ADEQUACY OF PROVISIONS FOR

MINIMUM SEATING LENGHT OF

RAILWAY STEEL BRIDGES

K.TARAKESWARA RAO(14526012)

WHAT IS SEATING WIDTH?

It is the length provided
at pier/abutment/joint to
accommodate/place
the
super structure to safely
transfer
loads
from
superstructure
to
substructure.
Seating width is needed
in
bridges
to
accommodate
longitudinal
expansion
and contraction resulting
from
pre-stress
shortening,
creep,

IMPORTANCE OF SEATING WIDTH FROM

EARTHQUAKE POINT OF VIEW
During severe earthquakes, bridges often suffer
damage at expansion joints due to large relative
displacements. Opening relative displacements
in excess of the seating lengths will result in
girder unseating whereas excessive closing
relative displacement will cause pounding.
Although damage due to pounding is not usually
as catastrophic as that due to unseating,
pounding should still be avoided as it can also
contribute to unseating of bridge spans

REASONS FOR UNSEATING

Adjacent frames separated by movement joints

may move out of phase, increasing the relative
displacement across the joint

 Bridges often comprises a series of simple spans

supported on bents. These spans are prone to being
toppled from their supporting substructure either
due to shaking or differential support movement
associated with ground deformation.

 Relative displacements arise from different dynamic

properties of adjacent structures, spatial variation of
ground motions and soil-structure interaction. Most
current bridge design codes tend to neglect the
effects of spatial variation of ground motions. it is
found that the spatial variation of the ground
motions is common especially for long bridges.

SKEWNESS:

It has been observed that skewed spans develop

large displacements than right spans, as a
consequence of tendency for the skew span to
rotate in the direction of decreasing skew, thus
tending to drop off the supports at the acute
corners.

PREVENTIVE MEASURES
The connection mode between girder and pier of
bridges can reduce the relative displacement between
upper part structure and lower part structure
effectively, however, the seismic load transferred from
upper part structure into pier due to application of
girder-pier restrainers may aggravate the damage of
lower part structure leading to un-repairable damage
or even collapse of bridges.

 The connection mode between adjacent vibration

spans of bridges does not basically change the
interaction behavior between upper part structure
and lower part structure; therefore, the excessive
relative displacement between span and pier cant
be controlled effectively.

 Through passive energy dissipation mechanism(e.g.:

Viscous Dampers) to reduce the structural earthquake
responses realizing seismic energy dissipation design
philosophy.

Minimum Seating Width

Even
under
maximum
expected
deformations,
possibility of collapse or loss of span are minimized
through conservative provisions of minimum seating
widths.
The value of seating widths recommended for high
seismic regions are higher than those for low seismic
regions; this is because of potential connection failure
in high seismic zones. The minimum seating width is
required in longitudinal as well as transverse direction.

EXAMPLES FOR UNSEATING

FAILURES OF BRIDGES

Golden State Antelope Valley

collectors
Reason interchange
for failure was , restrainers
provided
were incapable of resisting the demand.

Showa Bridge
Failure
Reason for unseating of this bridge is high
displacement amplification due to liquefaction at
the foundation

Oakland Bay Bridge

Failure
The steel truss Oakland Bay Bridge in California lost a

full span during 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake because

of small size of support angles

DIFFERENT CODAL
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MINIMUM
SEATING LENGTH

Codal Provisions by AMERICA

The AASHTO (1998) bridge design specification
prescribes a minimum seating length SE,min(m) for the
movement between the girders and between girder
and adjacent abutment, defined by a function of the
span LS(m), the height of the column or pier H (m),
and the skew angle of the support (degrees), based
on the following relationship

odal Provisions by JAPAN

The

Japan Code specifies the required seating length as

the following:

Where
is the differential displacement between the
superstructure and substructure (m), is the relative
displacement of the ground occurring due to ground
deformation between piers (m). is the length of the
effective span (m). For hard, medium and soft soil has
the value of 0.0025, 0.00375 and 0.005, respectively. L is

Codal Provisions by NEWZELAND

The NZTA Bridge manual specifies the provisions for the
minimum seating length to prevent span loss. The
provision, in the absence of a linkage system is as
follows:
Where is the minimum seating length; E is relative
movement between span and support.

odal Provisions by EUROPE

The

Euro code 8 defines the minimum overlap lengths

for end support on an abutment as follows:

where of 40 cm is the minimum support length securing

the safe transmission of the vertical reaction; deg is the
effective relative displacement of the span and the
abutment
due
to
differential
seismic
ground
displacement

IITK-RDSO GUIDELINES FOR

RAILWAY BRIDGES IN INDIA
The

widths of seating (in mm) at supports measured

normal to the face of the abutment/pier/pedestal of
bearings/restrained portion of superstructure from the
closest end of the girder shall be the larger of the
following:
1.4 times the calculated displacement under the
maximum elastic seismic forces estimated as per
Clauses 9.2 or 10.3(IITK-RDSO guide lines), to account
for uncertainty in deflection calculation;
and the value specified below:
.

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

Finding out maximum response possible for Indian
Zone-V compatible earthquake of two different types of
loading cases ,two different spans and two different
kinds of bridges.
To check whether the response is exceeding or with in
the limits proposed by IITK-RDSO guidelines.
If not , will suggest one formula based on parameters
that I have taken into consideration.

PRESENT WORK
Up to this seminar report, I have considered the super
structure directly resting on the substructure contact
surface (which is not actually correct), and response
was found
The response of Bridge for Zone-V Compatible
Earthquake has been conducted on Two different kinds
of Bridges Subjected to Two Different Loading
Conditions.
Two Plate Girder Bridges of 13.1m and 25.6m effective
span with Different Loading conditions i.e. 25 Tons and
32.5 Tons has been taken and Two Truss Bridges with
effective spans of 30.926m and 78.8m with two
different loading conditions has been considered.

