1.

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this course is to give engineers the tools necessary to obtain earthquake
forces on bridges. A simple method is presented that models a bridge as a single degree of
freedom system. As the bridge model becomes more complicated. This simple procedure
becomes less accurate. Then a multimodal dynamic analysis or time history computer analysis is
recommended.

There are two basic concepts that are presented in this course. The first is that there is
a relationship between a bridge's mass and stiffness and the forces and displacements that
effect the structure during an earthquake. Therefore, if we can calculate the mass and the
stiffness for our structure we can obtain the earthquake forces acting on it. The second concept
is that Caltran's bridges are designed to behave nonlinearly for large earthquakes. Therefore,
the engineer is required to make successive estimates of an equivalent Linearized stiffness to
obtain the seismic forces and displacements of the bridge. The units of measurement for this
course are in SI. Sufficient information is provided in this section to do the assignment.
However, structural dynamics is a complicated subject and engineers are encouraged to read
books and take courses to improve their understanding.

The Indian subcontinent has a history of devastating earthquakes. The major reason for the
high frequency and intensity of the earthquakes is that the Indian plate is driving into Asia at a
rate of approximately 47 mm/year. Geographical statistics of India show that almost 54% of the
land is vulnerable to earthquakes [1]. The latest version of seismic zoning map of India given in
the earthquake resistant design code [IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002] assigns four levels of seismicity in
terms of zone factors. According to the present zoning map, Zone 5 expects the highest level of
seismicity whereas Zone 2 is associated with the lowest level of seismicity.

For most dynamic structural responses, linear concepts remain sufficiently accurate
tools because of low stress levels. In contrast, seismic damage process in structures are
characterized by high inelastic actions, low number of cycles up to failure, high inelastic energy
dissipation rates, often combined with large deformations. The current approach to the
earthquake resistant design of structures is based on damage prevention during low magnitude
earthquakes, allowing some damage during moderate or intermediate tremors and on
prevention of collapse during severe earthquakes. New criteria take into account acceleration,
frequency, displacement, inelastic design, ductility, reinforcement detailing and collapse
mechanism.

2.GENERAL
1
2.1.BRIDGES:-
Bridge is defined as a structure which provides a passage for earring road,
or railway traffic, footpaths and even carriage of fluids across an obstruction
Communication is an important factor for the social and economic development of any region
or country. One of the mode of communication is land transportation. Bridge is an important
structure which provides better communication facility over an obstruction. Thus it is directly
connected with the development of nation.
 Bridge consists of two major components
i) Superstructure

ii) Substructure.

i) Superstructure :-

It is the upper part of bridge consisting of structural systems in the form of beam, slab,
arches suspension cables etc. The basic function of a bridge superstructure is to permit
passage of traffic over it and transfer the load coming on it to the substructure safely
through bearings,

ii) Substructure :-

Substructure of bridge refers to that part of bridge which usually bears and
transfers the load above it due to superstructure safety over foundation strata.
It consists piers and abutment bodies together with their foundations. Following
materials are generally adopted for construction of bridge superstructure :-
a) Reinforced concrete.
b) Priestesses concrete.
c) Steel.

d) Masonry.
e) Composite construction using steel. R.C.C.

& pre-stressed concrete

2
 a) Reinforced cement concrete is universally used material due it's economy,
durabi1ity and ease of construct ion. Generally concrete is used for highway
bridges which have comparatively less live loads. It is an easier form to be
maintained. Various types of reinforced concrete bridges are:

i) Deck slab type R.C.C. bridges suitable up to 8 meters .

ii) Girder bridges are economical for span between 10m to 20m.

iii) Balanced cantilever bridges are suit able for span 35 to 60 m.

iv) Continuous bridges.

v) Arch bridges can economically used to span of about 200m

CLASSIFICATION OF BRIDGES

There are many ways of classification of bridges & the different condition on which they can be
classified are :

1. Material of construction.
2. Form of construction.
3. Type of span.
4. Position of road way or railway w.r.t to main girder.
5. Head way requirement.
6. Permanent or temporary nature

2.2.EARTHQUAKES:-

3
 Earthquake is a physical phenomenon characterized by the shaking of
ground with violence of varying intensity The occurrence of earthquake covers the entire world
and the entire history of mankind. The intensity of earthquake varies from imperceptible
motions which can be recorded only with sensitive instruments to the most violent shaking of
the ground, causing destruction of building and structures, loss of life, fires, landslides, tidal
waves and ruptures in the earth surface.

Earthquake risk may be defined as the probability of the loss of property or loss of
function of engineering structures, life, utilities etc. The factors entering into the assessment of
earthquake risk are Earthquake Hazard (the probability of occurrence of ground motions due to
an earthquake), the value of elements exposed to the hazard (property and lives) and the
vulnerability of these elements to damage or destruction by ground motions associated with
hazard.

In their simplest functional form, the factors entering into the assessment of earthquake risk
may be expressed by following relation.

Earthquake Risk = (Earthquake Hazard) * (vulnerability) (Value)

Value or damage may be taken either in the sense of loss of capital or loss of
production. Vulnerability is a measure of the proportion of the value as defined above, which
might be expected to be lost as a result of given earthquake. Earthquake hazard, is the
probability of occurrence, at a given place or within a given area and within a given period of
time of ground motion due to an earthquake capable of causing significant loss of value.
Engineering seismology has become defined by practice as that discipline which provides
engineer or planner with his earthquake generated inputs.

The knowledge of seismology or the science of earthquake is of importance to civil

engineer only in the earthquakes violent and destructive phases. The engineer needs to know
the character and the magnitude of forces released during earthquake in order to design and
construct structures which will resist such force. Thus, loss of life and damage to the properties
may be prevented at times of such disturbances.

2.3.EFFECT OF EARTHQUAKE ON BRIDGES:-

4
 Earthquakes are caused by active faults, which are, caused by the sudden movement
of the two sides of a fault with respect to another. The occurrence of tectonic earthquakes can
be explained by the theory of elastic rebound. Which was first advanced by H. B. REID. The
motion along the fault is accompanied by the gradual buildup of elastic strain energy within the
rock along the fault. The rock stores this strain energy like a giant spring being slowly tightened.

