NOTIFICATION NO.

53 dated the 28 May 2009 Subject: Amendments to Clause No. 202.3, 208, 209.7, 218.5 and 222 of IRC:6-2000 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges Section : II Loads and Stresses (Fourth Revision)

Fourth Revision of IRC:6-2000 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges Section : II Loads and Stresses was published in December, 2000 and reprinted in April 2006 incorporating uptodate amendments till that time. The Indian Roads Congress has decided to further amend the above document. Accordingly, the Amendment No.8 is hereby notified. These amendments shall be effective from the 1 June 2009. (R.P. Indoria) Secretary General Encl: As above Clause No. 202.3 For The load combination shown in Table 1 shall be adopted for working out the stresses in members. The permissible increases of stresses in various members due to these combinations are also indicated therein. These combinations of forces are not applicable for working out base pressure on foundations for which provisions made in relevant IRC Bridge Code shall be adopted. Read The load combination shown in Table 1 shall be adopted for working out the stresses in the members. The permissible increase of stresses in members. The permissible increase of stresses in various members due to these combinations are also indicated therein. These combinations of forces are not applicable for working out base pressure on foundations for which provisions made in relevant IRC Bridge Code shall be adopted. For calculating stresses in members using working stress method of design the load combination as shown in Table 1 shall be adopted. The load combination as shown in Appendix 3 shall be adopted for working out the stresses in members using limit state design approach.

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

91

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 208 Note: However, it should be ensured that the reduced longitudinal effects are not less sever than the longitudinal effect, resulting from simultaneous load on two adjacent lanes. Note: However, it should be ensured that the reduced longitudinal effects are not less severe than the longitudinal effect, resulting from simultaneous load on two adjacent lanes. Longitudinal effects mentioned above are bending moment, shear force and torsion.
P-1 Normal Containment Bridges carrying Expressway, or equivalent 150 kN vehicle at 110 km/h and 20o angle of impact 150 kN vehicle at 80 km/h and 20o angle of impact 300kN vehicle at 60 km/h and 20o angle of impact

209.7

P-1 Normal Containment

Bridges carrying Expressway, or equivalent

P-2 Low Containment

P-3 High Containment

15kN vehicle at 110 km/h and 200 angle of impact All other bridges 15kN vehicle except bridge at 80 km/h over railways and 20o angle of impact At hazardous 30kN vehicle and high risk at 60 km/h locations, over and 20o busy railway angle of lines, complex impact angle interchanges, etc. of impact

P-2 Low Containment

All other bridges except bridge over railways

P-3 High Containment

At hazardous and high risk locations, over busy railway lines, complex interchanges, etc.

218.5

Permissible Increase in Stresses and Load Permissible Increase in Stresses and Load Combinations Combination Tensile stresses resulting from temperature effects not exceeding in the value of two third of the modulus of rupture may be permitted in prestressed concrete bridges. Sufficient amount of non-tensioned steel, shall, however, be provide to control the thermal cracking. Increase in stresses shall be allowed for calculating load effects due to temperature restraint under load combinations. Tensile stresses resulting from temperature effects not exceeding in the value of two third of the modulus of rupture may be permitted in prestressed concrete bridges. Sufficient amount of non-tensioned steel, shall, however, be provide to control the thermal cracking. Increase in stresses shall be allowed for calculating load effects due to temperature restraint under load combinations. Note: Permissible increase in stresses and load combinations as stated under Clause 218.5 is not applicable for limit state design of bridges.

92

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 Appendix 3 COMBINATION OF LOADS FOR LIMIT STATE DESIGN 1 Notes: i) ii) The snow loads may be based on actual observation or past records in the particular area or local practices, if existing. The wave forces shall be determined by suitable analysis considering drawing and inertia forces etc. on single structural members based on rational methods or model studies. In case of group of piles, piers etc., proximity effects shall also be considered. Loads to be considered while arriving at the appropriate combination for carrying out the necessary checks for the design of road bridges and culverts are as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) Dead Load Snow load (See note i) Superimposed dead load such as hand rail, crash barrier, footpath and service loads. Surfacing or wearing coat Back Fill Weight Earth Pressure Primary and Secondary effect of prestress Secondary effects such as creep, shrinkage and settlement. Temperature including restraint and bearing forces. Carriageway live load, footpath live load, construction live loads. Associated carriageway live load such as braking, tractive and centrifugal forces. Accidental effects such as vehicle collision load, barge impact and impact due to floating bodies. Wind Seismic Effect Erection effects Water Current Forces Wave Pressure Buoyancy

Combination of loads for the verification of equilibrium and structural strength under ultimate state

Loads are required to be combined to check the equilibrium and the structural strength under ultimate limit state. The equilibrium of the structure shall be checked against overturning, sliding and uplift. It shall be ensured that the disturbing loads (overturning, sliding and uplifting) shall always be less than the stabilizing or restoring actions. The structural strength under ultimate limit state shall be estimated in order to avoid internal failure or excessive deformation. The equilibrium and the structural strength shall be checked under basic, accidental and seismic combinations of loads. INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 93

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 3. i) Combination Principles

The following principles shall be followed while using these tables for arriving at the combinations: All loads shown under Column 1 of Table 3.1 or Table 3.2 or Table 3.3 or Table 3.4 shall be combined to carry out the relevant verification. ii) While working out the combinations, only one variable load shall be considered as the leading loads at a time. All other variable loads shall be considered as accompanying loads. In case if the variable loads produces favorable effect (relieving effect) the same shall be ignored. iii) For accidental combination, the traffic load on the upper deck of a bridge (when collision with the pier due to traffic under the bridge occurs) shall be treated as the leading load. In all other accidental situations the traffic load shall be treated as the accompanying load. iv) During construction the relevant design situation shall be taken into account. v) These combinations are not valid for verifying the fatigue limit state. 4. Basic Combination

