2 09P01 PDF

9
Part 1
Seismic Design for Railway Structures1
— 2017 —
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section/Article Description Page

1.1 Introduction (2004) R(2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-3
1.2 Post-Seismic Event Operation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-3

1.2.1 General (2001) R(2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-3
1.2.2 Guidelines (2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-3
1
1.3 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-8
1.3.1 Approach (2004) R(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-8
1.3.2 Ground Motion Levels (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-8
1.3.3 Performance Criteria (1998) R(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-32
1.4 New Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-32 3

1.4.1 Scope (2004) R(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-32
1.4.2 Design Approach (2001) R(2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-32
1.4.3 Conceptual Design (2001) R(2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-33
1.4.4 Structure Response (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-34
1.4.5 Analysis Procedures (2003) R(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-39
1.4.6 Load Combinations and Response Limits (2002) R(2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-41
1.4.7 Detailing Provisions (2001) R(2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-42
1.5 Existing Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-48

1.5.1 Scope (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-48
1.5.2 Inventory (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-48
1.5.3 History (1995) R(2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-48
1.5.4 Assessment and Retrofit (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-49
1.6 Other Facilities and Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-50

1.6.1 Scope (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-50
1.6.2 Inventory (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-51
1.6.3 T rack and Roadbed (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-51
1.6.4 Culverts (2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-52
1.6.5 Retaining Walls (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-52
1.6.6 Tunnels and Track Protection Sheds (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-52
1
References, Vol. 94, 1994, p.110; Vol. 96, p. 64, Vol. 97, p. 113.
© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 9-1-1

Seismic Design for Railway Structures
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)
Section/Article Description Page
1.6.7 Buildings and Support Facilities (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-53

1.6.8 Utilities, Signal and Communication Facilities (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-53
1.6.9 Rail Transit (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-54
1.7 Construction by Others (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-54
1.8 Retired Facilities (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-54
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Description Page
9-1-1 100-year Return Period, Peak Ground Acceleration - United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-14
9-1-2 100-year Return Period, 0.2 Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration - United States. . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-16
9-1-4 475-year Return Period, Peak Ground Acceleration - United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-20
9-1-7 2475-year Return Period, Peak Ground Acceleration - United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-26
9-1-8 2475-year Return Period, 0.2 Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration - United States. . . . . . . . . . 9-1-28
9-1-9 2475-year Return Period, 1.0 Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration - United States. . . . . . . . . . 9-1-30
LIST OF TABLES
Table Description Page
9-1-1 Specified Response Radii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-4

9-1-2 Damage Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-4
9-1-3 Seismic Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-8
9-1-4 Ground Motion Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-9
9-1-5 Weighting Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-11
9-1-6 Site Class Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-34
9-1-7 USGS Site Factor, Fpga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-35
9-1-8 USGS Site Factor, Fa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-36
9-1-9 USGS Site Factor, Fv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-36
9-1-10 GSC Site Factor, Fa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-37
9-1-11 GSC Site Factor, Fv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-37
9-1-12 Analysis Procedure Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-40
9-1-13 Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-41
9-1-14 Response Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-42
© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
9-1-2 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering

SECTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION (2004) R(2012)
The railroad industry is vitally interested in maintaining reliability in its infrastructure to assure safety for its employees,
passengers, customers’ goods and the public at large.
These guidelines have been developed specifically for Railroad facilities to help reduce damage from earthquakes. While
many structures, such as culverts, retaining walls and buildings, may not be substantially different because of use on railroads,
North America’s railroad bridges are functionally and behaviorally different from highway and other types of bridges.
This document provides a framework of considerations and methodologies for seismic design of new bridges, roadbed and
other railroad facilities. This document also addresses retrofit and post-seismic event response and inspection considerations.
Railroad bridges historically have performed well in seismic events with little or no damage. Contributing to this ability are
several factors, unique to railroad bridges, which are consistent throughout North America. First, bridges are traversed by track
structure that functions as a restraint against longitudinal and lateral movement during earthquakes. Second, configurations of
railroad bridges typically differ from other types of bridges. Third, the controlled operating environment permits different
seismic performance requirements for railroad bridges compared to highway bridges.
SECTION 1.2 POST-SEISMIC EVENT OPERATION GUIDELINES
1.2.1 GENERAL (2001) R(2012) 1

The responses of track and structures to seismic events vary greatly with respect to each other and to the various types of
construction, geotechnical conditions and other seismic parameters such as importance and risk factors, structural importance
and value, etc.
1.2.2 GUIDELINES (2017) 3

Unless more appropriate guidelines have been developed as a result of experience with significant earthquakes in the affected
area and/or consideration of other local conditions, the following are recommended:
1.2.2.1 Operations1
After an earthquake is reported to the Railroad, the train dispatcher or other designated operations controller shall notify all 4
trains and engines within a 100 mile radius of the reporting area to run at restricted speed until magnitude and epicenter have
been determined by proper authority. Inspection of track, structures, signal and communication systems shall be initiated.
Upon determination of the magnitude and epicenter, the following response levels will govern operations within the specified
radius from the epicenter:
1
See Part 2 Commentary to Seismic Design for Railway Structures
AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering 9-1-3

Table 9-1-1. Specified Response Radii
Earthquake Response California and Baja Remainder of North

(Richter) Level California America
0.0 - 4.99 I
5.0 - 5.99 II 50 miles (80 km) 100 miles (160 km)
6.0 - 6.99 III 100 miles (160 km) 200 miles (320 km)
II 150 miles (240 km) 300 miles (480 km)
7.0 or greater III As directed, but not less than for 6.0 - 6.99.
II As directed, but not less than for 6.0 - 6.99.
1.2.2.2 Response Levels
I Resume maximum operating speed. The need for the continuation of inspections will be determined
by proper authority.
II All trains and engines will run at restricted speed within the specified radius of the epicenter until
inspections have been made and appropriate speeds established by proper authority.
III All trains and engines within the specified radius of the epicenter must stop and may not proceed until
proper inspections have been performed and appropriate speed restrictions established by proper
authority. For earthquakes of 7.0 (Richter) or greater, operations shall be as directed by proper
authority, but the radius shall not be less than that specified for earthquakes between 6.0 and 6.99.
Proper authority shall be stipulated in the railroad’s emergency response plan. The associated damage philosophy with respect
to the above operating procedures can be correlated with the damage criterion shown in Table 9-1-2.
Table 9-1-2. Damage Criterion
Response Ground Expected Damage to Track, Structure, Signal and

Level Motion Level Communications
I 0 Very low probability of damage or speed restrictions.
II 1 Moderate damage which may require temporary speed restrictions.
III 2 Heavy damage which can be economically repaired. Track or structures
may be out of service for a short period of time.
III 3 Severe damage or failure requiring new construction or major
rehabilitation. Track or structures may be out of service for an indefinite
period of time.
The post-seismic event response will be affected by the individual Railroad’s operating requirements based in part on the risk
factor, return periods, required factor of safety, structural occupancy, signal and communication systems and appurtenances
such as highways, building types and waterways.
1.2.2.3 Post Earthquake Inspection
Inspection procedures and modifications of facilities to expedite the inspection process should be established before the
seismic event. The following list provides a general guideline that may be used for developing an inspection procedure:

1.2.2.3.1 Track and Roadbed
Line, surface and cross level irregularities caused by embankment slides or liquefaction, track buckling or pull aparts
due to soil movement, offset across fault rupture, etc.
Disturbed ballast
Cracks or slope failures in embankments
Slides and/or potential slides in cuts, including loose rocks that could fall in an aftershock
Scour due to tsunami in coastal areas
Potential for scour or ponding against embankment due to changes in water courses
1.2.2.3.2 Drainage
Blockage of cut ditches or other changes in drainage patterns. (While these conditions will not usually prevent
restoration of service, they will require correction.)
1.2.2.3.3 Bridges
Following an earthquake, inspectors may need to travel by rail between bridges. Efficient use of time spent on bridge
inspection is necessary in order to restore train service. Normally dry stream beds may be flooded or otherwise impassable
when inspection is required. Therefore, provisions should be made beforehand to permit access to bearing areas and other load
1
carrying components from the track rather than from the ground.
Upon arrival at the bridges, in all cases, the inspector should first visually verify profile and alignment of the track and look for
signs of ground displacement before proceeding with more detailed inspection of bridge components. The inspectors should
look for the following conditions in various bridge types:
3
a. Steel
Loose or misaligned walkway and handrails
Misaligned beams or girders
Loose or broken diaphragms or truss members 4