Eventually, the strain along the fault exceeds the limit of the rocks at that point to store
any additional strain. The fault then ruptures – that is, it suddenly moves a comparatively large
distance comparatively short amount of time. The rocky masses which form the two sides of
the fault then snap back into a new position. The rupture of fault results in sudden release of
the strain energy that has been built up over the years. The most important form which this
suddenly released energy takes is that of seismic waves.

Strong ground motion is also the primary cause of damages to the ground and
soil upon which, or in which, people must build. These damages to the soil and ground can
take a variety of forms: cracking and fissuring and weakening, sinking, settlement and
surface fault displacement. One of the most important types of ground failure is known as
liquefaction. Liquefaction takes place when loosely packed, water-logged sediments at or
near the ground surface lose their strength in response to strong ground shaking.
Liquefaction occurring beneath buildings and other structures can cause major damage
during earthquakes.

The seismic waves travel for great distances before finally losing most of their
energy. At some time after their generation, these seismic waves will reach the earth’s
surface, and set it in motion, which we surprisingly refer to as earthquake ground motion.
When this earthquake ground motion occurs beneath a building and when it is strong
enough, it sets the building in motion, starting with the buildings foundation, and transfers
the motion throughout the rest of building in a very complex way. These motions in turn
induce forces which can produce damage.

Real earthquake ground motion at a particular building site is vastly more

complicated than the simple wave form. Here it’s useful to compare the surface of ground
under an earthquake to the surface of a small body of water, like a pond. You can set the
surface of a pond in motion—by throwing stones into it. The first few stones create a series
of circular waves, which soon being to collide with one another. After a while, the collisions ,
which we term interference patterns, are being to predominate over the pattern of circular
waves

Nature of Damages to Bridges Due to Earthquake

5
(a)Failure of Piers due to brittleness of materials like brick & plain concrete- Shimantogawa
Bridge in Nankai Earthquake Dec 21, 1946.
(b) Settlement or movement (horizontally) of soil at the base of foundation- Liquefaction of
soils. (Banyu Highway Bridge- Kanto Earthquake Sept 1923; Nehru Setu, Ahmedabad
2001).
(c) Complete collapse of spans of Masonry Arch Bridge- Koyna Earthquake 1967.
(d) Failure of girder sheets/bed blocks due to transmission of seismic forces through bolts of
bearings, severe stress concentration in the material around (Kaliabhomra Road Bridge in
Assam, 1988).
(e) Tilting of piers due to unequal settlement of foundation (Sonai Bridge, Cachar Earthquake
1984; Kaliabhomra Road Bridge in Assam, 1988). I cases observed, abutments pushed. girders,
which in turn pushed to of piers, resulting in tilting of piers. If height of pier is more
than 8m, it may shear off in more than one section. Trestle type piers are more vulnerable,
solid column is better.
(f) Abutment failures have been noticed in various ways: Tilting, sliding, cracking, parapet
breaking, vertical & inclined cracks due to twisting, damage or collapse of wing walls,
shifting due to soft ground under foundation, cracking of body of abutment at the base due
to strutting action from girders resulting in slanting of abutment. Failure of wing walls to
some degree protects abutment.
(g) Failure of foundation due to unequal settlement. One of the reasons for settlement could be
loss of skin friction in friction piles and wells due to separation from the shaft. Cracking of
plies and wells just below pile and well cap respectively (Sonai Bridge, Cachar Earthquake
1984), horizontal movement of plies and wells.
(h) Damage and Dislodging of Bearings (Gandak Bridge, Samastipur1988; Gawana Bridge,
Uttarkashi 1995).

Most of the highway bridges escaped from severe damage and experienced only
minor distress such as the settlement of approach fills behind abutment back-walls.
Approximately 20% of the bridge inventory suffered minor-to-major damage. Damage to these
bridges include collapse of superstructures, displaced bearings, unseated girders from bearing
supports, shear failures in columns, pier walls, and caissons, abutment back-wall failure,
settlement of approach slab, foundation failures due to slope instabilities, joint failures in
column-to-girder connections, cable fracture, fault rupture,and liquefaction. However, only Lyu-
mei and Wan-lun bridges located in Yuen-lin town were observed to have liquefied appearance
since it was not easy to distinguish when it occurred in a flowing river.

2.4. EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT TECHNIQUES:-

6
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE DESIGN APPROACH:
Conventional Approach: Design depends upon providing the building with strength, stiffness
and inelastic deformation capacity which are great enough to withstand a given level of
earthquake-generated force. This can be accomplished by selection of an appropriate structural
configuration and careful detailing of structural members, such as beams and columns, and the
connections between them.

Basic Approach: Design depends upon underlying more advanced techniques for earthquake
resistance is not to strengthen the building, but to reduce the earthquake generated forces
acting upon it. This can be accomplished by de-coupling the structure from seismic ground
motion it is possible to reduce the earthquake induced forces in it by two ways.

. Increase natural period of structures by Base Isolation.

