Indian Association of Structural Engineers

Refresher Course on
"Application of New Seismic Code for Highway
Bridges - IRC:SP:114-2018"
24th August 2019
PHD House, New Delhi

Handouts of the Presentations

Sponsor

Sanfield (India) Ltd

 24th August 2019

Lecture 1 An Overview of the New Seismic Code IRC:SP:114

09:00 AM - 10:00 AM Er. A. K. Banerjee, Convenor, B-2 Committee (IRC)

Lecture 2 Conceptual Design of Bridges for Seismic

10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon Prof. Mahesh Tandon, MD- Tandon Consultants Pvt Ltd

Lecture 3 An Overview of Indian Seismic Codes on Bridges:

12:00 Noon - 01:00 PM Challenges and Issues for Development
Dr. S. K. Thakkar, Former Professor, IIT Roorkee
HANDOUTS OF THE PRESENTATIONS

Mr. A. K. Banerjee
Former Member (Technical), NHAI and
Convenor, B-2 Committee of IRC
 Background of Seismic Provision in
IRC Code and Brief Overview of New
Seismic Guidelines

A.K. Banerjee
Former Member (Tech), NHAI
Convenor, IRC B-2 Committee
Background of Seismic Provision in IRC Code

Seismic provisions were introduced in IRC Code IRC: 6 for first time
in year 1958, wherein the country was divided in three seismic zones
based on expected seismic intensity or degree of damage i.e. liable to
severe damage, moderate damage and minor or no damage, besides
Epicentral Tracts. This provisions continued till 1979;
Meanwhile, IS: 1893 came up with a different seismic map showing
five seismic zones, which was introduced in IRC: 6 in 1981. Also,
computation of seismic force, horizontal seismic coefficient,
importance factor and a coefficient to account for different soil and
foundation system as given in IS: 1893-1970 were introduced in IRC: 6
Background of Seismic Provision in IRC Code…….contd.

After Bhuj earthquake in 2001, following interim provisions were

introduced in IRC: 6:
New seismic map showing four seismic zones along with zone factor
Force based approach using spectral acceleration, importance factor
and single Response Reduction Factor R for all bridge components
Mandatory provisions to prevent dislodgement of superstructure and
ductile detailing of piers in line with IS 13920 to minimize damage
especially in Zone IV and V
Also, special seismic devices such as base isolation bearings, STUs
recommended
Background of Seismic Provision in IRC Code……..contd.

Interim provisions replaced in 2008 by a new seismic clause on

seismic force using force based design approach and considering
simultaneous action of seismic force in three directions, near field
effects, dynamic earth pressure and hydrodynamic forces
In year 2010, need was felt to prepare a comprehensive guidelines
for seismic design of road bridges based on Limit State Design
approach in lieu of working stress design approach as per NDMA
guidelines to follow IS 1893 by B-2 Committee
A subgroup was constituted in 2015 comprising total nine members
to develop the basic frame work prepared by Prof. S.K. Thakkar and
finalize the various draft chapters. Sub Group held 22 meetings
during 2015-2017
Modifications in Seismic Clause During 2014-2017
During the period from 2014 to 2017, pending finalization of the new
Seismic Guidelines, following interim modifications were introduced in
the existing Seismic Clause 219:
Requirement of Special Investigations introduced for bridges in Near Field
Regions i.e. 10 km from active faults
Acceleration Coefficient Sa/g for various types of soil and criteria for
classification of soil types introduced based on IS: 1893 Part I
Response Reduction Factors R modified for different bridge elements
including bearings and connections / stoppers and mandatory requirement of
ductile detailing in Seismic Zones III, IV & V specified
Seismic coefficient introduced for estimating seismic force due to foundation
mass of embedded portion exceeding 30 m below scour level
Substantive Changes in New Guidelines IRC: SP: 114-2018

Terminology of DBE and MCE explained and applicability of guideline for

seismic design of bridges with design service life of 100 years considering
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE);
Bridges with design service life more than 100 years is outside scope;
Adopted seismic map and spectral acceleration graphs as specified in IS: 1893
Part I 2016;
Adopts method given in IS: 1893 Part I -2016 for evaluation of liquefaction
potential;
For estimation of seismic forces, Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method, Elastic
Response Spectrum Method and Time History Method have been specified;
Describes various types of special investigations to be done for bridges to be
constructed in near field zones, skew and curved bridges etc. and Table added
to indicate the special studies / analysis required for specific cases.
Substantive Changes in IRC:SP: 114-2018…….contd.

Principles of Capacity Design approach adopted for design to ensure that

damage is controllable i.e. plastic hinges occur only where designer
intends;
Response Reduction Factor for superstructure deleted and only a note for
R factor for steel superstructure mentioned;
Hydrodynamic force for bridge pier and foundation added with worked out
example;
Procedure for Time History Method introduced;
Provision of minimum design horizontal seismic force introduced;
Requirement of type of seismic analysis for various types of bridges
elaborated depending on terrain and seismicity;
Ductile detailing of concrete and steel and steel composite members
adequately covered;
Emphasis given to prevent dislodgement of superstructure and suitable
provisions made accordingly in the Guidelines;
Substantive changes in IRC:SP: 114-2018……….contd.