4.1. For checking the equilibrium For checking the equilibrium of the structure, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 2 or 3 under Table 3.1 shall be adopted. 4.2. For checking the structural strength For checking the structural strength, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 2 under Table 3.2 shall be adopted. 5. Accidental Combination For checking the equilibrium of the structure, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 4 or 5 under Table 3.1 and for checking the structural strength, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 3 under Table 3.2 shall be adopted. 6. Seismic Combination For checking the equilibrium of the structure, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 6 or 7 under Table 3.1 and for checking the structural strength, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 4 under Table 3.2 shall be adopted. 7. Combination of Loads for the Verification of Serviceability Limit State Loads are required to be combined to satisfy the serviceability requirements. The serviceability limit state check shall be carried out in order to have control on stress, deflection, vibration, crack width, settlement and to estimate shrinkage and creep effects. It shall be ensured that the design value obtained by using the appropriate combination shall be less than the limiting value of serviceability criterion as per the relevant code. The rare combination of loads shall be used for checking the stress limit. The frequent combination of loads shall be used for checking the deflection, vibration and crack width. The quasi-permanent combination of loads shall be used for checking the settlement, shrinkage creep effects and the permanent stress in concrete. 7.1. Rare Combination For checking the stress limits, the partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 2 under Table 3.3 shall be adopted.

94

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 7.2. Frequent Combination For checking the deflection, vibration and crack width, in prestressed concrete structures, partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 3 under Table 3.3 shall be adopted. 7.3. Quasi-permanent Combinations For checking the crack width in RCC structures, settlement, creep effects and to estimate the permanent stress in the structure, partial safety factor for loads shown in column no. 4 under Table 3.3 shall be adopted. 8. Combination for Design of Foundations For checking the base pressure under foundation and to estimate the structural strength which includes the geotechnical loads, the partial safety factor for loads for 3 combinations shown in Table 3. 4 shall be used. The material safety factor for the soil parameters, resistance factor and the allowable bearing pressure for these combinations shall be as per relevant code. Note: An Explanatory note will be included in a Special Publication on Limit State Design of Bridges as and when the Concrete Bridge Code is finalized. Table 3. 1 Partial Safety Factor for Verification of Equilibrium Basic Combination Accidental Combination Seismic Combination (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Overturning Restoring Overturning Restoring Overturning Restoring or Sliding or or Resisting or Sliding or or Resisting or Sliding or or Resisting Uplift Effect Effect Uplift Effect Effect Uplift Effect Effect 1.05 0.95 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Loads (1)

Permanent Loads: Dead Load, Snow load if present, SIDL except surfacing, Backfill weight, settlement, creep and shrinkage effect Surfacing Prestress and Secondary effect of prestress (refer note 5) Earth pressure due to Back Fill Variable Loads : Carriageway Live Load, associated loads (braking, tractive and centrifugal forces) and Pedestrian Live Load

1.35

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.50

1.0

1.0

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

95

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 (a) As Leading Load (b) As accompanying Load (c) Construction Live Load Thermal Loads (a) As Leading Load (b) As accompanying Load Wind (a) As Leading Load (b) As accompanying Load Live Load Surcharge effects (as accompanying load) Accidental effects: i) Vehicle collision (or) ii) Barge Impact (or) iii) Impact due to floating bodies Seismic Effect (a) During Service (b) During Construction Construction Condition: Counter Weights: a) When density or self weight is well defined b) When density or self weight is not well defined c) Erection effects Wind (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load Hydraulic Loads: (Accompanying Load): Water current forces Wave Pressure Hydro dynamic effect Buoyancy 96 1.5 1.15 1.35 1.50 0.9 1.50 0.9 1.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0.2 1.0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.2 1.0 0.5 0 0 0 -

1.0

1.0 0.5

1.05 1.50 1.20

0.9 0.8 0.95 0 0

1.0 1.0 -

1.0 1.0 -

1.0 1.0 1.0

0 0 -

1.0 1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 Notes: 1) 2) 3) During launching the counterweight position shall be allowed a variation of 1m for steel bridges. For Combination principles refer Para 2 Thermal load includes restraints associated with expansion/contraction due to type of construction (Portal frame, arch and elastomeric bearings), frictional restraint in metallic bearings and thermal gradients. This combination, however, is not valid for the design of bearing and expansion joint. Partial safety factor for prestress and secondary effect of prestress shall be as recommended in the relevant codes. Wherever Snow Load is applicable, Clause 224 shall be referred for combination of snow load and live load. Seismic effect during erection stage is reduced to half when construction phase does not exceed 5 years. For repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting the load combination shall be project specific. Table 3.2 Partial Safety Factor for Verification of Structural Strength Ultimate Limit State Basic Combination Accidental Combination Seismic Combination (2) (3) (4)

4) Wind load and thermal load need not be taken simultaneously. 5) 6) 7) 8)

Loads (1) Permanent Loads: Dead Load, Snow load if present, SIDL except surfacing (a) Adding to the effect of variable action (b) Opposing the effect of variable action

1.35 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

Surfacing: Effects adding to the effect of variable action Effects opposing the effect of variable action Prestress and Secondary effect of prestress (refer note no. 2) Back fill Weight Earth pressure due to Back Fill (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

1.75 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.50

1.0

1.0

1.50 1.0

1.0

1.0 1.0

97

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 Variable Loads: Carriageway Live Load and associated actions (braking, tractive and centrifugal forces) and Pedestrian Live Load: (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load (c) Construction Live Load Wind during service and construction (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load Live Load Surcharge (as accompanying load) Erection effects Accidental Effects: i) Vehicle Collision (or) ii) Barge Impact (or) iii) Impact due to floating bodies Seismic Effect (a) During Service (b) During Construction Hydraulic Loads (Accompanying Load): Water Current Forces Wave Pressure Hydro dynamic effect Buoyancy Notes: 1) 2) 3) For Combination principles, refer Para 2. Partial safety factor for prestress and secondary effect of prestress shall be as recommended in the relevant codes. Wherever Snow Load is applicable, Clause 224 shall be referred for combination of snow load and live load.

