Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Draft
July 2010
Developed for
Indian Railways
By
1
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Contents
2
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
3
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
4
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
5
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Contents
6
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PREFACE
In India, there are three codes / standards for seismic design of bridges. These are: IRC 6 of
Indian Road congress, IS 1893 of Bureau of Indian Standards and existing Bridge Rules of
Indian Railways. IRC 6, published by the Indian Road Congress, deals with highway bridges and
its seismic loading provisions have been modified in 2006, to bring them in line with the IS
1893(Part 1):2002. Bureau of Indian Standards code, IS 1893(1984) has provisions for highway
as well as railway bridges. The revised version of this code, which is to be published as IS
1893(Part 4), has not yet been finalized. Existing Bridge Rules of the Indian Railways has
derived its seismic loading provisions from IS 1893 (1984). In these provisions, seismic
coefficient method is used for bridges, wherein design seismic coefficient does not depend on the
flexibility of the bridge. Moreover, the ductility of bridge components is not considered while
calculating the design seismic loads. Similarly, there are no details about response spectrum and
time history analysis.
The present guidelines on seismic design of railway bridges have been developed under a project
given to IIT Kanpur by the Indian Railways. The scope of these guidelines is limited to the
seismic design of new railway bridges and these shall not be used for seismic evaluation of the
existing railway bridges. The provisions included herein, are in line with the general provisions
of IS 1893(Part 1):2002. For example, the zone map is taken from IS 1893(Part 1) and the
response spectra is similar to the one used in IS 1893(Part 1). In line with the present
international practice, these guidelines are written in two column format with provision on the
left side and explanatory commentary on the right side. The purpose of commentary is to explain
background / concept / basis of the provision. The commentary should help understand the
provision better and remove any confusion, but cannot be used in lieu of the provision.
This draft document was developed by a team consisting of Professor Sudhir K Jain, Professor
Durgesh C. Rai ( Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur) and Professor O R Jaiswal
(Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur). Mr. Piyush Agarwal, Mr. Mahesh
Kumar Gupta and Mr. R K Goel of Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO),
Lucknow of the Indian Railways have offered useful suggestions in the preparation of this
document.
7
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
8
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
1. Terminology
For the purpose of this guidelines, the following terms are defined
Base
The level at which inertia forces generated in the substructure and superstructure are transferred to the
foundation.
Bearing
An element often used to connect bridge girders to piers and abutments. Bearing are designed to allow or
prevent rotation and translation in different directions.
Bent
The intermediate support under the superstructure. A bent may have one or more columns, or it may
consists of a pier wall.
Bridge Flexibility Factor (Sa/g)
Also called Response Acceleration Coefficient (Sa/g). It is a factor to obtain the elastic acceleration
spectrum depending on flexibility of the structure; it depends on natural period of vibration of the bridge.
Center of Mass
The point through which the resultant of the masses of a system acts. This point corresponds to the
center of gravity of the system.
Closely-Spaced Mode
Closely-Spaced modes of a structure are those of its natural modes of vibration whose natural
frequencies differ from each other by 10 percent or less of the lower frequency.
Critical Damping
The minimum damping above which free vibration motion is not oscillatory.
Damping
The effect of internal friction, imperfect elasticity of material, slipping, sliding, etc., in reducing the
amplitude of vibration and is expressed as a percentage of critical damping.
Design Acceleration Spectrum
It refers to graph of maximum acceleration as a function of natural frequency or natural period of vibration
of a Single Degree Of Freedom (SDOF) system, for a specified damping ratio to be used in the design of
structures.
Design Horizontal Coefficient
It is a horizontal acceleration coefficient that shall be used to obtain design horizontal seismic force on
structures. Refer clause 9.1 and 10.1
Design Seismic Force
The seismic force prescribed by this standard for each bridge component that shall be used in its design.
It is obtained as the maximum elastic seismic force divided by the appropriate response reduction factor
specified in this standard for each component. Refer clause 9.3 and 10.3.
Design Seismic Force Resultant (V)
The force resultant (namely axial force, shear force, bending moment or torsional moment) at a cross-
section of the bridge due to design seismic force for shaking along a considered direction applied on the
structure.
Ductility
Ductility of a structure, or its members, is the capacity to undergo large inelastic deformations without
significant loss of strength or stiffness.
Ductile Detailing
The preferred choice of location and amount of reinforcement in reinforced concrete structures to provide
for adequate ductility in them. In steel structures, it is the design of members and their connections to
9
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
10
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
11
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
2. -Symbols
a Structural width in the direction of hydrodynamic pressure
A Elastic seismic acceleration coefficient
Ar As per Appendix B, Area of confined core concrete in the rectangular hoop measure
to its outer side dimensions
Ash Area of cross-section of circular hoop
b Structural width perpendicular to hydrodynamic pressure
B Bonded plan dimension or bonded diameter in loaded direction of rectangular
bearing or diameter of circular bearing, ( Also damping coefficient , Table -10)
Ce Hydrodynamic force coefficient
Cj Fraction of missing mass for jth mode.
C1, C2, Pressure coefficients to estimate flow load due to stream on the substructure
C3, C4
Dk Diameter of core measured to the outside of the spiral or hoops
di Thickness of any layer
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete
EDC Energy dissipated per cycle ( Figure 11 )
Ex, Ey Earthquake force in x-and y-direction respectively
Es Modulus of elasticity of steel
F Hydrodynamic force on substructure; (also, Horizontal force in kN applied at center
of mass of superstructure for one mm horizontal deflection of bridge along
considered direction of horizontal force)
Fe Inertia force due to mass of a bridge component under earthquake shaking along a
direction
missing
F Lateral force associated with missing mass
fck Characteristic strength of concrete at 28 days in MPa.
fy Yield stress of steel
Fke Inertia force vector due to mass of bridge under earthquake shaking along a
direction in mode k
Fp Maximum Positive force
Fn Maximum Negative force
12
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
L Length (in meters) of the superstructure to the adjacent expansion joint or to the
end of superstructure. In case of bearings under suspended spans, it is sum of the
lengths of the two adjacent portions of the superstructure. In case of single span
bridges, it is equal to the length of the superstructure
m Number of modes of vibration considered
mj Total mass of the jth mode
My Moment Capacity of the column/pier section at the first yield of the reinforcing steel
M O Sum of the over strength moment capacities of the hinges resisting lateral loads
Qd Characteristic strength
R Response Reduction Factor
r1 , r 2 , r 3 Force resultants due to full design seismic force along two principal horizontal
directions and along the vertical direction, respectively
S Pitch of spiral or spacing of hoops
Sa Bridge flexibility factor along the considered direction
g
13
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Vnet Design seismic force resultant in any component of the bridge due to all modes
considered
W Seismic weight, which includes full dead load and part live load
Wb ,W1,W2 Widths of seating at bearing supports at expansion ends of girders.
jk Mode shape coefficient for jth, degree of freedom in kth mode of vibration
y Yield Curvature
14
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
3. Introduction C3.0 Introduction
3.1- C3.1-
The present guidelines deal with the seismic Bridges play an important role in the efficient
design of new railway bridges. These guidelines functioning of railway transport. Reliability
have been developed to reduce the damage against the natural calamities like earthquakes is
from earthquakes. Bridges and portions thereof of serious concern for safety of passengers,
shall be designed and constructed, to resist the goods, and employees. Bridges are lifeline
effects of design seismic force specified in structures and need to remain functional after
these guidelines as a minimum. The intention of the design earthquake. The designer may choose
these guidelines is to ensure that bridges to design bridges for seismic forces larger than
possess at least a minimum strength to those specified in this code and but not less.
withstand earthquakes. The intention is not to
prevent damage to them due to the most severe
shaking that they may be subjected to during
their lifetime.
a) Effect of flexibility of the bridge on the design a) In the present guidelines, first maximum
seismic force is included with the help of time earthquake force which will act on the bridge
period of bridge. (also called elastic earthquake force) is
obtained. Then, depending on ductility and
energy dissipating capacity of different
bridge component, design force is specified
for different bridge component. In contrast to
this, the existing Bridge Rules provisions,
suggest seismic coefficient method for
bridges. In this method, the seismic
coefficient for different zone is specified and
this coefficient is same for all types of
bridges. Thus, design earthquake force does
not depend on the structural dynamic
characteristics of the bridges. For example,
as per existing Bridge Rules, the design
seismic coefficient for a bridge with pier
height of 10 m and 30 m will be same, and it
does not depend on the flexibility of the
bridge.
15
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
b) The concept of design earthquake force for b) In existing Bridge Rules, the design seismic
elastic behavior of bridge and reduction in forces are directly specified, which is often
design earthquake using inelastic behavior by misunderstood as the maximum expected
considering ductility of components , is seismic force on the bridge under design
included. seismic shaking.
c) Seismic zones and response spectrum as per c) In IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 a new seismic zone
IS 1893(Part 1):2002 are used. map along with zone factors is given. As
against this, for bridges, IS 1893 (1984)
which has old zone map, gives seismic
coefficient for each zone. The same
coefficients are also used in existing Bridge
Rules.
e) New load combinations consistent with the e) In existing Bridge Rules, load combinations
present international practice are introduced. are not mentioned. The Indian Railway
Standard (IRS) for concrete bridge design
specifies load combination, for ultimate and
serviceability limit state. In these load
combinations, load factors for live load and
seismic loads are quite different than other
international bridge codes. The IRS for steel
bridge design and sub-structure and
foundation, does not explicitly specify load
combinations.
16
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
3.3 C3.3
Railway bridges are functionally and In case of railway bridges, the ratio of dead load
behaviorally different from the other bridges. of superstructure to live load could be quite
Firstly, the controlled traffic environment permits different than that for highway bridges. This
better assessment of train load on the bridges. ratio could also be significantly different for
Secondly, the presence of continuous rails over bridges with steel superstructure and concrete
the bridge spans provides restraint against superstructure. Various differences of railway
longitudinal and transverse movement during bridges and highway bridges are as follows:-
earthquakes. Thirdly, the superstructure
(i) Simple span structures are preferred over
configuration of railway bridges is different than
continuous structures for railway bridges.
that of the other types of bridges.
Many of the factors that make continuous
spans attractive for highway bridges are not
as advantageous for railway use. Continuous
spans are also more difficult to replace in
emergencies than simple spans.
(ii) The ratio of live to dead load is much higher
for a railway bridge than for a similarly sized
highway bridge. This can lead to
serviceability issues such as fatigue and
central deflection governing the designs
rather than strength.
(iii) Design impact load on railway bridges is
higher as compared to highway bridges.
(iv) Interruptions in service are typically much
more critical for railway than for highway
agencies. Therefore constructability and
maintainability without disruption to traffic
are crucial for railway bridges.
(v) Since the bridge supports the track
structure, the combination of track and
bridge movement cannot exceed the
tolerances in track standards. Interaction
between the track and bridge should be
considered in designing and detailing.
(vi) Seismic performance of highway and
railway bridges can vary significantly.
Railroad bridges have performed well
during seismic events.
(vii) Track structure ( along with guard rail )
serves as an effective restraint ( and
damping agent) against bridge
displacements in case of railway bridges.
(viii) Railway bridge owners typically expect a
longer service life from their structures than
highway bridge owner expect from theirs.
(ix) Trains operate in a controlled environment ,
which makes type of damage permissible
17
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
for railway bridges that might not be
acceptable generally for highway users.
3.4 C3.4
In the formulation of this guideline, assistance
has been derived from the several publications
listed in Appendix A 1.
5.1 C5.1-
The provisions of the present guidelines are Seismic evaluation of existing railway bridges
applicable for the seismic design of new requires much detailed analysis which is
railway bridges. These provisions are not beyond the scope of the present guidelines.
applicable for the seismic evaluation and Such detailed analysis is required to assess the
retrofitting of the existing railway bridges. present strength of the materials, to assess the
ductility of the seismic load carrying members,
The provisions of this guidelines are for railway present utility of the bridge, loading conditions
bridges wherein, seismic action is mainly etc. Specialized literature shall be referred for
resisted through flexure of pier and through this purpose. Some of the references for
abutments, i.e., bridges composed of vertical seismic evaluation and retrofitting are:
pier-foundation system supporting the deck
structure with or without bearings. 1. AASHTO (1994), Manual for Condition
Evaluation of Bridges, Second Edition,
For certain bridges with special geometry and American Association of State Highway
for special locations, additional detailed and Transportation Officials, Washington
analysis, not covered in this guidelines, is DC, USA.
required. These are mentioned in Clause 6.7. 2. Japan Road Association (1995) - Reference
Bridges not requiring seismic analysis are for Applying Guided Specification to New
given in clause 6.5. Highway Bridge and Seismic Strengthing
of Existing Highway Bridges.
The present guidelines also cover the seismic
design of the bridges with seismic isolation Useful suggestions for evaluation and
devices. strengthening of various components such as
piers/columns can be derived from the
Some information on post-earthquake followings documents specially developed for
operation and inspection is also included buildings:
1. FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation
18
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
6.1 - C6.1 -
Actual forces that appear on portions of The earthquake codes provide design forces
bridges during earthquakes may be greater which are substantially lower than what a
than the design seismic forces specified in this structure is expected to actually experience
guidelines. However, ductility arising from during strong earthquake shaking. Hence, it is
material behavior and detailing, and over important that the structure be made ductile
strength arising from the additional reserve and statically redundant to allow for alternate
strength in them over and above the design load transfer paths. Ductile design and
forces, are relied upon to account for this detailing enables a designer to use a lower
difference in actual and design lateral loads. design force (i.e., a higher value of response
reduction factor R) than for an ordinarily-
detailed structure.