 Increase damping of system by Energy Dissipation Devices
 By using Active Control Devices.
3.LITERATURE REVIEW:-

7
 A review of different provisions in the present Indian codes IRC:112-2011 and IRC:6-
2010 for seismic design has been done. The comparison of IS code with AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications-2007 is also done for certain provisions. Through this paper the need for
bringing modification in the present code provisions is emphasised with reference to a
performance based seismic design approach.
The high casualty rate, enormous amount of economic loss and increased down time cost
has led to serious amount of research in the area of performance based design methodology.
Even though there are guidelines given by FEMA, ATC etc., for buildings, research has to be
continued to bridges also, considering its functional importance. In the Indian scenario we are
yet to develop robust methodologies and quantifications of engineering demand/capacity
parameters for this approach. The performance level of a structure for different seismic hazard
levels, quantification of damage, development of more reliable analytical procedures are areas
which need further research attention in the present scenario.
There is scope after both ‘passive’ control by prescribed detailing procedures as well as
‘active’ control by specific devices for earthquake-resistant bridges. The judicious use of these
ideas can lead to economical and safe bridge structures
Seismic Design of bridges has undergone a major change in philosophy as well as
detail. IS 1893 (Part1) :2002, draft IS 1893 Part(3) and draft IRC 6 provides several such
requirements which should befollowed in all new bridge designs on Indian Railways. But these
requirements are for standard and ordinary bridges, and seismic design of important and
special bridges should be carried out on the basisof good engineering practices explained briefly
in this paper. There is a need for developing comprehensive design criteria for Indian Railways,
but till this is done, zonal railways could use the design consultancy contracts for important
bridges for developing a sound design practice taking help of criteria explained in this paper.
The flow charts at annexure A & B, and ductile detailing given at Annexure C would help them
in achieving this.
The Underpass RCC Bridge is very rarely adopted in bridge construction but recently the
Underpass RCC Bridge is being used for traffic movement. In this paper, the analysis of
the underpass RCC bridge is carried out. The analysis of this underpass RCC bridge is
done by considering fixed end condition. Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis is
performed and results are presented. Comparison of different forces between 2D and 3D
models for fixed end condition is provided. In this study we show a 2D model can be
effectively used for analysis purpose for all the loading condition mentioned in IRC: 6,
“Standard Specifications and Code of Practice Road Bridges” The Indian Roads
Congress and Directorate of bridges & structures (2004), “Code of practice for the design
of substructures and foundations of bridges” Indian Railway Standard.
This report investigates the seismic response and performance of a nine-span railway bridge
to be constructed from presstresed concrete. The bridge is seismically isolated with friction
pendulum bearings (FPS) and non-linear hydraulic dampers and is part of a new railway
under construction in Greece. This report is part of a general effort aiming to the
instrumentation and monitoring of the bridge response due to: a) live loads due to train
passage, and b) seismic loads which engage the seismic isolation system.
4.The causes and mode of failure of bridges

8
 4.1. Seismic Displacement
4.2. Seismic Abutment Slumping
4.3. Column Failure
4.4. Cap Beam Failure
4.5. Joint Failure
4.6 Footing Failure
4.1:-Seismic displacement
– Amplification of Displacement Due to Soils Effects in which the Liquefaction of
the soil where soil is behaves like water due to these phenomena the column-
foundation at the base level dosen’t get the required support due to which the
structure fails.

The horizontal seismic forces are reversible in direction. The structural elements such
as walls, beams and columns that were bearing only vertical loads before the earthquake, have
now to carry horizontal bending and shearing effects as well. When the bending tension due to
earthquake exceeds the vertical compression, net tensile stress will occur.

4.2. Abutment Slumping:-

9
 Lots of factors will cause damage of bridge pile foundation under
earthquake, such as soil conditions, excessive inertia force caused by superstructure and
incorrect design of piles. According to the damage statistics of pile foundation, its failure modes
are complex, but soil displacement and sandy soil liquefaction are the most common ones,
while the amplification effect of ground motion and excessive deformations of piles are also
included.

4.3.Column failure:- The column fails due to the Inadequate Flexural strength of the
bridge structure, the column is not getting the proper support at abutment or the structure is
not properly resting on abutment the slumping is done . The inadequate flexural strength of the
bridge superstructure Premature Termination of Column Reinforcement the shear bond
between the column is having the adequate strength due to which the column failure is occurs

Column failure
4.4.Cap beam failure:-
10
 The effect of cap beam to column inertia ratio on the transverse response
of multi column bridge bents has considerable impact on the seismic behavior of the bridge. If
the bridge was designed according to the current design philosophy, nonlinearity takes place
only at the columns through formation of plastic hinges at the member ends and the rest of the
bridge components remain essentially elastic, which is very beneficial and practical for the
maintenance and retrofit purposes. In this case, ductility of the bridge bent is generally
controlled by the column behavior and to a certain degree flexibility of the cap beam, which
only contributes to the elastic deformation of the bridge bent, while all the plastic deformation
takes place at the column members. Therefore, in order to provide a certain level of
displacement ductility capacity of the bridges, yield deformation of the bridge bents are limited
by designing stronger cap beams and weaker columns; provided that the plastic deformations
occur only at the column ends and they have sufficient displacement ductility capacity.

4.5.Joint failure:- Very few joints fail because their total movement capacity has been
exceeded. Typical contributing factors to failure are listed below :

1-Traffic loading
2-Faulty installation or materials
3-Poor detailing
4-Small movements (daily thermal cycles and/or traffic induced movements)
5-Extended service life
The presence of sub-surface drainage is also important. Road surfacing is porous, and water will
flow through the surfacing. However, an expansion joint will form a dam across the surfacing on
the uphill side of an expansion joint, causing water to collect. This is called ponding. This, in
turn, will cause the surfacing to break up, as vehicle loading on the saturated surfacing will
generate high internal hydraulic forces. Water inside the carriageway surfacing can cause it to
deteriorate under freeze-thaw action. Damage to the surfacing adjacent to expansion joints will
lead to the edges of the joint becoming exposed and subject to much greater forces from traffic
loading

4.6.Footing failure:-
1.Footing Flexural Strength
2.Footing Shear Strength
3.Joint Shear Strength
4.Anchorage & Development of Column Reinforcement
5.Inadequate Connection Between Tension Piles and Footing

5.Method Of Analysis Of Bridges

11
 5.1. Single-Mode Method
5.2. Uniform -Load Method
5.3. Multimode Spectral Method
5.4. The Multiple Support Response Spectrum Method
5.5. In Elastic Dynamic Analysis