Distorted pins or gusset plates
Deformed bracing
Missing, loose or broken bolts or rivets
Displaced or damaged bearings
Deformed or broken anchor bolts
Towers, columns, piers or bents out of alignment (lateral, longitudinal or vertical)
b. Concrete
Span and walkway misalignment

Fresh cracks in beams or girders
Displaced bearing pads
Piers or bents out of alignment (lateral, longitudinal or vertical)
New cracks or changes in existing cracks in piers or abutments
Broken or freshly cracked piles in bents
c. Timber Trestles
Inadequate bearing areas
Displaced or split caps, piles, post or sills, particularly in framed bents
Piers or bents out of alignment (lateral, longitudinal or vertical)
Broken or freshly cracked piles in bents
Broken bracing (longitudinal and sway)
Missing, bent or broken bolts
d. Movable Spans
Tilt or settlement of lift towers
Damage to sheaves
Damage to counterweight and guides
Misalignment of track girders and segmental girders of rolling lift spans
Gear misalignment in swing spans
Damage or displacement at span locks, centering devices or movable rail joints and associated signal appliances
Misalignment of rest piers or pivot piers
1.2.2.3.4 Culverts
Line and surface of track
Blockage of openings
Masonry arches: cracks, loose or dislodged bricks or stones
Concrete box culverts and arches: cracks, spalled concrete; joint separation in non-tied precast sections
Pipes: joint separation

1.2.2.3.5 Retaining Walls
Wall distortion, misalignment or rotation, cracking
1.2.2.3.6 Tunnels
Fallen material or loose material that may fall in an aftershock
New cracks or failures in lining
Offsets due to displacement across fault
Unusual flow of water within tunnel
1.2.2.3.7 Other Structures1
Structural and/or non-structural damage to essential buildings that would prevent or inhibit use.
NOTE: Inspect promptly, with concurrence of local building authorities, to prevent outside inspectors from
“red tagging” buildings that are damaged but not unsafe.
Leaks and/or structural damage to fueling facilities, including tanks and pipelines. Look for evidence of leaks in buried fuel
lines.
Catenary support structures and tension-regulating systems of electrified lines.

1
NOTE: Substations should be inspected by a qualified individual.
1.2.2.3.8 Structures That May Fall on Track
a. Overpasses 3
Reduced support for span at bearings
Column damage
Damage to any span restraint system

4
b. Adjacent Buildings
Structural damage affecting ability to resist aftershocks
Clearance infringements
Power lines that may be vulnerable to aftershocks
1.2.2.3.9 Signal and Communication Facilities
Signal and communications facilities must be inspected by qualified personnel. However, others involved in inspection should
note damage to pole lines and other obvious damage to equipment. Signal masts, signal bridges or instrument housings
observed to be out-of-plumb should be reported immediately.
1

1.2.2.4 Tsunamis1
After a tsunami warning is issued to the Railroad, the train dispatcher or other designated operations controller shall notify all
trains and engines within the areas vulnerable to the tsunami to move out of those areas before the estimated arrival of the
tsunami. To the extent possible all other equipment should also be moved. The movement should be to the closest location at
an elevation deemed to be safe. This movement may be in reverse of the train’s normal direction.
Railroad offices within potential tsunami affected areas and railroad dispatch centers shall be included on the email
notification system provided by The National Weather Service. All railroad employees in those offices and those working on
line with equipment in such areas shall be notified by their respective offices to move out of areas vulnerable to the tsunami
when a warning is received.
Following a large earthquake near the coast, trains should not enter areas vulnerable to tsunamis until it is determined that the
tsunami danger has passed. Trains already in vulnerable areas should not be stopped if the track is passable, but should proceed
to protected or higher areas if possible.
SECTION 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1.3.1 APPROACH (2004)2 R(2014)
Structures shall be designed to satisfy the specified performance criteria. The main objectives of the required performance
criteria are to ensure the safety of trains and to minimize the costs of damage and loss of use caused by potential earthquakes.
In order to provide a framework for evaluating seismic effects on railroad structures, a three-level ground motion and
performance criteria approach consistent with the railroad post-seismic event response procedures is employed. The ground
motion levels, the structure performance requirements and the railroad response levels are as shown in Table 9-1-3.
Table 9-1-3. Seismic Performance Criteria
Railroad Response Level Ground Motion Level Performance Criteria Limit State
II 1 Serviceability
III 2 Ultimate
III 3 Survivability
1.3.2 GROUND MOTION LEVELS (2014)
The ground motion levels reflect the seismic hazard at the site. They are defined in terms of peak ground and spectral response
acceleration levels associated with a given average return period.
The average return period for each ground motion level may be determined based on seismic risk considerations (see
Article 1.3.2.1) and structure importance classification (see Article 1.3.2.2), using the range of average return periods shown
in Table 9-1-4.
1
2

Table 9-1-4. Ground Motion Levels
Ground Motion Level Frequency Average Return Period (Yrs.)

1 Occasional 50-100
2 Rare 200-475
3 Very Rare 1000-2475
Level 1 Ground Motion represents an occasional event with a reasonable probability of being exceeded during the life of the
structure. Level 2 Ground Motion represents a rare event with a low probability of being exceeded during the life of the
structure. Level 3 Ground Motion represents a very rare or maximum credible event with a very low probability of being
exceeded during the life of the structure.
1.3.2.1 Risk Factors1
Earthquakes are extreme events associated with a great amount of uncertainty and risk factors are an integral part of seismic
design. To achieve a balance between seismic risk and costs associated with risk reduction, a certain amount of risk must be
accepted. If there is a severe social penalty associated with structure failure, the acceptable level of risk will be greatly
reduced.
The greatest amount of uncertainty is associated with the seismic hazard at the site. Therefore, the overall seismic risk of a
bridge is strongly affected by the design ground motion used.
The acceptable risk criteria with respect to Level 1 Ground Motion shall consider the safety and continuing operation of trains 1
with speed restrictions. For Ground Motion Levels 2 and 3, the acceptable risk criteria may be based mainly on economic
considerations unless the bridge has a high passenger train occupancy rate. Train traffic is stopped per Railroad Response
Level III for Ground Motions Levels 2 and 3 until bridge inspections are completed.
1.3.2.2 Structure Importance Classification2
The purpose of the structure importance classification system is to assist the engineer in determining the appropriate average 3
ground motion return period for each of the three limit states: serviceability, ultimate and survivability. The importance of a
structure is determined by three measures: Immediate Safety, Immediate Value and Replacement Value. These three measures
are combined in Article 1.3.2.2.4 to determine the appropriate return period for each of the limit states.
1.3.2.2.1 Immediate Safety3
Immediate safety is a measure of the magnitude of earthquake a structure should be able to survive without any interruption of 4
service. Factors to be considered are occupancy, hazardous material and community life lines. These factors should be
summed to obtain the immediate safety factor. The immediate safety factor should not exceed 4.
a. Occupancy Factor
Freight Service only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Less Than 10 Passenger Trains per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
More than 10 Passenger Trains per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
b. Hazardous Material Factor
1
2
3 See Part 2 Commentary to Seismic Design for Railway Structures

The value of the hazardous material factor should be determined by the engineer by considering the type of material
being handled, the volume and the proximity of the structure to population. The hazardous material factor should be a
value between 0 and 4.
c. Community Life Lines Factor
The community life line factor should reflect the danger to community if the structure fails during a seismic event. The
community life line factor should be a value between 0 and 4. The nature of the structure should be taken into account
when determining the community life line factor. If the structure is over a route that is critical for post seismic
evacuation, a high community life line factor should be used. A high community life line factor should also be used
when the structure is over a community’s water supply. The potential disruption of telephone, electric, and water lines
attached to the bridge and the importance of continued rail service should also be considered when determining the
community life line factor.
1.3.2.2.2 Immediate Value1
Immediate Value is a measure of the magnitude of earthquake a structure should be able to survive with an interruption of
service but with the ability to return to service after minor repairs. The factor is based on the railroad’s utilization of the
structure and the ability to detour around the structure. The utilization of the structure by others should also be taken into
account.
a. Railroad Utilization Factor
Under 10 million gross tons annual traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Between 10 million and 50 million gross tons annual traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Over 50 million gross tons annual traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
b. Detour Availability Factor
No Detour Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00