Procedure for force based design, capacity design, over strength

factor, potential location of plastic hinges, ductility and capacity
demand etc. explained and elaborated;
Emphasis given to prevent dislodgement of superstructure and
suitable provisions made accordingly in the Guidelines;
Potentially liquefiable soil and procedure for calculating liquefaction
potential introduced;
Use of different types of bearings and specific mention of use of
elastomeric bearings introduced;
 Brief Introduction to Chapters
Guidelines comprise ten chapters and five informative Appendices with
Worked Out Examples:
Chapter 1: Preface
Chapter 2: Introduction
Chapter 3: Conceptual Design
Chapter 4: Seismic Induced Forces and Site Condition
Chapter 5: Seismic Analysis Method
Chapter 6: General Design Provision
Chapter 7: Seismic Design Methods
Chapter 8: Design of Bridge Components
Chapter 9: Ductile Detailing of Structures
Chapter 10: Seismic Isolation Devices
 Chapter 1 & 2

Chapter 1 Preface – defines history of provisions for seismic design of

bridges in IRC codes
Chapter 2 Introduction covers the following:
• Scope
• Seismic effects on bridges
• General principles of earthquake resistant design of bridges
• Design philosophy for use of DBE or MCE in design
• Special investigations and detailed studies for different
types og bridges
• Definitions and symbols
 Chapter 3 - Conceptual Design

Site selection for bridges in terms of seismic vulnerability;

Structural system and configuration with Table indicating
seismically preferred and not preferred structural configurations;
Guidelines for design of bearings and expansion joints;
Structural ductility and energy dissipation;
Types of seismic devices
 Chapter 4 Seismic Induced Forces &
Site Condition

Horizontal (both transverse and longitudinal) and vertical ground

motions, their components and combination of component motions;
Provision for vertical seismic component;
Seismic zone map (as in IS 1893: Part I 2016), zone factors and
importance factors;
Damping coefficient of 5% specified for both steel and concrete
structures;
General principle of soil structure interaction and seismic effect on live
load;
Computation of dynamic component of earth pressure and
hydrodynamic forces on bridge piers and foundations.
 Chapter 5 Seismic Analysis Methods

Elastic Seismic Acceleration method (Seismic Coefficient method;

Elastic Response Spectrum method;
Two different Spectra proposed as in IS: 1893 Part I 2016;
Geotechnical aspects to determine spectra and three types of soil
classification for supporting the structure;
Linear Time History method elaborated;
Guidance provided to select appropriate analytical method;
Minimum design Horizontal Seismic Acceleration Coefficient
specified to determine minimum horizontal seismic force in design
 Chapter 6 General Design Provision

Weak column and strong beam concept followed;

Plastic hinges allowed to form in bridge piers at predetermined
locations as decided by designer;
Strength based design approach amalgamating force based approach
and capacity design principle has been prescribed.
 Chapter 7 Seismic Design Methods

Detail coverage of force based approach, capacity design principles

and capacity design steps to be followed and structural components
to be protected;
Procedure and advantages of capacity design principle following
Euro Code Annexure G explained;
How plastic hinge regions are to be designed and special confining
reinforcement for plastic hinge region and design of portion of pier
in between plastic hinge and the connections;
Minimum shear force to be considered for either flexural or shear
mode of failure.
Chapter 8 Design of Bridge Components

Provision for seismic design of superstructure, piers, abutments and

foundations;
Identification of potentially liquefiable soils emphasized;
Provision of seismic design of bearings, seismic connections
including STUs and expansion joints elaborated;
Provision of reaction blocks, restrainers, rigid links or tie bars etc.
essentially to prevent dislodgement of superstructure.
Chapter 9 Ductile Detailing of Structures

Additional provisions for ductile detailing in concrete piers included

in the Guidelines over and above the provisions in IRC: 112 like
percentage of reinforcement, minimum concrete grade etc.;
Ductile detailing of steel structures covers the following:
Ductile behaviour of framed structure likely to be in plastic range;
Ensure adequate strength, stability and ductility to resist severe
earthquakes in all seismic zones;
Ensure minimum level of curvature / rotation, ductility at plastic hinges
and ductility of tension braces designed as per IRC: 22 and IRC: 24
 Chapter 10 Seismic Isolation Devices

Design of bridges incorporating seismic isolation devices like;

• Hydraulic Viscous Damper;
• Elastomeric Bearing Damper (Low Damping Elastomer);
• High damping Elastomeric Bearing Damper;
• Lead Rubber Bearing Damper;
• Friction Dumper
 Appendices with Examples

Appendix A-1 Illustration of elastic seismic acceleration method;

Appendix A-2 Illustration of elastic response spectrum method;
Appendix A-3 Illustration of capacity design procedure;
Appendix A -4 Illustration of hydrodynamic pressure on piers;
Appendix A-5 Illustration of liquefaction of soil.
Recent Amendments in IRC:SP: 114-2018

Following further amendments were recently approved by BSS and

IRC Council in July-August, 2019:

Modifications in R factor for Zone II and minor modifications in various

clauses;
Use of Elastomeric Bearings for resisting both seismic and non-seismic
forces in Zone IV & V;
Modifications in Chapter 10 on Seismic Isolation and Damping Devices;
Appendices and Examples updated and elaborated to avoid mismatch with
provision in main clauses in Code
Thank you
 Prof. Mahesh Tandon
Managing Director Tandon Consultants Pvt Ltd
 Indian Association of Structural Engineers

PROF MAHESH TANDON

MANAGING DIRECTOR, TANDON CONSULTANTS PVT LTD
INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL (INDIA)
GUEST PROFESSOR @ GANDHINAGAR
24th August, 2019 1
 a) 09:00 Hrs to 09:15 Hrs - Introduction by Course Co-ordinator, Prof. Mahesh Tandon
b) 09:15 Hrs to 10:00 Hrs - An Overview of the New Seismic Code IRC:SP:114 by Mr A
K Banerjee
c) 10:00 Hrs to 11:00 Hrs - Conceptual Design of Bridges for Seismic (Part-1) - Prof.
Mahesh Tandon
11:00 Hrs to 11:15 Hrs - HIGH TEA
d) 11:15 Hrs to 12:00 Hrs. - Conceptual Design of Bridges for Seismic (Concluding
Part) - Prof. Mahesh Tandon
e) 12:00 Hrs to 13:00 Hrs - An Overview of Indian Seismic Codes on Bridges:
Challenges and Issues for Developments - Prof. S K Thakkar