5.1.Single mode method-Single-mode spectral analysis is based on the assumption that

earthquake design forces for structures respond predominantly in the first mode of vibration.
This method is most suitable to regular linear elastic bridges to compute the forces and
deformations, but is not applicable to irregular bridges(unbalanced spans, unequal stiffness in
the columns, etc.) because higher modes of vibration affect the distribution of the forces and
resulting displacements significantly. This method can be applied to both continuous and non
continuous bridge superstructures in either the longitudinal or transverse direction. Foundation
flexibility at the abutments can be included in the analysis. Single-mode analysis is based on
Rayleigh’s energy method — an approximate method which assumes a vibration shape for a
structure. The natural period of the structure is then calculated by equating the maximum
potential and kinetic energies associated with the assumed shape. The inertial forces are
calculated using the natural period, and the design forces and displacements are then
computed using static analysis The single-mode method (single-mode spectral and uniform load
analysis) assumes that seismic load can be considered as an equivalent static horizontal force
applied to an individual frame in either the longitudinal or transverse direction. The equivalent
static force is based on the natural period of a single degree of freedom (SDOF) and code-
specified response spectra. Engineers should recognize that the single-mode method
(sometimes referred to as equivalent static analysis) is best suited for structures with well-
balanced spans with equally distributed stiffness

Single-mode, spectral-analysis methods may be used for final design of simple bridges and for
preliminary design of complex bridges. This approach is reasonably accurate for
response of straight bridges without a high degree of stiffness or mass irregularity.
Single mode spectral methods can generally be used with reasonable accuracy when the
stiffness index W1/W2 <2, where (See Fig. ):
W1 = uniform transverse load to produce a maximum 1-in.
(25-mm) lateral displacement at the level of superstructure
considering the stiffness of both the superstructure
and the substructure, and
W2 = uniform transverse load to produce a maximum 1-in.
(25-mm) lateral displacement at the level of superstructure
considering the superstructure stiffness
only, spanning between abutments.

12
Single-mode spectral analysis method. (a) Plan view of a bridge subjected to transverse earthquake motion. (b)
Displacement function describing the transverse position of the bridge deck. (c) Deflected shape due to uniform static
loading. (d) Transverse free vibration of the bridge in assumed mode shape. (e)Transverse loading (f) longitudinal
loading.
5.2.Uniform-Load Method

13
The uniform-load method is essentially an equivalent static method that uses the uniform
lateral load to compute the effect of seismic loads. For simple bridge structures with relatively
straight alignment, small skew, balanced stiffness, relatively light substructure, and with no
hinges, the uniform-load method may be applied to analyze the structure for seismic loads. This
method is not suitable for bridges with stiff substructures such as pier walls. This method
assumes continuity of the structure and distributes earthquake force to all elements of the
bridge and is based on the fundamental mode of vibration in either a longitudinal or transverse
direction . The period of vibration is taken as that of an equivalent single mass–spring oscillator.
The maximum displacement that occurs under the arbitrary uniform load is used to calculate
the stiffness of the equivalent spring. The seismic elastic response coefficient or the ARS curve
is then used to calculate the equivalent uniform seismic load, using which the displacements
and forces are calculated. The following steps outline the uniform load method:

Structure idealization and deflected shape for uniform load method. (a) Structure idealization; (b) deflected
shape with maximum displacement of 1 mm

The uniform load method is recommended by the pre- 1991 AASHTO specifications
and the current Caltrans Standard Specifications. The basic procedure is to determine the

14
equivalent total structural stiffness by computing the uniform horizontal load that will produce
a maximum 1-in. (25-mm) displacement in the structure. This stiffness is used in conjunction
with the total mass to predict the fundamental period, which, in turn, is used in conjunction
with a response spectrum to determine an equivalent seismic force. This force is converted to a
uniform load and is reapplied to the structure to determine member seismic forces. The
method provides a more representative distribution of seismic forces within the structure, as
compared with the “lollipop” method, and accounts for continuity of the superstructure.
However, it requires more effort than the “lollipop” method and may require a space frame
computer analysis. The uniform load method may not give acceptable results for skewed
bridges, curved bridges, and bridges with intermediate expansion
Response spectrum analysis is an approximate method of dynamic analysis that gives
the maximum response (acceleration, velocity, or displacement) of an SDOF system with the
same damping ratio, but with different natural frequencies, respond to a specified seismic
excitation. Structural models with n degrees of freedom can be transformed to n single-degree
systems and response spectra principles can be applied to systems with many degrees of
freedom. For most ordinary bridges, a complete time history is not required. Because the
design is generally based on the maximum earthquake response, response spectrum analysis is
probably the most common method used in design offices to determine the maximum
structural response due to transient loading. In this section, we will discuss basic procedures of
response spectrum analysis for bridge structures

5.3.Multimode Spectral Analysis:-

The multimode spectral analysis method is more
sophisticated than single-mode spectral analysis and is very effective in analyzing the response
of more complex linear elastic structures to an earthquake excitation. This method is
appropriate for structures with irregular geometry, mass, or stiffness. These irregularities
induce coupling in three orthogonal directions within each mode of vibration. Also, for these
bridges, several modes of vibration contribute to the complete response of the structure. A
multimode spectral analysis is usually done by modeling the bridge structure consisting of
three-dimensional frame elements with structural mass lumped at various locations to
represent the vibration modes of the components. Usually, five elements per span are sufficient
to represent the first three modes of vibration. A general rule of thumb is, to capture the mode
of vibration, the span should have at least elements. For long-span structures many more
elements should be used to capture all the contributing modes of vibration. To obtain a
reasonable response, the number of modes should be equal to at least three times the number
of spans. This analysis is usually performed with a dynamic analysis computer program such as
ADINA , GTSTRUDL , SAP2000 , ANSYS , and NASTRAN . For bridges with outrigger bents, C-
bents, and single column bents, rotational moment of inertia of the superstructure should be
included. Discontinuities at the hinges and abutments should be included in the model. The
columns and piers should have intermediate nodes at quarter points in addition to the nodes at
the ends of the columns.
The influence of higher modes can be significant in many regular and irregular structures.
For structures with irregular geometry, mass, or stiffness, these irregularities can further

15
introduce coupling of responses between vibrational modes. Higher mode responses and
coupling between modes are not considered in the single-mode methods described above.
Multi-modal spectral or time-step methods are required to evaluate these types of responses.
With the multi-modal spectral method the maximum response in each mode of vibration is
calculated separately. Since these maximum responses do not occur at the same
time, the responses are combined to approximate the total response A multi-mode spectral
procedure should generally be considered where the stiffness index W1/W2 > 2, where
significant structural irregularities exist, and where it is deemed appropriate by the Engineer
due to unusual conditions, such as structures with unbalanced spans or unequal
column stiffness. Responses to higher vibration l modes may be calculated with Rayleigh energy
methods by employing a procedure similar to that described previously for the generalized
coordinate method and with assumed vibration l shapes corresponding
to the anticipated higher modes. However computer programs are typically used for evaluation
of the higher-mode responses.