6.2 - C6.2-
The response of a structure to earthquake Provisions of this guidelines deal with the
shaking is a function of the nature of inertia forces induced due to ground shaking.
foundation soil, materials, form, size and mode However, other effects of ground shaking like
of construction, and characteristics and liquefaction of soil, sliding failure of soil strata
duration of ground motion. This guidelines are not included. Some information on soil
specifies design forces for structures standing liquefaction is included in Appendix F.
on soils or rocks which do not settle or slide
due to loss of strength during shaking.
6.3 - C6.3
The reinforced and prestressed concrete Provisions for ductile design and detailing for
19
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
6.4 - C6.4
Masonry and plain concrete arch bridges with Designers are prohibited to consider masonry
spans more than 12 m shall not be built in the and plain concrete arch bridges of spans more
seismic zones IV and V. than 12 m as structural systems for bridges in
high seismic zones, since these systems do not
possess adequate ductility or reserve strength
and may not withstand forces due to strong
ground shaking.
6.5- C6.5-
Box and pipe culverts need not be analyzed for existing Bridge Rules also exempt box and
seismic forces. pipe culverts from seismic design.
6.6- C6.6-
In Zones II & III, bridges with overall length less
than 60m or spans less than 15m need not be
analyzed for seismic forces. However, these
bridges shall be provided with :
(a) The minimum seating width as per Clause
16.3.
(b) The connections in the restrained direction
between superstructure and substructure,
shall be designed for elastic seismic force
from superstructure.
20
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
6.6.1- C6.6.1
Single span bridges shall not be analyzed for Single span bridges are exempted from seismic
seismic forces. However, these bridges shall analysis. These bridges comprise of single
be provided with: span resting on abutment with no intermediate
pier. However, minimum seat width is
(c) The minimum seating width as per Clause
provided and connections in restrained
16.3.
direction are designed for seismic force.
(d) The connections in the restrained direction
between superstructure and substructure,
shall be designed for elastic seismic force
from superstructure.
6.7 - C 6.7
For specific cases of bridges, some additional Specialist literature shall be referred for
studies/analysis should be required, which are information regarding additional studies like
described in Table 1. site specific spectrum, estimation of fault
movement, spatial variation of ground motion,
soil liquefaction etc.
The site specific spectrum studies requires
knowledge about seismic potential of active
faults in that region characteristics of the path
through which seismic wave travel and soil
strata on which structures stands. Such studies
are to be performed by experts in the field of
seismology/geology and these shall be peer
reviewed. Following are some of the useful
references on site specific design criteria:
1) Reiter L., Earthquake Hazard Analysis:
Issues and Insights; Columbia University
Press, New York.
2) Kramer S.L., Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering; Indian Reprint, Pearson
Education, New Delhi, 2003.
3) Housner, G.W. and Jennings P.C.,
Earthquake Design Criteria; Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, 1982.
4) AERB (1990), Seismic Studies and Design
Basis Ground Motion for Nuclear Power
Plant Sites, AERB Safety Guide No.
AERB/SG/S-11, Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board, India.
Spatial variation of ground motion is relevant
for long continuous bridges and for sites where
geological discontinuity and large variation in
soil property along the bridge length exists.
The difference in the characteristics of the
21
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
22
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS
Table 1 - Cases Requiring Special Studies/Analysis
1. In zone IV and V, bridges with individual Modeling of the bridge including geometrical
span length more than 120 m and/or pier nonlinearity, P-delta effect and soil-structure
height is more than 30 m. interaction is needed.
Pushover analysis may be done to ascertain the
energy dissipation characteristics of ductile
members. (Details given in Appendix D)
2. Continuous deck bridge of length larger than Spatial variation of ground motion shall be
600 m considered.
3. Geological discontinuity exists at the site Spatial variation of ground motion shall be
considered.
4. Bridge site close to a fault (< 10 km) which Site specific spectrum shall be obtained. Else,
may be active. near-source modifications as per Clause 8.1.1
and 8.8.3 shall be done. Specialist literature
shall be required to obtain site specific
spectrum.
If bridge is crossing the fault, detailed geological
studies shall be performed to estimate past
movements across the fault. Bridge to be
designed so as to withstand the expected fault
displacements. Help from geological /
seismological persons with enough experience
will be required to calculate fault movement.
5. In zone IV and V, if the soil condition is poor, Site specific spectrum shall be obtained.
consisting of marine clay or loose sand (e.g.,
where the soil up to 30m depth has average
SPT N value equal to or less than 20)
6. Site with loose sand or poorly graded sands Liquefaction analysis is required (Details given
with little or no fines. Liquefiable soil. in Appendix F). Liquefaction is the act or
process of transforming any substance into a
liquid state. In non-cohesive soils it is the
transformation of the soil in the solid state to the
liquefied state due to the increase in the pore
pressure and the consequent reduction in the
effective stress.
23
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
In some cases, the effect of vertical component of All structures experience a constant vertical
ground motion has to be specifically considered. acceleration (downward) equal to gravity (g) at all
The effect of vertical component is particularly times. Hence, the vertical acceleration during ground
important in the following components/situations: shaking can be just added or subtracted to the gravity
depending on the direction of motion.
a. Prestressed concrete decks.
b. Bearings hold down devices, and linkages. Vertical acceleration shall be of significant
c. Horizontal cantilever structural elements consideration in bridges with large spans. Reduction
such as cantilevers of deck slabs and in gravity loads due to vertical component of ground
cantilever bridges. motion can be particularly detrimental for prestressed
d. Situations where stability (overturning girders. Vertical seismic forces may cause reduction
/sliding) becomes critical. in stabilizing forces and combined with this, the
e. Bridge sites located near fault. horizontal seismic force can cause dislocation of
structures.
The effect of the vertical seismic component on
substructure and foundation may, as a rule, be
omitted in zones II and III.
24
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
a) Earthquake causes impulsive ground motions, The note mentioned after assumption (a) has been
which are complex and random in character, necessitated in view of experience such as that in
changing in period and amplitude, and each Mexico City (1985).
lasting for a small duration. Therefore,
The earthquake occurred 400 km away from the
resonance of the type as visualized under
Mexico City. A great variation in damages was seen
steady-state sinusoidal excitations will not
in the Mexico City. Some parts experienced very
occur, as it would need time to build up such
strong shaking whereas some other parts of the city
amplitudes.
hardly felt any motion. The peak ground acceleration
Note: However, there are exceptions where at soft soils in the lake zone was about 5 times higher
resonance-like conditions have been seen to occur than that at the rock sites though the epicentral
between long distance waves and tall structures distance was same at both the locations. Extremely
founded on deep soft soils. soft soils in lake zone amplified weak long-period
waves. The natural period of soft clay layers
happened to be close to the dominant period of
incident seismic waves and it created a resonance-
like conditions. Buildings between 7 and 18 storeys
suffered extensive damage since the natural period of
such buildings was close to the period of seismic
waves.
b) Earthquake is not likely to occur simultaneously The probability of occurrence of strong earthquake
with wind or maximum flood or maximum sea shaking is low. So is the case with strong winds.
waves. Similarly, earthquake motion need not be Therefore, the possibility of strong ground shaking
considered to occur simultaneously with other and strong wind occurring simultaneously is very
extreme environmental conditions such as low. Thus, it is commonly assumed that earthquakes
thermal, which have low probability of and winds of very high intensity do not occur
occurrences. simultaneously. Similarly, it is assumed that strong
earthquake shaking and maximum flood or sea
waves (Tsunami) and highest temperature will not
occur at the same time.
c) The value of a elastic modulus of materials, It is difficult to precisely specify the modulus of
wherever required, may be taken as for static materials such as concrete, masonry, and soil
analysis unless a more definite value is available because its value depends on factors such as stress
for use in dynamic conditions level, loading condition (static versus dynamic),
material strength and age of material.
For such materials, there tends to be large variation
in the value of E. For instance, for concrete, IS
456:1978 recommends Ec = 5700fck, where is IS
456:2000 has modified the value to Ec = 5000fck;
both under static condition. Further, the actual
concrete strength will be different from the specified
25
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
26
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
27
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
1.0 Configuration
2.0 Superstructure
3.0 Substructure
28
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
29
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
30
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
span.
Group A, B, C routes depend on traffic intensity and
strategic importance of the route.
31
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
32
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
8.3.1 - C8.3.1
The seismic forces for bridges shall be generally The existing Bridge Rules follow a very simplistic
estimated by Seismic Coefficient Method (Single method for calculating design seismic force. In this
Mode Method) described in Section 9.0. Response method, design seismic force computation does not
Spectrum Method (Multi Mode Method) described in include consideration of flexibility of the bridge.
Section 10 shall be used in zones IV and V in This implies that all the bridges in a seismic zone,
following cases: irrespective of their span, pier height and structural
system adopt the same design acceleration
(a) Irregular bridge as defined in section 8.3.5.2
coefficient.
(b) Individual span more than 80m
(c) Continuous bridge This guideline includes the effect of bridge flexibility
(d) Height of top of pier / abutment from the base in its design force computation. Further, it permits
of foundation is more than 30m. the use of both the Seismic Coefficient Method
(single Mode Method) and the Response Spectrum
Method (Multi Mode Method). The Seismic
Coefficient Method assumes that (a) the fundamental
mode of vibration has the most dominant
contribution to seismic force, and (b) masses and
stiffness are evenly distributed in the bridge resulting
in a regular mode shape.
The seismic coefficient method is applicable when
dynamic behavior of the bridge can be sufficiently
approximated by a single degree of freedom system.
This condition is considered to be satisfied in
following cases:
a) In longitudinal direction of approximately
straight bridges, with continuous deck, the
seismic forces are carried by the piers, and the
total mass of the piers is less than 20% of the
mass of the deck
b) For the above bridge in transverse direction, if
the bridge is approximately symmetric about
the center of the deck, i.e., when the
eccentricity between the center of stiffness of
the supporting members and the center of mass
of the deck does not exceed 5% of the length of
the deck.
c) For bridges with simply supported spans, no
significant interaction between piers is expected
and the total mass of each pier is less than 20%
of the tributary mass of the deck (Tributary
mass of the deck on a pier is the half mass of
the deck on either side of the pier).
33
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
8.3.2 - C8.3.2 -
The Time History method described in Section 11.0 Ground motion records to be used in the time history
shall be used in following cases: analysis shall be obtained after site specific studies.
These studies shall be performed by a team of
(i) To verify the result of Response Spectrum
experts and shall be peer reviewed.
Method for highly irregular bridges in zone IV,
and V.
(ii) Bridges with special devices like Shock
Transmission Units (STU), and seismic
isolation devices, time history method is
mandatory.
8.3.3 - C8.3.3-
The Pushover analysis described in Section 12.0 International bridge codes are now recommending
may be used to ascertain the nonlinear load use of Pushover Analysis for bridges. Pushover
carrying capacity and ductility of pier with more than analysis is a nonlinear analysis which estimates the
50 m height and individual span more than 120 m. nonlinear load carrying capacity of the bridge pier,
and assesses the energy dissipating capacity of
ductile members. This analysis estimates if the
provided ductile detailing is enough to accommodate
seismic loads on the bridge.
8.3.4 C8.3.4 -
For applying seismic forces obtained using Seismic
Coefficient Method or Response Spectrum Method
and for applying earthquake ground motion in Time
History Method (THM), the mathematical model of
bridges shall be used. This model shall
appropriately model the stiffness of superstructure,
bearings, piers and bridge ends. Analysis of bridge
model under dead load, live load and seismic loads
gives bending moment, shear and axial forces in
various bridge components.
34
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
(a) It is straight or it describes a sector of an arc (a) Fig C1a represents the straight regular bridge.
which subtends an angle less than 90 at the Whereas Fig C1 b show the straight bridge with
center of the arc, and < 900.
< 90o
Fig C1b Regular Bridge with < 90o
(c) If multi-column piers are used then the stiffness (c) Multi-column pier (bent) is quite commonly used
of the stiffest columns within piers shall not be in highway bridges. They provide frame action in
25% more than the stiffness of the most flexible transverse direction. Similarly for continuous
column in that pier. bridges, frame action in the longitudinal direction
can also be achieved. Details regarding configuration
of multi-column pier for regular bridges are given in
CALTRANS.
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
8.4 - Seismic Weight and Live C8.4 Seismic Weight and Live
Load Load
8.4.1- C8.4.1 -
The seismic weight of the superstructure shall be The dead load of the superstructure also includes the
taken as its full dead load plus appropriate amount superimposed dead load that is permanently fastened
of live load. The seismic weight of the substructure or bonded with its structural self weight. Since there
and of the foundation shall be their respective full is a limited amount of friction between the live load
dead load. Buoyancy and uplift shall be ignored in and the superstructure, only a part of the live load is
the calculation of seismic weight. included in the inertia force calculations.
Note In the Seismic Coefficient Method (Clause 9.0), for It is clear that the seismic forces on a bridge
simply supported regular bridges, single degree of component are generated due to its own mass, and
freedom (SDOF) model is used to obtain time period and not due to the externally applied forces on it. The
in this model only 80% of pier weight is considered in the presence of buoyancy and uplift forces does not
seismic weight.
reduce its mass. Thus, the clause requires that
buoyancy and uplift forces be ignored in the seismic
force calculations.
8.4.2- C8.4.2 -
No live load (train load) shall be considered while By the live load , one usually refers to vehicular
calculating horizontal seismic forces along the traffic. Seismic shaking in the direction of traffic
direction of traffic (Longitudinal direction). 50% live causes the wheels to roll once the frictional forces
load (excluding impact effect) shall be considered are overcome. The inertia force generated by the
while calculating horizontal seismic forces in the vehicle mass in this case is smaller than that if the
direction perpendicular to traffic (transverse vehicle mass were completely fastened to the span.
direction). Further, the inertia force generated by the vehicle
mass due to friction between the superstructure deck
and wheels, is assumed to be taken care of in the
usual design for braking forces in the longitudinal
direction. Thus, live load is ignored while estimating
the seismic forces in the direction of traffic.