Chapter-3 Conceptual Design 18

3.1 General 18
3.2 Site selection 18
3.3 Structural system and configuration 18
3.4 Bearings and expansion joints 21
3.5 Time period of bridge 22
3.6 Structural Ductility and Energy Dissipation 22
3.7 Use of Seismic Devices 23

2
GENERAL

3
EARTHQUAKE ENGG : INTERNATIONAL SCENARIO

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING:
MAJOR MILESTONES FOR BRIDGES
1908: CRITERIA BASED ON HORIZONTAL
STATIC FORCES APPLIED AT cg ITALY
1939: DRAFT VSPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGE
JAPAN
1943: ACCOUNTING FOR FLEXIBILITY OF
STRUCTURE WHILE EVALUATING
SEISMIC DEMAND CALTRANS
1964: CONCEPT OF LIQUFACTION (Prof Mogami) AND
LATERAL SPREADING JAPAN
1975: RECOGNISING THAT STRUCTURES
ENTER THE INELASTIC (POST-ELASTIC)
STAGE AND THAT DUCTILITY IS OF
SIGNIFICANCE AASHTO
1981: CRITERIA OF INELASTIC DESIGN AND
DUCTILITY REQUIREMENTS-- JAPAN
 FIG 1

1. FORM 3. DEGREE OF INDETERMINACY

2. INITIATION OF YIELD 4. POTENTIAL FOR DISSIPATING
ENERGY

DESIGN LIFE 50 YEARS DESIGN LIFE 100 YEARS

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BUILDING AND BRIDGE

3.2 Site Selection

6
CURRENT INDIAN SCENARIO

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES (July 2006)

National Centre for Seismology (August 2014)

THE SEISMOTECTONIC ATLAS OF INDIA SHOWS EXISTENCE

OF OVER 66 NEOTECTONIC/ ACTIVE FAULTS. THE
HIMALAYAN BELT, EXTENDING FOR 2400 KM, IS DISSECTED
BY 15 MAJOR ACTIVE FAULTS.

AS PER SEISMIC ZONING OF THE COUNTRY, OVER 59% OF

INDIA S LAND MASS IS NDER THREAT OF MODERATE TO
SEVERE SEISMIC HAZARD, I.E. PRONE TO SHAKING OF
MSK INTENSITY VII & ABOVE. SEVERAL IMPORTANT CITIES
LYING IN SEISMIC ZONE III, IV AND V ARE VULNERABLE TO
EARTHQUAKES.
PRESENT DAY TECTONIC PLATES
The four known instrumentally recorded great (M *8.0
8.7)
earthquakes in the foothills of the Himalaya in India, from
west to east the 1905 Kangra, 1934 Bihar, 1897
Shillong and the 1950 Assam
10
 ICONIC EXAMPLE OF THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF LIQUEFACTION.

1964 Niigata earthquake. Shinano river, Niigata City

SHOWA BRIDGE COLLAPSE DUE TO LIQUEFACTION, LATERAL SPREADING

The post liqufaction phenomenon (few minutes after termination of
main seismic action)
 CHECK FOR LATERAL SPREADING: ALTERNATIVE LOADING

qNL= Passive earth

Pressure

qL= 30% of
overburden
pressure

JRA Provisions (1996)

The non-liquefied crust exerts passive earth pressure
The liquefied crust exerts passive earth pressure on the pile and the liquefied
soil offers 30% of total overburden pressure.
3.3 Structural system
and configuration

13
14
15
 INTEGRAL
BRIDGES

SUB-STRUCTURE AND
SUPERSTRUCTURE ARE MONOLITHIC

---NO BEARINGS!!
---FEW EXP JTS!!
17
PANCHSHEEL CLUB FLYOVER: INTEGRAL CONSTRUCTION,
HIGH DURABILITY, LOW MAINTENANCE, INCREASED
SAFETY DURING EARTHQUAKES
PANCHSHEEL CLUB FLYOVER: VIEW FROM SOFFIT
3.4 Bearings and expansion joints

20
 SURAJBARI OLD BRIDGE
METTALIC BEARINGS DESTROYED
 SHEAR

COMPRESSION

ROTATION

ELASOMERIC BEARING : STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR

SUPERSTRUCTURE DISPLACED IN THE
TRANSVERSE DIRECTION
 GIRDER SHIFTED IN THE LONG DIRECTION WITH LOSS OF CONTACT
DURING SHAKING.SUBSTRUCTURE & FOUNDN GOT SAVED BECAUSE
ELASLOMERIC BEARING ACTED AS SEISMIC ISOLATION DEVICE EVEN
THOUGH OF SUB-STANDARD CHARACTER.
 SURAJBARI NEW BRIDGE
THE REMAINS OF A CONCRETE RESTRAINER
SURAJBARI NEW
BRIDGE :
TYPICAL
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DAMAGE DUE TO
POUNDING OF
ADJOINING SPANS
 LONGITUDINAL BEARING FOR
BLISTER BELOW SEISMIC VERTICAL PEDESTAL
SOFFIT OF RESTRAINER LOADS
SUPERSTRUCTURE