Combination Effects

Effects of ground motions in two orthogonal horizontal directions should be

combined while designing bridges with simple geometric configurations. For bridges with long
spans, outrigger bents, and with cantilever spans, or where effects due to vertical input are
significant, vertical input should be included in the design along with two orthogonal horizontal
inputs. When bridge structures are analyzed independently along each direction using response
spectra analysis, then responses are combined either using methods, such as the SRSS
combination rule as mentioned in the previous section, or using the alternative method
described below. For structures designed using equivalent static analysis or modal analysis,
seismic effects should be determined using the following alternative method for the following
load cases:
1. Seismic load case 1: 100% Transverse + 30% Longitudinal + 30% Vertical
2. Seismic load case 2: 30% Transverse + 100% Longitudinal + 30% Vertical
3. Seismic load case 3: 30% Transverse + 30% Longitudinal + 100% Vertical
For structures designed using time-history analysis, the structure response is calculated using
the input motions applied in orthogonal directions simultaneously. Where this is not feasible,
the above alternative procedure can be used to combine the independent responses.
The mode combination method is a very useful tool for analyzing bridges with a
large number of degrees of freedom. In a linear structural system, maximum response can be
estimated by mode combination after calculating natural frequencies and mode shapes of the
structure using free vibration analysis

5.4.Multiple-Support Response Spectrum Method

Records from recent earthquakes indicate that seismic ground motions can significantly vary at

16
different support locations for multiply supported long structures. When different ground
motions are applied at various support points of a bridge structure, the total response can be
calculated by superposition of responses due to independent support input. This analysis
involves combination of dynamic response from single-input and pseudo-static response
resulting from the motion of the supports relative to each other. The combination effects of
dynamic and pseudo-static forces due to multiple support excitation on a bridge depend on the
structural configuration of the bridge and the ground motion characteristics. Recently,
Kiureghianetal. presented a comprehensive study on the multiple-support response spectrum
(MSRS) method based on fundamental principles of stationary random vibration theory for
seismic analysis of multiply supported structures which accounts for the effects of variability
between the support motions. Using the MSRS combination rule, the response of a linear
structural system subjected to multiple support excitation can be computed directly in terms of
conventional response spectra at the support degrees of freedom and a coherency
function describing the spatial variability of the ground motion. This method accounts for the
three important effects of ground motion spatial variability, namely, the incoherence effects,
the wave passage effect, and the site response effect. These three components of ground
motion spatial variability can strongly influence the response of multiply supported bridges and
may amplify or deamplify the response by one order of magnitude. Two important limitations
of this method are nonlinearities in the bridge structural components and/or connections and
the effects of soil–structure interaction. This method is an efficient, accurate, and versatile
solution and requires less computational time than a true time history analysis. Following are
the steps that describe the MSRS analysis procedure.
1. Determine the necessity of variable support motion analysis: Three factors that
influence the response of the structure under multiple support excitation are the distance
between the supports of the structure, the rate of variability of the local soil conditions, and the
stiffness of the structure. The first factor, the distance between the supports, influences the
incoherence and wave passage effects. The second factor, the rate of variability of the local
conditions, influences the site response. The third factor, the stiffness of the superstructure,
plays an important role in determining the necessity of variable-support motion analysis. Stiff
structures such as box-girder bridges may generate large internal forces under variable support
motion, whereas flexible structures such as suspension bridges easily conform to the variable
support motion.
2. Determine the frequency response function for each support location. Programs such as
SHAKE can be used to develop these functions using borehole data and time-domain site
response analysis. Response spectra plots, peak ground displacements in three orthogonal
directions for each support location, and a coherency function for each pair of degrees of
freedom are required to perform the MSRS analysis. The comprehensive report by Kiureghian
provides all the formulas required to account for the effect of nonlinearity in the soil
behavior and the site frequency involving the depth of the bedrock.
3. Calculate the Structural Properties: such as effective modal frequencies, damping ratios,
influence coefficients and effective modal participation factors ( and ) are to be computed
externally and provided as input.
4. Determine the response spectra plots, peak ground displacements in three directions, and a

17
coherency function for each pair of support degrees of freedom required to perform MSRS
analysis: Three components of the coherency function are incoherence, wave passage effect,
and site response effect. Analysis by an array of recordings is used to determine the
incoherence component. The models for this empirical method are widely available .
Parameters such as shear wave velocity, the direction of propagation of seismic waves, and the
angle of incidence are used to calculate the wave passage effect. The frequency response
function determined in the previous steps is used to calculate the site response component.
The maximum response cannot be computed by adding the maximum response
of each mode because different modes attain their maximum values at different times. The
absolute sum of the individual modal contributions provides an upper bound which is generally
very conservative and not recommended for design. There are several different empirical or
statistical methods available to estimate the maximum response of a structure by combining
the contributions of different modes of vibrations in a spectral analysis. Two commonly used
methods are the square root of sum of squares (SRSS) and the complete quadratic combination
(CQC). For an un damped structure, the results computed using the CQC method are identical
to those using the SRSS method. For structures with closely spaced dominant mode shapes, the
CQC method is precise whereas SRSS estimates inaccurate results. Closely spaced modes are
those within 10% of each other in terms of natural frequency. The SRSS method is suitable for
estimating the total maximum response for structures with well-spaced modes. Theoretically,
all mode shapes must be included to calculate the response, but fewer mode shapes can be
used when the corresponding mass participation is over 85% of the total structure mass. In
general, the factors considered to determine the number of modes required for the mode
combination are dependent on the structural characteristics of the bridge, the spatial
distribution, and the frequency content of the earthquake loading. The following list
summarizes several commonly used mode combination methods to compute the maximum
total response. The variable represents the maximum value of some response quantity
(displacement, shear, etc.), is the peak value of that quantity in the mode, and is the total
number of contributing modes.