Inconvenient Detour Route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50
Detour Route Readily Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.25
The Immediate Value factor should be determined by multiplying the railroad utilization factor by the detour
availability factor. Usage by outside parties should be taken into account after this railroad utilization and detour
availability is taken into account.
1.3.2.2.3 Replacement Value2
Replacement value is a measure of the magnitude of the ultimate earthquake the structure should be able to survive. The factor
is determined by the difficulty of replacing the structure.
a. Span Length Factor
Span length less than 35 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Span length between 35 feet and 125 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Span length between 125 feet and 250 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Span length greater than 250 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
b. Bridge Length Factor
1
2

Bridge length less than 100 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0

Bridge length between 100 feet and 1,000 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
Bridge length greater than 1,000 feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0
c. Bridge Height Factor
Bridge height less than 20 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.75

Bridge height between 20 feet and 40 feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00
Bridge height greater than 40 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25
The replacement value factor is determined by multiplying the span length, bridge length and bridge height factors, but
should not exceed 4.0. The replacement value should be increased for conditions that would increase the difficulty of
replacement such as multiple track, movable structures, difficult foundation and substructure reconstruction conditions,
urban location and difficult access.
1.3.2.2.4 Conversion of Factors to Return Periods
The importance classification factor for each limit state is calculated using the following weighting factors. Individual
railroads may decide to change the weighting factors to better represent the conditions that they operate under.
Table 9-1-5. Weighting Factors 1
Weighting Factors
Limit State
Immediate Safety Immediate Value Replacement Value
0.80 0.20 0.00 Serviceability
0.10 0.80 0.10 Ultimate 3
0.00 0.20 0.80 Survivability
4
To calculate the importance classification factor for each limit state, add the Immediate Safety, Immediate Value and
Replacement Value factors together after multiplying them by the appropriate weighting factor.
a. Return Periods
The return period for each limit state is calculated using a linear relationship between the appropriate average return
period limits shown in Table 9-1-4. To calculate the return period, multiply the importance classification factor by the
difference between the maximum and minimum return periods and divide by 4. Add this result to the minimum return
period to get the final value.

1.3.2.3 Base Acceleration Coefficient Maps1
Several base acceleration coefficient maps are provided in this Article to help define the seismic hazard. Figures 9-1-1
through 9-1-9 show peak ground, short-period (0.2 second) and long-period (1.0 second) accelerations in the United States for
return periods of 100 years, 475 years and 2475 years. These maps are mainly for illustration purposes and more accurate
acceleration coefficients may be determined using web-based interactive tools found on the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) website. Acceleration coefficients for sites located in Canada may be determined using the tools found on the
Geological Survey of Canda (GSC) website. Other sources or site-specific procedures may be used to define the base
accelerations as long as they are based on accepted methods.
Base acceleration coefficients with return periods other than 100 years, 475 years or 2475 years may be determined based on
the following formulas:
• Peak ground acceleration for return period, R, less than 475 years
R n
PGA R = PGA 475  ---------
 475
PGA 100
ln  ------------------- -
 PGA 
475
n = -------------------------------
– 1.558
• Peak ground acceleration for return period, R, between 475 years and 2475 years
PGAR = en
n = ln(PGA475) + [ln(PGA2475) - ln(PGA475)] x [0.606 x ln(R) - 3.73]
PGAR = Base peak ground acceleration coefficient for return period = R
PGA100 = Base peak ground acceleration coefficient for return period = 100 years
• Short-period (SS) and long-period (S1) spectral response accelerations for return period, R, may be determined based
on the formulas above by substituting the appropriate variables (SS or S1) for PGA.
SS,R = Base short-period (0.2 second) spectral response acceleration coefficient for return period = R
SS,100 = Base short-period (0.2 second) spectral response acceleration coefficient for return period = 100 years
S1,R = Base long-period (1.0 second) spectral response acceleration coefficient for return period = R
S1,100 = Base long-period (1.0 second) spectral response acceleration coefficient for return period = 100 years
1


Figure 9-1-1. 100-year Return Period, Peak Ground Acceleration - United States

Figure 9-1-1. 100-year Return Period, Peak Ground Acceleration - United States (Continued)

Figure 9-1-2. 100-year Return Period, 0.2 Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration - United States

(Continued)


(Continued)




(Continued)


(Continued)




Figure 9-1-8. 2475-year Return Period, 0.2 Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration - United
States (Continued)


Figure 9-1-9. 2475-year Return Period, 1.0 Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration - United
States (Continued)

1.3.3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA (1998) R(2014)1
The requirements for each of the following limit states shall be satisfied.
1.3.3.1 Serviceability Limit State2
The serviceability limit state contains restrictions on bridge stresses, deformations, vibrations and track misalignments due to a
Level 1 Ground Motion. Critical members shall remain in the elastic range. Only moderate damage that does not affect the
safety of trains at restricted speeds is allowed. The structure shall not suffer any permanent deformation due to deformations or
liquefaction of the foundation soil.
1.3.3.2 Ultimate Limit State3
The ultimate limit state ensures the overall structural integrity of the bridge during a Level 2 Ground Motion. The strength and
stability of critical members shall not be exceeded. The structure may respond beyond the elastic range, but displacement,
ductility and detailing requirements shall be satisfied to reduce damage and loss of structure use. The damage should occur as
intended in design and be readily detectable and accessible for repair. The structure shall not suffer any damage which
threatens the overall integrity of the bridge due to deformations or liquefaction of the foundation soil.
1.3.3.3 Survivability Limit State4
The survivability limit state ensures the structural survival of the bridge after a Level 3 Ground Motion. Extensive structural
damage, short of bridge collapse, may be allowed. Structural and geometric safety measures that add redundancy and ductility
shall be used to reduce the likelihood of bridge collapse. Failures of the foundation soil shall not cause major changes in the
geometry of the bridge. Depending on the importance and the replacement value of a bridge, an individual railroad may allow
irreparable damage for the survivability limit state, and opt for new construction.
SECTION 1.4 NEW BRIDGES
1.4.1 SCOPE (2004) R(2014)
This article applies to bridges with spans not exceeding 500 feet in length. Movable bridges, arch type bridges and bridges
with spans exceeding 500 feet in length may require additional analysis and design considerations, which are beyond the scope
of this article.
1.4.2 DESIGN APPROACH (2001) R(2011)
Bridge design for seismic loads should start with conceptual considerations to select the appropriate bridge type and
configuration. The conceptual phase should be followed by analysis for Level 1 Ground Motion to size the various structure
members. Finally, appropriate detailing provisions should be incorporated to allow the bridge to respond well during the
Level 2 and 3 Ground Motions. Structures located in areas of low ground motion levels need not meet the conceptual design
requirements and detailing provisions provided they are capable of withstanding the full Level 3 Ground Motion loadings
within the elastic range.
1
2

1.4.3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN (2001) R(2011)1
Conceptual design provisions contained herein should be followed as much as practical. The design should maintain a balance
between functional requirements, cost and seismic resisting features.
1.4.3.1 Configuration2
The preferred configuration should be incorporated as shown below when possible. Special design and detailing
considerations may be necessary for other configurations.
PREFERRED CONFIGURATION SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

Straight bridge alignment Curved bridge alignment
Normal piers Skewed piers
Uniform pier stiffness Varying pier stiffness
Uniform span stiffness Varying span stiffness
Uniform span mass Varying span mass
1.4.3.2 Superstructure3
The preferred superstructure characteristics should be incorporated as shown below when possible. Special design and 1
detailing considerations may be necessary for other superstructure characteristics.
PREFERRED SUPERSTRUCTURE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