EXAMPLE OF LONGITUDINAL SEISMIC RESTRAINER

FOR CONTINUOUS BRIDGES
JAMMU UDHAMPUR RAIL LINK : REACTION BLOCK
FIG 5: SEISMIC RESTRAINERS FOR
CONTINUOUS SUPERSTRUCTURE
(RAVI BRIDGE)
ANY JOINT IN A STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT
INTRODUCES STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS

CARDINAL PRINCIPLES
 BRIDGE BEARINGS
FOR BASE ISOLATION

HIGH DAMPING RUBBER BEARING

(HDR)
HIGH DAMPING ELASTOMER RUBBER-
STEEL PLATE SANDWHICH

BOLT HOLE FOR CONNECTION

TO SUPERSTRUCTURE

BOLT HOLE FOR

LEAD RUBBER CONNECTION TO
BEARING (LRB) PIER/ABUTMENT
CAP
RUBBER ELASTOMER-
STEEL PLATE
SANDWICH
LEAD PLUG STEEL PATE
32
33
34
BASIC ISSUE:
PREVENTION OF DISLODGEMENT
(UNSEATING) TWO OPTIONS :

-USE REACTION BLOCKS

-SELECT INTEGRAL BRIDGES
HELP !!
MANDATORY REQUIREMENT :
-PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT
LENGTHS
OLD SURAJBARI BRIDGE
 BRITANIA CHOWK FLYOVER
ELEVATION OF RESTRAINED PIER
 LONGITUDINAL
TIE BARS

HOLDING-DOWN BARS

PREVENTION OF
DISLODGEMENT
 APPLIED FORCES ON PIER (t) : SLS ULS
TRANSVERSE 130 162
LONGITUDINAL 120 172

CAPACITY OF SEISMIC RESTRAINERS (t) :

TRANSVERSE NA 256
LONGITUDINAL NA 512

* BASIS : h = 0.126

SEISMIC REACTION
BLOCKS: PERSPECTIVE
VIEW
REDUCING SHARING

40
 STU FORCE (ULTIMATE) = 650t
EJ1 EJ2 EJ1
EXPANSION EXPANSION EXPANSION
JOINT STU RESTRAINED STU JOINT STU RESTRAINED STU JOINT

510m 510m

NHAI GANGA BRIDGE A ALLAHABAD

SHOWING APPLICATION OF STUs.
 STU FORCE (ULTIMATE) = 650t

EJ1 EJ2 EJ1

EXPANSION RESTRAINED EXPANSION RESTRAINED EXPANSION
JOINT STU STU JOINT STU STU JOINT

510m 510m

NHAI GANGA BRIDGE A ALLAHABAD

SHOWING APPLICATION OF STUs.
3.5 Time period of bridge

43
 Ah = Z/2 . Sa /g
R/I

Vertical seismic coefficient = 2/3 * Ah

44
3.6 Structural Ductility and
Energy Dissipation

Passive Active

45
UNDERSTANDING EARTHQUAKE ENGG :

TRADITIONAL CONCEPT----INTRODUCE
PLASTIC HINGES

BASIS:

EARTHQUAKE ENGG IS THE ART OF DESIGNING

STRUCTURES WITH CONTROLLED DAMAGE !!!

DUCTILITY = DISPLACEMENT without COLLAPSE

PLASTIC HINGE

47
BEHAVIOUR IN TRANSVERSE/LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION CAN BE DIFFERENT

Potential location of plastic hinges

WELL DESIGNED STRUCTURES DISSIPATE SEISMIC
ENERGY BY INELASTIC DEFORMATIONS IN LOCALISED
ZONES OF SOME MEMBERS
HANSHIN EXPRESSWAY
KOBE EARTHQUAKE 1995
 DETAILING OF PLASTIC HINGE

A. HEIGHT OF PLASTIC HINGE: 1.5* LATERAL DIMENSION OF COLUMN

B. TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT HAS THREE FUNCTIONS:

- CONFINING OF CONCRETE CORE SO AS TO ENHANCE

CONCRETE STRENGTH AND TO SUSTAIN HIGHER
COMPRESSIVE STRAINS

- RESTRAIN LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT AGAINST

BUCKLING

- PROVIDE SHEAR RESISTANCE

C. CIRCULAR COLUMNS ALWAYS EASIER TO DETAIL

STRESS-STRAIN MODEL FOR CONCRETE IN
COMPRESSION (M4)
A CIRCULAR HOOPS B. RECTANGULAR
OR SPIRAL HOOPS WITH
CROSS TIES

C. RECTANGULAR D. OVERLAPPING
OCTAGONAL RECTANGULAR
HOOPS HOOPS

CONFINEMENT OF COLUMN
SECTIONS BY
TRANSVERSE AND
E. CONFINEMENT BY F. CONFINEMENT BY
LONGITUDINAL
TRANSVERSE LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT
BARS BARS
 CONFINEMENT OF CONCRETE BY
CIRCULAR AND SQUARE HOOPS

COURTESY: PRIESTLEY
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE:
SUSTAIN CYCLES OF COMPLETE REVERSALS WITHOUT IMPARING
VERTICAL LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY.