5.5.Inelastic Response Spectrum

18
A bridge structure may experience inelastic behavior during a major earthquake. The typical
elastic and elastic–plastic responses of an idealized SDOF to severe earthquake motions are
shown in Figure . The input seismic energy received by a bridge structure is dissipated by both
viscous damping and yielding (localized inelastic deformation converting into heat and other
irrecoverable forms of energy). Both viscous damping and yielding reduce the response of
inelastic structures compared with elastic structures. Viscous damping represents the internal
friction loss of a structure when deformed and is approximately a constant because it depends
mainly on structural materials. Yielding, on the other hand, varies depending on structural
materials, structural configurations, and loading patterns and histories. Damping has negligible
effects on the response of structures for the long-period and short-period systems and is most
effective in reducing response of structures for intermediate-period systems

FIGURE Typical Caltrans inelastic design response spectra.

.
In seismic bridge design, a main objective is to ensure that a structure is capable of
deforming in a ductile manner when subjected to a larger earthquake loading. It is desirable to
consider the inelastic response of a bridge system to a major earthquake. Although a nonlinear
inelastic dynamic analysis is not difficult in concept, it requires careful structural modeling and
intensive computing

6. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY BY IS 1983:2002

19
 Some provisions of IS: 1893 (Part-1): 2002 are significant departure from the earlier
ones. The most significant development incorporated in this code is the acknowledgement of
the importance of plastic behavior of structure, when a higher earthquake occur causing
seismic forces higher than the design forces adopted for elastic design. The code introduces
some new concepts like; types of earthquake, Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE); and Response Reduction Factor. 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. 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 a 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
pre-stressed or cantilevered beams, girders and slabs. Horizontal seismic forces in both the
orthogonal directions have been considered together in various load combinations, in certain
types of bridges. When responses from the three earthquakes components are to be
considered, the response due to each component is combined using the assumption that when
maximum response from one component occurs, the response from the other two components
are 30% of their maximum, including variation in signs.
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 Peak Ground Acceleration (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 2
here. This coefficient is about 12.5 times the average acceleration coefficient given in 1984
edition of the code for the same damping. The coefficient shown here actually represents
the factor by which the acceleration of the structure would increase beyond the peak ground
acceleration. At a very low natural period of oscillation the seismic acceleration in the structure
is same as the peak ground acceleration, whereas for very large natural period of oscillation the
acceleration tends to become zero and the structure oscillates with the displacements equal to
the ground displacements. 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 due to
consideration of Maximum Considered Earthquake in the design.

Design Procedure For Seismic Bridges

20
 Seismic Design for Bridges
Design Philosophies
• Bridge type, component selection, member dimensions, and aesthetics should be investigated

21
to reduce the seismic demands to the greatest extent possible. Aesthetics should not be the
primary reason for producing undesirable frame and component geometry.
• Simplistic analysis models should be used for initial assessment of structural behavior. The
results of more-sophisticated models should be checked for consistency with the results
obtained from the simplistic models. The rotational and translational stiffness of abutments
and foundations modeled in the seismic analysis must be compatible with their structural
and geotechnical capacity. The energy dissipation capacity of the abutments should be
considered
for bridges whose response is dominated by the abutments.
• The estimated displacement demands under design earthquake should not exceed the global
displacement capacity of the structure and the local displacement capacity of any of its
individual components.
• Adjacent frames should be proportioned to minimize the differences in the fundamental
periods and skew angles, and to avoid drastic changes in stiffness. All bridge frames must
meet the strength and ductility requirements in a stand-alone condition. Each frame should
provide a well-defined load path with predetermined plastic hinge locations and utilize
redundancy whenever possible.
• For concrete bridges, structural components should be proportioned to direct inelastic
damage
into the columns, pier walls, and abutments. The superstructure should have sufficient
over strength to remain essentially elastic if the columns/piers reach their most probable plastic
moment capacity. The superstructure-to-substructure connection for non integral caps may
be designed to fuse prior to generating inelastic response in the superstructure. The girders,
bent caps, and columns should be proportioned to minimize joint stresses. Moment-resisting
connections should have sufficient joint shear capacity to transfer the maximum plastic
moments and shears without joint distress.
• For steel bridges, structural components should be generally designed to ensure that inelastic
deformation only occur in the specially detailed ductile substructure elements. Inelastic
behavior in the form of controlled damage may be permitted in some of the superstructure
components, such as the cross frames, end diaphragms, shear keys, and bearings. The inertial
forces generated by the deck must be transferred to the substructure through girders, trusses,
cross frames, lateral bracings, end diaphragms, shear keys, and bearings. As an alternative,
specially designed ductile end-diaphragms may be used as structural mechanism fuses to
prevent damage in other parts of structures.
• Initial sizing of columns should be based on slenderness ratios, bent cap depth, compressive
stress ratio, and service loads. Columns should demonstrate dependable post-yield-
displacement capacity without an appreciable loss of strength. Thrust–moment–curvature
relationships should be used to optimize the performance of a column under service and
seismic loads. Concrete columns should be well proportioned, moderately reinforced, and
easily constructed. Abrupt changes in the cross section and the capacity of columns should be
avoided.
• Steel multicolumn bents or towers should be designed as ductile moments-resisting frames
(MRF) or ductile braced frames such as concentrically braced frames (CBF) and eccentrically
braced frames (EBF). For components expected to behave in elastically, elastic buckling (local