Simple spans Continuous spans
3
Short spans Long spans
Light spans Heavy spans
No hinges Intermediate hinges
1.4.3.3 Substructure4
4
The preferred substructure characteristics should be incorporated as shown below when possible. Special design and detailing
considerations may be necessary for other substructure characteristics.
PREFERRED SUBSTRUCTURE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

Wide seats Narrow seats
Seat bent caps Integral bent caps
Multiple column Single column
1
2

1.4.3.4 Ground Conditions1
Structures should be founded on competent, stable soils or otherwise designed to satisfy the performance requirements during
soil instability.
1.4.4 STRUCTURE RESPONSE (2014)
1.4.4.1 Site Effects2
The effects of site conditions on the response spectrum shall be determined according to Article 1.4.4.1.1 and Article 1.4.4.1.2
based on the foundation soil characteristics.
1.4.4.1.1 Site Class3
A site shall be classified as A through F in accordance with Table 9-1-6. Sites shall be classified by their stiffness in the upper
100 feet (30 m) of the soil profile.
Table 9-1-6. Site Class Definitions

Site Class Soil Type and Profile
A Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity, vs > 5,000 ft/s (1,500 m/s)
B Rock with 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s) < vs < 5,000 ft/s (1,500 m/s)
C Very dense soil and soft rock with 1,200 ft/s (360 m/s) < vs < 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s),
or with either N > 50 blows/ft (blows/0.3 m), or su > 2.0 ksf (100 kPa)
D Stiff soil with 600 ft/s (180 m/s) < vs < 1,200 ft/s (360 m/s), or with either 15 < N <
50 blows/ft (blows/0.3 m), or 1.0 ksf (50 kPa) < su < 2.0 ksf (100 kPa)
E Soft soil with vs < 600 ft/s (180 m/s), or with either N < 15 blows/ft (blows/0.3 m),
or su < 1.0 ksf (50 kPa), or any profile with more than 10 feet (3 m) of soft clay
defined as soil with PI > 20, w > 40 percent and su < 0.5 ksf (25 kPa)
F Soils requiring site-specific evaluations, such as:
• Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such

as liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, and collapsible
weakly cemented soils.
• Peats or highly organic clays (H > 10 feet (3 m) of peat or highly organic

clay where H = thickness of soil)
• Very high plasticity clays (H > 25 feet (7.6 m) with PI > 75)
• Very thick soft/medium stiff clays (H > 120 feet (36 m) with su < 1.0 ksf
(50 k Pa)
vs = average shear wave velocity for the upper 100 feet (30 m) of the soil profile
N = average Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (blows/ft (blows/0.3 m)) for the upper 100 feet (30 m) of
the soil profile
1
2

su = average undrained shear strength in ksf (kPa) for the upper 100 feet (30 m) of the soil profile
PI = plasticity index
w = moisture content
1.4.4.1.2 Site Factors1
Site factors shall be determined from Table 9-1-7 through Table 9-1-11 based on the Site Class determined from Table 9-1-6
and the values of the acceleration coefficients. Separate tables are provided for United States Geological Survey (USGS) and
Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) based accelerations and must be used accordingly.
Table 9-1-7. USGS Site Factor, Fpga
USGS Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (PGA)1

Site PGA < PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA >
Class 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F2 * * * * *
Notes:
1Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA.
2Site-specific hazard analysis should be performed for all sites in Site Class F. 3
1

Table 9-1-8. USGS Site Factor, Fa
Spectral Acceleration Coefficient

USGS at 0.2 second period (Ss)1
Site Ss < Ss = Ss = Ss = Ss >
Class 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F2 * * * * *
Notes:
1Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S .
s
2Site-specific hazard analysis should be performed for all sites in Site Class F.
Table 9-1-9. USGS Site Factor, Fv

USGS at 1.0 second period (S1)1
Site S1 < S1 = S1 = S1 = S1 >
Class 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5
E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4
F 2 * * * * *
Notes:
1

Table 9-1-10. GSC Site Factor, Fa

GSC at 0.2 second period (Ss)1
Site Ss < Ss = Ss = Ss = Ss >
Class 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
A 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0
E 2.1 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9
F2 * * * * *
Notes:
s
Table 9-1-11. GSC Site Factor, Fv

GSC at 1.0 second period (S1)1 3
Site S1 < S1 = S1 = S1 = S1 >
Class 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
A 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
B 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8
C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
4
D 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1
E 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.7
F2 * * * * *
Notes:
1

1.4.4.2 Damping Adjustment Factor1
The Damping Adjustment Factor, D, may be calculated from the following formula. In the absence of more definitive
information, a damping adjustment factor of 1.0 shall be used.
1.5
D =  ------------------------- + 0.5
  0.4 + 1  
D= Damping Adjustment Factor

= Percent Critical Damping (e.g. 5%)
1.4.4.3 Seismic Response Coefficient2
The Seismic Response Coefficient, Cm, to be used in the methods of analysis recommended in Article 1.4.5, shall be
calculated from the following formula. For areas with soft soil conditions and high seismicity, or close proximity to known
faults, use of a site-specific response spectrum is preferred.
Fv S1 D
C m = ----------------  Fa SS D
Tm
Cm= Seismic Response Coefficient for the mth mode

SS= Short-Period (0.2 second) Spectral Response Accleration Coefficient determined in
accordance with Article 1.3.2.3
S1= Long-Period (1.0 second) Spectral Response Accleration Coefficient determined in
accordance with Article 1.3.2.3
Fa= Site Factor for short-period range of acceleration spectrum determined in accordance with
Article 1.4.4.1
Fv= Site Factor for long-period range of acceleration spectrum determined in accordance with
Article 1.4.4.1
D= Damping Adjustment Factor determined in accordance with Article 1.4.4.2
Tm= Period of vibration of the mth mode in seconds
1.4.4.4 Low Period Reduced Response3
a. The seismic response of the bridge may be reduced in accordance with Paragraph 1.4.4.4b if the following provisions
are satisfied.
(1) The period, T, of the bridge is determined using the effective moment of inertia, Ie, for reinforced concrete
substructure members. The effective moment of inertia may be calculated using EQ 2-12 in Chapter 8, Part 2,
Paragraph 2.23.7c.
(2) The period, T, of the bridge is determined including the effects of foundation flexibility.
1
2

(3) The bridge response considers the lateral flexibility of the spans between piers.
(4) The effects of foundation rocking are accounted for if the moment due to seismic loads exceeds the overturning
moment of the footing.
b. The seismic response coefficient, Cm, for bridge structures with periods less than the initial transition period, To, may
be determined as follows:
Cm = FpgaPGA for Tm  0.03 seconds
 T m – 0.03   F a S S D – F pga PGA 

C m = F pga PGA + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- for 0.03 < Tm < To seconds
 T o – 0.03 
Cm = Seismic Response Coefficient for the mth mode

PGA = Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient determined in accordance with Article 1.3.2.3
FPGA = Site Factor for peak ground acceleration determined in accordance with Article 1.4.4.1 (for GSC based
acceleration Fpga shall be replaced with Fa)
D = Damping Adjustment Factor determined in accordance with Article 1.4.4.2
To = Initial transition period = 0.2(FvS1/FaSS) in seconds
Tm = Period of vibration of the mth mode in seconds
1.4.5 ANALYSIS PROCEDURES (2003) R(2014)
1.4.5.1 General 1
1.4.5.1.1 Serviceability Limit State1
Methods based on elastic analysis shall be used to determine stresses and deformations for the serviceability limit state. The
methods recommended include: (1) Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure that is applicable to regular bridges and (2) Modal
Analysis Procedure for multi-span irregular bridges.
3
1.4.5.1.2 Ultimate and Survivability Limit State2
Conceptual design methods shall be used to ensure satisfactory performance for both the ultimate and the survivability limit
states. Recommendations for the selection of an appropriate bridge type, geometry and materials and requirements for
ductility, redundancy and good detailing, as described in Article 1.4.2, Article 1.4.3, and Article 1.4.7, shall be incorporated.
Non-ductile, non-redundant primary load carrying elements of structures shall be designed to satisfy the performance criteria 4
with respect to Level 2 and/or Level 3 Ground Motions. The design forces shall be the lesser of the seismic loads or the
maximum forces which can be transmitted to the element. The seismic loads may be computed by increasing the Level 1
Ground Motion forces by the ratio of the Seismic Response Coefficients.
1.4.5.2 Procedure Selection3
The selection of the analysis procedure for the serviceability limit state shall be based on the bridge configuration as shown in
Table 9-1-12.
1
2