1.5 1.15 1.35

0.75 0.2 1.0

0 0.2 1.0

1.50 0.9 1.2 1.0

0.2 1.0

0.2 1.0

1.0

1.0 0.5

1.0 1.0 0.15

1.0 1.0 0.15

1.0 1.0 1.0 0.15

98

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 Table No. 3.3 Partial Safety Factor for Verification of Serviceability Limit State Loads Rare Frequent Quasi-permanent Combination Combination Combination (1) (2) (3) (4) Permanent Loads: Dead Load, Snow load if present, SIDL including surfacing Back fill Weight Prestress and Secondary effect of prestress (Refer note no. 4) Shrinkage and Creep Effects Earth Pressure due to Back Fill Settlement Effects (a) Adding to the permanent effect (b) Opposing the permanent effect Variable Loads: Carriageway Live Load and associated loads(braking, tractive and centrifugal forces) and Pedestrian Live Load (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load Thermal Loads (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load Wind (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load Live Load Surcharge (Accompanying Load) Hydraulic Loadss (Accompanying Load): Water Current Forces Wave Pressure Buoyancy 1.0 1.0 0.15 1.0 1.0 0.15 0.15

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 0

1.0 1.0 1.0 0

1.0 0.75 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.60 0.80

0.75 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.60 0.50 0

0 0.5 0 0

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

99

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 Notes: 1) 2) For Combination principles, refer Para 2. Thermal load includes restraints associated with expansion/contraction due to type of construction (Portal frame, arch and elastomeric bearings), frictional restraint in metallic bearings and thermal gradients. This combination, however, is not valid for the design of bearing and expansion joint. Wind and thermal loads need not be taken simultaneously. Partial safety factor for prestress and secondary effect of prestress shall be as recommended in the relevant codes. Where Snow Load is applicable, Clause 224 shall be referred for combination of snow load and live load. Table 3. 4 Combination for Base Pressure and Design of Foundation Loads Combination Combination (1) (2) (1) (2) (3) Permanent Loads: Dead Load, Snow load if present, SIDL except surfacing, Back Fill earth filling SIDL Surfacing Prestress Effect (Refer note 4) Settlement Effect Earth Pressure due to back fill (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load Variable Loads: All carriageway loads and associated loads (braking, tractive and centrifugal) and pedestrian load (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load Thermal Loads as accompanying load Wind (a) Leading Load (b) Accompanying Load Live Load Surcharge as Accompanying Load (if applicable) 100

3) 4) 5)

Seismic / Accidental Combination (4)

1.35 1.75

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 or 0 1.50 1.0

1.0 or 0 1.30 0.85

1.0 or 0 1.0

1.5 1.15 0.90 1.5 0.9 1.2

1.3 1.0 0.80 1.3 0.80 1.0

(0.75 if applicable) or 0 0.2 0.5 0 0.2

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 Accidental Effect or Seismic Effect Seismic effect during construction Erection effects Hydraulic Loads: Water Current Wave Pressure Hydro dynamic effect Buoyancy: For Base Pressure For Structural Design Notes: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) For combination principles, refer para 2. Where two partial factors are indicated for loads, both these factors shall be considered for arriving at the severe effect. Wind and Thermal effects need not be taken simultaneously. Partial safety factor for prestress and secondary effect of prestress shall be as recommended in the relevant codes. Wherever Snow Load is applicable, Clause 224 shall be referred for combination of snow load and live load. Seismic effect during erection stage is reduced to half when construction phase does not exceed 5 years. For repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting the load combination shall be project specific. 222. Seismic Force 222.1 Applicability: 222.1.1 All bridges supported on piers, pier bents, and arches, directly or through bearings, and not exempted below in the category (a) and (b), are to be designed for horizontal and vertical forces as given in the following clauses. The following types of bridges need not be checked for seismic effects: (a) (b) Culverts and minor bridges up to 10 m span in all seismic zones Bridges in seismic Zones II and III satisfying both limits of total length not exceeding 60 m and spans not exceeding 15 m 1.0 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0 1.0 0.15 1.0 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0 1.0 0.15 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0 1.0 or 0 1.0 0.15

222.1.2 Special investigations should be carried out for the bridges of following description: (1) (3) Bridges more than 150 m span Cable supported bridges, such as extradosed, cable stayed, and. suspension bridges (2) Bridges with piers taller than 30 m in Zones IV and V

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

101

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 (4) Arch bridges having more than 50 m span (5) Bridges having any of the special seismic resistant features such as seismic isolators, dampers etc. (6) Bridges using innovative structural arrangements and materials. Notes for special investigations: 1. In all seismic zones, areas covered within 10 km from the known active faults are classified as Near Field Regions. For all bridges located within Near Field Regions, except those exempted in clause 222.1.1, special investigations should be carried out. The information about the active faults should be sought by bridge authorities for projects situated within 100 km of known epicenters as a part of preliminary investigations at the project preparation stage. Special investigations should include aspects such as need for site specific spectra, independency of component motions, spatial variation of excitation, need to include soil-structure interaction, suitable methods of structural analysis in view of geometrical and structural non-linear effects, characteristics and reliability of seismic isolation and other special seismic resistant devices, etc. Site specific spectrum, wherever its need is established in the special investigation, shall be used, subject to the minimum values specified for relevant seismic Zones, given in Fig. 13.

