of Bearings and Expansion Joints
• Inadequate Seating Width: Falling of Spans
• Pounding of Spans
• Non-Ductile Behavior of Substructures
• Failure of Foundation due to Soil Liquefaction
• Failure of Abutments and Approaches
• Differential ground motion at supports in long
span bridges
Earthquake Resistant design of bridges
• ERD is all about providing the structure with
adequate strength, stiffness and ductility to with
stand Earthquake Forces
• Selection of appropriate Structural configuration
and careful detailing of structural members and
connections for achieving ductile behavior
• Structural analysis and structural design are two
most important steps in total design process
• Emphasis of earlier design methods was on
prevention of collapse and not so much on
control of damage
 Significant Design Developments
• Inelastic behavior and Ductility in Seismic
Design
• Capacity Design Concept: to achieve ductile
behavior, avoid brittle mode of failure and
prevention of collapse of structure
 Lessons Learnt from the Past
• Do not repeat the mistakes committed in the past
• Superstructure: Shifting and dislodging of Spans
• Bearings failure
• Substructure: Lack of flexural strength and
ductility, shear strength, insufficient transverse
reinforcement, ductile detailing
• Abutments: Tilting, rotating, sliding forward,
collapse, abutment slumping
 Lessons Learnt…
• Soil effects: Site amplification, liquefaction of
soil, unequal settlements, loss of span type of
failure
• In adequacy of foundation
• Bridge approaches: Settlement of soil,
separation of earth fill from abutment
 IS:1893 (Part 3) :2014- Highlights
• Seismic design of new bridges, Checking for
Retrofitting
• Applicable to Highway Bridges, Railway
Bridges, flyovers, Pedestrian, Submersible,
Utility, and Aqueducts
• Earthquake Effects on Abutments for Frictional
soils as well as Cohesive and frictional soils
• Checking Design for DBE
• Seismic Analysis: SCM, RSM,THM, PA
 IS: 1893 (Part 3): 2014…
• Checking Design by Force Based Design using
R Factors
• Bridges may undergo minor damage under
DBE ; Under MCE considerable damage can
occur but no collapse
• Capacity design concept be applied to force
plastic hinges to occur at predetermined
locations
 Design Philosophy
• Two levels of Earthquakes: DBE and MCE
• Under DBE minor structural damage may
occur; Structure will remain functional after
minor repairs
• Under MCE considerable damage may occur
but structural collapse is avoided
 RDSO Guidelines for Railway Bridges
2015
• Conceptual Design: Simplicity, Symmetry, Regularity
• Seismic Design of New Bridges but not for Retrofitting
• Seismic Design for DBE
• No Seismic Force on LL in Longitudinal Direction; Consider
Seismic Force on 50% of Design LL in Transverse Direction
• R Factors for different types of Substructures, connections
and Bearings
• Seismic Design based on FBD
• Emphasis on Ductile Provisions through Ductile Detailing
• Seismic Design through Seismic Base Isolation is Included
 IRC: SP: 114-2018 Guidelines
• Conceptual Design for better Seismic behavior in
choosing structural configuration, bearing types,
expansion joint details and foundation types
• Principle of strong girder and weak column to be used
for bridges; plastic hinges to occur at predetermined
locations; capacity design principle to be employed
• Avoid Shear failure in bridges
• Design for DBE for design life up to 100 years For
Design life more than 100 years design for DBE and
MCE; this is also applicable for special bridges
 IRC: SP :114-2018 Guidelines…
• Use FBD for seismic design using R Factors. Use
Capacity design concepts for design of plastic hinges.
• Broad steps for capacity design given and elastic design
of regions beyond plastic hinges
• R factors for bridge components are given both for
with ductile detailing and without ductile detailing
• Seismic Methods: Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method
(SCM); Elastic RSM; THM; application for various types
of Bridges
• The hydrodynamic pressure on submerged portion of
piers using cylinder analogy; added mass water
concept
 Comparative features
• Applicability
• Same Design Seismic Force
• Design Live Load: Seismic Force on LL
• Importance Factors
• R- Factors
• Design criteria
 Controlling Factors

• Seismic Hazard: Ground shaking, landslides,

Tsunami, Liquefaction, Near Field effects
• Response Spectrum: ZPA, PGA, EPGA
• Design Earthquakes: DBE, MCE
• Site Specific Spectrum: DSHA, PSHA
• Historical Earthquake data
• Time histories
• Design Philosophy
 Seismic Analysis Methods
• Seismic Coefficient Method
• Response Spectrum Method, R-factors
• Time History Method
• Nonlinear Time History Analysis
• Pushover Analysis: Nonlinear Static analysis
 Seismic Design Methods

• Force based design

• Force based design including capacity design
concepts
• Displacement based design: PBD
 Deficiencies of FBD
• The R-factors are inadequate to control damage
• R includes ductility, redundancy, over strength
and energy dissipation; choice of R involves
judgment, period dependent, hysteretic behavior
• Structures designed by FBD are subjected to
significant damage requiring tremendous post
earthquake repairs
• In order to cut down on cost of repairs, it is
necessary to use design method that can limit
extent of damage
• PBD has potential to limit extent of damage
 Critical view on codes
• Need for each code is justified because of difference in the
scope and range of applications
• All codes are based on basic code IS: 1893 (Part 1); Code
Spectra and Seismic zoning is common in all codes
• Any update in Basic code does not automatically occur in
other codes; it has to be carried out separately in each
code
• Seismic design for DBE; Bridges still not designed for MCE
• R factors are used in FBD; these have limitations; FBD with
displacement check is required to minimize damage
 Critical Views on Codes…
• Need for upgrade of seismic design methods such as
PBD which can control damage
• Nonlinear THM are more rational than currently used
methods of seismic analysis; R not required in N-THM
• Bridges still not designed for MCE
• Issues of Seismic Assessment of existing bridges
• Seismic base isolation and PED are alternative methods
of seismic protection; suitable for certain situations
• Structural Health Monitoring for special bridges
• Seismic design for Near field ground motion
 Issues for Developments
• Upgrade of seismic design methods for multiple
hazards using PBD
• Minimize conceptual difference between
different codes
• Upgrade of seismic methods of analysis:
Nonlinear THM and Push over analysis should be
employed for studies for behavior under MCE
• Seismic Assessment of existing and earthquake
damaged bridges should be included in the codes
 Issues for Developments
• Seismic Retrofitting
• Soil effects to be rationally considered
• Near field effect
• Structural Health Monitoring for Special
category of Bridges
 Challenges
• Minimize the gap between State of the Art
and design practice in codes
• Conduct research to bring latest available
knowledge in seismic codes
• Include issues like Near Field Effects,
Retrofitting, Structural Control: Passive and
Active, SHM
 Modern Methods of Seismic Analysis
• Non Linear Time History Method
• Push Over Method
• Response Spectrum Method
 Modern Seismic Design Methods
• Force Based Design
• Performance Based Design/DBD
• Capacity Design
• Capacity Spectrum Method
• Structural Response Control
 Conclusions
• Update of analysis methods: Non-linear time
history method: Benefit-Uncertainties of R-
factors can be overcome
• Update of design methods: Performance based
design: Benefit- Better behavior, less damage,
Minimize post earthquake repairs, FBD with
displacement check
• The future of ERD lies in N-THM and PBD
• Ultimate Goal: No damage in Earthquakes–Adopt
most recent and proven technology
Thanks for your kind attention