Table 9-1-12. Analysis Procedure Selection
Bridge Configuration Analysis Procedure1

Single-span No analysis required
Two-span ELF or MA Procedure
Multi-span regular2 ELF or MA Procedure
Multi-span irregular2 MA Procedure
Notes:
1. ELF denotes Equivalent Lateral Force
Procedure, MA denotes Modal
Analysis Procedure.
2. Irregular bridges are those structures with
significantly irregular configuration or
support stiffness.
1.4.5.3 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure1
The Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure may be used for two-span bridges or multi-span regular bridges as described in
Article 1.4.5.2. The procedure is described below.
a. Calculate the Seismic Response Coefficient (Cm) for each of the two principal directions of the structure as follows.
(1) Calculate the natural period of vibration (Tm) for each of the two principal directions of the structure using any
commonly accepted method.
(2) Calculate the Seismic Response Coefficient (Cm) for each of the two principal directions of the structure from
Article 1.4.4.3 “Seismic Response Coefficient.”
b. Perform static analysis on the bridge in each of the two principal directions.
(1) Calculate the distributed seismic load in each direction from the following formula.
p  x  = Cm w  x 
p(x) = distributed seismic load per unit length of bridge

Cm= Seismic Response Coefficient
w(x) = distributed weight of bridge per unit length
(2) Distribute the seismic load to individual members based on the stiffness and support conditions.
c. Combine the loads in each of the two principal directions of the structure to get the final seismic design loads.
(1) Combination 1: Combine the forces in principal direction 1 with 30% of the forces from principal direction 2.
(2) Combination 2: Combine the forces in principal direction 2 with 30% of the forces from principal direction 1.
1

1.4.5.4 Modal Analysis Procedure1
The Modal Analysis Procedure may be used for any structure configuration. The procedure is described below.
a. Develop elastic response spectra from Article 1.4.4.3 “Seismic Response Coefficient.”
b. Perform dynamic analysis on the structure in each of the two principal directions using the elastic response spectra to
determine the individual member loads.
(1) A mathematical model should be used to calculate the mode shapes, frequencies and member forces. The model
should accurately represent the structure mass, stiffness and support conditions.
(2) An adequate number of modes should be included so that the response in each principal direction includes a
minimum 90% mass participation.
c. Combine the loads in each of the two principal directions of the structure using one of the following methods to get the
final seismic design loads.
(1) SRSS Method - Combine forces in individual members using the square root of the sum of the squares from each
principal direction.
(2) Alternate Method - Perform two load combinations for investigation.
(a) Combination 1: Combine the forces in principal direction 1 with 30% of the forces from principal direction 2.
1
(b) Combination 2: Combine the forces in principal direction 2 with 30% of the forces from principal direction 1.
1.4.6 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND RESPONSE LIMITS (2002)2 R(2014)
a. The loads shall be combined in accordance with the formulas in Table 9-1-13 based on the structure material. These
combinations shall be used in lieu of those specified in Chapter 8 Concrete Structures and Foundations, Part 2 3
Reinforced Concrete Design and Chapter 15 Steel Structures, Part 1 Design for seismic loads.
Table 9-1-13. Load Combinations
Material Design Method Combination1, 2

Steel Allowable Stress Design D + E + B + EQ 4
Concrete Load Factor Design 1.0D + 1.0E + 1.0B + 1.0PS + 1.0EQ
D= Dead Load
E= Earth Pressure
B= Buoyancy
PS= Secondary Forces from Prestressing
EQ= Earthquake (Seismic)
1
2

NOTE:
(1) Effects of other loads, such as stream flow pressure, live load and friction shall be included if they have a
significant likelihood of acting concurrently with earthquake loads.
(2) Buoyancy loads should be based on the water level that has a significant likelihood of occurring concurrently with
earthquake loads and produces the most conservative load combination.
b. The response limits given in Table 9-1-14 shall be satisfied for each structure material.
Table 9-1-14. Response Limits
Material Stress
Steel The allowable stresses used in Chapter 15, Steel Structures,
Part 1, Design may be increased by 50%.
Concrete The design strengths should be used as specified in Chapter
8, Concrete Structures and Foundations.
1.4.7 DETAILING PROVISIONS (2001) R(2011)1
Appropriate detailing provisions shall be incorporated into the structure to meet the performance requirements for the Level 2
and 3 Ground Motion.
1.4.7.1 Continuity Provisions2
The structure shall be designed with an uninterrupted load path to transfer lateral forces from the superstructure to the ground.
1.4.7.1.1 Superstructure3
The superstructure shall be designed to carry the lateral forces to the bearings or shear connectors. The lateral forces from the
span may be carried to the end supports by the following load paths:
a. Lateral bracing system.
b. Lateral bending of the girders, including torsional effects as applicable.
c. Diaphragm action of concrete decks or steel ballast pans provided that the deck is adequately connected to the girders.
End cross frames or diaphragms shall be designed to carry the lateral forces to the bearings or shear connectors.
1.4.7.1.2 Bearings4
The bearings shall be designed to transfer the lateral forces to the substructure. Bearings may be supplemented by shear
connectors to help transfer the lateral forces provided that the movement required to engage the shear connectors does not
cause failure of the bearing device.
1
2

1.4.7.2 Ductility Provisions1
The ductility provisions contained herein shall be incorporated into the structure design.
1.4.7.2.1 Longitudinal Reinforcing Confinement2
Longitudinal reinforcing in concrete columns, pier walls and piles shall be adequately confined to allow the member to
respond in the post-yield range. This requirement may be met by the following provisions.
a. Concrete columns and concrete piles fixed at the pile cap shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The volumetric ratio of spiral or circular hoop reinforcement in the plastic hinge zone shall not be less than:
f
 s  0.12 -----c-
fy
 s  that required by Chapter 8, Article 2.11.2
(2) The total cross-sectional area of rectangular hoop reinforcement in the plastic hinge zone shall not be less than:
f Ag
A sh  0.3  sh c -----c-  --------
- – 1
 f  A 
y ch
f 1
A sh  0.09sh c -----c-
fy
Ach = cross-sectional area of a member measured out-to-out of confinement reinforcement.

Ash = total cross-sectional area of hoop reinforcement, including cross-ties.
hc = cross-sectional dimension of member core measured center-to-center of confinement reinforcement.
3
1
2

(3) The longitudinal spacing of the confinement reinforcement in the plastic hinge zone shall not be greater than:
s that required by Chapter 8, Article 2.11.2
s  one-quarter of the minimum member dimension
s  six times the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement
s  6” (150 mm)
14 – h  350 – h 
s  4 +  ----------------x- inches  s  100 +  -------------------x- mm 
 3   3 
 
hx = maximum transverse spacing (inches or mm) of hoop or cross-tie legs
(4) The transverse spacing of hoop or cross-tie legs in the plastic hinge zone shall not exceed 14 inches (350 mm).
(5) The length of the plastic hinge zone from the joint face shall not be less than:
l o  the depth of the member
l o  one-sixth of the clear span of the member
l o  18” (450 mm)
lo = length of plastic hinge zone from the joint face
(6) The longitudinal spacing of the column confinement reinforcement outside the plastic hinge zone shall not be
greater than:
s  six times the longitudinal reinforcement diameter
s  6” (150 mm)
s  that required by Chapter 8, Article 2.11.2
(7) The design shear force shall be determined from consideration of the maximum forces that can be generated at the
faces of the joints at each end of the member. These joint forces shall be determined using the member strength
defined in Paragraph 1.4.7.3.1.b.
(8) The confinement reinforcement in the plastic hinge zone shall be proportioned to resist shear assuming the
nominal concrete shear strength is zero when the shear force determined in Paragraph 1.4.7.2.1.a.(7) is greater
than one-half the maximum required shear strength in this area and the factored axial compressive force for the
seismic load condition is less than Agf 'c/20.