2.

3.

222.1.3 Masonry and plain concrete arch bridges with span more than 10m shall be avoided in Zones IV and V and in near field region. 222.2 Seismic Zones

For the purpose of determining the seismic forces, the Country is classified into four zones as shown in Fig. 11. For each Zone a factor Z is associated, the value of which is given in Table 5.

Fig. 11 Seismic Zones of India ( IS: 1893 (Part I):2002)

102

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 Note: Bridge locations and towns falling at the boundary line demarcating two zones shall be considered in the higher zone. TABLE 5 ZONE FACTOR (Z) Zone No. V IV III II Zone Factor (Z) 0.36 0.24 0.16 0.10

222.3 Components of Seismic Motion The characteristics of seismic ground motion expected at any location depend upon the magnitude of earthquake, depth of focus, distance of epicenter and characteristics of the path through which the seismic wave travels. The random ground motion can be resolved in three mutually perpendicular directions. The components are considered to act simultaneously, but independently and their method of combination is described in section 222.4. Two horizontal components are taken as of equal magnitude, and vertical component is taken as two third of horizontal component. In zones IV and V the effects of vertical components shall be considered for all elements of the bridge. The effect of vertical component may be omitted for all elements in zone II and III, except for the following cases: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) prestressed concrete decks bearings and linkages horizontal cantilever structural elements for stability checks and bridges located in the near field regions

222.4 Combination of Component Motions 1.The seismic forces shall be assumed to come from any horizontal direction. For this purpose two separate analyses shall be performed for design seismic forces acting along two orthogonal horizontal directions. The design seismic force resultants (i.e. axial force, bending moments, shear forces, and torsion) at any cross-section of a bridge component resulting from the analyses in the two orthogonal horizontal directions shall be combined as below (Fig.12). a) b) Where r2= r1= Force resultant due to full design seismic force along x direction. Force resultant due to full design seismic force along z direction. 0.3r1r2 r10.3r2

2. When vertical seismic forces are also considered, the design seismic force resultants at any cross section of a bridge component shall be combined as below: a) b) c) r10.3r20.3r3 0.3r1r20.3r3 0.3r1 0.3r2r3 103

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 where r1 and r2 are as defined above and r3 is the force resultant due to full design seismic force along the vertical direction.

Fig. 12: Combination of Orthogonal Seismic Forces

Note: Analysis of bridge as a whole is carried out for global axes X and Z and effects obtained are combined for design about local axes as shown. 222.5 Computation of Seismic Response Following methods are used for computation of seismic response depending upon the complexity of the structure and the input ground motion. (1) For most of the bridges, elastic seismic acceleration method is adequate. In this method, the first fundamental mode of vibration is calculated and the corresponding acceleration is read from Fig. 13. This acceleration is applied to all parts of the bridge for calculation of forces as per clause 222.5.1. 104 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 (2) Elastic Response Spectrum Method: This is a general method, suitable for more complex structural systems (e. g. continuous bridges, bridges with large difference in pier heights, bridges which are curved in plan, etc), in which dynamic analysis of the structure is performed to obtain the first as well as higher modes of vibration and the forces obtained for each mode by use of response spectrum from Fig. 13 and clause 222.5.1. These modal forces are combined by following appropriate combinational rules to arrive at the design forces. Reference is made to specialist literature for the same. 222.5.1 Horizontal Seismic Force The horizontal seismic forces acting at the centers of mass, which are to be resisted by the structure as a whole, shall be computed as follows: Feq where, Feq = seismic force to be resisted horizontal seismic coefficient = (Z/2)*(I)*(Sa/g)). Appropriate live load shall be taken as per Clause 222.5.2 Zo ne factor as given in Table 5 Importance Factor (see Clause 222.5.1.1) Fundamental period of the bridge (in sec.) for horizontal vibrations. = Ah Z I T = = = = Ah (Dead Load + Appropriate Live Load)

Fundamental time period of the bridge member is to be calculated by any rational method of analysis adopting the Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete as per IRC: 21-2000, and taking gross uncracked section for moment of inertia. The fundamental period of vibration can also be calculated by the method given in Appendix-2. Sa/g = Average response acceleration coefficient for 5 percent damping of load resisting elements depending upon the fundamental period of vibration T as given in Fig. 13 which is based on the following equations. For rocky, or hard soil sites, Type I soil with N >30

For medium soil sites, Type II soil with, 10<N 30

For soft soil sites, Type III soil with N <10 Note: In the absence of calculations of fundamental period for small bridges, the value of Sa/g may be taken as 2.5.