54
SEISMIC RESPONSE IN LONGITUDINAL/VERTICAL DIRECTION
3.7 Use of Seismic Devices

REDUCING SHARING

56
57
STRUCTURE
E structure

DEVICES
ENERGY
SEISMIC

E dissipated
E shared

Ground E seismic =
E structure + E dissipated
59
 DAMPING
ACCELERATION

DEFORMATION
NATURAL VIBRATION PERIOD (SECS)
CONCLUSIONS -INCREASE FLEXIBILITY (TIME PERIOD)
-INCREASE DAMPING

Fig.12: ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM

Longitudinal Seismic
Elastomeric
Pad

Soffit of S S Plate S S Plate

Superstructure
Reaction
Blister Block
MS Steel Plate

Pier

LONGITUDINAL SEISMIC RESTRAINER

VERTICAL ELASTOMER PAD INTRODUCES DAMPING TO LONGITUDINAL FORCES
FIG 6: SHOCK TRANSMISSION UNIT - THE PRINCIPLE
SHOCK TRANSMISSION UNIT - APPLICATION
TO CONTINUOUS BRIDGES
STU FORCE (ULTIMATE) = 650t
EXPANSION JOINT MOVEMENTS:
EJ1 EJ2
EXPANSION 115 210
CONTRACTION -210
TOTAL
EJ1 325EJ2
EXPANSION
625 EJ3
EXPANSION EXPANSION
JOINT
JOINT JOINT
RESTRAINED (7 cell) RESTRAINED
(4 cell) (4 cell)
STU STU STU STU

KHAGA SIDE (SAKARHA) HANDIA SIDE (DHIMI)

FREE BRG FREE BRG FREE BRG FIXED BRG FREE BRG FREE BRG FREE BRG FREE BRG FREE BRG FIXED BRG FREE BRG FREE BRG FREE BRG

DISTANCE BETWEEN EXPANSION JOINTS 510m

NHAI GANGA BRIDGE AT ALLAHABAD

ELEVATION
PIER I H RESTRAINED PIER
NHAI ALLAHABAD BRIDGE: APPLICA ION OF
67
 Prof. S. K. Thakkar
Former Professor, Earthquake Engineering and
Railway Chair Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
 An Overview of Indian Seismic Codes on Bridges: Challenges and
Issues for Development
S.K. Thakkar

1. Former Professor, Dept. of Earthquake Engg and Railway Chair Professor, IIT Roorkee,
[email protected]

Abstract
The development of seismic codes of bridges in a country is a continuous process which is
carried out on a regular basis because of advancement of knowledge with the Research and
Development and experience gained in performance of bridges in recent earthquakes. The
various countries often have more than one seismic code on bridges for example one applicable
to Highway Bridges and other to Railway Bridges. There has been significant advancement in
seismic design procedures in recent years starting from working stress design, ultimate load
design, limit state design following force as basis of design and now performance based design
following displacement as the basis of design. The performance based design is yet to find a
place in seismic codes in India. The reasons for improvements in design procedures have been
to counter the deficiencies in existing design methods and achieve performance objectives for
design earthquakes as best as possible. Two significant developments in seismic design can be
identified (i) consideration of inelastic behavior and ductility in seismic design, (ii) incorporation
of the capacity design concept in seismic design which has led to achieve ductile behavior,
avoid brittle failure modes and prevent collapse of structures. These concepts have now found
a place in seismic codes on bridges worldwide. India has three seismic codes on bridges; IS:
1893 (Part3), 2014, RDSO Guidelines 2015 and IRC Guidelines, 2018. This paper presents an
overview of seismic codes of bridges and challenges in the development of the codes that
include: lessons learnt from past earthquakes, updating of existing analysis and design
methods, highlighting important features of different seismic bridge codes, critical views on
codes and issues for future developments.

Introduction
The extensive damage of bridges all over the world in earthquakes has been the motivation
behind research and development in seismic analysis, seismic design and retrofitting of bridges.
Bridges are considered as structures of post earthquake importance; these are designed to
remain functional during and immediately after the design earthquake to meet emergency
requirements of rescue, relief and rehabilitation. Bridge behavior in earthquakes is significantly
different in comparison to structures like buildings and other tall structures. The lateral load
resisting system of a traditional girder bridge for resisting earthquakes is different in both
longitudinal and transverse directions. The bearings that separate the super and sub structures
are vulnerable to damage. The buildings are designed on the basis of strong column weak
design philosophy while bridges have the reverse, that is, strong girders and weak columns to
resist earthquakes. The plastic hinges thus form in columns in bridges unlike in beams in
buildings; therefore, energy dissipation takes place essentially through bridge columns. The
redundancy in traditional girder bridges is much lower; therefore these are more vulnerable to
collapse. The soil effects on seismic response of bridges are more significant than in buildings.
The seismic problems in bridges are now well understood, such as: out of phase motion
between piers, failure of bearings and expansion joints, inadequate seating width leading to
unseating and falling of spans, pounding of spans, non-ductile behavior of substructures,
failure of foundation due to soil liquefaction, failure of abutments and approaches.

The earthquake resistant design of bridges is all about providing the structure with adequate
strength, stiffness and ductility to withstand earthquake generated forces and deformations.
This is accomplished through the selection of appropriate structural configuration, and careful
detailing of structural members and connections for achieving ductile behavior. Structural
analysis and structural design are the two most important steps in the total seismic design
process. Earthquake resistant design of bridges is continuously evolving with the advances in
earthquake engineering. Needless to mention that the designers are expected to use the
rational methods of seismic analysis and seismic design which are the state of the art, in order
to achieve safe and economical design of the structure. The new design methods are being
developed to remove the deficiencies of existing methods. The main task in design remains to
meet the performance requirements as best as possible. One of the deficiencies of existing
design method that is force based design, is that these are unable to quantify and control the
damage level in the structure. The emphasis on earlier design methods was on prevention of
collapse and not so much on control of damage. There has been a gradual shift from force
based design procedures to performance based design using displacement as the basis of
design. The later design method not only ensures collapse prevention but is addressed to
achieve design performance objectives in order to control extent of damage. The performance
objectives are formulated based on design requirement considering life of a structure, return
period of earthquake and importance of structure. The seismic codes all over the world are
gradually adopting performance based design as these have the potential to meet the design
objectives effectively and provide better performance in earthquakes. Similarly, the non linear
seismic analysis procedures are now gradually adopted in place of linear elastic methods as the
former can better represent structural behavior in post elastic range under design earthquakes
and are consistent with inelastic design procedures. Thus the future of earthquake resistant
design of bridges lies in the nonlinear methods of dynamic analysis and inelastic methods of
design following displacement based approach.
The common issues that need to be addressed in seismic codes in bridges are following: Design
earthquake motions, Design response spectrum, performance objectives, bridge importance,
response reduction factor, soil effects , seismic forces on live loads, hydrodynamic effects on
submerged piers, seismic analysis and design methods, bearing design, unseating prevention
devices, effect of vertical accelerations, ductile detailing in substructures, seismic isolation and
energy dissipation devices, failure of approaches and earth pressures on retaining walls and
abutment and liquefaction of founding soil.