On the contrary, under seismic shaking in the
direction perpendicular to that of traffic (transverse
direction), the rolling of wheels is not possible. In
the transverse direction, the train can slide due to
36
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
8.4.3 - C8.4.3
The vertical seismic forces shall be obtained by While calculating vertical seismic forces, the seismic
considering full live load (excluding impact effect) weight shall include full live load. It may be noted
on the bridge. that while calculating lateral seismic forces, 50%
live load is included in seismic weight for transverse
direction, where as no live load is included for
seismic weight in longitudinal direction.
8.5.1 - C8.5.1 -
For regular bridges, the two orthogonal horizontal For regular bridges, the two orthogonal horizontal
directions are usually the longitudinal and directions (say x- and y-directions) are usually the
transverse direction of the bridges (Fig 2a). For longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge.
such bridges analysis shall be done for seismic For such bridges, it is sufficient to design the bridge
forces in longitudinal and transverse directions. The for seismic forces acting along each of the x- and y-
seismic force resultants (Bending Moment, Shear directions separately. During earthquake shaking,
Force and Axial Force) at any component obtained when the resultant motion is in a direction other than
from the analysis in longitudinal and transverse x and y, the forces can be resolved into x- and y-
37
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
directions shall be considered separately. components, which the elements in the two principal
directions are normally designed to withstand.
X
X- and Y- indicate global axes; x- and y- are local
axes for column/pier.
y
M yX M Yy
x
MxX M Yx
8.5.2 - C8.5.2 -
For irregular bridges, particularly, skew bridge (Fig. In case of irregular bridges, particularly those with
2b), design seismic force resultants shall be skew, design should be done by considering the
obtained along x-and y-direction. The design seismic force component in x-direction and y-
seismic force resultant (Bending Moment, Shear direction. In such a case, the bridge should also be
Force and Axial Force) at any component shall be designed for earthquake forces acting along the
obtained as follows: directions in which the structural systems of the
substructures are oriented. One way of getting
(a) r1 0.3r2 around this without having to consider too many
possible earthquake directions is to design the
(b) 0.3r1 r2
structure for:
where (a) full design force along x-direction (ELx) acting
simultaneously with 30% of the design force in
r1 Force resultant due to full design seismic the y-direction (ELy); i.e., (ELx+0.3ELy), and
force along x direction,
(b) full design force along y-direction (ELy) acting
r2 Force resultant due to full design seismic simultaneously with 30% of the design force in the
force along y direction. x-direction (ELx); i.e., (0.3ELx+ELy).
This combination ensures that the components
38
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
x x
y y
M x M xX 0 .3 M Yx My MyX 0.3MYy
Design
Moments
M x = 0.3M xX + M Yx My = 0.3MyX + MYy
8.5.3-
When vertical seismic forces are also considered,
(Clause 6.8.1), then for regular bridges, the design
seismic force resultants shall be obtained for the X-,
Y- and Z-direction separately. Hence, for irregular
bridges, the design seismic force resultant at any
component shall be computed as follows:
(a) r1 0.3r2 0.3r3
39
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
8.5.4 - C8.5.4 -
As an alternative to the procedure in 8.5.2 and When seismic force is applied in X-direction, the
8.5.3, the forces due to the combined effect of two bending moments in column are M x and
X
M yX . x-
or three components can be obtained on the basis
of square root of sum of square (SRSS) that is and y- are local directions. Similarly, for seismic
force in Y-direction, the bending moment in column
r12 r22 or r12 r22 r32 M Yy . The design moment, M X in x-
Y
are M x and
direction and in y-direction is given by is given by,
Where r1, r2 and r3 are as defined in Clause 8.5.2
or 8.5.3. MX ( M xX ) 2 + ( M yX ) 2 and
MY ( M Yx ) 2 + ( M Yy ) 2
8.6 - Damping and soil Properties C8.6 - Damping and soil properties
8.6.1.1- C8.6.1.1
If well foundation is used, then 10% damping shall Generally piers are considered fixed at the top of the
be used. well foundation, i.e., foundation is considered to be
rigid. For such models, increased damping of 10%
may be used to account for the additional energy
dissipation due to interaction between well
foundation and adjoining soil. Alternatively, a
rigorous soil-structure interaction analysis can be
performed by modeling the well foundation and the
surrounding soil.
40
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
8.6.1.2- C8.6.1.2-
In case the guard rails are effectively provided, on Railway track along with effectively provided guard
single span of bridge upto 80 m length , 10 % rails provides a continuous load path in longitudinal
damping in longitudinal direction can be direction. Thus, for short bridges, they help in
considered. enhancing the participation of abutment and
adjoining soil in the shaking in longitudinal
direction. Hence, damping is increased for 10% for
such cases. A similar provision is given in AREMA
for short bridges.
8.6.3- C8.6.3-
The values for allowable bearing pressure in soil
given in Table 5 applies to the upper 30m of the soil
profile. Profiles containing distinctly different soil
layers shall be subdivided into layers, each
designated by a number that ranges from 1 (at the
top) to n (at the bottom), where there are a total of n
layers in the upper 30 meters, and a weighted
average will be obtained as follows:
n
di
N i 1
n d
N i
i 1 i
n
where d
i 1
i is equal to 30 m, Ni is the standard
41
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
4. The values of N (uncorrected values) are at the founding level and the allowable bearing pressure shall be
determined in accordance with IS 6403 or IS 1888.
5. The piles should be designed for lateral loads neglecting lateral resistance of soil layers liable to liquefy.
6. IS 1498 and IS 2131 may also be referred.
42
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
SOIL TYPE
Soil Type Definition
Well graded gravel (GW) or well graded sand (SW) both with less than 5% passing 75 m
sieve (Fines);
Type I: Rock or Hard Soils Well graded Gravel Sand mixtures with or without fines (GW-SW);
Poorly graded Sand (SP) or clayey sand (SC), all having N above 30;
Stiff to hard clays having N above 16, where N is the Standard Penetration Test value.
Poorly graded sands or Poorly graded sands with gravel (SP) with little or no fines having
N between 10 and 30;
Type II: Stiff Soils
Stiff to medium stiff fine-grained soils, like Silts of Low compressibility (ML) or Clays of
Low Compressibility (CL) having N between 10 and 16.
All soft soils other than SP with N<10. The various possible soils are
Silts of Intermediate compressibility (MI);
Silts of High compressibility (MH);
Clays of Intermediate compressibility (CI);
Type III: Soft Soils
Clays of High compressibility (CH);
Silts and Clays of Intermediate to High compressibility (MI-MH or CI-CH);
Silt with Clay of Intermediate compressibility (MI-CI);
Silt with Clay of High compressibility (MH-CH).
43
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
(C) During the construction stage, following load assessing the critical combination for overturning
combination shall be used: effect but also for stress reversal effect. Earthquake
load include lateral as well as vertical amount as per
1.0DL + 1.2DL(S) + 1.0EQ + 1.3 EP + 1.0PS +
clause 8.5
1.0HY + 1.0BO
The seismic load combinations from various codes
Where,
are listed below:
DL = dead load,
a) Existing IRS Concrete Code
DL(S) = superimposed dead load,
IRS Concrete Code :
LL = live load,
Ultimate Limit State
LL (F) = live load on footpath,
1) 1.4DL + 2.0DL(S) + 1.6EQ
EQ = earthquake load, 2) 1.4DL + 2.0DL(S) + 1.25EQ + 1.7EP +
EP = earth pressure, 1.25LL(F) + 1.75LL
Serviceability Limit State
PS = prestressing load,
1) 1.0DL + 1.2DL(S) +1.0EQ
HY = hydrodynamic load,
2) 1.0DL + 1.2DL(S) + 1.0EQ + 1.0LL(F) + 1.0 LL
BO = buoyancy load, ,
b) AREMA
SH = shrinkage load,
Serviceability Limit State
CR = creep load,
1.0 (DL + EP + BO + PS + EQ) -- Concrete Structure
TE = temperature load.
1.0 (DL + EP + BO + EQ) --- Steel structure
The live load (LL) includes impact effect,
longitudinal forces ( tractive and braking), and c) AASHTO
centrifugal force. Ultimate Limit State
(1.25 or 0.9) DC + (1.4 or 0.25) DD + (1.5 or 0.65)
DW + (1.5 or 0.9)EH + (1.35 or 0.9) EV + (1.5 or
0.75)ES + 1.0EL + 1.0PS + (1.25 or 0.9) CR + (1.25
or 0.9)SH + 0.5 ( LL + IM + CE + BR + PL + LS ) +
WA+ FR +EQ
For permanent loads, the maximum and minimum
value of load factor is given. Designer shall use those
values which produce the most critical combination
or worst effect. For example, if load A produces
the effect opposite to that of load B, then,
minimum value of load factor shall be used for load
A along with the maximum value for load B .
d) TRANSIT (New Zealand)
Ultimate Limit State
1) (1.35 or 0.8)DL + EL +1.35EP+1.35OW + SG +
ST + EQ + 0.33TP+ GW
44
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
DL + EL + GW + EP + OW + SG + ST + EQ +
0.33TP
DL + EL + GW + EP + OW + SG + 0.33EQ + CN
45
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
8.8.1- C8.8.1-
For superstructure with span upto 80 m, the effect Long span bridges are more sensitive to vertical
of vertical motion can be considered by analyzing motion and analysis for vertical acceleration shall be
the superstructure for 25% additional dead weight carried out. For spans less than 80 m, simplified
in upward and downward direction. approach, taken form CALTRANS is suggested.
8.8.2- C8.8.2-
For superstructure with span more than 80m, Vertical component of ground shaking can make the
analysis for vertical ground motion shall be done. superstructure to vibrate in vertical plane. In short
span bridges, superstructure will be quite rigid and
Such analysis requires time period of
its time period will be very low. However, in long
superstructure in vertical direction. Time period for
span bridges, superstructure could be flexible. For
the superstructure has to be worked out separately
continuous superstructure, time period of
using the property of the superstructure, in order to
superstructure can be obtained by modeling it using
estimate the seismic acceleration coefficient (Sa/g)
general purpose structural analysis software.
for vertical acceleration. It can be done by free
vibration analysis of superstructure using standard
structural analysis software. However, for simply
supported superstructure with uniform flexural
rigidity, the fundamental time period Tv, for vertical
motion can be estimated using the expression
2 m
TV = L2 , where L is the span, m is the
EI
mass per unit length, and EI is the flexural rigidity of
the superstructure.
When ultimate limit state is used, effective flexure
rigidity equal to 50% of gross flexural rigidity shall
be taken for concrete superstructure (RC and
Prestressed girders, slab decks).
8.8.3 C8.8.3
For locations, within 10 km of active fault, seismic In the regions very close to active fault, ground
zone factor for vertical ground motion may be taken motion characteristics could be quite different. In
as equal to that for horizontal motion. ( which shall near-source regions, seismic hazards shall be based
include the 20% increase in horizontal PGA as per on detailed geological study of fault and local site
Clause 8.1.1 ). condition. In absence of such detailed study, the
zone factor for vertical motion is taken as same as
that for horizontal motion. It is to be noted that, for
such near source locations, the zone factor for
horizontal motion has already been enhanced by
20%. Thus, the zone factor for the horizontal and
vertical motion in zone V would be 0.36 x 1.2 =
0.432g.
46
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
47
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
A plot of Sa is given in Fig.3 for 5% damping. For The design acceleration spectrum given in Figure 3 is
g for damping value of 5 percent of critical damping.
other damping values, the multiplying factors are Ordinates for other values of damping can be
given in Table 6. obtained by multiplying the value for 5 percent
damping with the factors given in Table 6. These
factors are same as those given in IS 1893 (Part
48
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
Spectrum Acceleration Coefficient (Sa/g)
1):2002.
Damping % Factors
0 3.20
2 1.40
5 1.0
7 0.90
10 0.80
15 0.70
20 0.60
25 0.55
30 0.50
49
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
T 2
W ( s )us 2 ds
50
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
51
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
9.1.1.1- C9.1.1.1-
For ultimate limit state, the cracked flexural stiffness CALTRANS, AASSHTO and Eurocode use cracked
of reinforced concrete pier shall be used. The flexural stiffness. For piers/columns which are
cracked flexural stiffness is the initial slope of the compression members, the effective flexural stiffness
moment curvature (M-) curve and is given by is considered to be 0.5 to 0.7 times gross flexural
stiffness, depending on the level of axial stress.
My
E c I eff =
Where, y
My is the moment capacity of the column/pier
section at the first yield of the reinforcing steel, and
y is the yield curvature.
In the absence of more rigorous estimate, effective
moment of inertia, Ieff, can be taken as 0.75 times
gross moment of inertia, Ig.
9.2 - Maximum Elastic Forces and C9.2 - Maximum Elastic Forces and
Deformations Deformations
The inertia forces due to mass of each component The seismic forces, thus obtained on each component
or portion of the bridge as obtained from Clause of bridge are used in linear static analysis of bridge
9.2.1 shall be applied at the center of mass of the to obtain the response quantities such as bending
corresponding component or portion of the bridge. moment, shear force, axial force and deformation.
A linear static analysis of the bridge shall be An adequate mathematical model of bridge shall be
performed for these applied inertia forces to obtain made and seismic forces shall be applied at the
the force resultants (e.g., bending moment, shear centre of mass of each component. Mathematical
force and axial force) and deformations (e.g., model of 2-span bridge is shown in Fig C3. Here
displacements and rotations) at different locations piers (or column) are modeled by three frame
52
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
in the bridge. The stress resultants Ve and elements. Likewise superstructure is modeled using
deformations so obtained are the maximum elastic four frame elements. Such mathematical model can
force resultants (at the chosen cross-section of the also be analyzed by using standard structural analysis
bridge component) and the maximum elastic software. Seismic forces along with various loads
deformations (at the chosen nodes in the bridge (such as DL, LL) shall be applied on the model and
structure), respectively. analysis shall be done to obtain the response
quantities (bending moment, shear force, axial force
and deformation).