BRIDGE MODELS

SECTIONAL DETAILS

Cross section of 25T

13.1m Span Plate

Cross section of 25T

25.6m Span Plate

Isometric of 25T 78.8m Span

DIFFERENT VIEWS OF TRUSS BRIDGE

Front
View
Top View

Bottom

ASSUMPTIONS AND PROPERTIES

The Steel Material used in Bridge Model is assumed to
be linearly Elastic, Isotropic and Homogenous.
Resistance offered to response is only by pure friction
at the simply supported end in lateral and longitudinal
directions.
The surface on which Super Structure Will Slide has
been taken as a Rigid surface.
Properties of Bridge are as following: Youngs Modulus
of Steel (E) is 2105 N/mm2, Poissons ratio () is 0.3
and Density of Steel () is 7800 N/mm2and the coefficient of friction between contact surfaces has been
taken as 0.45(co efficient of friction between Concrete

ELEMENTS USED
3-D Beam element i.e. BEAM188 was used for al
the TRUSS MEMBERS as well as for Girder .
Contact provided is Line to Surface contact, so
elements used for target surface and contact
surface were TARGET 170 and CONTA175
respectively.
3-D Solid element i.e. SOLID185 was used for
Rigid Surface simulation.

CONTACT SURFACE

CONSIDERED LOADS ON STRUCTURE

Probability of Train being at the time of Earthquake
is very less. So that, I didnt Consider Live Load of
train.
The Complete Dead Load (Self Weight) of bridge
and an earthquake ground motion of Zone-V
Compatible of soft soil have been taken into
consideration.
Earthquake
ground motion applied in lateral
6.00E-01
4.00E-01
direction
and the corresponding response was
2.00E-01
obtained.
0.00E+00
0
-2.00E-01
-4.00E-01

10

15

Acc(g)

20

25

30

MODEL ANALYSIS

dal time periods of Girder Bridges

MOD
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MODAL TIME PRIODS(sec)

13.1m (25 13.1m (32.5 25.6 m (25 25.6m(32.5
T)
T)
T)
T)
0.7994
0.7938
1.4921
1.3520
0.2663
0.2645
0.4973
0.4506
0.1597
0.1586
0.2983
0.2703
0.1139
0.1131
0.2328
0.2262
0.0884
0.0878
0.2130
0.1930
0.0753
0.0805
0.1656
0.1501
0.0722
0.0717
0.1354
0.1227
0.0609
0.0605
0.1145
0.1038
0.0526
0.0523
0.0992
0.0899

Modal time periods of Truss Bridges

MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MODAL TIME PRIODS(sec)

31.926m (25 T) 31.926m (32.5 T) 78.8 m (25 T)
0.2250
0.2030
0.5895
0.2085
0.1544
0.5496
0.2074
0.1544
0.5440
0.2073
0.1544
0.5440
0.1955
0.1544
0.5230
0.1561
0.1544
0.4468
0.1549
0.1544
0.4295
0.1549
0.1544
0.4291
0.1549
0.1544
0.4285
0.1549
0.1544
0.4285

RESULTS
Response of 13.1m(25T) girder Bridge in meters
2.00E-03
1.00E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.50E+01 2.00E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01
-1.00E-03
-2.00E-03
-3.00E-03
-4.00E-03
-5.00E-03
-6.00E-03
=0%

=2%

Response
4.00E-03

of 13.1m(32.5T) girder Bridge in meters

2.00E-03

TIME
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.50E+01 2.00E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01
-2.00E-03
Axis Title
-4.00E-03
-6.00E-03
-8.00E-03
-1.00E-02
=0%

=2%

Response of 25.6m(25T) girder Bridge in meters

1.00E-02

TIME
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.50E+01 2.00E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01
-1.00E-02
-2.00E-02
-3.00E-02
Axis Title
-4.00E-02
-5.00E-02
-6.00E-02
-7.00E-02
=0%

=2%

Response of 25.6m(32.5T) girder Bridge in meters

3.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.50E+01 2.00E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01
-1.00E-02
-2.00E-02
-3.00E-02
-4.00E-02
-5.00E-02
=0%

=2%

Response of 31.926m(25T) girder Bridge in meters

2.00E-03
1.00E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-1.00E-03

5.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.50E+01

-2.00E-03
-3.00E-03
-4.00E-03
-5.00E-03
-6.00E-03
=0%

=2%

2.00E+01

2.50E+01

Response of 31.926m(32.5T) girder Bridge in meters

1.00E-02
8.00E-03
6.00E-03
4.00E-03
2.00E-03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.50E+01 2.00E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01
-2.00E-03
-4.00E-03
-6.00E-03
-8.00E-03
=0%

=2%

Response of 78.8m(25T) girder Bridge in meters

6.00E-02
4.00E-02
2.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.50E+01 2.00E+01 2.50E+01 3.00E+01
-2.00E-02
-4.00E-02
-6.00E-02
-8.00E-02
=0%

=2%

Max.Lateral Displacement in mm
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

From the results it is observed that maximum lateral

displacements were occurred in Long span Bridges(of same
type)
.
In case of loading variations , Maximum displacement was
observed in 13.1m(32.5T) comparing with 13.1m(25T) and
highest displacement was observed in 25 Tons Loading case for
25.6m and 31.926m Bridge comparing with 32.5Tons Loading
case of same lengths respectively.
For this particular time history maximum displacement is
observed in 25.6m (25Tons) bridge.

FUTURE WORK

Response of Bridge for the same spans , but with bearing and for
different earthquake ground motions will be obtained.
Effects other than Earthquake forces also will consider in the next
part.

THANK YOU