This paper presents an overview of Indian Seismic codes on bridges and challenges in
development of seismic codes that include: lessons learnt from past earthquakes, updating of
existing analysis and design methods, highlighting important features of different seismic
bridge codes, critical views on codes and issues for future developments.

Lessons learnt from performance of bridges

The observation of performance of bridges in past earthquakes world over has highlighted
following deficiencies in bridges. One important lesson from such observations is not to repeat
the mistakes committed in the past. The lessons learnt and its design implications are thus to
be appropriately addressed in design recommendations of the seismic codes.

Superstructure: The traditional superstructures of the girder bridges are rigid and massive;
these do not suffer damage due to effects of vibrations in earthquakes. The main problem in
the superstructure has been the shifting and dislodging of spans due to bearing failure and
inadequate seat width. The superstructures have also been seen to be twisted and over toppled
from bridge supports in transverse direction due to inadequate connection with the bearings.
The falling of spans from supports is the most unacceptable type of bridge failures which need
to be prevented. The adjoining spans are normally not interlinked as a result these get
dislodged. The shifting and falling of spans can be prevented by suitable design and detailing of
inter connection of spans and provision of vertical holding down devices at bearing locations.

Bearings: The traditional rocker and roller bearings and elastomeric bearings have not shown
satisfactory performance in earthquakes. There have been problems due to jumping and
inadequacy of bearings in accommodating displacements. Bearing design should take into
consideration of provision of enough space for estimated seismic displacements and rotations
besides provision of stopper to restrict excessive movements and vertical holding down devices
to prevent jumping. The integral bridge design without bearings is often appreciated from
seismic considerations to eliminate bearing issues.

Substructure: The various types of deficiencies observed in RC columns and piers are (i) lack of
flexural strength and ductility, (ii) lack of shear strength, (iii) insufficient transverse
reinforcement and confinement in columns, (iv) inadequate lap splicing of longitudinal steel, (v)
premature termination of longitudinal steel in piers, (vi) insufficient strength of joints between
pile and cap beams. All these deficiencies can be taken care of by seismic design and ductile
detailing.

Reinforced wall piers have usually performed well in earthquakes. Displacement ductility of 2-3
is generally available in longitudinal direction. However such wall piers are very stiff in
transverse direction resulting in attraction of large seismic forces in transverse direction that
may cause foundation damage if not adequately designed.

Abutments: The abutments have been seen to be tilting forward, rotating, sliding forward or
collapse due to increase in earth pressure in earthquakes. Abutment slumping is observed in
soft soils. Spill through abutments have performed better in earthquakes; these are preferred
abutments in resisting earthquake effect.

Soil effects: The site amplification of accelerations due to soil characteristics often causes large
displacements in bearings resulting in shifting and dislodging of superstructure spans.
Liquefaction of soil often results in damage due to unequal settlements and loss of span type of
failures.

Inadequacy of foundations: Inadequate strength of foundations, open, well or pile have

resulted in foundation failures; these are design issues that can be dealt by exercising a good
seismic design practice following capacity design principles.

Bridge approaches: The bridge approaches are often found to be damaged due to settlement
of soil or separation of earth fill from abutment. As a result bridge becomes unserviceable after
the earthquake.

Indian seismic bridge codes

The following seismic codes/guidelines for seismic design of bridges exist in India:

i. IS: 1893 (Part3) : 2014, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 3
Bridges and Retaining Walls, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
ii. RDSO Guidelines on Seismic Design of Railway Bridges, January 2015, Bridge &
Structures Directorate, RDSO, Lucknow
iii. IRC: SP: 114-2018 Guidelines for Seismic Design of Road Bridges, Indian Roads
Congress, 2018

IRC Guidelines of 2018 are exclusively applicable to Highway Bridges; these are recently made,
yet to come in practice. The existing seismic provisions of IRC: 2017 are currently applicable to
Highway bridges. The RDSO Guidelines of January 2015 are applicable exclusively to Railway
Bridges. IS: 1893 (Part 3): 2014, Seismic code on Bridges and Retaining Walls is a reference
seismic code that is applicable to all types of bridges and aqueducts. Some variations in
provisions for the same design aspect, in clauses always remain between various seismic codes
on bridges which are made by different committees but attempt is always made to remove any
such difference by the respective committees who are responsible for making these codes. The
Response Spectrum which governs level of seismic force on structures in various zones is the
same for all codes and is adopted from IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2016, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures, Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings. The Seismic Design Criteria
outlined in Part 1 of IS: 1893 are generally adopted by all seismic codes on bridges in the
country; this code still remains the primary reference seismic code behind all seismic codes of
the country.