Node
Element
9.2.1- Inertia Force Due to Mass of Each C9.2.1 - Inertia Force Due to Mass of
Bridge Component Each Bridge Component
The inertia force due to the mass of each bridge The inertia force due to the mass of a bridge
component (e.g., superstructure, substructure and component under earthquake ground shaking in a
foundation) under earthquake ground shaking along particular direction depends on the elastic seismic
any direction shall be obtained from acceleration coefficient computed for shaking along
that direction. Clearly, this acceleration coefficient
F e
A hW will be different along different directions owing to
different natural periods along those directions.
where
Moreover, seismic weight will also be different in
Ah = Elastic Seismic Acceleration Coefficient along the longitudinal and transverse directions due to
the considered direction of shaking obtained different amount of live load in the two directions.
as per Clause 9.1, and
W = Seismic weight as discussed in Clause 8.4.
53
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
54
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
55
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS
Table 7: Response Reduction Factor R for Bridge Components and Connections
R
Substructure
RCC Piers with ductile detailing
- Single Column, Wall Type 2.5
- Frame Type 3.25
RCC Piers without ductile detailing
- Single Column, Wall Type 2.0
- Frame Type 2.5
Steel Framed Construction 2.5
Masonry piers (unreinforced )* 1.5
RCC Abutment 2.0
Masonry/PCC Abutment 1.5
Connections (including bearings)
Superstructure to abutment 0.8
Superstructure to column 1
Columns or piers to foundations 1
Expansion joints within a span of the superstructure 0.8
Superstructure 1.0
* This pier is not allowed in seismic zone IV and V
Notes: 1. Response reduction factor is not to be applied for the calculation of displacements.
2. R value for foundations, refer Clause 15.1
3. For connections, also refer Clause 16.1.1
4. Usually superstructure are rigid and are unlikely to posses much ductility, and they are
usually designed for elastic forces. However, if Earthquake forces with R=1 , are very
high and if they govern the design of superstructure ,then one should obtain the
maximum load carrying capacity of the pier ( which is design as ductile member), and
superstructure shall be designed for the forces equal to maximum load carrying capacity
of the ductile member i.e. pier.
56
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
57
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
2.50 Tk 0.67
Sa
1.67/Tk 0.67 Tk 3.00
g k 0.56
Tk 3.00
Sa
1 15Tk
g k
S
A plot of a versus Tk is given in Fig. 4 for 5%
g k
damping. Table 6 gives the multiplying factors for
obtaining spectral values for various other
damping percentages.
58
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
To be used for k = 1
Spectrum Acceleration Coefficient
(Sa/g)k
10.2 - Inertia Force due to Mass C10.2 - Inertia Force due to Mass of
of Bridge at Node j in Mode k Bridge at Node j in Mode k
The effect of seismic shaking can be quantified as The expression for force at jth node in kth mode k is
concentrated seismic inertia forces and moment obtained through a routine solution procedure for
corresponding to the translational and rotational analysis of elastic structures subjected to seismic
degrees of freedom, respectively, at each node of ground motion represented by its pseudo-acceleration
the discretised model of the bridge structure (a response spectrum. The mathematical model of the
typical descritised model is shown in Fig. C3). bridge structure (Fig. C3) should properly account for
Each mode of vibration contributes to these all stiffness and masses. A suitable number of
seismic inertia forces and moments. The intermediate nodes are required for each bridge
maximum elastic force at jth node in kth mode is component to properly estimate the stress resultants
given by caused by the seismic inertia forces generated. In doing
so, it will be advantageous to follow the current
Fkj = mj k Pk Ak g AASHTO code practices. Rotational moment of inertia
The force vector Fke of maximum elastic inertia of certain masses in the bridge structure may become
important particularly in case of joint elements; the
forces at different nodes in mode k of vibration same may be incorporated in the matrix of seismic
due to earthquake shaking along a considered weights as mass moment of inertia times acceleration
direction shall be obtained as: due to gravity.
F [m ] P
k
e
k k Ak g
where
[m ] = Seismic mass matrix of the bridge
structure, as defined in Clause 10.2.1,
59
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
k m 1 ,
T
=
k m k
T
60
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
61
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
10.3.1 C10.3.1-
The number of modes to be considered in the Standard text books on structural dynamics cover
analysis shall be such that at least 90% of the total details of response spectrum method, number of modes
seismic mass of the structure is included in the to be included and missing mass corrections.
calculations of response for earthquake shaking
along each principal direction. If modes with
natural frequency beyond 33 Hz are to be
considered, modal combination (Clause 10.3 (a)
and 10.3 (b)) shall be carried out only for modes
with natural frequency less than 33 Hz. Modes
with natural frequency exceeding 33 Hz shall be
treated as rigid modes and accounted for through
missing mass correction discussed below:
At degree of freedom j, the missing mass is given
by
where
Pk Modal participation factor for mode k,
kj Mode shape coefficient for jth, degree of
freedom in kth mode of vibration
m j Total mass of the jth mode,
c j Fraction of missing mass for jth mode.
Lateral force associated with missing mass is
Z
Fjmissing c j m j I
2
62
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
The design seismic force resultant Vnet at any of ductility and over strength. Hence, the level of
design seismic force vis--vis the maximum elastic
cross-section in a bridge component for a
force that will be experienced by the component if the
considered direction of earthquake shaking shall
entire bridge were to behave linearly elastic, varies for
be determined as
different bridge components. The values of the
e
Fnet response reduction factor R given in Table 7 reflect the
Vnet same.
R
e
where the maximum elastic force resultant Fnet
due to all modes considered is as obtained in
Clause 10.3, and Response Reduction Factor R of
that component of bridge is as per Table 7.
However, Response Reduction Factor shall not be
applied for calculation of design displacements.
C10.5- Multi-directional Shaking
63
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
Ground level
after scour
64
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
11.3.2 Ground Motions for Two- and C11.3.2 Ground Motions for Two- and
Three-Dimensional Analysis Three-Dimensional Analysis
For 2-dimesional analysis, ground motion consists For a bridge with multi-column piers, the 2-
of horizontal acceleration time history in the Dimensional model for longitudinal direction is shown
direction under consideration. If vertical ground in Fig C7. For this model, the X-component of ground
motion is to be considered, then, vertical motion will be used. For analysis in transverse
acceleration time history is also used. direction, the model is shown in Fig C8. For this
model, the Z-component of ground motion will be
For 3-dimenstional analysis, ground motions
used.
consist of pairs of time histories of appropriate
components of horizontal accelerations. For each On the other hand, if 3-dimensional model of the bridge
pair of horizontal acceleration time histories, is used Fig C9, then both the component will be applied
SRSS response spectrum shall be obtained. This together.
65
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
x g (t )
z g (t )
Fig C7- 2-Dimensional Model
Fig C8 - 2-Dimensional Model
for longitudinal Direction for Transverse Direction
xg ( t )
zg ( t )
If required, the vertical component of ground motion
shall also be used along with the horizontal
components.
66
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
67
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
68
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
13.1- C13.1
The superstructure shall be designed for the For seismic analysis in lateral directions, seismic forces
design seismic forces specified in Clauses 9.0 or will be governed by the time period of the combined
10.0 along with the other appropriate loads. system of substructure and substructure. For obtaining
vertical forces on superstructure, time period of
The superstructure shall be designed for lesser of
superstructure will have to be obtained. Usually
following forces:
superstructures are quite rigid in vertical direction,
a) Elastic seismic forces i.e. seismic forces with except for long span bridges. The elastic seismic force
R= 1.0 obtained as per Clause 9.0 or Clause 10.0 shall be
applied along with the other loads (like DL, LL, etc.)
b) Forces developed when over strength plastic on the mathematical model of the superstructure and
moment hinges are formed in the linear static analysis shall be carried out. If necessary,
substructure. As described in Appendix A. the vertical seismic forces shall also be considered.
13.2 - C13.2 -
Under simultaneous action of horizontal and Since the supporting width of the span in the transverse
vertical accelerations, the superstructure shall direction is relatively small in comparison with that in
have a factor of safety of at least 1.5 against the longitudinal direction, overturning of
overturning. In this calculation, the forces to be superstructures (that are resting on the substructure
considered on the superstructure shall be the without being monolithically connected) in the
maximum elastic forces generated in the transverse direction may be possible under the
superstructure, as calculated using Clauses 9.2 combined action of seismic forces along transverse and
and 10.3. vertical directions. Of course, in these calculations, the
direction of vertical seismic force shall be taken so as
to produce the worst effect.
Railway bridges invariably contain guard rails, which
are likely to provide resistance to overturning in
transverse direction.
13.3 - C13.3 -
The superstructure shall be secured to the This clause makes it mandatory in high seismic
substructure, particularly in seismic zones IV and regions to have suitable linking devices provided
V, through vertical hold-down devices and anti- between the superstructure and substructure if they had
dislodging elements in horizontal direction as not been monolithically connected, and between the
specified in Clauses 13.3.1 and 13.3.2, suspended spans, if any, and restrained portion of the
respectively. These vertical hold-down devices superstructure.
and anti-dislodging elements may also be used to
(a) vertical hold-down devices to prevent the
secure the suspended spans, if any, with the
superstructure from lifting off from its supports
restrained portions of the superstructure.
atop the substructure particularly under vertical
However, the frictional forces shall not be relied
seismic forces combined with the transverse
upon in the design of these hold-down devices or
69
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
13.3.1.1 - C13.3.1.1 -
Where vertical force U, due to the combined effect
of maximum elastic horizontal and vertical seismic
forces, opposes and exceeds 50%, but is less
than 100%, of the dead load reaction D, the
vertical hold-down device shall be designed for a
minimum net upward force of 10% of the
downward dead load reaction that would be
exerted if the span were simply supported.
13.3.1.2 - C13.3.1.2 -
If the vertical force U, due to the combined effect
of maximum horizontal and vertical seismic forces,
opposes and exceeds 100% of the dead load
reaction D, then the device shall be designed for a
net upward force of 1.2(U-D); however, it shall not
be less than 10% of the downward dead load
reaction that would be exerted if the span were
simply supported.
70
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
Girder
Girder Girder
Pier
71
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
13.3.2.1 C13.3.2.1
The linkage shall be designed for at least the The design seismic force for each bridge component is
elastic seismic acceleration coefficient Ah times only a fraction of the maximum elastic force that can be
the weight of the lighter of the two connected sustained by it, if it were to remain completely elastic
spans or parts of the structure. during earthquake shaking. However, the deformations
calculated from the linear analysis of the bridge
subjected to these design forces are much smaller than
the actual deformations that may be experienced during
seismic shaking.
13.3.2.2- C13.3.2.2-
If the linkage is at locations where relative Unseating of superstructure from the substructure or
deformation are permitted in the design then, the suspended span from the restrained portion are the
sufficient slack must be allowed in the linkage so possible consequences if the actual deformations are
that linkages start functioning only when the not accounted for in the design of the supports at these
relative design displacement at the linkage is interface points. Sometimes, the two portions that move
exceeded. relative to each other are securely fastened by positive
horizontal linkage elements. These devices are usually
high tensile wire strand ties, cables or dampers. For the
purposes of the design of these devices, the
recommendations from the AASHTO code are used.
The design forces specified are conservative to provide
increased protection at a minimum increased cost.
13.3.2.3- C13.3.2.3
When linkages are provided at columns or piers,
the linkage of each span may be connected to the
column or pier instead of the adjacent span.
13.3.2.4- C13.3.2.4-
Reaction blocks (or seismic arrestors) when used Due to the presence of guard rails, which are likely to
as anti-dislodging elements shall be designed for offer resistance to sliding during seismic event, the
seismic force equal to 1.5 times the elastic seismic strength requirements of anti-dislodging elements can
coefficient multiplied by tributary weight of spans be reduced.
corresponding to that pier/abutment.
72
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
Shock absorber
Concrete block
Abutment
Shock absorber
Steel bracket
Abutment
Rails
Reaction Reaction
block block
Pier
Bearings
73
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
14.2.1- 14.2.1-
For the submerged portion of the pier, the total This clause is retained as given in IS: 1893-1984,
horizontal hydrodynamic force along the direction except that Ah replaces h. Again, as stated earlier in
of ground motion is given by this guideline, Ah is different from h. Hence, the
hydrodynamic forces calculated as per this code will be
F Ce AhWe
much higher than those estimated as per IS: 1893-
where Ce is a coefficient given by Table 8, 1984.
depending on the height of submergence of the
pier relative to that of the radius of a hypothetical
enveloping cylinder (Fig. 6); and Ah is the elastic
seismic acceleration coefficient as per Clause 9.1
or 10.1; and We is the weight of the water in the
hypothetical enveloping cylinder. The pressure
distribution due to hydrodynamic effect on pier is
given in Fig. 7; the coefficients C1, C2, C3 and C4
in Fig. 7 are given in Table 9.
74
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
14.2.2- 14.2.2-
In response spectrum analysis, to account for The expression for WWP is taken from Japanese
hydrodynamic pressure, additional weight of water highway bridge code. In response spectrum analysis,
shall be added over the submerged depth of pier. mathematical model of the bridge is analyzed. For
The weight of water to be added at a height of including the hydrodynamic force effect in this model,
3/7H from the ground level, is given by: an additional weight is to be included. The mass
corresponding to this added weight would generate the
inertia force which shall be same as the hydrodynamic
force. The expression for WWP is similar to CeWe term
given in Clause 14.2. A comparison of WWP and CeWe
for b/H < 2.0 for a wall type pier is shown below:
Pier Height = 8m, Pier sectional area = 1 x 3 m2 ,
Water depth, H = 2/3 x 8 = 5.33 m
for 2.0 < b/H < 4.0 Case I) Seismic loading along 3 m face :
75
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
WWP = 30.9
Thus, the values of CeWe and WWP are comparable for
both the directions of seismic loading.