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

105

NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Fig. 13 Response Spectra For damping other than 5% offered by load resisting elements, the multiplying factors as given below shall be used. Damping % Factor Application 2 5 1.4 1.0 Prestressed concrete, Steel Reinforced Concrete and composite steel elements elements 10 0.8 Retrofitting of old bridges with RC piers

222.5.1.1 Seismic Importance Factor-I Bridges are designed to resist design basis earthquake (DBE) level, or other higher or lower magnitude of forces, depending on the consequences of their partial or complete non-availability, due to damage or failure from seismic events. The level of design force is obtained by multiplying (Z/2) by factor I, which represents seismic importance of the structure. Combination of factors considered in assessing the consequences of failure,- and hence choice of factor I,- include inter alia, (a) Extent of disturbance to traffic and possibility of providing temporary diversion, (b) Availability of alternative routes, (c) (d) (e) Cost of repairs and time involved, which depend on the extent of damages, - minor or major, Cost of replacement, and time involved in reconstruction in case of failure, Indirect economic loss due to its partial or full non-availability,

Importance factors are given in Table 6 for different types of bridges. 106 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 Table 6 Importance Factor Seismic Class Normal bridges Illustrative Examples All bridges except those mentioned in other classes Important bridges a) River bridges and flyovers inside cities b) Bridges on National and State Highways c) Bridges serving traffic near ports and other centers of economic activities d) Bridges crossing railway lines Large critical bridges in all Seismic a) Long bridges more than 1km length across Zones perennial rivers and creeks b) Bridges for which alternative routes are not available Importance Factor I 1 1.2

1.5

Note: While checking for seismic effects during construction, the importance factor of 1 should considered for all bridges in all zones. 222.5.2 Live Load components The seismic force due to live load shall not be considered when acting in the direction of traffic, but shall be considered in the direction perpendicular to the traffic. (ii) The horizontal seismic force in the direction perpendicular to the traffic shall be calculated using 20% of live load (excluding impact factor). (iii) The vertical seismic force shall be calculated using 20% of live load (excluding impact factor). Note: The reduced percentages of live loads are applicable only for calculating the magnitude of seismic design force and are based on the assumption that only 20% of the live load is present over the bridge at the time of earthquake. 222.5.3 Water Current, and Depth of Scour The depth of scour under seismic condition to be considered for design shall be 0.9 times the maximum scour depth. The flood level for calculating hydrodynamic force and water current force is to be taken as average of yearly maximum design floods. For river bridges, average may preferably based on consecutive 7 years data, or based on local enquiry in the absence of such data. 222.5.4 Hydrodynamic and Earth pressure Forces under Seismic Condition In addition to inertial forces arising from the dead load and live load, hydrodynamic forces act on the submerged part of the structure and are transmitted to the foundations. Also, additional earth pressures due to earthquake act on the retaining portions of abutments. For values of these loads reference is made to IS:1893-2002. These forces shall be considered in the design of bridges in zones IV and V. Additional earth pressure forces described above need not be considered on other components such as wing walls and return walls since these elements are easily repairable at low cost. 222.5.5 Design Forces for Elements of Structures and Use of Response Reduction Factor The forces on various members obtained from the elastic analysis of bridge structure are to be divided by Response Reduction Factor given in Table 7 before combining with other forces as per load combinations given in Table 1. The allowable increase in permissible stresses should be as per Table 1. INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 107 (i)

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 Table 7 Response Reduction Factors Bridge Component Superstructure Substructure (i) Masonry /PCC piers, abutments (ii) RCC short plate piers where plastic hinge cannot develop in direction of length, and RCC abutments (iii) RCC long piers where hinges can develop (iv) Column (v) Beams of RCC portal frames supporting bearings Bearings Connectors and Stoppers (Reaction blocks) Those restraining dislodgement or drifting away of bridge elements. These are additional safety measures in the event of failure of bearings. 1.0 1.0 R with ductile detailing N. A 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 R without ductile detailing 2.0 1.0 2.5 3.3 3.3 1.0 2.0

Notes: (i) Those parts of the structural elements of foundations which are not in contact with soil and transferring load to it, are treated as part of sub-structure element. (ii) Response reduction factor is not to be applied for calculation of displacements of elements of bridge and for bridge as a whole. 222.6 Fully Embedded Portions Parts of structure embedded in soil below scour level need not be considered to produce any seismic forces. 222.7 Liquefaction In loose sands and poorly graded sands with little or no fines, the vibrations due to earthquake may cause liquefaction, or excessive total and differential settlements. Founding bridges on such sands should be avoided unless appropriate methods of compaction or stabilisation are adopted. Alternatively the foundations should be taken deeper; below liquefiable layers, to firm strata. Reference should be made to the specialist literature for analysis of liquefaction potential. 222.8 Foundation Design Foundations subjected to seismic load from all sources (ref.222.5.3 and 222.5.4), and taking combinations and allowable stresses as given in IRC:78 should be designed as per IRC: 78 to limit the bearing stresses within allowable limits and, avoiding overturning, sliding, and deep seated failure with safety factor of 1.5, 1.25 and 1.15 respectively. For this verification, the seismic loads on foundations should be taken as 1.25 times the forces transmitted to it by substructure, so as to provide sufficient margin to cover the possible higher forces transmitted by substructure arising out of its over strength. 108 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 222.9 Ductile Detailing Mandatory Provisions (i) In Zones IV and V, to prevent dislodgement of superstructure, reaction blocks (additional safety measures in the event of failure of bearings) or other types of seismic arresters shall be provided and designed for the seismic force (Feq/R). Pier and abutment caps shall be generously dimensioned, to prevent dislodgement of severe groundshaking. The examples of seismic features shown in Fig, 14 to 16 are only indicative and suitable arrangements will have to be worked out in specific cases.

(ii) To improve the performance of bridges during earthquakes, the bridges in seismic zones IV and V may be specifically detailed for ductility for which IS: 13920 or any other specialist literature may be referred to. Recommended Provisions (i) In order to mitigate the effects of earthquake forces described above, special seismic devices such as Shock Transmission Units, Base Isolation, Seismic Fuse, Lead Plug, etc, may be provided based on specialized literature, international practices, satisfactory testing etc.