Highlights of seismic codes on bridges

IS: 1893 (Part 3):2014:

i. The code is applicable for seismic design of new bridges as well as checking design of
existing bridges for purpose of retrofitting.
ii. The code is applicable to seismic design of highway bridges, railway bridges,
flyovers, pedestrian, submersible, utility bridges and aqueducts.
iii. The code is applicable to bridges where seismic actions are resisted by abutments
through flexure of piers.
iv. The earthquake effect for abutments and retaining walls can be computed for
frictional soils as well as cohesive and frictional soils.
v. The methodology for determining hydrodynamic pressure on submerged piers is
based on cylinder analogy.
vi. The detailed dynamic analysis is recommended for major and special types of
bridges.
vii. Majority of ordinary bridges with traditional type of girder bridges can be analyzed
by seismic coefficient method.
viii. The seismic design of the bridge should meet serviceability limit state for DBE and
meet requirement of ultimate limit state for MCE. While checking design as per IS:
456, only DBE is recommended.
ix. The seismic analysis of bridges can be carried out by one of the following methods,
(i) Seismic Coefficient (SCM), (ii) Response Spectrum Method (RSM), (iii) Time
History Method (THM) and, (iv)Push Over Analysis (PA). Short or medium span
bridges are analyzed by SCM, while major and special bridges are analyzed by
RSM/THM. The Push over analysis (PA) is recommended for seismic design of special
bridges and evaluation of existing bridges for the purpose of retrofitting.
 x. The design approach recommended in the code is based on force based design using
response reduction factors. The seismic forces are estimated by elastic analysis using
one of the methods of seismic analysis; elastic forces are then divided by response
reduction factor as specified in the code to determine design forces.
xi. The seismic design is primarily done for DBE; the bridges are expected to undergo
only minor damage under this condition. The bridges may be subjected to
considerable damage under MCE but not collapse.
xii. The capacity design concept should be applied to force the plastic hinges to occur at
pre determined locations; these locations can then be provided with special ductile
detailing to ensure ductile behavior.

RDSO guidelines for Railway Bridges, 2015

i. The conceptual design considerations such as simplicity, symmetry and regularity
are recommended in selection of structural configuration for better seismic
behavior.
ii. The seismic guidelines are applicable for design of new bridges but not for
evaluation of existing bridges.
iii. The seismic design of bridges is recommended for design basis earthquake.
iv. The seismic force on live load shall not be considered in longitudinal direction.
However the seismic force on 50% of design live load shall be considered in
transverse direction.
v. A separate load combination and load factors are recommended for Ultimate Limit
State and Serviceability Limit State.
vi. The Response Reduction factors are recommended for different types of
substructures, connections and bearings. The maximum value of R factor for
reinforced concrete piers with ductile detailing is recommended to be 3.25.
vii. The seismic design is based on force based design where elastic forces determined
from seismic analysis are reduced by response reduction factors in order to consider
inelastic behavior of the bridge.
viii. The emphasis is given on ductility provision through ductile detailing.
ix. Provision of seismic design of bridge using seismic isolation technique is also
included in the guidelines.

IRC: SP: 114-2018 Guidelines for Seismic Design for Road Bridges (2018)
i. The conceptual design considerations such as selection of appropriate structural
configuration, bearing types, expansion joints details and foundation types are given
which may result in better seismic behavior of bridges.
 ii. It is preferable to design bridges in seismic zones IV and V with longer fundamental
period of vibration which may result in substantial reduction in development of
seismic forces in the structure.
iii. The beneficial effects of bridge flexibility and ductility should be duly accounted in
the seismic design.
iv. The principle of strong girder and weak column shall be followed for seismic design.
Plastic hinges should form in the piers at pre selected locations so as to ensure
accessibility for inspection and repair.
v. The capacity design principle should be employed for design of piers. The
foundation, bearings and superstructure should be designed for capacity design
effects to ensure elastic behavior in these components.
vi. The shear failure in columns shall be avoided by designing transverse reinforcement
for confinement of concrete following ductility provisions of code.
vii. The bridges with design life of up to 100 years may be designed for DBE only. The
bridges with design life of more than 100 years and special types of bridges may be
designed for both DBE and MCE.
viii. The seismic design should be carried out following force based design using response
reduction factors given in the guidelines. The capacity design concepts should be
employed for design of plastic hinges in piers.
ix. The code provides broad steps to be followed in the capacity design of plastic hinges
and elastic design of regions beyond plastic hinges.
x. The response reduction factor of various bridge components are provided both for
with ductile detailing and without ductile detailing.
xi. The three methods of seismic analysis: i. Elastic Seismic Acceleration method
(Seismic Coefficient method), ii. Elastic Response Spectrum Method and, iii. Time
History Method is recommended. The application of the methods for various types
of bridges is also specified in tabular form.
xii. The hydrodynamic pressure on submerged portion of bridge piers and method of
computing added mass of water in lieu of hydrodynamic pressure is also presented
in the code.