PROVISIONS
Table - 8. Values of Ce
76
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
Direction of
Seismic Shaking
C1H C3F
(Resultant of pressure on
C2pb shaded area up to depth C1H)
H
C4H pb = 1.2F/H
pb
Fig. 7: Hydrodynamic Pressure Distribution on the Substructure due to Steam Flow (Clause 14.2.2)
77
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
78
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
14.4.1 - C14.4.1
When the superstructure of a multi-span bridge
consists of a single continuous girder resting on a
restrained bearing (in longitudinal direction) over
one of the piers and on sliding bearings over the
other piers, the design seismic force at the top of
the substructures along the longitudinal direction
of the bridge shall be taken as follows:
(a) For the pier supporting the restrained bearing,
it shall be the full elastic seismic force
transmitted from the superstructure to the top
of the pier in the longitudinal direction divided
by the appropriate response reduction factor,
assuming no friction between the other sliding
bearings and the corresponding piers.
(b) For the other piers supporting the sliding
bearings, it shall be the horizontal friction
force generated on the pier due to the
superstructure resting on the pier considering
the maximum possible friction between the
sliding bearings and the top of the pier.
14.4.2 C14.4.2 -
In transverse direction, the seismic force from
superstructure is to be transmitted to the
substructures in proportion to their lateral stiffness.
79
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
15.1 - C15.1 -
The foundations of all bridges shall be designed to
resist lesser of the following forces:
(a) Design seismic forces obtained from Clauses
9.3 or 10.4 using value of R as 1.0 so that
they remain elastic and damage is restricted
to locations which are visible and repairable.
(b) Forces developed when over strength plastic
moment hinges are formed in the substructure,
as described in Appendix A.
15.2 - C15.2 -
Not withstanding the provisions in relevant codes,
the following factor of safety shall be adopted for
seismic design of foundation under ultimate
condition:
Factor of safety against overturning - 1.5
Factor of safety against sliding - 1.25
Notes:
Note 1: No live load to be considered when the net
effect has a stabilizing effect.
Note 2: Area under tension need not be checked
provided above criteria for overturning and sliding is
satisfied.
15.3 - C15.3 -
While considering the stability of the substructure
against overturning, the minimum factor of safety
shall be 1.5 under simultaneous action of
maximum elastic seismic forces in both horizontal
and vertical directions during the earthquake.
15.4 - C15.4
In loose sands or poorly graded sands with little Damages to foundations have very serious implications
or no fines, vibrations due to earthquake may from structural safety considerations. Also, foundation
80
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
cause liquefaction or excessive total and repairs are very expensive as it is very difficult to
differential settlements. In Zones IV and V, the access and to make alterations in them. Hence, it is
founding of bridges on such sands be avoided required to ensure that these are not damaged. This
unless appropriate methods of compaction or clause is intended to achieve the objective that in case
stabilization are adopted. Liquefaction analysis of severe ground shaking, the foundation is not
procedure is given in Appendix F. Foundation damaged. This is done first by requiring a much lower
should be taken to sufficient depth below the value of response reduction factor for foundation than
layers of soil which are susceptible to liquefaction. for the substructure, i.e., a much higher design seismic
coefficient for foundation than that for the substructure.
However, this is qualified through the concept of
capacity design.
Since the seismic forces are inertia induced, the
foundation can never experience a seismic force higher
than what the substructure is capable of transmitting to
it. The attempt is to obtain this upper-bound force that
can be transmitted by the substructure by calculating
its overstrength plastic moment capacity. The code
requires the lower of (a) and (b) of Clause 15.1 to be
used in design of the foundation.
81
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
16.1.1 Seismic Zone II and III C16.1.1 Seismic Zone II and III
The connections between adjacent sections of the In low seismic regions, the effort in the seismic design
superstructure or between the superstructure and of the bridges is reduced to some extent by this clause
the substructure shall be designed to resist at by requiring only a simple design force calculation for
least horizontal seismic force in the restrained the restrained supports (e.g., rocker or elastomeric
directions equal to 0.2 times the vertical dead load bearings). The clause, same as that in the AASHTO
reaction at the bearing, irrespective of the number code, is considered to provide a somewhat
of spans. overestimate of the design force.
82
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
83
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
W
(a) Abutment
L1 L2 The Minimum seating width given in various codes are:
Slab/Girder Slab/Girder
(A) AREMA:
Pier Top
W =(305+2.5L+10Hp)x(1+0.000125S2) mm
W1 W2 S = skew angle in degrees
(b) Column or Pier (B) TAIWAN HSR:
L1 L2
W =(500+2.5L+10Hp) mm
Suspended Restrained
Portion ( C) JAPAN HIGHWAYS
700 + 5 L
W
84
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PIERS
3050 3710 3890 3960 915 255 76 420 378 629 *
3660 4320 4500 4575 915 255 75 420 379 632 *
4570 5310 5490 5565 995 255 75 460 381 634 *
6100 6910 7090 7165 1065 255 75 495 383 638 *
ELEVATION 9150 10900 10200 10300 1150 300 100 525 388 646 *
(NOT TO SCALE) 12200 13100 13300 13400 1200 300 100 550 392 654 *
d B-PSC GIRDERS
w
12200 13100 13300 13400 1200 300 100 550 392 654 *
18300 19400 19650 19800 1500 400 150 675 402 670
w w
24400 25600 26050 26200 1800 600 150 825 411 686
30500 31900 32450 32600 2100 700 150 975 421 702
e a e 45100 46150 46850 48150 3050 2000 60 875 444 740
g c g C-STEEL/COMPOSITE GIRDERS
9150 10900 10200 10300 1150 300 100 525 388 646 *
f b f 12200 13100 13300 13400 1200 300 100 550 392 654 *
18300 19400 19650 19800 1500 400 150 675 402 670
w 24400 25600 26050 26200 1800 600 150 825 411 686
30500 31900 32450 32600 2100 700 150 925 421 702
PLAN 45700 47250 47850 48150 2450 900 300 1075 444 740
a = Nominal Clear Span 61000 63000 63700 64000 3000 1000 300 1350 468 780
b = Centres of Bearings
c = Over all length of Girder/Slab 76200 78800 79600 79900 3700 1100 300 1700 492 819
d = Centres to Centres of Piers 91500 94000 95200 95800 4300 1800 600 1850 515 858
e = Width of Piers at Top
f = Centres of Bearings on piers 5000 1800 600 2200 539 898
g = Clearance between spans 5500 2000 700 2400 563 937
w = Minimum width of seating of spans on supports
Hp = Height of Pier in meters.
L = Length in meters of Superstructure to the adjacent expansion joint
or to the end of Superstructure. Note:- 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES.
85
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
86
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
Super Structure
Pier
STU unit
87
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
88
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
89
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
90
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
91
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
system shall be idealized as bilinear system (Fig. (Reference No. 13 in Annexure A1)
11) with linear stiffness as Keff. The analysis shall
be done using upper bound properties and lower
bound properties. The upper bound properties,
which would result in higher value of Keff, would
give higher force, and the lower bound properties
would give higher deflection. The maximum and
minimum values are obtained by multiplying Kd
and Qd with the property modification factors,
which depend on velocity, temperature, aging,
scragging, travel and contamination. The values of
property modification factors are described in
Appendix G.
From the analysis, the isolator deflection, di, shall
be obtained. Then, the design force for isolator is
F = Keff . di. If uniform load method is used, then,
isolator displacement is given by
250 Ah Teff
di mm,
B
W
where, Teff 2
K eff g
92
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
93
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
19.4.3 - Vertical Load and Rotational C19.4.3 Vertical Load and Rotational
Stability Stability
In laterally undeformed state, the isolation system
shall provide a factor of safety of at least three
against the vertical loads. It shall also be shown to
be stable under 1.2 times the dead load and
vertical load due to seismic force. Further, its
stability against the lateral displacement equal to
the offset displacement and 1.1 times the total
design displacement shall be checked.
The isolator shall have the rotation capacity to
accommodate rotation due to dead load, live load
and construction misalignment, which shall not be
less than 0.005 radians.
19.5.3 C19.5.3
These tests are done at manufacturing units and
the specimens involved in the test are not used.
The prototype test is to be conducted on at least
two specimen of full size. The system
characterization tests are conducted on various
components as per the requirements of the
corresponding IS codes.
94
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
19.5.4 C19.5.4
A shake table test on model not less than 1/4th of
full model shall be done. Scale factors for this test
shall be well established. Wear or travel and
fatigue tests are conducted to check if the
movements due to thermal displacements and live
load rotation can be accommodated. The thermal
displacements and live load rotations shall
correspond to at least 30 years of expected
movement. The tests shall be applied at the
design contact pressure and at 200C 80C. The
rate of application shall be not less than 63.5
mm/minute.
19.5.5 C19.5.5
The tests shall be done for following minimum :
Bearings 1.6 km
Dampers attached to the web of the neutral axis
1.6 km
Dampers attached to the girder bottom 3.2 km.
19.5.6 C19.5.6
The prototype specimen shall be tested in the
following sequence for prescribed number of
cycles:
95
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Test Description
(A) Component
Twenty fully reversed cycles between limits of plus and minus maximum load
Wind and
for a total duration not less than 40 seconds. After the cyclic testing, the
braking
maximum load shall be held for 1 minute.
Three fully reversed cycles of loading at each of the following multiples of the
total design displacement: 1.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25 in the sequence
Seismic -1
mentioned. The results of test corresponding to design displacement are used
for finding stiffness and damping properties.
Fully reversed cycles of loading at design displacement for 25 cycles. The test
Seismic -2
shall be started from a displacement equal to the offset displacement.
The prototype
specimen shall
be tested in the
Three fully reversed cycles between limits of plus and minus the maximum
following
load for a total duration not less than 40 seconds. After the cyclic testing, the
sequence for
maximum load shall be held for 1 minute. This test is done to ascertain the
prescribed
survivability of the isolator after the major earthquake
number of
cycles: Wind
and braking
(B) Prototype
Seismic
Three fully reversed cycles of loading at the deign displacement. The test
performance
verifies service load performance after the major earthquake.
verification
96
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
19.5.7 C19.5.7
The force deflection characteristics of the
isolator shall be based on cyclic load test
results (seismic test described above) for
each fully reversed cycle of loading (Fig. 11).
The effective stiffness of an isolator unit shall
be calculated for each cycle of loading as
follows:
Fig- Hysteretic
Behavior
Where, P and n are maximum positive and
negative displacements and FP and Fn are
maximum positive and negative forces at P
and n respectively (Fig. 11).
97
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
19.5.8 C19.5.8
The equivalent viscous damping ratio () is
given by
98
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
for S 15
Shear strain due to vertical load
for S > 15
Shear strain due to non-seismic lateral
displacement
Where,
K is the bulk modulus of the elastomer, in the
absence of measured data, the value of K
may be taken as 2000 MPa. The shape
factor,
S shall be taken as the plan area of the
elastomer layer divided by the area of
99
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
100
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
PROVISIONS COMMENTARY
101
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Appendix A 1
References
In the formulation of this guideline, assistance has been derived from the following publications:
3) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2007, USA.
5) Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Eurocode 8: Part 2: Bridges, 2005, European
Committee for Standardization.
7) Specifications for Highway Bridges, Part V Seismic Design Japan Road Association, 2003.
8) Seismic Design for Railway Structures, Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI), Japan,
2000.
9) Seismic Design Criteria for High Speed Rail Project , National Center for Research on
Earthquake Engineering, Taiwan, 1992.
10) Murty, C.V.R. and Jain, S.K., 2000, A Proposed Draft for Indian Code Provisions on seismic
design for bridges-Part I: Code, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.26, No. 3, 223-234.
102
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
11) Murty, C.V.R. and Jain, S.K., 2000, A Proposed Draft for Indian Code Provisions on seismic
design for bridges-Part II: Code, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.27, No. 2, 79-89
12) Skinner ,R.I. , Kelly , T.E. and Robinson , B. Seismic Isolation for Designers and Structural
Engineers, Robinson Seismic Ltd.
13) AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design ,American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2000, USA.
Appendix A 2
References
The following Codes/Standards are necessary adjuncts to these guidelines:
1) IRC:6 Standard Specification and Code of 2000 Practice for Road Bridges
2) IRC:6 Standard Specification and Code of 2000 Practice for Road Bridges
3) IRC:83 Standard Specification and Code of (Part III) Practice for Road Bridges 2002 Section
IX: - Bearings
4) IRS Code of Practice For Plain, Reinforced & Prestressed Concrete For General Bridge
Construction, Third Revision, 2004
5) IRS Code of Practice For the Design of Sub-Structures and Foundation of Bridge, Second
Revision,2004
6) IRS Code of Practice For the Design of Steel or Wrought Iron Bridges Carrying Rail, Road or
Pedestrian Traffic, Second Revision, 2004
7) IRS Rules specifying the Loads for Bridge Design of Super Structure and Sub- Rules Structure
of bridges, Second Revision, 2004
9) IS 1893 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant (Part I) Design of Structures, Part I: General 2002
Provisions and Buildings
10) IS 1893 Draft Criteria for Earthquake (Part 3) Resistant Design of Structures, 2008 Part 3
103
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
11) IS 13920 Ductile Detailing of Reinforced 1993Concrete Structure Subjected to Seismic Forces-
Code of Practice
Appendix A
Design strategy to be used is based on assumption that the plastic response will occur in the
substructure. However, in case of a wall type substructure, the nonlinear behavior may occur in the
foundation-ground system.