(ii) Continuous superstructure (with fewer number of bearings and expansion joints) or integral bridges (in which the substructure or superstructure are made joint less, i.e. monolithic), if not unsuitable otherwise, can possibly provide high ductility leading to better behavior during earthquake. (iii) Elastomeric bearings with arrester control in both directions may also be considered. Note: A Background Note for Seismic Force Clause is given in Appendix-4

Fig. 14 Example of Seismic reaction blocks for continuous superstructure

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

109

NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Fig. 15 Example of seismic reaction blocks for simply supported bridges

Fig. 16 Minimum dimension for support

110

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53

CLAUSE: 222 SEISMIC FORCE (Background Note)

1 INTRODUCTION

Appendix 4

A Sub-Committee comprising Late Dr. T.N. Subba Rao, S/Shri S.G. Joglekar and D.K. Kanhere was formed by B-2 Committee to carry out a detailed review of the interim provision in Clause No. 222 relating to Seismic Forces in the existing IRC: 6 (post January, 2003 revision of the code) and compare the same with the provision in the pre-January version of the code and submit its findings and views to the B-2 Committee for deliberation. The first interim report of the Sub-Committee was discussed in B-2 Committee meeting on 8th & 9th December 2006. After a series of detailed discussions and deliberations in B-2 committee, the draft Document titled PROPOSED REVISION OF CLAUSE 222: SEISMIC FORCE in IRC: 6 2000 was approved by the B-2 committee in its 9th Meeting held on 3rd November, 2008 for submission to the BSS committee. It was felt that a background note explaining the rationale and approach behind the proposed revision of clauses will be useful for appreciating the various provisions in the Clause. This report is accordingly prepared to provide an informative background to the proposed revision. The following documents have been referred to in preparation of this Background Note: 2 IS: 1893 (Part-1) -2002 General provisions and buildings. Draft of IS: 1893 (Part 3) -2005 Bridges and Retaining Walls (under consideration of BIS Committee). The draft of long version of Seismic Design Guidelines under finalization by B 2 Committee. Eurocode: 8 Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Part-1: General rules, - Part-2: Bridges Fundamentals of Seismic Protection for Bridges: by Yashinsky and Karshenas. BASIS OF RECOMENDATIONS

2.1 Force Based and Performance Based Approaches Approach of the present IRC code (post January, 2003 revision), like BIS standard IS: 1893 is based on force based approach, for achieving safety of bridges in seismic event. In this approach, the effect of earthquake is represented by a set of forces, which should be considered in the design. Internationally, as well as in India, the force based approach has worked well in regions of low seismicity. However, it is found to be woefully inadequate in high seismicity zones (refer Fig 1). Most of the international codes dealing with regions of high seismicity have now adopted a new approach known as Performance Based Philosophy, which basically attempts to specify the response viz. the desired performance of the bridge during and after the earthquake and achieve the same by formulating suitable design rules. A detailed description of this approach and the performance criteria adopted in this method is outside the scope of this note. It is realized that at this stage, it is not possible to fully adopt this approach, till the Indian National Standards i.e BIS also change over to this approach, when Limit State Codes are introduced by IRC and Long Version of IS 1893 (Part 3) is finalized. However, it is possible to adopt the underlying concepts, and some of the methods, while continuing with the force based approach, in order to target at the desired seismic behavior of bridges during and after the Design Basis Earthquake. The targeted behavior shall be stated in terms of aims to be archived. The use of force based methods will have to be supplemented by prescriptive recommendations so that the performance targets (aims) of the design are at least qualitatively taken into account, if not precisely calculated. This has to be done, using engineering judgment, on the basis of the observations of damages suffered by bridges in seismic events. INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 111

NOTIFICATION NO. 53

Fig.1: Total collapse of flyover during the Kobe earthquake of 1995

2.2 Combination of Force Based Approach and Targets of Performance

From the above point of view the following mixed approach is suggested: Desirable functional and structural behaviors of bridges during and after earthquake are stated as aims to be achieved. These are: The expected levels of service in terms of the full or partial availability of bridge for use after the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE). No significant structural damage and may be some non-structural damage in the event of chosen level of earthquake for design. This level is described in terms of Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), as defined by IS: 1893-2002 (Part 1). This DBE level is chosen as 50% of the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), which is considered as the maximum potential seismic event in the zone. Targeted structural response is described in terms of permissible stresses, permissible overloading in plastic region of material strains, residual deformations after the event, types of acceptable but repairable damages of various components and extent of the same, when combined with other loads in combinations as per IRC: 6-2000. Since it is not economical to design bridges to remain fully functional in the event of MCE, an overall balance is sought between the safety in DBE event, limiting risk of damage to the bridge due to earthquake and consequential indirect economic loss, on one hand; and the cost of repair, temporary diversion, or complete reconstruction and time involved in partial or full closure of the bridge at higher level of earthquake, on the other hand. For the present, this balance is necessarily based on the overall engineering judgment.

In application of these concepts (in order to keep the cost and time of design effort within practical limits), simplified prescriptive rules are to be given by the Codes of Practice, covering normal types of structures. This is achieved by : Keeping the analytical and design efforts within the capabilities of normally available design tools, and Giving prescriptive detailing recommendations to achieve enhanced behavior of the bridge, based on the national and international experience of major seismic events.

These simple rules should be reviewed from time to time to keep pace with the experience of using the rules and the newly developing knowledge and methods. INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

112

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 2.3 Identification of Seismic Hazards Although acceleration of various parts of the structure and resulting inertial forces is the main concern of force based seismic design, other hazardous situations associated with seismic events do also arise. These need to be taken into account. The code dealing with seismic design in an overall way has to cover these aspects. IRC: 6 deals with Loads and Stresses alone and has limited coverage. It should, however, include near field effects also. Other hazards mentioned bellow will have to be covered elsewhere : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3 1) Liquefaction. Landslide Tsunami Structures which unavoidably cross a seismically active fault zone and those exposed to danger of relative permanent ground movement. Flooding due to dam failure in upstream of the bridge CHOICE OF DESIGN FORCES Design Earthquake.