b. Reinforced concrete pier walls with axial loading below the lesser of 0.4Pb or 0.1f 'cAg may be exempted from the
column transverse reinforcing requirements if the ratio of the Level 3 Ground Motion acceleration to the Level 1
Ground Motion acceleration is less than or equal to 2. The reinforcing shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Minimum percent of horizontal reinforcing is 0.25%.
(2) Cross ties shall have a minimum cross sectional area of 0.2 in2 (129 mm2) with a 135 hook on one end and a 90
hook on the opposite end and shall be placed so that the 90 and 135 hooks of adjacent ties shall be alternated
both horizontally and vertically.
(3) Spacing of all horizontal bars and cross ties shall not exceed 12 inches (300 mm) in any direction, except vertical
spacing shall not exceed 6 inches (150 mm) in plastic hinge zones.
1.4.7.2.2 Splices in Reinforcing1
Lap splices are not allowed in a main load carrying member within a distance “d” (effective depth) of any area designed to
respond in the post-yield range.
1.4.7.3 Provisions to Limit Damage2
The following provisions shall be incorporated into the design to limit damage.
1.4.7.3.1 Weak Column Provisions3
Reinforced concrete columns which are designed to respond in the post-yield range shall be detailed to prevent damage to
1
adjacent superstructure, bent cap and foundations. This requirement may be met by the following provisions:
a. Concrete column longitudinal reinforcement shall comply with ASTM A706. ASTM A615 reinforcement shall be
permitted if the actual yield strength based on mill tests does not exceed the specified yield strength by more than
18000 psi (124 MPa) and the ratio of the actual ultimate tensile strength to the actual tensile yield strength is not less
than 1.25. 3
b. The bent cap and foundation shall be designed for the lesser of 1.3 times the nominal column strength or the Level 3
ground motion load.
c. The plastic hinge zone should be designed to occur in locations that can be inspected.
1.4.7.3.2 Concrete Joints4 4

The joint shall be configured and reinforced to reduce the likelihood of damage to the superstructure and bent cap and
foundation. This requirement may be met by the following provisions:
a. Concrete column joints with superstructure, bent cap and foundation shall be designed in accordance with the
following provisions:
(1) Column longitudinal reinforcement shall extend as close as practical to the far face of the adjoining member, but
not less than:
1
2

For hooked bars in tension:
l dh  that required by Chapter 8, Section 2.17
l dh  8d b
l dh  6  150mm 
f y db  f y db 
l dh  ---------------
-inches  l dh  -----------------
- mm
65 f c  5.4 f c 
For straight bars:
l d  that required by Chapter 8, Sections 2.14 through 2.16
l d  2.5 times that required in this Article for hooked bars in tension
(2) Confinement reinforcement shall be provided throughout the joint to the end of the longitudinal column
reinforcement in an amount equal to the greater of that specified in Article 1.4.7.2.1a or Paragraph b of this
Article.
(3) The nominal shear strength of the joint shall not be taken greater than:
20 f c psi  1.7 f c MPa 
b. Concrete column joints where the column is integral with the bent shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Vertical stirrups with a total area of 0.16 times the area of longitudinal column reinforcement shall be placed on
each moment resisting side of the column within a distance of half the column width from the column face.
(2) Vertical stirrups with a total area of 0.08 times the area of longitudinal column reinforcement shall be placed
within the column width.
(3) The top and bottom bent cap and integral superstructure flexural reinforcement in the area of the joint shall be
increased by 0.08 times the area of longitudinal column reinforcement and adequately developed or hooked
beyond the columns at the ends.
(4) The volumetric ratio of column transverse reinforcement carried into the cap shall not be less than 0.4 times the
area of longitudinal column reinforcement divided by the square of the longitudinal column reinforcement
embedment length into the cap.
1.4.7.3.3 Steel Joints
Joints in main lateral load carrying steel members shall be designed to be stronger than the adjoining member. This
requirement may be met by designing the connections for the lesser of 1.3 times the connecting member yield strength or the
Level 3 ground motion load. Slip-critical bolts may be designed to carry the higher ground motion loads by bearing rather
than friction.

1.4.7.4 Redundancy Provisions1
The redundancy provisions listed below are suggested to increase survivability during the higher level ground motion events.
1.4.7.4.1 Bearing Seats2
Bearing seats should be proportioned to accommodate the maximum relative movements caused by earthquakes. This
requirement may be met by the following provision:
Bearing seats supporting the ends of girders which are allowed to move relative to the seat during an earthquake shall be
designed to provide a minimum support width, N, measured normal to the face of the abutment or pier, not less than that
specified below:
N = (12 + 0.03L + 0.12H)(1+0.000125S2) inches {N = (305 + 2.5L + 10H)(1+0.000125S2) mm}
L = length (ft or m) of the bridge deck to the adjacent movement joint, or to the end of the deck.
S = angle of skew (degrees) measured from a line normal to the span.
H = At abutments, H is the average height (ft or m) of piers supporting the bridge deck to the next
movement joint, or H = 0 for single span bridges. At piers, H is the pier height (ft or m).
1.4.7.4.2 Shear Connectors3

1
Shear connectors may be provided to resist the maximum seismic loads. The shear connectors should be positioned so that
they are engaged prior to failure of the bearing device.
1.4.7.4.3 Span Ties
Span ties may be used to reduce the likelihood of unseating during the higher level ground motion events. The spans may be 3
tied together by alternate means through the bent caps such as by anchor bolts, shear rods or common bearing plates provided
the load path is adequately verified. The span ties shall be designed to allow for the effects of thermal movement of the span.
1.4.7.4.4 Foundation Rocking4
Foundation rocking response may be used to satisfy the performance requirements for the Level 3 Ground Motion for non-
ductile single pier foundations. The analysis should be conducted in accordance with well established procedures. New 4
bridge design using rocking response shall have bearing blocks at the toe and heel of the footing with elastomeric material
placed between the footing and bearing blocks.
1.4.7.4.5 Continuous Welded Rail5
Continuous welded rail (CWR) may be evaluated as a redundant load path for seismic loads or to increase bridge damping
provided the following requirements are satisfied:
a. No expansions joints are allowed in the CWR over the bridge length and at least 200 feet (60 meters) onto the
embankments.
1
2

b. CWR shall be adequately anchored to the ties over the bridge length and at least 200 feet (60 meters) onto the
embankments.
SECTION 1.5 EXISTING BRIDGES
1.5.1 SCOPE (2012)
This part of the chapter will address the extent to which existing bridges should be reviewed for resistance to seismic forces. In
those areas where the horizontal acceleration shown in Figure 9-1-4 exceeds 10% of gravity, existing bridges should be
reviewed for resistance to seismic forces.
1.5.2 INVENTORY (2014)1
Of first importance is recognizing what existing bridges are in areas subject to seismic events. Also important is identifying
those structures owned by others which, as a result of seismic response or subsequent damage, could potentially impact the
operating property. This may include structures that are on, over, under, or immediately adjacent to the operating property.
The accumulation of this information is found, or best contained, in inventory or inspection records. All such records, not so
noting, should be modified to provide for indicating the bridge is in a seismic activity zone. Further, these records should note
structures which have been designed, or analytically shown, to be seismic resistant. A reference to the level of resistance might
be included.
1.5.3 HISTORY (1995)2 R(2012)
Existing bridges in areas of seismic activity can be expected to have a history of response to various levels of seismic activity.
To a large extent, the need for and direction of analytical investigation can be based on the response of the bridges to past
events.
In order to take advantage of past experience, it is necessary to develop and correlate event and results histories. A detailed
history of seismic events, based on public records, could be developed for each area of interest to the railway, The length of the
history would be determined by the oldest in-service structure within the area. Statistical analysis of the data might be used to
reduce the volume to more manageable ranges of values.
A history of the results of seismic activity would be assembled from railway inventory records or inspection reports, and other
sources such as news media archives and witness oral accounts. Further, current inspection routines could be modified to
specifically make observations designed to detect evidence of past seismic events.
An investigator developing a seismic history would be expected to have experience in the field of seismology. An investigator
correlating seismic history and results records would be expected to have experience in the field of engineering forensics.
1
2