A-1 Specification
A-1.1 Steel reinforcement of grade Fe 415 (see IS 1786: 1985) or less only shall be used. However, high
strength deformed steel bars of grades Fe 500, having elongation more than 14.5 percent and conforming
to other requirements of IS 1786 : 1985 may also be used for the reinforcement.
A-2 Layout
104
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
(a) The use of circular column is preferred for better plastic hinge performance and ease of
construction.
(b)The bridge must be proportioned and detailed by the designer so that plastic hinges occur only
at the controlled locations (e.g., pier column ends) and not in other uncontrolled places.
A-3.1.2 In case of high bridge piers such as of height equal to 30m or more, the reduction of
reinforcement at mid height may be done. In such cases the following method should be adopted:
(i) The curtailment of longitudinal reinforcement shall not be carried out in the section six times the least
lateral column dimension from the location where plastic hinge is likely to occur.
(ii) The interval between hoop ties is specified to be less than 150mm in a reinforcement position. The
interval between hoop ties shall not change abruptly, the change must be gradual.
105
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
forces shall be adopted for supporting components of the bridge. The design shear force at the critical
section(s) of substructures shall be the lower of the following:
(a) Maximum elastic shear force at the critical section of the bridge component divided by the response
reduction factor for that components as per Table 7, and
(b) Maximum shear force that develops when
(i) the substructure has maximum moment that it can sustain (i.e., the overstrength plastic
moment capacity as per Clause A-5.2) in single-column or single-pier type substructure.
(ii) plastic moment hinges are formed in the substructure so as to form a collapse mechanism in
multiple-column frame type or multiple-pier type substructures, in which the plastic moment
capacity shall be the overstrength plastic moment capacity as per Clause A-5.2.
In a single-column type or pier type substructure, the critical section is at the bottom of the column or pier
as shown in Figure A-1(a). And, in multi-column frame-type substructures or multi-pier substructures, the
critical sections are at the bottom and/or top of the columns/piers as shown in Figure A-1(b).
The parallel legs of rectangular stirrups shall be spaced not more than 1/3 of the smallest
dimension of the concrete core or more than 350 mm centre to centre. If the length of any side of the
stirrups exceeds 350 mm, a cross tie shall be provided. Alternatively, overlapping stirrups may be
provided within the column.
106
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
A-5.5.1 The area of cross section, Ash, of the bar forming circular hoops or spiral, to be used as special
confining reinforcement, shall not be less than
Ag f
Ash 0.09SDk 1 ck
Ac fy
fck
or, Ash = 0.024SDk
fy
A-5.5.2 The total area of cross-section of the bar forming rectangular hoop and cross ties, Ash to be used
as special confining reinforcement shall not be less than
or,
where
h = longer dimension of the rectangular confining hoop measured to its outer face
Ar = Area of confined core concrete in the rectangular hoop measure to its outer side dimensions.
Note: Crossties where used should be of the same diameter as the peripheral hoop bar and Ak shall be
measured as the overall core area, regardless the hoop area. The hooks of crossties shall engage
peripheral longitudinal bars.
107
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
ii) For wall type hollow piers, in the plastic region, the ratio of clear width of the wall to thickness should
not exceed 8.0.
Once the position of the plastic hinges has been determined and these regions detailed to ensure
a ductile performance, the structure between the plastic hinges is designed considering the capacity of
the plastic hinges. The intention here is:
(i) To reliably protect the bridge against collapse so that it will be available for service after a
major shaking.
(ii) To localize structural damage to the plastic hinge regions where it can be controlled and
repaired.
The process of designing the structure between the plastic hinges is known as capacity design.
To avoid a brittle shear failure design shear force for pier shall be based on overstrength moment
capacities of the plastic hinges and given by:
Vu =
M O
h
where
M O
= the sum of the overstrength moment capacities of the hinges resisting lateral loads, as
detailed. In case of twin pier this would be the sum of the overstrength moment capacities at the top and
bottom of the column. For single stem piers the overstrength moment capacity at the bottom only should
be used.
h = clear height of the column in the case of a column in double curvature; height to calculated point of
contra-flexure in the case of a column in single curvature.
Outside the hinge regions, the spacing of hoops shall not exceed half the least lateral dimension of the
column, nor 300 mm.
Beam-column joints should be designed properly to resist the forces caused by axial loads,
bending and shear forces in the joining members. Forces in the joint should be determined by considering
a free body of the joint with the forces on the joint member boundaries properly represented.
The joint shear strength should be entirely provided by transverse reinforcement. Where the joint
is not confined adequately (i.e. where minimum pier and pile cap width is less than three column
diameters) the special confinement requirement should be satisfied.
108
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
A-7.1 Ductility of all the joints in the structure may be ensured by offsetting the splices / couplers where
the area of reinforcement provided is at least twice the required by analysis staggered 600 mm minimum.
A-7.2 The pier foundation joint or the slab pier joint ( in case of integral slab bridges ) must be
checked for principal tensile stress in the concrete around the junction , following an appropriate
prevailing method. The un-cracked joint may be designed by keeping the principal stresses in the joint
region below direct tension strength of concrete. If the joint cannot be prevented from cracking, additional
vertical stirrups may be added to the external concrete region around the column.
The joint stresses may be assumed to disperse 45 around the column as per prevailing practices. For
An appropriate prevailing methods following references may be useful:
1. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings
John Wiley and Sons. Inc., 1992.
2. Xiao, Y., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges, McGraw Hill , 1989.
109
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Earthquake
A
Force
Column
Cap
Earthquake
Potential Plastic
Hinge Regions
Pile Cap
Pile
Elevation Section AA
a. Single column or pier type substructures
Earthquake Force A
Column
Cap Earthquake
Potential Plastic
Hinge Regions
Piles
A
Elevation Section AA
(b) Multi-column or frame type substructures
Fig. A-1: Potential location of plastic hinges in substructures (Clause A-0).
110
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
111
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Appendix - B
Zone Factors for Some Important Towns
(Clause 8.1)
Town Zone Zone Factor, Z Town Zone Zone Factor, Z
Agra III 0.16 Kanchipuram III 0.16
Ahmedabad III 0.16 Kanpur III 0.16
Ajmer II 0.10 Karwar III 0.16
Allahabad II 0.10 Kohima V 0.36
Almora IV 0.24 Kolkata III 0.16
Ambala IV 0.24 Kota II 0.10
Amritsar IV 0.24 Kurnool II 0.10
Asansol III 0.24 Lucknow III 0.16
Aurangabad II 0.10 Ludhiyana IV 0.24
Bahraich IV 0.24 Madurai II 0.10
Bangalore II 0.10 Mandi V 0.36
Barauni IV 0.24 Mangalore III 0.16
Bareilly III 0.16 Monghyr IV 0.24
Belgaum III 0.16 Moradabad IV 0.24
Bhatinda III 0.16 Mumbai III 0.16
Bhilai II 0.10 Mysore II 0.10
Bhopal II 0.10 Nagpur II 0.10
Bhubaneswar III 0.16 Nagarjunasagar II 0.10
Bhuj V 0.36 Nainital IV 0.24
Bijapur III 0.16 Nasik III 0.16
Bikaner III 0.16 Nellore III 0.16
Bokaro III 0.16 Osmanabad III 0.16
Bulandshahr IV 0.24 Panjim III 0.16
Burdwan III 0.16 Patiala III 0.16
Calicut III 0.16 Patna IV 0.24
Chandigarh IV 0.24 Pilibhit IV 0.24
Chennai III 0.16 Pondicherry II 0.10
Chitradurga II 0.10 Pune III 0.16
Coimatore III 0.16 Raipur II 0.10
Cuddalore III II 0.16 Rajkot III 0.16
Cuttack III 0.16 Ranchi II 0.10
Darbhanga V 0.36 Roorkee IV 0.24
Darjeeling IV 0.24 Rourkela II 0.10
Dharwad III 0.16 Sadiya V 0.36
Dehra Dun IV 0.24 Salem III 0.16
Dharampuri III 0.16 Simla IV 0.24
Delhi IV 0.24 Sironj II 0.10
Durgapur III 0.16 Solapur III 0.16
Gangtok IV 0.24 Srinagar V 0.36
Guwahati V 0.36 Surat III 0.16
Goa III 0.16 Tarapur III 0.16
Gulbarga II 0.10 Tezpur V 0.36
Gaya III 0.16 Thane III 0.16
Gorakhpur IV 0.24 Thanjavur II 0.10
Hyderabad II 0.10 Thiruvananthapuram III 0.16
Imphal V 0.36 Tiruchirappali II 0.10
Jabalpur III 0.16 Thiruvennamalai III 0.16
Jaipur II 0.10 Udaipur II 0.10
Jamshedpur II 0.10 Vadodara III 0.16
Jhansi II 0.10 Varanasi III 0.16
Jodhpur II 0.10 Vellore III 0.16
Jorhat V 0.36 Vijayawada III 0.16
Kakrapara III 0.16 VIshakhapatnam II 0.10
Kalapakkam III 0.16
112
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Appendix - C
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
(Clause 12.0)
C-1 Pushover analysis is performed to explicitly ascertain the displacement capacity of the bridge
structure. This analysis is explained for the reinforced concrete structures. This is done with the help of
static nonlinear analysis, in which nonlinear properties of concrete and reinforcing steel are used. The
displacement capacity shall be greater than the displacement demand. The procedure explained herein,
is based on Caltrans (2006).
where, Y is yield displacement of the system from its initial position to the formation of plastic hinge.
C-3 Displacement capacity
The local displacement capacity of a member is obtained from its curvature capacity, which is determined
from the moment curvature (M-) analysis. The expected stress strain curve or material properties of
concrete and steel are used. For confined concrete, the Manders model shown in Fig. C-11 is used, and
the stress-strain model shown in Fig. C-2 is used for steel. The moment curvature analysis obtains the
curvatures associated with a range of moments for a cross-section, based on the strain compatibility force
equilibrium conditions. The M- curve (Fig. C-3) can be idealized with an elastic perfectly plastic curve to
estimate the plastic moment capacity of a cross-section. The idealized plastic moment capacity is
obtained by balancing the areas between the actual curve and the idealized curve beyond the first
reinforcing bar yield point (Fig. C-3).
1
Stress-strain curves for concrete and steel are to be changed
113
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Idealized curve
Actual curve
Here, Mp is the plastic moment capacity , My is the first reinforcing bar yield point & Mne is the expected
nominal moment capacity, u is the curvature capacity at the failure limit state defined as the concrete
strain reaching cu or the confinement reinforcing steel reaching the reduced ultimate strain cuR. Similarly,
Y is the idealized yield curvature defined by an elastic-perfectly plastic representation of M- curve (Fig.
C-3). The idealized plastic curvature capacity, P, which is assumed constant over plastic hinge length, LP
is given by P = u - Y. The hinge length, LP in mm is given by
Here, G is the gap between the isolated flare and the soffit of the bent cap. With reference to Fig. D-4, the
plastic rotation capacity, P = LP x P and
LP
P = P x L
2
Then, the total displacement capacity of the column is given by
c = Ycol + P
where, Ycol is the idealized yield displacement of the column (Fig. C-4).
114
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
The displacement capacity c thus obtained, shall be greater than the demand D obtained from linear
static analysis. The above described procedure to obtain the displacement capacity is for a cantilever
column, fixed at the base and free at the top. Similarly, analysis can be done for fixed-fixed column. For a
frame type substructure, M- curve is to be given for each member and the analysis becomes more
involved, for which help of standard software may be required .
It shall be ensured that the flexural hinge occurs prior to shear failure of column, and hence, the nominal
shear capacity shall be greater than the shear force corresponding to plastic hinge. Similarly, capacity
protection shall be provided to the other adjacent components such as bent cap, pile cap etc.
115
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Appendix - D
Dynamic Earth Pressure
(Clause 14.3.1)
D-1. Dynamic earth pressure on abutments
D-1.1 Lateral Earth Pressure - The pressure from earth fill behind retaining walls during an earthquake
shall be as given in D.1.1.1 to D.1.4.1. In the analysis, cohesion has been neglected. This assumption is
on conservative side.
D-1.1.1 Active Pressure Due to Earth fill - The general conditions encountered for the design of
retaining walls are illustrated in Fig. D 1. The total active pressure exerted against the wall shall be the
maximum of the two given by the following expression:
(D.1.)
Where the seismic active earth pressure coefficient KAE is given by
2
cos 2 sin sin i
K AE 1 (D.2.)
cos cos 2 cos cos cos i
and where
= unit weight of soil (kN/m3)
H = height of wall in (m)
=angle of friction of soil (0)
Av= vertical seismic coefficient its value being taken consistently throughout the stability analysis of wall
equal to 2/3 Ah.
Ah (0)
tan -1
1 Av
i=backfill slope angle (0)
D.1.1.2 Point of Application From the total pressure computed as above subtract the static active
pressure obtained by putting Av = Ah = = 0 in the expression given by equation D.1and D.2. The
remainder is the dynamic increment. The static component of the total pressure shall be applied at an
elevation H/3 above the base of the wall. The point of application of the dynamic increment shall be
assumed to be at mid-height of the wall.
D.1.2 Passive Pressure Due to Earth fill The total passive pressure against the walls shall be the
minimum of the two given by the following expression:
116
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
(D.3.)
Where the seismic passive earth pressure coefficient KPE is given by
2
cos 2 sin sin i
K PE 1 (D.4.)
cos cos 2 cos cos cos i
D.1.2.2 Point of application - From the static passive pressure obtained by putting k h kv 0 in the
expression given by equation D.3 and D.4, subtracts the total pressure computed as above. The
remainder is the dynamic decrement .The static component of the total pressure shall be applied at an
elevation H/3 above the base of the wall. The point of application of the dynamic decrement shall be
assumed to be at an elevation 0.66 H above the base of the wall.