3.1 Methods and Some Observations IS: 1893 (Part1) divides the country in four zones. The basic philosophy and approach for zoning is best described in Foreword of IS: 1893 (Part 1) and reference is made to the same. Briefly, the maximum ground acceleration anywhere in each zone is described by the Zone Factor Z. This acceleration is independent of the location of structure in relation to the locations of seismically active faults. In any seismic zone, except in the near field regions, the maximum seismic hazard of ground acceleration is defined in terms of Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) in each zone (described by the Zone factor). Designing bridges for this level of hazard and keeping them within elastic range is expensive. It is international practice to allow formation of plastic deformations in the structure without reaching failure limit, and to repair the damaged portions in case of MCE event. In many countries, more than one level of earthquake are used to achieve different levels of performances at the specified levels of earthquakes. The performance levels are usually defined to avoid complete collapse, to limit damage to specific repairable parts, or to have higher capacity for dead load and live load combination, but accept damage for dead load condition only and so on. In IS: 1893, this is achieved by choosing a lower level of hazard for the design, termed as Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), which the IS: 1893 has recommended as 50% of MCE. IRC: 6 follow the same method. To account for the relative economic consequences of non-availability/failure of the structure, a factor termed as seismic Importance Factor I is recommended, use of which effectively changes the level of seismic design forces (increases, if I >1), or in other words, the risk of damage/failure in actual seismic event is reduced. The MCE is not used for any design checks. Internationally, Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and Operating Basis Earthquake are based on the statistical probability. As explained in Foreword of IS:1893, due to lack of adequate statistical data, this kind of rationalization and achieving even a semblance of uniformity of risk levels for different structures in different zones is not yet possible, and a simple reduction factor of 2 is used. 2) Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and Design Basis Earthquake (DBE). Although the seismic potentials of the zones as described by maximum considered earthquake (MCE) are large, INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009 113

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 only 50% of MCE acceleration has been recommended by IS: 1893 as design basis earthquake (DBE). This has been chosen, as stated in IS: 1893, on the basis of accepting certain level of damage in the event of DBE, based on the past experience of building damages (described by MSK-64 scale) and in view of achieving economy in design. For events larger than Z/2, certain risk of significant damage exists and is accepted. This apparently over simplified uniform treatment for all structures across the zone (by use of common value of Z/2 ) is corrected by means of a multiplying factor I which modifies the design level of acceleration (and forces) for different types of structures as explained above. Part 1, and other published parts of IS: 1893, recommend the values of I factors varying from 1 to 2 for structures being used for different purposes. The choice seems to depend partly on the need of immediate post earthquake availability and partly upon the consequential economic implications due to loss of service. Apparently, although not stated explicitly, it seems to have been assumed that the loss of life will be avoided (or minimised) by engineering design of the structures, as per the codal recommendations. 3) Acceptable Risks as per IRC: 6 The performance targets, or aims, of the seismic provisions of this code are :(a) to ensure that the bridge does not collapse under the action of design level of earthquake, (b) its components may suffer minor or major damages depending upon the extent to which it enters in a plastic deformation stage, (c) damages to minor and replaceable elements like expansion joints, hand rails etc., are permitted. (d) Serviceability of bridge can be restored after repairs, (e) the increased cost to meet the above targeted performance is reasonable. For some critical bridges, consequences of structure entering in plastic regions, such as residual deformations, or damage extending to many members, or to inaccessible foundation elements, etc. will lead to long period of closure, and vary high cost and time of repair. In such cases, the likely damages may be directly verified by special analyses. If found unacceptable, the design forces can be upgraded (by using higher I factor) to control the damage. 4) Estimation of Design Forces Acting on Structure When subjected to ground motion described by Z/2, the accelerations and the inertial forces experienced by various parts of the structure depend on their overall dynamic characteristics, which in turn depend on the distribution of mass and stiffness of various components. Two methods of calculating the response are permitted by the code: In the analysis, two methods are permitted depending on the complexity of the structure, as described bellow: (a) The Elastic Seismic Acceleration Method is more commonly used for bridge structures which are on straight alignment and which have regular structural arrangement in each direction. The natural period of vibration for each of the two (or three) directions is calculated for the first (fundamental) mode of vibration. These periods are used to calculate the acceleration A seen by the bridge as a whole, with help of the response spectra. The response spectra expresses acceleration responses of single degree of freedom oscillators having different time periods of natural vibration as a function of time period. The accelerations are expressed in non dimensional form (Sa/g) and are normalized to the zero period ground acceleration, taken as 1. In this method the maximum acceleration (Ah) seen by the mass of oscillator is given by [Z* /2] *[Sa/g], which is further modified by multiplying by the importance factor I. (b) The Elastic Response Spectrum Method which is a general method suitable for more complex structural systems; such as continuous bridges, bridge with large difference in pier heights, and bridges which are curved in plan.

114

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 (i) In the rigorous method, the bridge structure is modeled as a multiple degree of freedom system consisting of lumped masses connected by mass-less members characterized by their elastic stiffness for bending, shear and axial forces. The structure is analysed for obtaining its response in different modes of vibration, which are combined giving appropriate weights to participating modes. This is repeated for other directions of motion and suitable combinational rules are used to obtain the integrated response for design verifications.