1.5.4 ASSESSMENT AND RETROFIT (2017)
1.5.4.1 General
Existing structures under, above, on or near the railroad should be screened, evaluated or analyzed for seismic performance in
areas where the peak ground acceleration for the 475-year Return Period event (as shown in Figure 9-1-4) is greater than 10%
of gravity. Structures should include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Railroad bridges (i.e., bridges supporting track);
b. Overhead bridges above the railroad (such as vehicular, pedestrian, utility, and overbuild facilities); and
c. Nearby structures, whose failure during a seismic event may impact the safety or operations of the railroad
1.5.4.2 Timber Trestles Exclusion
Timber trestle railroad bridges or viaducts that are in a state of good repair, or with defects that do not compromise the short
term primary load carrying capacity of the trestle, may be screened and eliminated from further seismic evaluation. For timber
trestles that have significant deficiencies, seismic evaluation should focus on how deficiencies may compromise the seismic
performance of the timber structure.
A timber trestle, as with all other structures, may be located at a site where surrounding geotechnical conditions present
particular seismic vulnerabilities.
1
1.5.4.3 Investigation of Railway Owned Bridges and Structures1
The analysis of an existing bridge or structure for its seismic performance should be conducted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 1.4, New Bridges. The results of this investigation will determine the seismic performance
expected for various event levels.
The Engineer may, with support from historic event/results data, prioritize the use of resources for evaluation and analysis of 3
existing bridges based on historic performance, safety risks, economic importance and operations impacts.
1.5.4.4 Investigation of Bridges and Structures Owned by Others
The Engineer may request that the Owner of a bridge over the operating right-of-way of the railway or other significant
infrastructure facilities that may affect railroad safety or operations during a seismic event certify that the structure meets a
prescribed seismic performance criteria. Such certification should be furnished in a form determined by the Engineer and 4
should be prepared by a qualified, licensed professional.
1.5.4.5 Retrofit Designs
Railroads may decide to retrofit bridges to reduce the potential for casualty or economic impacts in the event of an earthquake,
or to expedite restoration of service following an earthquake. It is recognized that few structures can be made totally resistant
to the effects of an earthquake of great magnitude, especially where site geotechnical conditions make a structure particularly
vulnerable to major disturbance from seismic activity. The likelihood and severity of loss must therefore be balanced against
the cost of retrofit.
a. Many different schemes of retrofit are available for various types of bridges. These schemes generally accomplish their
purposes by one or a combination of the following:
1
See Part 2, Commentary to Seismic Design for Railway Structures

(1) Changing characteristic resonant frequencies and/or amplitudes (damping) of response to reduce seismic forces in
the structure.
(2) Strengthening components of the structure to accommodate the seismic loads.
(3) Providing alternate paths for seismic forces within the structure.
(4) Accommodating displacements with catchers, stoppers, enlarged bearing areas or other devices (see Paragraph c
below).
(5) Providing for "yielding type response" (such as "plastic" hinges) at non-critical points of the structure to relieve
seismic stresses.
b. The following factors should be considered in any retrofit design:
(1) Retrofit design should be site specific and should consider the condition and stability of the existing structure,
including soils and foundation.
(2) Attachments of substructure to superstructure should permit normal movement of the structure required for
temperature, creep and shrinkage, or other design accommodations.
(3) Behavior of the retrofit system should not cause damage to the primary structure that would preclude promptly
returning the structure to service after a seismic event.
(4) Retrofits should permit both routine and post-seismic inspection, repair, and component replacement.
(5) Seismic response effects of secondary and non-structural components of the structure should be considered when
considering the effectiveness of retrofits.
c. Retrofit designs for bearings may include the following:
(1) Adequate bearing seat area to accommodate potential displacements.
(2) Retainer blocks or catchers to limit bearing movements and prevent structural collapse.
(3) Guides or other means for readily returning bearings to their original positions after a seismic event thereby
restoring structure geometry.
SECTION 1.6 OTHER FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
1.6.1 SCOPE (2007) R(2016)
Considerations for seismic effects on new and existing railroad and rail transit facilities and infrastructure, other than bridges,
are provided in this section. These facilities and infrastructure include, but are not limited to, track and roadbed, culverts,
retaining walls, tunnels, track protection sheds, stations, office and shop buildings, locomotive fueling facilities, utilities,
signal and communication facilities.
General considerations include assumptions of seismic resistance, areas of seismic vulnerability and recommendations to
improve seismic performance. Detailed procedures for performing seismic design of other railroad facilities and infrastructure
are beyond the scope of this section.

In those areas where the horizontal acceleration for the 475-year return period does not exceed 10% of gravity (see Figure 9-1-
4), no consideration for seismic effects on these other facilities and infrastructure is deemed necessary.
1.6.2 INVENTORY (2016)
Of first importance is recognizing what existing structures, such as culverts, retaining walls, tunnels and buildings are in areas
subject to seismic events. Also important is identifying those structures owned by others which, as a result of seismic response
or subsequent damage, could potentially impact the operating property.
1.6.3 T RACK AND ROADBED (2007)1 R(2016)
The largest potential danger to track and roadbed in an earthquake is from failures in the subgrade due to slumping or
liquefaction of the soils. This potential can be significantly reduced by eliminating excess water from ballast pockets and
saturated embankments. French drains or drainpipes can be very effective.
The track and ballast can also be disturbed in earthquakes, but the potential for extensive damage to track is low. During the
shaking process the stability of the ties and ballast will be momentarily weakened and if the rail is in compression it can
buckle. The shaking may also result in surface and alignment deviations, loss of welded rail neutral temperature, jointed rail
gapping or the loss of superelevation in curves. Primarily, the nature of concern with track following an earthquake is the
availability of equipment to reestablish surface and line and welded rail neutral temperature or jointed rail gaps where track
has been disturbed.
1.6.3.1 Track Structure

1
The existing track structure and all manner of special trackwork, including the rail, cross ties, other track material, and the
ballast section is presumed resistant to all levels of seismic forces, but not to displacements caused by offset across a fault or
other gross ground movements, including liquefaction.
Existing track facilities constructed by direct fixation of rail to a continuously reinforced concrete slab is presumed equally
resistant to all levels of seismic forces.
3
1.6.3.2 Fills and Earth Cuts
Variations in soil materials and soil moisture contents found within existing fills and earth cuts, in general economically
preclude adequate data collection for analysis of the site conditions. The Engineer may, based on the geometry, applicable
standards of construction and a conservative estimate of existing soil properties, make an analysis of slope stability for the
general case.
4
The magnitude of the seismic force should be calculated as a function of the vertical acceleration component of the design
event. The combination will affect both magnitude and direction of the resultant force exerted by the mass above the failure
(sliding) surface. This load would be applied as a uniform dead load surcharge at the level of the centroid of the mass. The
Factor of Safety against sliding would be determined based on risk factors, and a value close to unity may be acceptable.
Fills founded on sloping strata or on strata of high moisture content should be given special attention.
Retrofit designs for fills would include stabilization by piling, toe berms and revised side slope run-to-rise ratios. Earth cut
retrofit designs include stabilization by piling and revised side slope run-to-rise ratios.
1