D.1.3 Active Pressure Due to Uniform Surcharge - The active pressure against the wall due to a
uniform surcharge of intensity q per unit area of the inclined earth fill surface shall be:
(D.5.)
D.1.3.1 Point of application- The dynamic increment in active pressure due to uniform surcharge shall
be applied at an elevation of 0.66H above the base of the wall, while the static component shall be
applied at mid-height of the wall.
D.1.4 Passive Pressure Due to Uniform Surcharge-The passive pressure against the wall due to a
uniform surcharge of intensity q per unit area of the inclined earth fill shall be:
q H co s
PP E q K PE (D.6.)
co s( i )
D.1.4.1 Point of application- The dynamic decrement in passive pressures due to uniform surcharge
shall be applied at an elevation of 0.66h above the base of the walls while the static component shall be
applied at mid-height of the wall
a) The value of shall be taken as the value 1/2 of for dry backfill.
b) The value of shall be taken as follows:
(D.7.)
Where
117
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
d) From the value of earth pressure found out as above, subtract the value of earth pressure determined
by putting Av = Ah = = 0but using buoyant unit weight. The remainder shall be dynamic increment.
D.2.3 Hydrodynamic pressure on account of water contained in earthfill shall not be considered
separately as the effect of acceleration on water has been considered indirectly.
NOTE - To ensure adequate factor of safety under earthquake condition, the design shall be such that the
factor of safety against sliding shall be 1.2 and the resultant of all the forces including earthquake force
shall fall within the middle three-fourths of the base width provided. In addition, bearing pressure in soil
should not exceed the permissible limit.
D.5 Reduction of seismic lateral loads: If the following three conditions are satisfied, seismic lateral
loads may be reduced as given by the following expression.
The wall system and any structures supported by the wall can tolerate lateral movement resulting
form sliding of the structure.
The wall base is unrestrained against sliding, other than soil friction along its base and minimal
soil passive resistance.
If the wall functions as an abutment, the top of the wall must also be unrestrained, e.g., the
superstructure is supported by sliding bearings.
0.25
A
k h 1.66 A (D.8.)
d
Where:
Note: The above equation should not be used for displacements of less than 25 mm. or greater than
118
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
approximately 200 mm. Typically this value can be assumed to be in between 50 mm to 100 mm.
However, the amount of deformation which is tolerable will depend on the nature of the wall and what it
supports, as well as what is in front of the wall. In addition to whether or not the wall can tolerate lateral
deformation, it is recommended that this simplified approach not be used for walls which have a complex
geometry, such as stacked walls, MSE ( Mechanically Stabilized Earth) walls with trapezoidal sections, or
back-to-back walls supporting narrow ramps, for walls which are very tall (over 50.0 ft.), nor for walls
where the peak ground acceleration A is 0.3g or higher. In such case, a specialist should be retained to
evaluate the anticipated deformation response of the structure, as potentially unacceptable permanent
lateral and vertical wall deformations could occur even if design criteria based on this pseudo static
approach are met.
119
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
120
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Appendix F
(Clause 15.4)
Due to the difficulties in obtaining and testing undisturbed representative samples from most
potentially liquefiable sites, in-situ testing is the approach preferred by most engineers for
evaluating the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit. Liquefaction potential assessment
procedures involving both the SPT and CPT are widely used in practice. The most common
procedure used in engineering practice for the assessment of liquefaction potential of sands and
silts is the Simplified Procedure1 2. The procedure may be used with either SPT blow count, CPT
tip resistance or shear wave velocity measured within the deposit as discussed below:
Step 1: The subsurface data used to assess liquefaction susceptibility should include the
location of the water table, either SPT blow count (N) or tip resistance of a standard CPT cone
qc or the shear wave velocity(Vs) , mean grain size D50 , unit weight, and fines content of the
soil (percent by weight passing the IS Standard sieve No. (75.)
Step 2: Evaluate the total vertical stress v and effective vertical stress v for all potentially
liquefiable layers within the deposit.
Step 3: The following equation can be used to evaluate the stress reduction factor rd :
where v and v are the total and effective vertical stresses, respectively, at depth z, amax is
the peak ground acceleration, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
Step 5: Correct CSReq for earthquake magnitude (Mw), stress level and for initial static shear
using correction factors km, k and k, respectively, according to:
The correction factors are estimated using Figures F-1, F-2 and F-3 (in combination with figure
F-4), respectively.
For assessing liquefaction susceptibility using the SPT go to Step 6a, for the CPT go to Step 6b,
1
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Chtristian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L.,
Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R.,
Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., Stokoe II, K.H. 2001. Liquefaction
resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J. of Geotech. and Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE. 127(10): 817-
833.
121
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Step 6a: Evaluate the standardized SPT blow count ( N 60 ) which is the standard penetration test
blow count for a hammer with an efficiency of 60 percent. Specifications of the standardized
equipment corresponding to an efficiency of 60 percent are given in Table F-1. If nonstandard
equipment is used, N 60 , is obtained from the equation:
N60 N.C60
where C60 is the product of various correction factors. Correction factors recommended by
various investigators for some common non-standard SPT configurations are provided in Table
F-2. For SPT conducted as per IS: 2131-1981, the energy delivered to the drill rod is 60 percent
and hence C60 = 1 is assumed.
Calculate the normalized standardized SPT blow count, N1 60 . N1 60 is the standardized blow
count normalized to an effective overburden pressure of 96 kPa in order to eliminate the
influence of confining pressure. This is obtained by the following equation:
N1 60 C N N 60
Stress normalization factor CN is calculated from following expression:
C N Pa / v
1/ 2
Step 6b:
122
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
and deformability of deposits with Ic >2.6 should thus be treated on a material specific basis.
Step 6c:
Vs1 Vs Pa v
0.25
Calculate normalized shear wave velocity, Vs1 , for clean sands using: .
Assess liquefaction susceptibility of clean sands using Figure F-7.
Step 7: Calculate the factor of safety against initial liquefaction, FS liq , as:
FS liq CSR L / CRR
where CSRL is as estimated in Step 5 and CRR is from Step 6a, 6b or 6c. When the design
ground motion is conservative, earthquake related permanent ground deformation is generally
small if FS liq 1.2 .
123
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Table F-2: Correction Factors for Non-Standard SPT Procedures and Equipment.
124
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Figure F-3: Correction for initial static shear (Note: Initial static shear for an
embankment may be estimated from Figure F-4)
125
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
126
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Figure F-5: Relationship between CRR and (N1)60 for sand for Mw, 7.5 earthquakes
Figure F-6: Relationship between CRR and (qc1N)cs for Mw, 7.5 earthquakes
127
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Figure F-7: Relationship between CRR and Vs1 for Mw, 7.5 earthquakes
128
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Appendix - G
System property modification factors
(Clause 19.3 )
G-1 General
Kd,max = Kd x max,Kd and Kd,min = Kd x min,Kd
Qd,max = Qd x max,Qd and Qd,min = Qd x min,Qd
Where,
t = factors to account for effect of temperature
a = factors to account for effect of aging
v = factors to account for effect of velocity (including freq. for elastomeric bearings)
tr = factors to account for effect of travel (wear)
c = factors to account for effect of contamination (in sliding system)
scrag = factors to account for effect of scragging a bearing (in elastomeric systems)
129
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
max,a
Kd Qd
Low-Damping 1.1 1.1
natural rubber
High-Damping rubber with small difference between scragged and 1.2 1.2
unscragged properties
High-Damping rubber with large difference between scragged and 1.3 1.3
unscragged properties
Lead - 1.0
Neoprene 3.0 3.0
for design Qd Kd
0
C HDRB1 HDRB2 LDRB2 HDRB1 HDRB2 LDRB2
21 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1
-10 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1
-30 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.4 1.3
HDRB = High damping rubber bearing
LDRB = Low damping rubber bearing
1
Large difference in scragged and unscragged properties (more than 25%)
2
Small difference in scragged and unscragged properties
max,scrag
Qd Kd
HDRB HDRB with HDRB with HDRB
LDRB LDRB
with eff 0.15 eff 0.15 eff 0.15 with eff 0.15
130
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
131
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
* Test data based on 1/8-inch sheet, recessed by 1/16 inch and bonded.
132
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Appendix - H
H.0 - Post Earthquake Operations and Inspections
The response of railway tracks and bridges to an earthquake would depend on distance from
epicenter and nature of attenuation. The post earthquake train operations in the region shall be
cautiously started. The following guidelines have been based on AREMA Railway Engineering
Manual.
H.1 - Operations
After an earthquake is reported, the train dispatcher shall notify all the trains and engines within
150 km radius of the reporting area to run at restricted speed until magnitude and epicenter have
been determined by proper authority. After determination of the magnitude and epicenter,
response levels given in Table H-1 and H-2 will govern the operations.
Response
Details
level
Resume maximum operation speed. The need for the continuation of inspections
I
will be determined by proper authority responsible for maintenance of P.Way.
All trains and engines will run at restricted speed within a specified radius of the
II epicenter until inspections have been made and appropriate speeds established by
proper authority.
All trains and engines within the specified radius of the epicenter must stop and
may not proceed until proper inspections have been performed and appropriate
III speed restrictions established by proper authority. For earthquakes of Richter
magnitude 7.0 or above, operations shall be directed by proper authority, but the
radii shall not be less than that specified for earthquakes between 6.0 and 6.99.
133
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Potential for scour or ponding against embankment due to changes in water course
H.2.2 - Bridges
Following an earthquake, inspectors may need to travel by rail between bridges. River bed may
get flooded, hence, to quickly reach the bearings; alternate access routes shall be made. In steel
bridges following shall be observed carefully:
o Displaced or damaged bearings
o Stretched or broken anchor bolts
o Distress in viaduct tower
o Buckled columns or bracings
o Tension distress in main members or bracings
o Displaced substructure elements
Inspection team shall also look for items which may fall on track. At an overpass, attention shall
be given to reduced span at bearings, damages to column and restrainer system. If there are
adjacent buildings to railway track, then such buildings shall also be inspected to ensure if they
can withstand aftershocks. Inspection team shall also look for damages to the powerlines
passing over the track.
134
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
135
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
A three span simply supported railway bridge with steel superstructure of open web girder and ballast less
track has equal spans of 76.2 m. Train load is Heavy Mineral type (HM loading). Bridge is located in
Zone V. The soil at the bridge site is of hard type (Type I). The circular RC pier has 12 m height and 2 m
diameter. Height of submerged pier is 4 m. Analyze the bridge for seismic loads at Ultimate Limit State.
Solution:
The lateral loads in transverse and longitudinal directions are calculated. Since the spans of the bridge are
simply supported, one pier can be considered as single degree of freedom system with half weight of
spans on either side. Hence, seismic coefficient method can be used for seismic load calculation. Seismic
loads will be obtained from IITK-RDSO Guidelines and also from provisions of existing Bridge Rules
and IRS Concrete Code. A comparison of loads obtained from IITK-RDSO Guidelines and existing
Bridge Rules will be presented.
The schematic diagram of the bridge is shown below in Figure 1.1. Grade of pier concrete and
reinforcement are M30 and Fe415 respectively. Density of concrete is 25 kN/m3. RC pier has ductile
detailing.
76.2 m 76.2 m 76.2 m
Pier Height = 12 m
G.L.
136
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
= 0.25
Dead Load (DL) per meter of 76.2 m girder Impact Load = CDA X L.L.
without track load = 43.7 kN/m
= 0.25 X 9800 = 2450 kN
(As per data supplied by RDSO)
137
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
H p = Pier height from top of foundation = 9014 123 / (3 27386130 0.589) = 0.32 m
= 12 m T = 2 = 2 0.32 = 1.13 sec
E = Modulus of elasticity of pier material
=5000fc
1.5. Seismic Load as per IITK-RDSO
(Section 6.2.3.1, IS456:2000) Guidelines
= 500030 = 27386 N/mm2
= 27386130 kN/m2 1.5.1 Horizontal Elastic Seismic Acceleration
Coefficient
I g = Gross moment of inertia of pier section
= /64 D4 = x 24 /64
Horizontal elastic seismic acceleration
= 0.785 m4 coefficient, Ah
Ieff = effective moment of inertia of pier section
Ieff = 0.75 x Ig (Section 9.1.1.1) (Section 9.1)
4
= 0.75 x 0.785 = 0.589 m Where,
Z = 0.36 (zone V; Table 3 )
1.4.1. Longitudinal Direction I = 1.5 (Table 4 )
In longitudinal direction, no live load is Damping = 5% (Section 8.6.1)
considered. (Section 8.4)
Site has hard soil (Type I)
Lateral force to be applied, F = 4114 kN
3 Longitudinal direction :
FH p
Lateral deflection,
3 EI Sa/g = 1.0 / 0.77 = 1.31
Ah = (0.36 / 2) x 1.5 x 1.31 = 0.35
= 4114 123/ (3 27386130 0.589)
Transverse direction:
= 0.15 m
Sa/g = 1.0 / 1.13 = 0.88
Time period T 2 Ah = (0.36 / 2) x 1.5 x 0.88 = 0.24
= 2 0.15 = 0. 77 sec
1.5.2. Elastic and Design Horizontal Seismic
Load
1.4.2. Transverse Direction
1.5.2.1 Elastic Seismic load
In transverse direction, 50% live load is
considered. (Section 8.4)
(Section 9.2.1)
Lateral force to be applied, F = 9014 kN
In longitudinal direction
3
FH
p
Fe = 0.35 x 4114 = 1440 KN
3 EI
In transverse direction
Fe = 0. 24 x 9014 = 2163 KN
138
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
139
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
2 Z
Av I Sa (Section 8.9) Loads on pier as per two load combination are
3 2 g shown below:
5143 kN 8818kN
As the superstructure is very rigid, the time 1287 kN 1042 kN
period in vertical direction will be very less.