The response obtained is in elastic domain and is used directly in the design if the structure is designed to remain within elastic limits, (below yield). (ii) A simplified analysis is permitted for regular bridges with simple foundations, more or less uniform piers and beam type superstructure. This is called Seismic Coefficient Method in which a single coefficient Ah is used to convert structures mass into horizontal seismic force. Coefficient Ah is based upon the fundamental natural period of the structure as a whole, and the response spectrum, as in case of the more rigorous method. 5) Response Reduction Factor (a) Designing bridges to remain elastic at MCE level is not economical. It is expensive even at the DBE level, as compared to the designs based on methods recommended by IS: 1893-1984. IS: 1893 2002 has considered it adequate to ensure that at chosen design level Z /2, the structure is subjected to minor damage, but can be allowed to reach yield at load factor of 1.2, yield being defined by the codal methods of assessment (concrete/ steel codes), using characteristic strengths of materials and the partial material factors as per the relevant codes. In the working load/allowable stress method, as followed presently by IRC, the basic aim remains the same as that of IS: 1893, but without the load factor of 1.2. In order to permit plastic deformation of the structure, and verifying the same without using non linear analysis, a method of Response reduction factor is used, basis of which is explained below : (b) Fig. 2 shows actual non linear response of the structure, its idealized bi-linear response, and the fully elastic response assuming that the structure remains elastic till failure. max and e represent the maximum displacements of inelastic and elastic systems, which are assumed to be about equal. The research shows this assumption to be reasonable for moderate to long period structures. The elastic ultimate moment Me (forces in general) is obtained by performing elastic analysis and is reduced by dividing by response reduction factor R, to obtain Mb. Mb is then used in design of the structure using linear analysis and combining results with moments (forces in general) resulting from other loads. In effect, the seismic force considered in the analysis is reduced from [Z.I/2]*[Sa/g] arrived in 3(a) to a lower value of [Z.I/2R]*[Sa/g], which is the familiar codal expression for Ah. (c)& Choice of response reduction factors The choice of R factor depends on the performance objectives of the bridge. If one intends to keep the bridge within more or less elastic limits, a value of 1 is indicated. If full plasticity is to be exploited, large value is chosen. If partial plastic development is preferred, leaving margins for uncertainties, or for a larger seismic event, some intermediate 115

Fig. 2. Elastic and inelastic forcedeformation relationships (ATC/MCEER 2001).

INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009

NOTIFICATION NO. 53 value of R is chosen. The choice is also influenced by the extent of built-in indeterminancy, which leads to extra (reserve) capacity of deformation after development of the first plastic hinge before complete collapse takes place. The overstrength of the member is another margin to be kept in mind while choosing the value of R factor. Overstrength is the actual extra built-in strength over and above the design strength, arising out of the conservative estimation of material strengths and detailing practices. Correct calculation of R factor is a complex issue. Much research has gone in this and more is needed. While choosing R factors for Indian conditions on the basis of international codes and practices, the fundamental differences between design philosophies, reliability of data base, and more importantly, the performance targets should be carefully considered. Consideration of depth of scour and combination with the average yearly maximum flood.

6)

The present practice of considering 0.9 times maximum scour depth for seismic checks is rational, and is recommended to be continued. The logic of not reducing scour depth further is based on the fact that the scour holes filled up during receding floods are filled with the loose deposits and cannot be relied upon to provide lateral support against large earthquake forces. The recommendation to consider design level of earthquake with maximum average yearly flood is to provide for a rare, but reasonable, combination and avoid combining two extremely rare events of high flood of 100 or more years of return period and earthquake. 7) Recommendations of Draft of IS: 1893(Part 3) 2005 on Bridges Draft of the above code which was under discussion in BIS committee was made available by Prof.Thakkar. This code generally follows the philosophy of IS:1893 (Part-I) and is similar to the presently proposed IRC:6 clauses, with deviations in applicability of hydro-dynamic forces and earth pressure forces.. IS recommends the same for all zones, whereas proposed clauses of IRC:6 limit their application in Zones IV and V, and in near field regions. This is based on the more or less satisfactory performance of bridges in Zones II and III in the past. 4 PAST PERFORMANCE OF BRIDGES On the basis of past experience of last 50 years or so of earthquakes, which has been well documented, it can be seen that very few bridges have collapsed under action of earthquake. In fact, major damages have been in the region of bearings, dislodgement of superstructure, damage to expansion joints, handrails etc. In very few cases, foundations have been damaged in the regions of severe soil disturbance, such as liquefaction, and displacement of soil mass just below the foundations. By and large, such situations are exceptional and highly localised. These can be avoided with proper identification of seismic hazards. Briefly, it can be stated that, in spite of having been designed for the lower seismic forces than those presently proposed in IRC: 6, the structures have generally performed well requiring attention to mainly bearings, dislodgement of superstructure etc. Two or three reasons could be behind this satisfactory performance. First, most of the bridges have been designed using static equivalent forces without considerations of flexibility and long period of vibration. This resulted in extra built-in strength for bridges with tall piers and long spans. For medium to small span bridges, the seismic design forces had been underestimated, but they have also survived. This could be because of built-in margin obtained by combining water current forces at high flood levels with earthquake forces, and these floods being absent when large earthquakes took place. However, in spite of the above considerations, a large gap still exists between the recommended higher forces by the present IS:1893/IRC: 6 and unexplained but satisfactory performance of the existing bridges, especially that of the foundations. Therefore, while accepting more up-to-date knowledge about seismisity of the Indian sub-continent and adopting new scientific methods, it is necessary to give due credence to satisfactory performance of the bridges designed earlier for lower forces. 116 INDIAN HIGHWAYS, JUNE 2009