Deficiencies in existing seismic design method

The seismic design method followed in the present Indian codes is based on Force Based
Design; the force is considered as the basis of design in this approach. In this method of design,
elastic seismic analysis is carried out to obtain column bending moment. This moment is
reduced by Response Reduction Factor R to obtain design strength. The R factors primarily
represent the ductility in the structure and also included in these factors are other effects
which effectively reduce structural response such as redundancy, over strength and energy
dissipation. The choice of these factors involves a good deal of judgment; there is always a level
of arbitrariness in the values recommended in the codes. Though widely accepted and proven
method of design, it suffers from deficiencies which are highlighted below:

i. The R factors do not quantify the level of damage in the structure; it is not a rational
indicator of damage.
ii. There is no direct relationship between detailing practice and ductility factors;
ductility factors are normally not verified in the design process.
iii. The elastic forces computed in elastic analysis are based on gross stiffness or
effective stiffness of components which is not precisely known at the beginning of
design.
iv. The constant force reduction factors is employed in multi modal response analysis
method while inelastic action primarily reduces response associated with the first
mode; as a result the contribution of higher modes is underestimated.
v. There is a variability observed in R factors over a period range, same R factor is not
applicable in short and long period range. The R factors also depend on hysteretic
characteristics of the material which may be different than elastic- plastic behavior
for which these are normally related.
vi. The structural damage is often experienced to be larger in earthquakes following
this method of design.

Critical view on codes and issues for developments

There are three different seismic codes/design guidelines available for bridges in India as
mentioned in previous paragraphs. All these design codes are based on IS: 1893 (Part 1). The
need for each code and guidelines is justified in view of difference in their scope and range of
applications. Any update in basic code IS: 1893 (Part 1) does not automatically occur in other
codes; the modification in other related codes are to be done by respective institutions and
their code making committees which is often a long drawn process. Most design provisions are
similar but there are marginal differences in the provisions of various codes which causes some
difference in responses. A judgment by designer is often taken to follow the conservative path
in design because of the differences in code provisions. Attempts should be made to minimize
the differences in these codes in future updates. However there are critical issues which are not
considered so far in these codes; these issues should be addressed in future updates of various
codes. The critical views on codes and issues for future developments are presented below:

i. The seismic design of bridges is presently carried out for DBE. The bridges are still
not designed for MCE earthquake. The seismic analysis and design methods for MCE
should be incorporated in the code. Checking of seismic design for two levels of
earthquakes that is DBE and MCE is largely followed in majority of world codes.
 ii. The seismic design is presently carried out by Force based method of design
employing capacity design principles. This requires the use of response reduction
factors. There is always arbitrariness involved in specifying R factors and these are
not considered good indicators of damage. Thus there is a need to upgrade seismic
design methods which should quantify level of damage such as Force based design
with displacement check or Performance based design/ displacement based design.
The performance objectives for different level of earthquakes need to be specified in
design methods besides SLS, ULS and DLS (Damage control limit state).
iii. The nonlinear time history methods of seismic analysis are more rational and these
need to be adopted in seismic design where nonlinearity in behavior is envisaged
particularly for MCE level of earthquake; one of the merits of these design methods
is that these do not require use of R factors.
iv. The issues of seismic assessment of existing undamaged bridges and earthquake
damaged bridges and retrofitting is not covered in the codes; a separate code is
indeed eq i ed fo Sei mic A e men and Re ofi ing of B idge
v. The Seismic design methods employing seismic base isolation and passive energy
dissipating devices should be brought in the codes.
vi. The need for Structural Health Monitoring for Special Category of bridges should be
highlighted in the codes.
vii. The seismic design aspects for near-field motion should also be included.

Need for performance based design

There has been a shift observed in seismic design philosophy in some world codes from
emphasis on prevention of collapse to control of damage through Damage Control Limit State.
This has led to adopting of Performance Based Design (PBD). This trend is now growing and
many of the short comings of existing Forced Based Design can be overcome in this method of
design. The objective of PBD is to achieve predefined level of damage when subjected to
predefined level of Earthquake Intensity. The displacement is found to be better indicator of
damage than ductility. The displacement design procedures are developed which directly relate
damage to strain or drift that are capable of determining damage rationally and enable better
achieving of design limit states. The Direct Displacement Design (Priestley, 2000) is one such
method which considers inelastic action in rational manner in the design process. The seismic
design codes are now gradually adopting Displacement Based Design in place of Force Based
Design in order to achieve limit states of design for different levels of earthquakes (Yashinsky,
2003). The most common approach which is adopted in the format of PBD is Force Based
Design with displacement check (Priestley, 2000). This approach has received wider
acceptability in world codes. To start with such an approach can be explored for Indian codes.
Conclusions
This paper presents an overview of seismic bridge codes and challenges in development of
seismic codes of bridges in India. The paper highlights salient design provisions recommended
in various seismic codes. A critical overview on codes and issues of future developments are
highlighted. Although codes are made to incorporate results of current research and lessons
learnt from performance of bridges in past earthquakes, yet there are gaps between state of art
practice of design and provisions in existing codes; efforts should be made to minimize such
gaps. The future of earthquake resistant design of bridges lies in the nonlinear methods of
dynamic analysis and Performance Based Design, following displacement as the basis of design.

References
1. IRC: SP: 114-2018, Guidelines for Seismic Design for Road Bridges, Indian Roads
Congress
2. IS: 1893-2016, Part 1, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of
Indian Standards
3. IS:1893-2014, Part 3, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 3
Bridges and Retaining Walls, Bureau of Indian Standards
4. RDSO Guidelines on Seismic Design of Railway Bridges, January 2015, Bridge &
Structures Directorate, RDSO, Lucknow
5. IRC:6-2017, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section II,
Loads and Stresses (Revised Edition), Indian Roads Congress
6. Priestley, M.J.N. (2000), Performance Based Design, Paper No. 2831, 12WCEE
7. Thakkar, S.K. (2014), Earthquake Resistant Design of Bridges: Indian Seismic Codes and
Issues for Future Developments, The Bridge and Structural Engineer, Volume 44,
Number 2, June 2014
8. Yashinsky, Mark and Karshenas, M.J. (2003), Fundamentals of Seismic Protection of
Bridges, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
9. Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G.M. (1996) Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.