Hence, Sa/g = 2.5. 869 kN 713 kN
Now,
Z = 0.36 (Table 3 of Section 8.1)
I = 1.5 (Table 4 of Section 8.2)
Load Combination (1) Load Combination (2)
140
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
5760 kN 27198kN
1731 kN 1352 kN
790 kN 617 kN
141
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Table 1.1 Comparison of seismic forces from proposed IITK-RDSO guidelines and
existing Bridge Rules + IRS Concrete Code (Hard soil)
Span = 76.2m, Pier Height = 12 m, Pier diameter = 2m, Hard soil
Longitudinal Direction
Proposed IITK-RDSO Guidelines existing Bridge Rules + IRS concrete code
Time period = 0.77 sec;
h = 0.12
Ah/R = 0.35 / 2.5 = 0.14
Transverse Direction
Proposed IITK-RDSO Guidelines existing Bridge Rules + IRS concrete code
Time period = 1.15 sec; h = 0.12
Ah/ R = 0.24/2.5 = 0.096
142
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
In the above comparison, hard soil condition is considered. The comparison of seismic forces
from IITK-RDSO Guidelines and existing Bridge Rules will get affected if soil type changes.
The above example is again worked out for the soft soil condition and the comparison of results is
given in Table 1.2. In the existing Bridge Rules, the soil factor for soft soil also depends on the
type of foundation. Here, well foundation is considered.
Table 1.2 Comparison of seismic forces from proposed IITK-RDSO guidelines and
existing Bridge Rules + IRS Concrete Code (Soft soil)
Span = 76.2 m, Pier Height = 12 m, Pier diameter = 2m, Soft soil & Well foundation
Longitudinal Direction
Proposed IITK-RDSO Guidelines existing Bridge Rules + IRS concrete code
Time period = 0.77 sec; h = 0.18
Ah/R = 0.59 / 2.5 = 0.24
1.4 DL + 1.6 EQ
1.25 DL + 1.5 EQ
1.25DL +0.3(LL+IL)+1.2EQ 1.4DL +1.75(LL+IL)+1.25EQ
143
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
144
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
145
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
146
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Table 2.4 Comparison of seismic forces for Bridge A from proposed IITK-RDSO guidelines and
existing Bridge Rules + IRS Concrete Code (Hard Soil)
Longitudinal Direction
Proposed IITK-RDSO Guidelines existing Bridge Rules + IRS concrete code
Time period = 0.16 sec; h = 0.12
Ah/R = 0.68 / 2.5 = 0.27
251 kN 221 kN 92 kN
118 kN
Notes
1. The circular pier will be designed for the worst load case. From the above cases it is seen that as per
the Bridge Rule and IRS Concrete code, the pier will be designed for axial force of 861 kN and
horizontal force of 313 kN. As per the proposed guidelines, the pier will be designed for Axial force of
769 kN and lateral force of 665 kN. Thus, the design lateral forces from the proposed guidelines is
double than that from the existing Bridge Rules.
2. The bridge is also subjected to other lateral loads like Racking force and Braking /Tractive forces. As
per Clause 2.9.1 the racking force which acts in transverse direction will be 72 kN and As per
Appendix XIII of existing Bridge Rules the Tractive / Braking force, which acts in longitudinal
direction will be 510 kN.
147
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Table 2.5 Comparison of seismic forces for Bridge B from proposed IITK-RDSO guidelines and
existing Bridge Rules + IRS Concrete Code (Hard Soil)
Span = 76.2 m, Pier Height = 30 m, Pier diameter = 3 m, Hard soil
Longitudinal Direction
Proposed IITK-RDSO Guidelines existing Bridge Rules + IRS concrete code
Time period = 1.83 sec; h = 0.12
Ah / R = 0.15 / 2.5 = 0.06
Notes
1. The circular pier will be designed for the worst load case. From the above cases it is seen that as per
the Bridge Rule and IRS Concrete code, the pier will be designed for axial force of 10642 kN and
horizontal force of 2400 kN. As per the proposed guidelines, the pier will be designed for Axial force of
9502 kN and lateral force of 863 kN. Thus, the design lateral forces from the proposed guidelines is
almost one-third than that from the existing Bridge Rules.
2. The bridge is also subjected to other lateral loads like Racking force and Braking /Tractive forces. As
per Clause 2.9.1 the racking force which acts in transverse direction will be 448 kN and As per
Appendix XIII of existing Bridge Rules the Tractive / Braking force, which acts in longitudinal direction
will be 1325 kN.
148
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
3. Problem Statement:
A simply supported railway bridge with steel superstructure of plate girder welded type has a span of
24.4 m. Train load is Heavy Mineral type (HM loading). Bridge is located in Zone V. The soil at the
bridge site is of hard type (Type I). The circular RC pier has 12 m height and 2 m diameter. Calculate
lateral seismic forces on bridge superstructure. Bridge pier has isolated spread footing type foundation.
Solution:
149
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
= x 22 /4 x 12 x 25 = 942 kN H p = 12 m
3.2.2. Live Load
E = Modulus of elasticity of pier material
Live Load (LL) for HM loading on 24.4m span =5000fc = 27386130 kN/m2
= 146.52 kN/m
(Section 6.2.3.1, IS456:2000)
(As per data supplied by RDSO)
I g = /64 D4 = 0.785 m4
150
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
= 0.05 m
Transverse direction:
Time period T 2 = 0.44 sec
Sa/g = 1.0 / 0.67 = 1.49
Ah = 0.36 / 2 x 1.5 x 1.49 = 0.40
3.4.2. Transverse Direction
In transverse direction, 50% live load is
considered. (Section 8.4) 3.5.2. Elastic and Design Horizontal Seismic
Load
Lateral force to be applied, F =
3.5.2.1 Elastic Seismic load
= 594 + 0.8 x 942 + 0.5 x 3575 = 3136 kN
Lateral deflection,
(Section 9.2.1)
In longitudinal direction
Fe = 0.62 x 594 = 366 kN
In transverse direction
151
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
152
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
0.0 814 1364 1634 1634 1720 1526 1067 1067 423
0.0
0.0
502
635
0.0
492
206
489
642
107
67
350
75
483
65
208
218
359
619
347
107
420 1138 1138 1497 1678 1670 1670 1303 735 0.0
Sign Convention
Tension
All values in kN
Compression
476 483 kN
153
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
4. Problem Statement:
A simply supported railway bridge with steel superstructure of plate girder welded type has a spans of
24..4 m. Train load is Heavy Mineral type (HM loading). Bridge is located in Zone V. The soil at the
bridge site is of hard type (Type I). The circular RC pier has 12 m height and 2 m diameter. Analyze
bridge superstructure for vertical component of seismic forces
Solution:
154
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Dead Load (DL) per meter of 24.4 m girder Thus , in addition to vertical loads due to Dead
without track load = 23.96 kN/m load and Live load , 25 % of additional dead
load in vertical direction.
(As per data supplied by RDSO)
Live Load (LL) for HM loading on 24.4m span 4.4.2 Static Analysis
= 146.5 kN/m
In this analysis, vertical seismic forces are
(As per data supplied by RDSO) obtained by calculating the time period in
vertical direction.
4.3 Seismic Wight for Horizontal motion For a simply supported span, the fundamental
time period Tv , for vertical motion is given as:-
155
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
156
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
A three span simply supported Railway Bridge with steel superstructure of open web girder and ballast
less track has equal spans of 76.2 m. It is proposed to provide Lead Rubber bearings (LRB) above pier to
support superstructure. Train load is Heavy Mineral type (HM loading). Bridge is located in Zone V. The
soil at the bridge site is of hard type (Type I). The circular RC pier has 12 m height and 2 m diameter.
Height of submerged pier is 4 m. Analyze the bridge for seismic loads at Ultimate Limit State.
Solution:
The lateral loads in transverse and longitudinal directions are calculated. Since the spans of the bridge are
simply supported, one pier can be considered as single degree of freedom system with half weight of
spans on either side. Two bearings will be provided below each super structure girders above a pier
sharing equal loads. Hence, seismic coefficient method can be used for seismic load calculation. Seismic
loads will be obtained from IITK-RDSO Guidelines. A comparison of loads obtained from Base Isolation
bearings and fixed bearings will be presented.
The schematic diagram of the bridge is shown below in Figure 1.1. Grade of pier concrete and
reinforcement are M30 and Fe415 respectively. Density of concrete is 25 kN/m3. RC pier has ductile
detailing.
76.2 m 76.2 m 76.2 m
Pier Height = 12 m
G.L.
157
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
= 0.25
5.2.1. Dead Load Calculation
Impact Load = CDA X L.L.
= 0.25 X 9800 = 2450 kN
Dead Load (DL) per meter of 76.2 m girder
without track load = 43.7 kN/m
(As per data supplied by RDSO) 5.3. Seismic Wight
Seismic weight in longitudinal direction
DL per meter of ballast less track = 0.4 kN/m = DL + No LL (Section 8.4)
(As per data supplied by RDSO) = 3360 kN (W2)
= 754 kN (W1)
DL per meter of superstructure
= DL of girder + DL of track Seismic weight in transverse direction
= 43.7 + 0.4 = 44.1 kN/m = DL + 50 % LL (Section 8.4)
= 3360 + 0.50 x 9800 = 8260 kN (W2)
Total DL of superstructure = 754 kN (W1)
= 44.1 x 76.2 = 3360 kN
5.4. Lead Rubber Bearing
2
DL of one pier = D / 4 H p
= x 22 /4 x 12 x 25 = 942 kN 5.4.1. Properties
Live Load (LL) for HM loading on 76.2 m span Thickness of rubber layer, tr = 10 mm
= 128.6 kN/m
No. of rubber layers, nr = 15
(As per data supplied by RDSO)
Thickness of steel shims, ts = 3 mm
Total live load = 128.6 x 76.2 = 9800 kN Total rubber Thickness, Tr = 150 mm
Coefficient of Dynamic Augment (CDA) , Total bearing height, h = 192 mm
Elastic modulus of rubber, Er = 4.0 Gr
158
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
159
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Reduced area, Ar 0.5 B 2 sin 1 Figure 1.2 2-DOF Idealization
Br
Here, pier stiffness, K1 3EI
3
L
= 1.925 x 105 mm2 where,
Ratio Ar / Ab = 0.681 > 0.3, hence OK. L = Pier height from top of foundation = 12 m
Compressive modulus, E = Modulus of elasticity of pier material
W = 0.785 m4
sc 6 S1 = 1.517 < 2.5, hence OK.
k vr t r K1 = 37342 kN/m
160
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
Table 5.1 Response spectrum analysis results Table 5.2 Response spectrum analysis results
for 1.5EQ hazard level for 1.2EQ hazard level
Description Long. Trans. Description Long. Trans.
Dir Dir Dir Dir
Seismic weight (W2, kN) 3360 8260 Seismic weight (W2, kN) 3360 8260
Total stiffness (K2, kN/m) 7180 5078 Total stiffness (K2, kN/m) 8740 5896
st st
1 mode period (sec) 1.50 2.73 1 mode period (sec) 1.39 2.56
2nd mode period (sec) 0.26 0.27 2nd mode period (sec) 0.25 0.26
LRB displacement (mm) 60.2 138.3 LRB displacement (mm) 42.4 94.6
st st
Seismic coefficient for 1 0.1375g 0.0875g Seismic coefficient for 1 0.1168g 0.0697g
mode (Ah) mode (Ah)
Seismic coefficient for 2nd 1.0125g 1.0125g Seismic coefficient for 2nd 0.8100g 0.8100g
mode (Ah) mode (Ah)
Base shear (kN) 722.5 945 Base shear (kN) 577 743
The lateral load on the pier due to seismic load F Ce A We (Section 14.2)
1.5EQ is calculated and tabulated in Table 1
above. Similar calculations can be done for
seismic load 1.2EQ. The results are tabulated in
Table 5.2 below.
12 m
F (Resultant Pressure)
4m
2m
Hydrodynamic Pressure Distribution
on the Pier due to stream flow
161
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
722.5 kN 679 kN
Table 5.3 Comparison of seismic forces between fixed base system and proposed base isolated
system as per IITK-RDSO guidelines
Span = 76.2m, Pier Height = 12 m, Pier diameter = 2m, Hard soil
Longitudinal Direction
Fixed base system Proposed base isolated system
Time period = 0.77 sec; Ah = 0.35/2.5 = 0.14 As shown in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 above
Time period = 1.15 sec; Ah = 0.24/2.5 = 0.096 As shown in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 above
1042kN
1287 kN 945 kN 845 kN
Notes:
1. Site specific study is required for hazard evaluation corresponding to DBE and MCE conditions.
2. LRB design shall be checked for MCE hazard level.
3. Effect of vertical acceleration shall be considered in case of near fault region.
163
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
6. Problem Statement:
For the pier of bridge considered in Example 1, Calculate the plastic moment (Mp) of reinforced concrete
pier and maximum seismic force required to form the plastic hinge in the pier.
Solution:
164
Draft IITK-RDSO Guidelines for Seismic Design of Railway Bridges
From chart 55, ( SP 16: 1980 ) , Pt = 4 % required to achieve lateral force of Pmax.
Pier is checked for biaxial moment . (Ah) max = Pmax / W = 3360 / 9014 = 0.37g
( Clause 3.3 , SP 16 : 1980 )
Thus , lateral seismic coefficient required to
P t = 4%
achieve plastic moment is (Ah) max = 0.37g
165