22
compression and shear, global flexural, and lateral torsion) and fracture failure modes should
be avoided. All connections and joints should preferably be designed to remain essentially
elastic. For MRFs, the primary inelastic deformation should preferably be columns. For CBFs,
diagonal members should be designed to yield when members are in tension and to buckle
In elastically when they are in compression. For EBFs, a short beam segment designated as a
link should be well designed and detailed.
There are two types of design philosophies

1 No-Collapse-Based Design

2 Performance-Based Design

Seismic design criteria for highway bridges have been improving and advancing
based on research findings and lessons learned from past earthquakes. In the United States,
prior to the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the seismic design of highway bridges was partially
based on lateral force requirements for buildings. Lateral loads were considered as levels of 2
to 6% of dead loads. In 1973, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed
new seismic design criteria related to site, seismic response of the soils at the site, and the
dynamic characteristics of bridges. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) modified the Caltrans 1973 Provisions slightly, and adopted
Interim Specifications. The Applied Technology Council (ATC) developed guidelines ATC-6 for
seismic design of bridges in 1981. AASHTO adopted ATC-6 as the Guide Specifications in 1983
and later incorporated it into the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges in 1991.

6.1No-Collapse-Based Design:-
Currently, AASHTO has issued two design specifications for highway bridges:
the second edition of AASHTO-LRFD and the 16th edition of the Standard Specifications. This
section mainly discusses the design provisions of the AASHTO-LRFD Specifications.
The principles used for the development of AASHTO-LRFD seismic design specifications
are as follows:
• Small to moderate earthquakes should be resisted within the elastic range of the structural
components without significant damage.
• Realistic seismic ground motion intensities and forces should be used in the design
procedures.
• Exposure to shaking from a large earthquake should not cause collapse of all or part of
bridges where possible; damage that does occur should be readily detectable and accessible for
inspection and repair.
Seismic force effects on each component are obtained from the elastic seismic response
coefficient and divided by the elastic response modification factor Specific detailing
requirements are provided to maintain structural integrity and to ensure ductile behavior. The
AASHTO-LRFD seismic design procedure shown in figure

23
Fig. Development of performance-based seismic design criteria .

24
Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications
The current Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications adopts a single-level force-based design
approach based on the no-collapse design philosophy and includes:
• Seismic force levels defined as elastic acceleration response spectrum (ARS);
• Multimodal response spectrum analysis considering abutment stiffness effects;
• Ductility and risk Z
factors used for component design to account for inelastic effects;
• Properly designed details.
Seismic Loads
A set of elastic design spectra ARS curves are recommended to consider peak rock accelerations
(A), normalized 5% damped rock spectra (R), and soil amplification factor (S). Figure shows
typical ARS curves.
Analysis Methods
For ordinary bridges with well-balanced span and bent/column stiffness, an equivalent static
analysis with the ARS times the weight of the structure applied at the center of gravity of total
structures can be used. This method is used mostly for hinge restrainer design. For ordinary
bridges with significantly irregular geometry configurations, a dynamic multimodal response
spectrum analysis is recommended. The following are major considerations in seismic design
practice:
• A beam-element model with three or more lumped masses in each span is usually used
• A larger cap stiffness is often used to simulate a stiff deck.
• Gross section properties of columns are commonly used to determine force demands, and
cracked concrete section properties of columns are used for displacement demands.
• Soil–spring elements are used to simulate the soil–foundation–structure–interaction.
Adjustments are often made to meet force–displacement compatibility, particularly for
abutments. The maximum capacity of the soil behind abutments with heights larger than 8 ft
(2.44 m) is 7.7 ksf (369 kPa) and lateral pile capacity of 49 kips (218 kN) per pile.
• Compression and tension models are used to simulate the behavior of expansion joints.
Component Design Force Effects
Seismic design force demands are determined using elastic forces from the elastic response
analysis divided by the appropriate component- and period-based (stiffness) adjustment factor
Z, as shown in Figure to consider ductility and risk. In order to account for directional
uncertainty of earthquake motions, elastic forces obtained from analysis of two perpendicular
seismic loadings are combined as the 30% rule, the same as the AASHTO-LRFD
For important bridges both methods should be given consideration; however, the probabilistic
evaluation should be reviewed by a Caltrans-approved consensus group. For all other bridges,
the motions should be based only on the deterministic evaluation. In the future, the role of the
two methods for other bridges should be reviewed by a Caltrans-approved consensus group.
Immediate Service Level : Full access to normal traffic available almost immediately (following
the earthquake). Repairable Damage
: Damage that can be repaired with a minimum risk of losing functionality. Limited Service Level
: Limited access (reduced lanes, light emergency traffic) possible with in days. Full service
restoration within months.