1.6.3.3 Rock Cuts
Analytical investigation of rock cuts, as groups or as individual structures, is generally not practical. The Engineer should
review the history of rock scaling programs for evidence of an extraordinary frequency of work at a specific site.
Retrofit designs include increased scaling efforts, rock stabilization by bolting or other means, increasing existing bench
catchment capacity and selective rebenching.
1.6.4 CULVERTS (2013)
Drainage structures are subject to damage from distortion of the soils in which they are embedded. The most important
consideration with culverts is that they maintain their ability to function following an event. Slumping and slope failures of the
embankments can result in the ends of culverts becoming constricted, obstructed and/or buried. Consideration should
therefore be given on new construction or during major maintenance projects to protect or lengthen the ends where this
appears to be of practical benefit.
Culverts are presumed to be of a design generally resistant to seismic forces, but not to displacements due to fault rupture at
the site, and to other large ground movements such as those caused by soil liquefaction. One method to improve resistance to
failure due to ground displacement is the provision of flexible joints. Retrofit designs include installation of structural linings
throughout the culvert. New construction may be required to improve seismic resistance.
1.6.5 RETAINING WALLS (2007)1 R(2016)
There are few railroad-specific issues related to retaining wall seismic design. There are a number of precautions to be taken in
designing and constructing earth retaining structures in high seismic areas.
The primary need is to minimize potential for the retained earth to absorb and retain excess moisture. If the soil moisture
increases appreciably above the optimum level used for good compaction, there can exist a potential for the soil to liquefy in
an earthquake. This would immediately increase lateral loads which could result in lateral displacement, tilting or complete
failure of the retaining wall.
Gravity-type structures should be designed to fail by sliding rather than by overturning, thereby taking advantage of active
earth pressures developed by the sliding, and also thereby reducing the seismic induced earth pressures. Rigidly fixed
structures could be subjected to very high soil forces that could only be reasonably predicted through an intensive soils
investigation and analysis. Unless supported by a pile foundation, cantilever walls should be designed so that the design
failure mode is sliding rather than overturning or collapse.
In summary, designers should minimize any potential for tilting in their design, take full advantage of active earth pressures
and drain the retained earth or use other methods, such as capping, to minimize or eliminate any potential for liquefaction.
1.6.6 TUNNELS AND TRACK PROTECTION SHEDS (2007) R(2016)
1.6.6.1 Tunnels2
Tunnels are presumed to be of a design generally resistant to seismic forces, but not to displacements due to fault rupture at the
site or other large ground movements such as those caused by soil liquefaction. Existing tunnel conditions should be reviewed
to determine susceptibility to damage in a seismic event. Specific attention should be paid to the design of and conditions at
the portal structure. The Engineer should review the history of tunnel maintenance programs for evidence of an extraordinary
frequency of work at specific locations.
1
2

New tunnel design is beyond the scope of this chapter.
Retrofit designs include increased scaling efforts, rock stabilization by bolting or other means, and the installation or
strengthening of linings.
1.6.6.2 Track Protection Sheds
The superstructures of track protection sheds are, by the nature of their function, presumed to be of a design generally resistant
to seismic forces. In active seismic regions, consideration should be given to review existing sheds for resistance to seismic
forces, particularly in the transverse direction, applying the appropriate design accelerations.
Primary retrofit designs would provide catchment areas with stop blocks to limit the dislocation of column and beam bearing
areas. The design should consider guides to return vertically separated members to the foundation area, and purchase points or
jacking blocks for returning the structure to its design location.
1.6.7 BUILDINGS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES1 (2007) R(2016)
Seismic design loads and other requirements for railroad building and support facilities should be governed by the Uniform
Building Code or other applicable local, state or federal regulations.
Building codes address the structural adequacy of the building with regard to life-safety but do not necessarily address
functionality of railroad facilities. In addition to the safety of occupants, continuing function of the building and the
equipment, which it contains, can be of great importance to the railway.
1
The fact that a structure situated in a seismic activity zone currently exists in an acceptable state of maintenance does justify
the presumption that a level of seismic-resistant design is inherent to the construction. It does not, however, permit the
presumption that the structure has been subjected to the maximum seismic loading anticipated for the zone.
The fact that a structure of a specific structural design performed successfully at a given level of seismic loading does not
justify the presumption that all structures of that design will perform equally at that level of loading. The foundation conditions
of a structure are of primary importance in determining resistance to seismic forces. 3
Seismic load analysis of a structure is site specific. The results of one analysis may not be transferred to a second structure
except in the case where each and every design parameter is exactly equal.
Appurtenances associated with these facilities, such as storage racks, tanks, machinery, and stand-by generators, need specific
attention. These need to be attached to the structure to resist overturning and shear in order to remain safe and operable.
4
1.6.8 UTILITIES, SIGNAL AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (2017)
Seismic design and maintenance of railroad utility services shall be governed by the Uniform Building Code or other
applicable local state or federal regulations.
Utility services includes, but is not limited to, electric power supply, water, gas, fuel pipe lines, fire sprinkler system, heating
and air conditioning, waste water treatment, water treatment, fuel storage, oil storage and distribution systems.
Design and maintenance of environmental facilities should consider seismic forces and other requirements as provided for by
the Uniform Building Code and the applicable environmental regulatory agency. Additional consideration shall be made with
respect to failure-risk factors and potential impact in high environmentally sensitive areas. Some facilities may be required to
have spill prevention, containment and countermeasure plans in case of a seismic event.
1

Components within instrument bungalows should be secured with restraining devices so as to minimize the possibility of
displacement and damage to the signal system.
1.6.9 RAIL TRANSIT (2007) R(2016)
AREMA Committee 12, Rail Transit, deals primarily with transit systems. As with other topics, Chapter 12 Rail T ransit, will
include references to this chapter on seismic guidelines for bridges, buildings, support facilities, track and roadbed items. The
Structure Importance Classification of Rail Transit Facilities will be high due to a maximum value for Immediate Safety and
Immediate Value.
SECTION 1.7 CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS (2016)
Existing and proposed construction by others on the operating right-of-way should be reviewed for compliance with seismic
code governing the type of construction involved.
The Engineer may require that the Owner of any construction on the operating right-of-way of the railway certify that the
structure is of a design resistant to a specific level of seismic load. Such certification should be furnished in a form determined
by the Engineer and should be attested to by a licensed professional qualified to render such judgment.
SECTION 1.8 RETIRED FACILITIES (2007) R(2016)
To the extent possible, abandoned railroad right-of-way structures, such as bridges, buildings and facilities should be removed
to their foundation level as soon as possible after the time they are removed from service. Economic justification of
expenditures for this work should include avoidance of analytical costs necessary to show the structure is stable and the
reduced exposure to liability arising from failure of the retired construction during a seismic event.

2 09P01 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 09P01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9

Seismic Design for Railway Structures1

Section/Article Description Page

1.2 Post-Seismic Event Operation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-3

1.4 New Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-32 3

1.5 Existing Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-48

1.6 Other Facilities and Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-50

© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 9-1-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

Section/Article Description Page

1.6.7 Buildings and Support Facilities (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-53

1.7 Construction by Others (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-54

1.8 Retired Facilities (2007) R(2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-54

Figure Description Page

Table Description Page

9-1-1 Specified Response Radii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1-4

© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

9-1-2 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering

SECTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION (2004) R(2012)

SECTION 1.2 POST-SEISMIC EVENT OPERATION GUIDELINES

1.2.1 GENERAL (2001) R(2012) 1

1.2.2 GUIDELINES (2017) 3

© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering 9-1-3

Table 9-1-1. Specified Response Radii

Earthquake Response California and Baja Remainder of North

1.2.2.2 Response Levels

Table 9-1-2. Damage Criterion

Response Ground Expected Damage to Track, Structure, Signal and

1.2.2.3 Post Earthquake Inspection

© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

9-1-4 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering

1.2.2.3.1 Track and Roadbed

Cracks or slope failures in embankments

Scour due to tsunami in coastal areas

Loose or misaligned walkway and handrails

Misaligned beams or girders

Loose or broken diaphragms or truss members 4

Missing, loose or broken bolts or rivets

Displaced or damaged bearings

Deformed or broken anchor bolts

Towers, columns, piers or bents out of alignment (lateral, longitudinal or vertical)

Span and walkway misalignment

© 2017, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering 9-1-5

Fresh cracks in beams or girders

Displaced bearing pads

Piers or bents out of alignment (lateral, longitudinal or vertical)

New cracks or changes in existing cracks in piers or abutments

Broken or freshly cracked piles in bents

Inadequate bearing areas

Displaced or split caps, piles, post or sills, particularly in framed bents

Piers or bents out of alignment (lateral, longitudinal or vertical)

Broken or freshly cracked piles in bents

Broken bracing (longitudinal and sway)

Missing, bent or broken bolts

Tilt or settlement of lift towers

Damage to counterweight and guides

Misalignment of track girders and segmental girders of rolling lift spans

Gear misalignment in swing spans

Misalignment of rest piers or pivot piers

Line and surface of track

Masonry arches: cracks, loose or dislodged bricks or stones