25
6.2.Performance-Based Design:-
The design criteria specified in Caltrans BDS and several
internal design manuals have been updated continuously to reflect recent research findings
and development in the field of seismic bridge design. Caltrans has been shifting toward a
displacement-based design approach emphasizing capacity design. In 1994 Caltrans established
the seismic performance criteria listed in. A bridge is categorized as an “important” or
“ordinary” bridge. Project-specific two-level seismic design procedures for important bridges,
such as the R-14/I-5 Interchange replacement the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB)
and the Benicia-Martinez Bridge , are required and have been developed. These performance-
based seismic design criteria include site-specific ARS curves, ground motions, and specific
design procedures to reflect the desired performance of these structures. For ordinary bridges,
only one-level safety-evaluation design is required. The following section briefly discusses the
newly developed seismic design methodology for ordinary bridges.
Ordinary Bridge Category
An ordinary bridge can be classified as a “standard” or “nonstandard” bridge. An nonstandard
bridge may feature irregular geometry and framing (multilevel, variable width, bifurcating, or
highly horizontally curved superstructures, different structure types, outriggers, unbalanced
mass and/or stiffness, high skew) and unusual geologic conditions (soft soil, moderate to high
liquefaction potential, and proximity to an earthquake fault). A standard bridge does not
contain nonstandard features. The performance criteria and the service and damage levels are
shown.
Basic Seismic Design Concept
The objective of seismic design is to ensure that all structural components have sufficient
strength and/or ductility to prevent collapse — a limit state where additional deformation will
potentially render a bridge incapable of resisting its self-weight during a maximum credible
earthquake (MCE). Collapse is usually characterized by structural material failure and/or
instability in one or more components. Ductility is defined as the ratio of ultimate deformation
to the deformation at first yield and is the predominant measure of structural ability to
dissipate energy. Caltrans takes advantage of ductility and post elastic strength and does not
design ordinary bridges to remain elastic during design earthquakes because of economic
constraints and the uncertainties in predicting future seismic demands. Seismic deformation
demands should not exceed structural deformation capacity or energy-dissipating capacity.
Ductile behavior can be provided by inelastic actions either through selected structural
members and/or through protective systems — seismic isolations and energy dissipation
devices. Inelastic actions should be limited to the predetermined regions that can be
easily inspected and repaired following an earthquake. Because the inelastic response of a
concrete superstructure is difficult to inspect and repair and the superstructure damage may
cause the bridge to be in an unserviceable condition, inelastic behavior on most bridges should
preferably be located in columns, pier walls, back walls, and wing walls see.
To provide an adequate margin of strength between ductile and non ductile failure modes,
capacity design is achieved by providing over strength against seismic load in superstructure
and foundations. Components not explicitly designed for ductile performance should be
designed to remain essentially elastic; i.e., response in concrete components should be limited
to minor cracking or limited to force demands not exceeding the strength capacity determined.

26
Displacement-Based Design Approach
The objective of this approach is to ensure that the structural system and its individual
components have enough capacity to withstand the deformation imposed by the design
earthquake. Using displacements rather than forces as a measurement of earthquake damage
allows a structure to fulfill the required functions. In a displacement-based analysis,
proportioning of the structure is first made based on strength and stiffness requirements. The
appropriate analysis is run and the resulting displacements are compared with the available
capacity which is dependent on the structural configuration and rotational capacity of plastic
hinges and can be evaluated by inelastic static push-over analysis . This procedure has been
used widely in seismic bridge design in California since 1994. Alternatively, a target
displacement could be specified, the analysis performed, and then design strength and stiffness
determined as end products for a structure . In displacement-based design, the designer needs
to define criteria clearly for acceptable structural deformation based on Post earthquake
performance requirements and the available deformation capacity. Such criteria are based on
many factors, including structural type and importance.

27
7.Conclusion:-
The present code provisions are based on Force-based method of design. The load-
deformation pattern of various components clearly shows that, damage is equally or more
dependent on deformation than the force. Also the use of response reduction factor for various
components to incorporate the effect of ductility is quite empirical in nature. The recent
developments on displacement–based design deserve much attention worldwide. Here the
deflection of the structure is considered as the demand parameter and the structure is
proportioned to achieve the desired performance through various techniques. FEMA 356
provides a new approach in which plastic deformation in members is considered as the demand
parameter which can be used for the evaluation of both rehabilitation as well as new building
projects. But, no methodology is given for the systematic proportioning of structural
components to achieve the desired performance in the case of new buildings and hence it may
require a large number of iterations. The same concept can be used in case of bridges also.
Even though a general performance objective of Life Safety level in minor and moderate seismic
events and Collapse prevention in major seismic events are mentioned, no provisions are given
in Indian Standard codes for assessing it. As in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications-2007,
there is a need for detailed commentary about the ductility provisions specified in the Indian
codes. In IRC a response reduction factor of I/R is taken to consider the ductility demand. The
code doesn’t elaborate on the relation between the response reduction factor and the ductility
of a member, and the method of achieving a higher ductility. It is also silent about
deformations, the relation between deformation and seismic force, and the demand and
capacity of deformation of various bridge members.
The zone factor is based on the seismic intensity, but the intensity is dependent on the site
geological characteristics, distance from the actual fault, magnitude of the earthquake, its
return period etc. and hence the dependency on a single factor involves risk. No details
regarding the selection of ground motion is given in the IS codes which is an important
parameter in case of site specific seismic hazard analysis. The code is also silent about the
methodology for nonlinear analysis such as Pushover and Time History method, which are
significant in assessing the performance of a bridge. The proposed draft part (III) is lacking in
details on; site-specific spectra, site-specific peak ground acceleration, modal analysis,
foundation structure interaction and principles of ductile designing .
The present code provisions are based on Force-based method of design. The
load-deformation pattern of various components clearly shows that, damage is equally or more
dependent on deformation than the force. Also the use of response reduction factor for various
components to incorporate the effect of ductility is quite empirical in nature. The recent
developments on displacement–based design deserve much attention worldwide. Here the
deflection of the structure is considered as the demand parameter and the structure is
proportioned to achieve the desired performance through various techniques. FEMA 356
provides a new approach in which plastic deformation in members is considered as the demand
parameter which can be used for the evaluation of both rehabilitation as well as new building
projects. But, no methodology is given for the systematic proportioning of structural
components to achieve the desired performance in the case of new buildings and hence it may
require a large number of iterations.

28
8.REFERANCES:-

• Priestley M.J.N. and Calvi G.M., “Seismic Design and Retrofit of

Bridges”
• Moehle J.P. and Eberhard M.O., “Earthquake Damage to
Bridges” CRC Press.
• Bavirisetty R., Vinayagamoorthy M. and Duan L., “Dynamic
Analysis” CRC Press
• Duan L. and Li F., “Seismic Design Philosophies and Performance-
Based Design Criterial” CRC Press
• Journal Of Performance of Constructed Facilities © ASCE /
FEB.2014 / 7
• IS 1983:2002: “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi
• Mander J.B., Priestley, M.J.N, and Park, R. [1988] “Observed
stress-strain behavior of confined concrete.” Journal of
Structural Engineering, 114(8):1827-1849
• AASHTO, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, First
edition, 1994.
• Bridge design by Krishna Raju

29